The frontrunner in the race to succeed Jeremy Corbyn has appointed a self-proclaimed Stalinist to organise her campaign for the leadership.
Rebecca Long Bailey, the shadow business secretary, has turned to Alex Halligan, who was instrumental in Mr Corbyn’s successful leadership campaign in 2015.
Her move is understood to have infuriated the shadow chancellor John McDonnell. Mr McDonnell expressed concern, Mr Halligan attempted to confront him. Now the shadow chancellor, who had been expected to back Ms Long Bailey, 40, is understood to have made a “conscious decision to have no involvement in the leadership election” even though she is widely seen as his protégée.
One possible teeny tiny flaw in his logic.....it appears his model is based on current levels of support, and as we all know, there's a lot of water to flow under the Holyrood Bridge before the actual elections....
Boris will need to throw both more money at Scotland and get people to constantly point out how much worse things delegated there are compared to South of the border
Nah
call the SNP out on their dismal record of running Scotland
Rubbish Alan, they are doing a better job than any of the other parties would do. Given we are controlled by Westminster and only get pocket money , it is a bit rich to blame Westminster failure on the SNP. They are doing a reasonable job of mitigating some of the Tory excesses, far from perfect but streets ahead of the alternatives.
There is no Scottish magic money Tree Malcy.
We will be happy just spending our own money and not paying the interest on London loans.
Just to say that Eric Scrimshaw's model is the LeanTossup one and it was way better than most U.K models who were mainly predicting a close result on double digit Tory leads for some reason.
Couldn't cope with the Brexit Party effect is my preliminary conclusion.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Is there an updated version that doesn’t start just before the financial crash of 2007?
Also one that reflects our stronger wage growth over the last 2 years? This graph reflects the loss of the huge bonuses paid in the City up to 2007.
Do you not mean robbery receipts David PS: How you see a positive in UK being 3rd worst in the world for wage growth ( negative ) is a mystery
Well yes Malcolm I did mean that. How do you get away with wholescale fraud and larceny in this country? Get a banking license.
The second point is that the (no doubt temporary) pause in their looting means that the wage growth of those otherwise employed is significantly understated.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Some of this article makes a lot of sense...it's obvious that people place more importance on their own lives, and issues closer to home.
Yet the underlying summary is that "if anything, Corbyn is just too perfect".
No party is ultimately working class. The majority are in it for big wages & pension's etc, otherwise they'd just work in an office or tesco.
The really scary thing for Labour in those graphs is that their support in the AB C1 classes was partly driven by opposition to Brexit. Take that away and you are going to have those that work in the public sector wanting bigger wage increases and higher pensions and no one else.
Mr. Nunu, might be fairly commonplace. I think the Conservative vote share's gone up for the last six elections in a row. Probably due to unwind next time.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Wow, is that a piece of complete tosh or what? Very much from the "we won the argument" school who ignore the outcome of the worst result since 1935.
I agree with you that the lack of a competent opposition is a definite weakness, especially when we have a lot of difficult choices to make in the near future. The decisions will simply not be tested (other than by those loons in the ERG). This is asking for trouble.
One possible teeny tiny flaw in his logic.....it appears his model is based on current levels of support, and as we all know, there's a lot of water to flow under the Holyrood Bridge before the actual elections....
Boris will need to throw both more money at Scotland and get people to constantly point out how much worse things delegated there are compared to South of the border
Nah
call the SNP out on their dismal record of running Scotland
Rubbish Alan, they are doing a better job than any of the other parties would do. Given we are controlled by Westminster and only get pocket money , it is a bit rich to blame Westminster failure on the SNP. They are doing a reasonable job of mitigating some of the Tory excesses, far from perfect but streets ahead of the alternatives.
There is no Scottish magic money Tree Malcy.
We will be happy just spending our own money and not paying the interest on London loans.
Just to say that Eric Scrimshaw's model is the LeanTossup one and it was way better than most U.K models who were mainly predicting a close result on double digit Tory leads for some reason.
Couldn't cope with the Brexit Party effect is my preliminary conclusion.
Many of the u.k models were assuming a ridiculous amount of tactical voting in remain's favour. Not taking into account most tactical voters already voted tactically in 2017, and therefore they were double counting tactical votes.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Some of this article makes a lot of sense...it's obvious that people place more importance on their own lives, and issues closer to home.
The premise of that article is that they are wrong to do so and just not sufficiently enlightened. Its bizarre. We elect governments for what they are going to do for us. Its that simple.
Mr. Nunu, might be fairly commonplace. I think the Conservative vote share's gone up for the last six elections in a row. Probably due to unwind next time.
Depends where that Brexit party vote goes, and if soft Libdem remainers go back to the Tories.
Good piece, but I think it overstates the extent to which the EU's position is a hardball negotiating stance and understates the extent to which they actually mean it: What the British want to do is to get full market access, but undercut their EU neighbours on environmental and labour standards.
The EU don't want this, not only because they can probably get a better deal by standing firm, but because they *don't have cornflakes for brains*.
Many EU states and MEPs, and certainly a blocking majority of each, simply don't want to get undercut in their own markets by a developed country playing regulatory arbitrage games. They aren't obliged to sign a deal that allows this, so they won't. No deal is better than a bad deal, as the philosopher once said.
This is a really widespread misconception in the UK and goes to the heart of the whole case for Brexit, so it's not hard to see how everything goes pear-shaped when it comes up against a deadline.
Businesses have set up their current operations on the basis of the status quo so it suits them not to change
But if it does change they will adapt.
The UK is a significant market and it will still make sense for lots of firms to have a local presence
I'm in Ireland for a family event. Speaking to an in-law who is a dairy farmer I heard how his cooperative was changing their operations to cut the UK out of their supply chains/packing operation, and developing new cheese products to sell to non-UK markets. It's much easier for EU companies to reconfigure their operations to cut out the UK than the other way round.
They'll still sell to us, but we'll have to pay a higher price because we'll be competing with their new markets and we'll have to bear the costs of friction at the border. Meanwhile we've lost the income from being part of a larger integrated market.
Ask him how he is going to compete with Aus,NZ, etc Cheddar when the UK removes the CET tariff of 57%, that protects Cheddar makes at the moment.
I am genuinely interested in his answer.
I'll try to remember to do just that.
Is it certain that we'll cut that tariff on cheddar? From what I can see it's more likely that we'll add a tariff to EU imports. The effect on EU dairy farmers is the same and from what he said yesterday their plan is to sell more to mainland Europe with different cheeses.
Mr. Nunu, in some ways the Lib Dems are bloody lucky.
They have another shot at making huge inroads against Labour, simply by being vaguely competent and left wing without being far left lunatics. Starting from a very low ebb, though.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Some of this article makes a lot of sense...it's obvious that people place more importance on their own lives, and issues closer to home.
The premise of that article is that they are wrong to do so and just not sufficiently enlightened. Its bizarre. We elect governments for what they are going to do for us. Its that simple.
I also think we elect governments to take on doing the difficult things in life, running all the dull things we need. Labour wanted us all to get involved in this, IIRC the manifesto had local committess running the newly nationalised utilities. The problem is 90%+ of the public are not interested in politics day to day, we just want a quiet life and to be safe from crime. So a lot of people looked at this new way of doing things and thought "nah".
Mr. Nunu, might be fairly commonplace. I think the Conservative vote share's gone up for the last six elections in a row. Probably due to unwind next time.
Depends where that Brexit party vote goes, and if soft Libdem remainers go back to the Tories.
I would argue that the real big concern about Labour effectively abandoning much of their traditional voting base, is that if they move away from the Tories in the future, they are more likely to look rightward than go back to Labour.
At the end of the day voters will look to parties than appear to be addressing talking about the issues, and offering “solutions” that matter to them and often will look to those issues exclusively. If you are a voter whose number one concern is crime on your local estate then you are going to look to parties talking about that. And the fact that those parties may be associated with all sorts of other appalling views and policies may not matter. Labour is simply not going to get a hearing if they don’t get back actively involved in these debates.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Some of this article makes a lot of sense...it's obvious that people place more importance on their own lives, and issues closer to home.
The premise of that article is that they are wrong to do so and just not sufficiently enlightened. Its bizarre. We elect governments for what they are going to do for us. Its that simple.
It's one of the big problems with the Labour left's obsession with Palestine. Objectively the suffering there is more serious than issues facing people in this country, but that can't be a priority for a political party aiming to run this country.
That kind of international campaigning would be better not linked to a particular party, so that pressure can be applied whoever is in government.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Some of this article makes a lot of sense...it's obvious that people place more importance on their own lives, and issues closer to home.
The premise of that article is that they are wrong to do so and just not sufficiently enlightened. Its bizarre. We elect governments for what they are going to do for us. Its that simple.
It's one of the big problems with the Labour left's obsession with Palestine. Objectively the suffering there is more serious than issues facing people in this country, but that can't be a priority for a political party aiming to run this country.
That kind of international campaigning would be better not linked to a particular party, so that pressure can be applied whoever is in government.
Good piece, but I think it overstates the extent to which the EU's position is a hardball negotiating stance and understates the extent to which they actually mean it: What the British want to do is to get full market access, but undercut their EU neighbours on environmental and labour standards.
This is a really widespread misconception in the UK and goes to the heart of the whole case for Brexit, so it's not hard to see how everything goes pear-shaped when it comes up against a deadline.
Businesses have set up their current operations on the basis of the status quo so it suits them not to change
But if it does change they will adapt.
The UK is a significant market and it will still make sense for lots of firms to have a local presence
I'm in Ireland for a family event. Speaking to an in-law who is a dairy farmer I heard how his cooperative was changing their operations to cut the UK out of their supply chains/packing operation, and developing new cheese products to sell to non-UK markets. It's much easier for EU companies to reconfigure their operations to cut out the UK than the other way round.
They'll still sell to us, but we'll have to pay a higher price because we'll be competing with their new markets and we'll have to bear the costs of friction at the border. Meanwhile we've lost the income from being part of a larger integrated market.
Ask him how he is going to compete with Aus,NZ, etc Cheddar when the UK removes the CET tariff of 57%, that protects Cheddar makes at the moment.
I am genuinely interested in his answer.
I'll try to remember to do just that.
Is it certain that we'll cut that tariff on cheddar? From what I can see it's more likely that we'll add a tariff to EU imports. The effect on EU dairy farmers is the same and from what he said yesterday their plan is to sell more to mainland Europe with different cheeses.
At the moment we do not have clarity what the new Government will do with Tariffs. All we know is what the last Government proposed as a temporary 12 month Tariff schedule in the case of no deal. With respect to food these were a mixture of tariffs on products that already had them under CET so in this case the EU would be subjected to them and reductions sometimes to Zero from the CET level for all countries that export to the UK. In the case of cheddar it went from current ROW 57%, EU 0% to everybody zero percent for 12 months.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Wow, is that a piece of complete tosh or what? Very much from the "we won the argument" school who ignore the outcome of the worst result since 1935.
I agree with you that the lack of a competent opposition is a definite weakness, especially when we have a lot of difficult choices to make in the near future. The decisions will simply not be tested (other than by those loons in the ERG). This is asking for trouble.
Absolutely agree with these, particularly where Labour’s approach is to ascribe evil motives to every action of the Government and never seriously engage with it on its own terms. If the Government brings forward legislation that it claims is intended to do X, but you don’t think it will actually do X, then you need to be forensic in opposing the Governments case on those grounds. And that will potentially lead to better legislation if your arguments are sufficiently convincing.
If on the other hand your response is to shout that the Government does not wants X at all, but actually has a secret agenda for something completely different then you will get nowhere. But at least you feel good.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Some of this article makes a lot of sense...it's obvious that people place more importance on their own lives, and issues closer to home.
The premise of that article is that they are wrong to do so and just not sufficiently enlightened. Its bizarre. We elect governments for what they are going to do for us. Its that simple.
It's one of the big problems with the Labour left's obsession with Palestine. Objectively the suffering there is more serious than issues facing people in this country, but that can't be a priority for a political party aiming to run this country.
That kind of international campaigning would be better not linked to a particular party, so that pressure can be applied whoever is in government.
What is surely crystal clear is that those who are obsessed with such things (such as Corbyn) should never, ever be allowed near the leadership of the party.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Some of this article makes a lot of sense...it's obvious that people place more importance on their own lives, and issues closer to home.
The premise of that article is that they are wrong to do so and just not sufficiently enlightened...
That wasn’t my reading of it at all. I don’t share the author’s politics (and they completely miss the point about the ridiculous broadband policy amongst other things), but the thrust of the article was that Labour need to pay more attention making its case locally, and stop obsessing about the dispossessed overseas.
That may well prove inadequate, but it’s hardly a step in the wrong direction.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Some of this article makes a lot of sense...it's obvious that people place more importance on their own lives, and issues closer to home.
The premise of that article is that they are wrong to do so and just not sufficiently enlightened...
That wasn’t my reading of it at all. I don’t share the author’s politics (and they completely miss the point about the ridiculous broadband policy amongst other things), but the thrust of the article was that Labour need to pay more attention making its case locally, and stop obsessing about the dispossessed overseas.
That may well prove inadequate, but it’s hardly a step in the wrong direction.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Some of this article makes a lot of sense...it's obvious that people place more importance on their own lives, and issues closer to home.
The premise of that article is that they are wrong to do so and just not sufficiently enlightened...
That wasn’t my reading of it at all. I don’t share the author’s politics (and they completely miss the point about the ridiculous broadband policy amongst other things), but the thrust of the article was that Labour need to pay more attention making its case locally, and stop obsessing about the dispossessed overseas.
That may well prove inadequate, but it’s hardly a step in the wrong direction.
The “bozo” stuff reflects on you. It’s as simplistic and twattish as EUSSR.
But nothing like as twattish as everybody calling him "Boris" as if he's some mate of theirs.
Do hope you don't do that.
Pretty pathetic right enough, saddos.
Not really, it is what he is commonly known as. It annoys people that don't like him, but that's the way it is.
I'm afraid this is true. I dont even like him one bit and I call him Boris, people moaning about it is just pathetic. I'm sorry but theres no other word for people who get mad or annoyed because Boris gets called Boris, based on the insulting notion it means people are fooled into liking him or some nonsense.
It doesnt mean everyone is acting like hes a mate. Boris is a dick. See? Seriously this is what upsets people? Theres real things to get mad at boris or boris supporters for.
Well if it is so normal why do they not call other politician's by their first name , sad insecure gits
Did I say it was normal? No I didn't. So either you've replied to the wrong post or you've pretended to ignore the point, which is that it doesn't mean anyone who uses it likes him. It's just his personal brand, for good and ill, and it is deeply deeply sad that people get cross about it. And don't even pretend people don't get cross about it, this drawn out whinge that people call him Boris is proof that, inexplicably, people do get cross, including you.
I am however baffled how it shows anyone is insecure about anything. He's known as Boris, it is what people call him, what the hell does that have to do with inseurity? I could call him Prime Minister Johnson, BJ or fluffles posho the third, but none of those are what he is known as.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Some of this article makes a lot of sense...it's obvious that people place more importance on their own lives, and issues closer to home.
The premise of that article is that they are wrong to do so and just not sufficiently enlightened...
That wasn’t my reading of it at all. I don’t share the author’s politics (and they completely miss the point about the ridiculous broadband policy amongst other things), but the thrust of the article was that Labour need to pay more attention making its case locally, and stop obsessing about the dispossessed overseas.
That may well prove inadequate, but it’s hardly a step in the wrong direction.
I think that is a very generous reading.
What can I say ... I’m a nice person.
Indeed. And if we can't be magnanimous at this time of the year, when can we? Merry Christmas.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Some of this article makes a lot of sense...it's obvious that people place more importance on their own lives, and issues closer to home.
The premise of that article is that they are wrong to do so and just not sufficiently enlightened. Its bizarre. We elect governments for what they are going to do for us. Its that simple.
I also think we elect governments to take on doing the difficult things in life, running all the dull things we need. Labour wanted us all to get involved in this, IIRC the manifesto had local committess running the newly nationalised utilities. The problem is 90%+ of the public are not interested in politics day to day, we just want a quiet life and to be safe from crime. So a lot of people looked at this new way of doing things and thought "nah".
Which is, of course, the plan. Those things are put in place so that apparatchiks can take over locally because noone else is really interested. C.f. Gwen Taylor in Yes, Prime Minister: Power to the People. Plus ca change.
"Any attack on [person x] is an attack on [movement y]" is always complete bollocks as an argument. It's transparently a tactic to conflate any criticism on a person to a group, and thus be more easily dismissed. No doubt we see it with attacks on Boris being attacks on anyone who has voted for him, but that's bollocks too.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Some of this article makes a lot of sense...it's obvious that people place more importance on their own lives, and issues closer to home.
The premise of that article is that they are wrong to do so and just not sufficiently enlightened...
That wasn’t my reading of it at all. I don’t share the author’s politics (and they completely miss the point about the ridiculous broadband policy amongst other things), but the thrust of the article was that Labour need to pay more attention making its case locally, and stop obsessing about the dispossessed overseas.
That may well prove inadequate, but it’s hardly a step in the wrong direction.
I think that is a very generous reading.
What can I say ... I’m a nice person.
Indeed. And if we can't be magnanimous at this time of the year, when can we? Merry Christmas.
The really scary thing for Labour in those graphs is that their support in the AB C1 classes was partly driven by opposition to Brexit. Take that away and you are going to have those that work in the public sector wanting bigger wage increases and higher pensions and no one else.
The really scary thing for Labour in those graphs is that their support in the AB C1 classes was partly driven by opposition to Brexit. Take that away and you are going to have those that work in the public sector wanting bigger wage increases and higher pensions and no one else.
What about me?
Ok, in accordance with the season, public sector workers voting in their own interest and you. Don't say I am not open minded.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Some of this article makes a lot of sense...it's obvious that people place more importance on their own lives, and issues closer to home.
The premise of that article is that they are wrong to do so and just not sufficiently enlightened. Its bizarre. We elect governments for what they are going to do for us. Its that simple.
I also think we elect governments to take on doing the difficult things in life, running all the dull things we need. Labour wanted us all to get involved in this, IIRC the manifesto had local committess running the newly nationalised utilities. The problem is 90%+ of the public are not interested in politics day to day, we just want a quiet life and to be safe from crime. So a lot of people looked at this new way of doing things and thought "nah".
Which is, of course, the plan. Those things are put in place so that apparatchiks can take over locally because noone else is really interested. C.f. Gwen Taylor in Yes, Prime Minister: Power to the People. Plus ca change.
That was mentioned at the time by some. We would end up with SWP types clogging up these things for years, nothing would get done.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Wow, is that a piece of complete tosh or what? Very much from the "we won the argument" school who ignore the outcome of the worst result since 1935.
I agree with you that the lack of a competent opposition is a definite weakness, especially when we have a lot of difficult choices to make in the near future. The decisions will simply not be tested (other than by those loons in the ERG). This is asking for trouble.
There is a magnificent piece in The Times by Zarb-Cohen, who waffles around Facebook, says that it’s impossible to replicate 2017 because of algorithm changes but nonetheless Labour social media was winning (HT- it wasn’t) and ends with “its the face, not the product - one more heave, Comrades”. The same old shit given a 21century gloss.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Wow, is that a piece of complete tosh or what? Very much from the "we won the argument" school who ignore the outcome of the worst result since 1935.
I agree with you that the lack of a competent opposition is a definite weakness, especially when we have a lot of difficult choices to make in the near future. The decisions will simply not be tested (other than by those loons in the ERG). This is asking for trouble.
There is a magnificent piece in The Times by Zarb-Cohen, who waffles around Facebook, says that it’s impossible to replicate 2017 because of algorithm changes but nonetheless Labour social media was winning (HT- it wasn’t) and ends with “its the face, not the product - one more heave, Comrades”. The same old shit given a 21century gloss.
He’s right though, one more heave on socialism will lead to a breakthrough.
It’s just it will be the Liberal Democrats that do the breaking through...
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Wow, is that a piece of complete tosh or what? Very much from the "we won the argument" school who ignore the outcome of the worst result since 1935.
I agree with you that the lack of a competent opposition is a definite weakness, especially when we have a lot of difficult choices to make in the near future. The decisions will simply not be tested (other than by those loons in the ERG). This is asking for trouble.
There is a magnificent piece in The Times by Zarb-Cohen, who waffles around Facebook, says that it’s impossible to replicate 2017 because of algorithm changes but nonetheless Labour social media was winning (HT- it wasn’t) and ends with “its the face, not the product - one more heave, Comrades”. The same old shit given a 21century gloss.
He’s right though, one more heave on socialism will lead to a breakthrough.
It’s just it will be the Liberal Democrats that do the breaking through...
I'm not sure. If they couldn't break through in 2019 with Corbyn offering incoherent fantasies and with an allegedly popular principal pledge (supported by huge petitions and many "important celebrities") I wonder when they will. It is genuinely hard to believe that they will ever have more favourable conditions than they had a week ago and their seat count went backwards.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Wow, is that a piece of complete tosh or what? Very much from the "we won the argument" school who ignore the outcome of the worst result since 1935.
I agree with you that the lack of a competent opposition is a definite weakness, especially when we have a lot of difficult choices to make in the near future. The decisions will simply not be tested (other than by those loons in the ERG). This is asking for trouble.
There is a magnificent piece in The Times by Zarb-Cohen, who waffles around Facebook, says that it’s impossible to replicate 2017 because of algorithm changes but nonetheless Labour social media was winning (HT- it wasn’t) and ends with “its the face, not the product - one more heave, Comrades”. The same old shit given a 21century gloss.
He’s right though, one more heave on socialism will lead to a breakthrough.
It’s just it will be the Liberal Democrats that do the breaking through...
I'm not sure. If they couldn't break through in 2019 with Corbyn offering incoherent fantasies and with an allegedly popular principal pledge (supported by huge petitions and many "important celebrities") I wonder when they will. It is genuinely hard to believe that they will ever have more favourable conditions than they had a week ago and their seat count went backwards.
Certainly looks grim. But Liberals have bounced back before. They need a first class leader asap.
I'm not sure. If they couldn't break through in 2019 with Corbyn offering incoherent fantasies and with an allegedly popular principal pledge (supported by huge petitions and many "important celebrities") I wonder when they will. It is genuinely hard to believe that they will ever have more favourable conditions than they had a week ago and their seat count went backwards.
What more favourable conditions do they need? Easy answer - a proper Labour split, not the feeble and fleeting one that Berger tried to lead. If Labour start standing candidates against each other, as the Liberals did, that is when the Liberal Democrats stand a realistic chance of coming through the middle. Not forgetting their disappointing performance in terms of seats, they greatly expanded their voter base and moved back into second place in a large number of seats.
Can it happen? A little more of this awfulness and yes, it is possible.
Is it likely? No, because Labour prize loyalty over principles.
"Any attack on [person x] is an attack on [movement y]" is always complete bollocks as an argument. It's transparently a tactic to conflate any criticism on a person to a group, and thus be more easily dismissed. No doubt we see it with attacks on Boris being attacks on anyone who has voted for him, but that's bollocks too.
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing. Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
Wow, is that a piece of complete tosh or what? Very much from the "we won the argument" school who ignore the outcome of the worst result since 1935.
I agree with you that the lack of a competent opposition is a definite weakness, especially when we have a lot of difficult choices to make in the near future. The decisions will simply not be tested (other than by those loons in the ERG). This is asking for trouble.
There is a magnificent piece in The Times by Zarb-Cohen, who waffles around Facebook, says that it’s impossible to replicate 2017 because of algorithm changes but nonetheless Labour social media was winning (HT- it wasn’t) and ends with “its the face, not the product - one more heave, Comrades”. The same old shit given a 21century gloss.
He’s right though, one more heave on socialism will lead to a breakthrough.
It’s just it will be the Liberal Democrats that do the breaking through...
I'm not sure. If they couldn't break through in 2019 with Corbyn offering incoherent fantasies and with an allegedly popular principal pledge (supported by huge petitions and many "important celebrities") I wonder when they will. It is genuinely hard to believe that they will ever have more favourable conditions than they had a week ago and their seat count went backwards.
Certainly looks grim. But Liberals have bounced back before. They need a first class leader asap.
Mr. Nunu, might be fairly commonplace. I think the Conservative vote share's gone up for the last six elections in a row. Probably due to unwind next time.
Depends where that Brexit party vote goes, and if soft Libdem remainers go back to the Tories.
And if Boris delivers to those seats that voted Tory in 2019.... Might be lots of grass is greener votes to be had.
What actually is a Stalinist? It's unclear to me what this means. Thatcherite I sort of get, even though I suspect there's a bit of a difference now between her disciples and what she thought herself. But is the idea that this guy wants to collectivise farms or murder millions of people?
What actually is a Stalinist? It's unclear to me what this means. Thatcherite I sort of get, even though I suspect there's a bit of a difference now between her disciples and what she thought herself. But is the idea that this guy wants to collectivise farms or murder millions of people?
That would be a complicated answer which we haven’t space to discuss here. But roughly speaking, it is the rapid transformation of society, culture and the economy to conform to a particular ideological pattern (which is similar to, but not identical to, Marxist dogma) within a short space of time, using heavy government intervention and the crushing of all dissent. Then, keeping it there because it is the optimum state. This requires ongoing intensive government control of all administrative and economic systems.
Martin McCauley is the best author to read on this if you want further clarification on it, particularly ‘Stalin and Stalinism.’
What actually is a Stalinist? It's unclear to me what this means. Thatcherite I sort of get, even though I suspect there's a bit of a difference now between her disciples and what she thought herself. But is the idea that this guy wants to collectivise farms or murder millions of people?
That would be a complicated answer which we haven’t space to discuss here. But roughly speaking, it is the rapid transformation of society, culture and the economy to conform to a particular ideological pattern (which is similar to, but not identical to, Marxist dogma) within a short space of time, using heavy government intervention and the crushing of all dissent. Then, keeping it there because it is the optimum state. This requires ongoing intensive government control of all administrative and economic systems.
Martin McCauley is the best author to read on this if you want further clarification on it, particularly ‘Stalin and Stalinism.’
My summary - the shootings will continue until morale improves and steady state nirvana is achieved. Unlimited bullets ahoy.
I'm not sure. If they couldn't break through in 2019 with Corbyn offering incoherent fantasies and with an allegedly popular principal pledge (supported by huge petitions and many "important celebrities") I wonder when they will. It is genuinely hard to believe that they will ever have more favourable conditions than they had a week ago and their seat count went backwards.
What more favourable conditions do they need? Easy answer - a proper Labour split, not the feeble and fleeting one that Berger tried to lead. If Labour start standing candidates against each other, as the Liberals did, that is when the Liberal Democrats stand a realistic chance of coming through the middle. Not forgetting their disappointing performance in terms of seats, they greatly expanded their voter base and moved back into second place in a large number of seats.
Can it happen? A little more of this awfulness and yes, it is possible.
Is it likely? No, because Labour prize loyalty over principles.
The LibDems have performed best when the was a centrist Labour leader like Blair.
Like that. Your def, I mean, not so much the concept.
But what's a Leninist then? Cummings is one, apparently, and proudly so.
Clarification wisely offered!
A Leninist is less clearly separated from a Marxist and there is so far as I know no one definition. Lenin remember did not carry out a formal long term programme of government as Stalin did, nor in the four and a half years he was actually in power did sufficiently normal conditions prevail for him to do so. I would tentatively define Leninism as believing that power should be sought for its own sake and then everything swept away and made anew. I could easily fit that to Cummings.
What actually is a Stalinist? It's unclear to me what this means. Thatcherite I sort of get, even though I suspect there's a bit of a difference now between her disciples and what she thought herself. But is the idea that this guy wants to collectivise farms or murder millions of people?
Now it's just a thing righties call lefties when they're not whining about being called far right. It used to be in vogue though.
I'm not sure. If they couldn't break through in 2019 with Corbyn offering incoherent fantasies and with an allegedly popular principal pledge (supported by huge petitions and many "important celebrities") I wonder when they will. It is genuinely hard to believe that they will ever have more favourable conditions than they had a week ago and their seat count went backwards.
What more favourable conditions do they need? Easy answer - a proper Labour split, not the feeble and fleeting one that Berger tried to lead. If Labour start standing candidates against each other, as the Liberals did, that is when the Liberal Democrats stand a realistic chance of coming through the middle. Not forgetting their disappointing performance in terms of seats, they greatly expanded their voter base and moved back into second place in a large number of seats.
Can it happen? A little more of this awfulness and yes, it is possible.
Is it likely? No, because Labour prize loyalty over principles.
The LibDems have performed best when the was a centrist Labour leader like Blair.
Fleas perform best on a dog. But they will not turn into another dog.
The Liberal Democrats need to stand on their own feet and win votes in their own right.
Wow, is that a piece of complete tosh or what? Very much from the "we won the argument" school who ignore the outcome of the worst result since 1935.
.
There is a magnificent piece in The Times by Zarb-Cohen, who waffles around Facebook, says that it’s impossible to replicate 2017 because of algorithm changes but nonetheless Labour social media was winning (HT- it wasn’t) and ends with “its the face, not the product - one more heave, Comrades”. The same old shit given a 21century gloss.
He’s right though, one more heave on socialism will lead to a breakthrough.
It’s just it will be the Liberal Democrats that do the breaking through...
I'm not sure. If they couldn't break through in 2019 with Corbyn offering incoherent fantasies and with an allegedly popular principal pledge (supported by huge petitions and many "important celebrities") I wonder when they will. It is genuinely hard to believe that they will ever have more favourable conditions than they had a week ago and their seat count went backwards.
The conditions ended up not being favourable in 2019, paradoxically for two of the reasons the Lib Dems thought they were on to a winner. Firstly, Brexit. Once Labour went for a second referendum and started knee-capping the Lib Dems as a bad tactical vote and Swinson as objectionable to left-leaning voters, it became impossible to break through. The result was the tactical mess that was caused by both parties fighting tooth and nail over the same anti-Brexit voters, some of whom went back to Labour - keeping it from total catastrophe, and costing both seats. The second was Corbyn. Once the Lib Dems weren't going to charge past Labour like in the Euros, there was no way Tory remainers were going to defect en masse to the Lib Dems knowing it could mean putting him into number 10 - as was thought to be a real threat.
The question now is - how does Labour getting even worse affect those dynamics? A crap Labour leader like RLB, who sticks to the hard left stuff but goes a bit more Brexity means that a) liberal Tories who get a bit upset with Johnson can go Lib Dem safe in the knowledge there's no chance of a Labour govt. b) There's less reason for liberal-left types to stick with the party if it's polling awfully, more Brexity, still full of cranks, and led by the same cadre of self-serving Stalin fans.
Labour are in much deeper trouble than they realise. People won't wait forever if they look like continually compounding their uselessness.
A Leninist is less clearly separated from a Marxist and there is so far as I know no one definition. Lenin remember did not carry out a formal long term programme of government as Stalin did, nor in the four and a half years he was actually in power did sufficiently normal conditions prevail for him to do so. I would tentatively define Leninism as believing that power should be sought for its own sake and then everything swept away and made anew. I could easily fit that to Cummings.
I like that too (with the same clarification of course). You are on a roll.
I guess it's the last 6 words that are key here - everything swept away and made anew.
This distinguishes it from the purist "power for the sake of power" of the likes of Orwell's Big Brother - and arguably Simon Cowell - and the more prosaic and yet somehow just as pernicious "power for the sake of ME" of characters such as Donald Trump and his newly minted British equivalent, the politician known to one and all as "Boris".
I see that Andrea Leadsom's decision to allow sale of Cobbam is trending this morning. Classic bad news strategy to avoid serious scrutiny in Parliament, in press etc. Gives the stone the hedge funds, US financiers, military industrial complex tin foil hat wearers something to shout about on Twitter.
Why shouldn’t the owners of the company be allowed to sell it if they wish?
Because some companies should be kept under British control for national security reasons. Every country does this and we need to be more aggressive in identifying those companies which have key defence applications.
What actually is a Stalinist? It's unclear to me what this means. Thatcherite I sort of get, even though I suspect there's a bit of a difference now between her disciples and what she thought herself. But is the idea that this guy wants to collectivise farms or murder millions of people?
Now it's just a thing righties call lefties when they're not whining about being called far right. It used to be in vogue though.
I had a history teacher at school who was a lovely guy, but wholly believed there would one day be a revolution of the proletariat, was 100% in favour of Lenin's killings, and made no criticism of Stalin's that I can remember. In friendly company, when views of any stripe can get a tad gamey being a Stalinist isn't unrealistic.
I see that Andrea Leadsom's decision to allow sale of Cobbam is trending this morning. Classic bad news strategy to avoid serious scrutiny in Parliament, in press etc. Gives the stone the hedge funds, US financiers, military industrial complex tin foil hat wearers something to shout about on Twitter.
Why shouldn’t the owners of the company be allowed to sell it if they wish?
Because some companies should be kept under British control for national security reasons. Every country does this and we need to be more aggressive in identifying those companies which have key defence applications.
There are a lot of areas where we're in so deep with the US that the notion of having an independent military has become stretched. Disentangling that feels like a project for another day though...
I'm not sure. If they couldn't break through in 2019 with Corbyn offering incoherent fantasies and with an allegedly popular principal pledge (supported by huge petitions and many "important celebrities") I wonder when they will. It is genuinely hard to believe that they will ever have more favourable conditions than they had a week ago and their seat count went backwards.
What more favourable conditions do they need? Easy answer - a proper Labour split, not the feeble and fleeting one that Berger tried to lead. If Labour start standing candidates against each other, as the Liberals did, that is when the Liberal Democrats stand a realistic chance of coming through the middle. Not forgetting their disappointing performance in terms of seats, they greatly expanded their voter base and moved back into second place in a large number of seats.
Can it happen? A little more of this awfulness and yes, it is possible.
Is it likely? No, because Labour prize loyalty over principles.
The LibDems have performed best when the was a centrist Labour leader like Blair.
Fleas perform best on a dog. But they will not turn into another dog.
The Liberal Democrats need to stand on their own feet and win votes in their own right.
Or...they become a party of local Govt., place a block on what national Govt. can implement at local level - and "advise" their supportes locally on how to vote nationally.
Good one. And an interesting contrast to NS who is hardly ever "Nicola". Nor usually "Sturgeon" either. She gets the full "Nicola Sturgeon". Fascinating (to me anyway) how some people do tend to be awarded the entire handle rather just their 1st or 2nd name. Nicola Sturgeon is one, as noted, and from England I would offer up a couple of similar examples. James Cleverly. Raheem Sterling.
Good one. And an interesting contrast to NS who is hardly ever "Nicola". Nor usually "Sturgeon" either. She gets the full "Nicola Sturgeon". Fascinating (to me anyway) how some people do tend to be awarded the entire handle rather just their 1st or 2nd name. Nicola Sturgeon is one, as noted, and from England I would offer up a couple of similar examples. James Cleverly. Raheem Sterling.
What actually is a Stalinist? It's unclear to me what this means. Thatcherite I sort of get, even though I suspect there's a bit of a difference now between her disciples and what she thought herself. But is the idea that this guy wants to collectivise farms or murder millions of people?
Now it's just a thing righties call lefties when they're not whining about being called far right. It used to be in vogue though.
I had a history teacher at school who was a lovely guy, but wholly believed there would one day be a revolution of the proletariat, was 100% in favour of Lenin's killings, and made no criticism of Stalin's that I can remember. In friendly company, when views of any stripe can get a tad gamey being a Stalinist isn't unrealistic.
Good one. And an interesting contrast to NS who is hardly ever "Nicola". Nor usually "Sturgeon" either. She gets the full "Nicola Sturgeon". Fascinating (to me anyway) how some people do tend to be awarded the entire handle rather just their 1st or 2nd name. Nicola Sturgeon is one, as noted, and from England I would offer up a couple of similar examples. James Cleverly. Raheem Sterling.
Most people I know and hear call the footballer Harry Kane, instead of just Kane.
Good one. And an interesting contrast to NS who is hardly ever "Nicola". Nor usually "Sturgeon" either. She gets the full "Nicola Sturgeon". Fascinating (to me anyway) how some people do tend to be awarded the entire handle rather just their 1st or 2nd name. Nicola Sturgeon is one, as noted, and from England I would offer up a couple of similar examples. James Cleverly. Raheem Sterling.
Rebecca Long Bailey?
I used to find it really annoying that football commentators never called him Henry. It was always Thiery Henry.
What actually is a Stalinist? It's unclear to me what this means. Thatcherite I sort of get, even though I suspect there's a bit of a difference now between her disciples and what she thought herself. But is the idea that this guy wants to collectivise farms or murder millions of people?
Now it's just a thing righties call lefties when they're not whining about being called far right. It used to be in vogue though.
I had a history teacher at school who was a lovely guy, but wholly believed there would one day be a revolution of the proletariat, was 100% in favour of Lenin's killings, and made no criticism of Stalin's that I can remember. In friendly company, when views of any stripe can get a tad gamey being a Stalinist isn't unrealistic.
That's Leningrad High for you 👍
Gently suggest that someone genuinely in favour of Stalin's killings does not qualify as a "lovely guy". More some kind of unthinking nutjob who can't see beyond the end of his nose.
Good one. And an interesting contrast to NS who is hardly ever "Nicola". Nor usually "Sturgeon" either. She gets the full "Nicola Sturgeon". Fascinating (to me anyway) how some people do tend to be awarded the entire handle rather just their 1st or 2nd name. Nicola Sturgeon is one, as noted, and from England I would offer up a couple of similar examples. James Cleverly. Raheem Sterling.
Rebecca Long Bailey?
I used to find it really annoying that football commentators never called him Henry. It was always Thiery Henry.
I'm not sure. If they couldn't break through in 2019 with Corbyn offering incoherent fantasies and with an allegedly popular principal pledge (supported by huge petitions and many "important celebrities") I wonder when they will. It is genuinely hard to believe that they will ever have more favourable conditions than they had a week ago and their seat count went backwards.
What more favourable conditions do they need? Easy answer - a proper Labour split, not the feeble and fleeting one that Berger tried to lead. If Labour start standing candidates against each other, as the Liberals did, that is when the Liberal Democrats stand a realistic chance of coming through the middle. Not forgetting their disappointing performance in terms of seats, they greatly expanded their voter base and moved back into second place in a large number of seats.
Can it happen? A little more of this awfulness and yes, it is possible.
Is it likely? No, because Labour prize loyalty over principles.
The LibDems have performed best when the was a centrist Labour leader like Blair.
Fleas perform best on a dog. But they will not turn into another dog.
The Liberal Democrats need to stand on their own feet and win votes in their own right.
The LibDems had a poor election. They made two big, unforced errors. Firstly, they went with the revoke policy. They already had impeccable pro-EU credentials, so all it did was scare off people who were anything less than ultra-Remainers. Secondly, what was with all that Jo Swinson On Every Leaflet? If she was incredibly popular, it would be one thing... But she wasn't.
Both these errors fall at the feet of Jo Swinson. Now the LibDems need to find a competent leader.
I'm not sure. If they couldn't break through in 2019 with Corbyn offering incoherent fantasies and with an allegedly popular principal pledge (supported by huge petitions and many "important celebrities") I wonder when they will. It is genuinely hard to believe that they will ever have more favourable conditions than they had a week ago and their seat count went backwards.
What more favourable conditions do they need? Easy answer - a proper Labour split, not the feeble and fleeting one that Berger tried to lead. If Labour start standing candidates against each other, as the Liberals did, that is when the Liberal Democrats stand a realistic chance of coming through the middle. Not forgetting their disappointing performance in terms of seats, they greatly expanded their voter base and moved back into second place in a large number of seats.
Can it happen? A little more of this awfulness and yes, it is possible.
Is it likely? No, because Labour prize loyalty over principles.
The LibDems have performed best when the was a centrist Labour leader like Blair.
Fleas perform best on a dog. But they will not turn into another dog.
The Liberal Democrats need to stand on their own feet and win votes in their own right.
The LibDems had a poor election. They made two big, unforced errors. Firstly, they went with the revoke policy. They already had impeccable pro-EU credentials, so all it did was scare off people who were anything less than ultra-Remainers. Secondly, what was with all that Jo Swinson On Every Leaflet? If she was incredibly popular, it would be one thing... But she wasn't.
Both these errors fall at the feet of Jo Swinson. Now the LibDems need to find a competent leader.
I think that Dominic Frisby in his extra verse of the Brexit Song caught Jo Swinson as she turned out well.
Lewis Hamilton is always Lewis Hamilton Tiger Woods is nearly always Tiger Woods Yet Federer for instance is nearly always Federer
Is it a slight bias to name full names when ethnic minorities involved? Also generally friendly people tend to just get their surname and people who are more self centred get the full name ? Also very personable people get their first name , reasonably personable people get their surname and less friendly ones full name?
Most people I know and hear call the footballer Harry Kane, instead of just Kane.
There's probably 100s of examples really.
Gerry Adams instead of Adams etc.
Yep. Always HARRY Kane and GERRY Adams. And yet it's "Gerrard" and it's "Varadkar". Therefore nothing to do with being a footballer or an Irishman.
100s like you say. Pointless to try and name them all but there must be a common thread. My sense is that it's to do with a combination of how the name sounds and how the person is viewed. I also sense that although this is not a trivial matter - far from it - it might not be possible, short of doing a doctorate in the subject, to nail it down.
I'm not sure. If they couldn't break through in 2019 with Corbyn offering incoherent fantasies and with an allegedly popular principal pledge (supported by huge petitions and many "important celebrities") I wonder when they will. It is genuinely hard to believe that they will ever have more favourable conditions than they had a week ago and their seat count went backwards.
What more favourable conditions do they need? Easy answer - a proper Labour split, not the feeble and fleeting one that Berger tried to lead. If Labour start standing candidates against each other, as the Liberals did, that is when the Liberal Democrats stand a realistic chance of coming through the middle. Not forgetting their disappointing performance in terms of seats, they greatly expanded their voter base and moved back into second place in a large number of seats.
Can it happen? A little more of this awfulness and yes, it is possible.
Is it likely? No, because Labour prize loyalty over principles.
The LibDems have performed best when the was a centrist Labour leader like Blair.
Fleas perform best on a dog. But they will not turn into another dog.
The Liberal Democrats need to stand on their own feet and win votes in their own right.
The LibDems had a poor election. They made two big, unforced errors. Firstly, they went with the revoke policy. They already had impeccable pro-EU credentials, so all it did was scare off people who were anything less than ultra-Remainers. Secondly, what was with all that Jo Swinson On Every Leaflet? If she was incredibly popular, it would be one thing... But she wasn't.
Both these errors fall at the feet of Jo Swinson. Now the LibDems need to find a competent leader.
She wasn’t on every leaflet, but to avoid the ban hammer I will refrain from pointing out who was on about half of them...
> If Labour start standing candidates against each other, as the Liberals did, that is when the Liberal Democrats stand a realistic chance of coming through the middle. Not forgetting their disappointing performance in terms of seats, they greatly expanded their voter base and moved back into second place in a large number of seats.
>Can it happen? A little more of this awfulness and yes, it is possible.
>Is it likely? No, because Labour prize loyalty over principles.
Reading Lib Dem post-mortems, I think the biggest problem will be that they are congenitally a herd of cats, most of whom do not agree with each other.
The other issue I continue to see is that they have deliberately and carefully expressed contempt for half the electorate for several years.
As a leaver, and having voted Lib Dem occasionally in the past, why the f*ck would I consider voting Lib Dem any more after that performance?
As I see it, that will make them a party with a severely limited geographical spread.
They also seem to have evolved a more intolerant culture over recent years.
I'm not sure. If they couldn't break through in 2019 with Corbyn offering incoherent fantasies and with an allegedly popular principal pledge (supported by huge petitions and many "important celebrities") I wonder when they will. It is genuinely hard to believe that they will ever have more favourable conditions than they had a week ago and their seat count went backwards.
What more favourable conditions do they need? Easy answer - a proper Labour split, not the feeble and fleeting one that Berger tried to lead. If Labour start standing candidates against each other, as the Liberals did, that is when the Liberal Democrats stand a realistic chance of coming through the middle. Not forgetting their disappointing performance in terms of seats, they greatly expanded their voter base and moved back into second place in a large number of seats.
Can it happen? A little more of this awfulness and yes, it is possible.
Is it likely? No, because Labour prize loyalty over principles.
The LibDems have performed best when the was a centrist Labour leader like Blair.
Fleas perform best on a dog. But they will not turn into another dog.
The Liberal Democrats need to stand on their own feet and win votes in their own right.
The LibDems had a poor election. They made two big, unforced errors. Firstly, they went with the revoke policy. They already had impeccable pro-EU credentials, so all it did was scare off people who were anything less than ultra-Remainers. Secondly, what was with all that Jo Swinson On Every Leaflet? If she was incredibly popular, it would be one thing... But she wasn't.
Both these errors fall at the feet of Jo Swinson. Now the LibDems need to find a competent leader.
She wasn’t on every leaflet, but to avoid the ban hammer I will refrain from pointing out who was on about half of them...
And those were about as accurate as your average bar chart :-)
Most people I know and hear call the footballer Harry Kane, instead of just Kane.
There's probably 100s of examples really.
Gerry Adams instead of Adams etc.
Yep. Always HARRY Kane and GERRY Adams. And yet it's "Gerrard" and it's "Varadkar". Therefore nothing to do with being a footballer or an Irishman.
100s like you say. Pointless to try and name them all but there must be a common thread. My sense is that it's to do with a combination of how the name sounds and how the person is viewed. I also sense that although this is not a trivial matter - far from it - it might not be possible, short of doing a doctorate in the subject, to nail it down.
Priti Patel and Sajid Javid usually get the full name. But then they are quite common names.
I'm not sure. If they couldn't break through in 2019 with Corbyn offering incoherent fantasies and with an allegedly popular principal pledge (supported by huge petitions and many "important celebrities") I wonder when they will. It is genuinely hard to believe that they will ever have more favourable conditions than they had a week ago and their seat count went backwards.
What more favourable conditions do they need? Easy answer - a proper Labour split, not the feeble and fleeting one that Berger tried to lead. If Labour start standing candidates against each other, as the Liberals did, that is when the Liberal Democrats stand a realistic chance of coming through the middle. Not forgetting their disappointing performance in terms of seats, they greatly expanded their voter base and moved back into second place in a large number of seats.
Can it happen? A little more of this awfulness and yes, it is possible.
Is it likely? No, because Labour prize loyalty over principles.
The LibDems have performed best when the was a centrist Labour leader like Blair.
Fleas perform best on a dog. But they will not turn into another dog.
The Liberal Democrats need to stand on their own feet and win votes in their own right.
The LibDems had a poor election. They made two big, unforced errors. Firstly, they went with the revoke policy. They already had impeccable pro-EU credentials, so all it did was scare off people who were anything less than ultra-Remainers. Secondly, what was with all that Jo Swinson On Every Leaflet? If she was incredibly popular, it would be one thing... But she wasn't.
Both these errors fall at the feet of Jo Swinson. Now the LibDems need to find a competent leader.
Apparently it's being blamed on the Grazia photoshoot that Jo Swinson did. At least her face being on all of the literature.
Maggie .. also known by lefties by her last name Thatcher, or for the really thick Fatcher.
In the recent BBC documentary on her, Norman Tebbit - just absolutely never a "Norman" btw - opined that all great leaders get known just by their surname, hence why the Great Lady was purely and simply "Thatcher". Not sure that Norman Tebbit was right there myself. I found it a slightly jarring comment in an otherwise excellent programme.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/21/labour-older-voters-corbyn-local-socialism
I am increasingly angry with Labour now, well with a lot of their hangers on anyway. A sitting government, whatever the the party, needs effective opposition lead by a person with persistance and intelligence. Since 2010 this has only been inconsistantly there, Ed M made some good points but couldn't cut through so made some tactical mistakes in trying to do so and after him practically nothing.
Instead we have a main opposition party ready to disastertise everything, the NHS is being sold off, all the poor are starving, 1 in 4 children are in extreme poverty....and most people don't see this day to day. Deal with the world how it is, not how you want it to be.
The second point is that the (no doubt temporary) pause in their looting means that the wage growth of those otherwise employed is significantly understated.
Yet the underlying summary is that "if anything, Corbyn is just too perfect".
I agree with you that the lack of a competent opposition is a definite weakness, especially when we have a lot of difficult choices to make in the near future. The decisions will simply not be tested (other than by those loons in the ERG). This is asking for trouble.
Is it certain that we'll cut that tariff on cheddar? From what I can see it's more likely that we'll add a tariff to EU imports. The effect on EU dairy farmers is the same and from what he said yesterday their plan is to sell more to mainland Europe with different cheeses.
They have another shot at making huge inroads against Labour, simply by being vaguely competent and left wing without being far left lunatics. Starting from a very low ebb, though.
The problem is 90%+ of the public are not interested in politics day to day, we just want a quiet life and to be safe from crime. So a lot of people looked at this new way of doing things and thought "nah".
At the end of the day voters will look to parties than appear to be addressing talking about the issues, and offering “solutions” that matter to them and often will look to those issues exclusively. If you are a voter whose number one concern is crime on your local estate then you are going to look to parties talking about that. And the fact that those parties may be associated with all sorts of other appalling views and policies may not matter. Labour is simply not going to get a hearing if they don’t get back actively involved in these debates.
That kind of international campaigning would be better not linked to a particular party, so that pressure can be applied whoever is in government.
If on the other hand your response is to shout that the Government does not wants X at all, but actually has a secret agenda for something completely different then you will get nowhere. But at least you feel good.
That may well prove inadequate, but it’s hardly a step in the wrong direction.
I am however baffled how it shows anyone is insecure about anything. He's known as Boris, it is what people call him, what the hell does that have to do with inseurity? I could call him Prime Minister Johnson, BJ or fluffles posho the third, but none of those are what he is known as.
Because, yes, that broadband "policy" - oh dearie me. That did not tickle a single one of my toes. Quite the opposite. It - well whatever.
It’s just it will be the Liberal Democrats that do the breaking through...
Can it happen? A little more of this awfulness and yes, it is possible.
Is it likely? No, because Labour prize loyalty over principles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB4ITnO3J-Y
Shrugs.
Arise you sleeping yellow peril (even with your dodgy bar charts)
Surprised I tell you
https://www.facebook.com/alexhalligan123/
Martin McCauley is the best author to read on this if you want further clarification on it, particularly ‘Stalin and Stalinism.’
Like that. Your def, I mean, not so much the concept.
But what's a Leninist then? Cummings is one, apparently, and proudly so.
A Leninist is less clearly separated from a Marxist and there is so far as I know no one definition. Lenin remember did not carry out a formal long term programme of government as Stalin did, nor in the four and a half years he was actually in power did sufficiently normal conditions prevail for him to do so. I would tentatively define Leninism as believing that power should be sought for its own sake and then everything swept away and made anew. I could easily fit that to Cummings.
The Liberal Democrats need to stand on their own feet and win votes in their own right.
The question now is - how does Labour getting even worse affect those dynamics? A crap Labour leader like RLB, who sticks to the hard left stuff but goes a bit more Brexity means that a) liberal Tories who get a bit upset with Johnson can go Lib Dem safe in the knowledge there's no chance of a Labour govt. b) There's less reason for liberal-left types to stick with the party if it's polling awfully, more Brexity, still full of cranks, and led by the same cadre of self-serving Stalin fans.
Labour are in much deeper trouble than they realise. People won't wait forever if they look like continually compounding their uselessness.
Ruthie
I guess it's the last 6 words that are key here - everything swept away and made anew.
This distinguishes it from the purist "power for the sake of power" of the likes of Orwell's Big Brother - and arguably Simon Cowell - and the more prosaic and yet somehow just as pernicious "power for the sake of ME" of characters such as Donald Trump and his newly minted British equivalent, the politician known to one and all as "Boris".
I had a history teacher at school who was a lovely guy, but wholly believed there would one day be a revolution of the proletariat, was 100% in favour of Lenin's killings, and made no criticism of Stalin's that I can remember. In friendly company, when views of any stripe can get a tad gamey being a Stalinist isn't unrealistic.
There's probably 100s of examples really.
Gerry Adams instead of Adams etc.
Or are we back with Himmler liking children ?
"Great ball by Overmars. Bergkamp dummies it, and what a finish, THIERY Henry!"
Both these errors fall at the feet of Jo Swinson. Now the LibDems need to find a competent leader.
"Jo Swinson …. LOL"
Tiger Woods is nearly always Tiger Woods
Yet Federer for instance is nearly always Federer
Is it a slight bias to name full names when ethnic minorities involved? Also generally friendly people tend to just get their surname and people who are more self centred get the full name ? Also very personable people get their first name , reasonably personable people get their surname and less friendly ones full name?
100s like you say. Pointless to try and name them all but there must be a common thread. My sense is that it's to do with a combination of how the name sounds and how the person is viewed. I also sense that although this is not a trivial matter - far from it - it might not be possible, short of doing a doctorate in the subject, to nail it down.
>Can it happen? A little more of this awfulness and yes, it is possible.
>Is it likely? No, because Labour prize loyalty over principles.
Reading Lib Dem post-mortems, I think the biggest problem will be that they are congenitally a herd of cats, most of whom do not agree with each other.
The other issue I continue to see is that they have deliberately and carefully expressed contempt for half the electorate for several years.
As a leaver, and having voted Lib Dem occasionally in the past, why the f*ck would I consider voting Lib Dem any more after that performance?
As I see it, that will make them a party with a severely limited geographical spread.
They also seem to have evolved a more intolerant culture over recent years.