The double clown strategy. First a Corbyn, then someone even worse.
Difficult to disagree with that.
Labour are slightly hamstrung by the idea that they feel the 'need' to put a woman in the top post. The problem being that there's no one of any calibre. Yvette Cooper comes closest but as a Blairite there's little chance. Thornberry is marmite. Loved and hated. And that's it. I don't rate any of the other sisters I'm afraid.
They'd be far better to put a top bloke in there than install a token female. I mean, it hardly served the LibDems well did it?
One thing New Labour absolutely don’t get is voter frustration with mass immigration.
I’ve heard both Blair and Jim Murphy make good points in recent days about the lunacy of the far Left, and then throw in how good openness to immigration is for the economy and cultural enrichment.
Many political factions are incapable of learning lessons it seems.
Which touches on the fissure. Labour white working class men in the north (Flat Cap Fred) are basically Alf Garnett one step removed, and in private indistinguishable. They want their country back etc. etc.
Emily Thornberry may or may not have called them stupid but I can see her point. They are, at least, deluded. The chimera of Brexit will soon dash their dreams of a better life via Leaving the EU.
Cummings and Johnson knew all this, of course, and cynically manipulated it.
Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:
HILARIOUS!
LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
I think you're kind of missing the point. For a LOT of Labour people, Blair wasn't really Labour. Mandeleson's comment that he doesn't care if people get filthy rich would have been the final straw were it not for the trump card of all, the illegal Iraq War.
Blair is poison to most on the left. It doesn't matter if he 'won.' So did Thatcher. Doesn't mean she had social democratic or socialist principles.
All true, but Blair actually won elections and got to implement his manifesto, as opposed to every other Labour leader of the past 40 years, all of whom lost elections and got to watch the Conservatives in power.
So, do Labour want to win elections? Because if so, they'll need to find someone like Tony Blair.
Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:
HILARIOUS!
LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
I think you're kind of missing the point. For a LOT of Labour people, Blair wasn't really Labour. Mandeleson's comment that he doesn't care if people get filthy rich would have been the final straw were it not for the trump card of all, the illegal Iraq War.
Blair is poison to most on the left. It doesn't matter if he 'won.' So did Thatcher. Doesn't mean she had social democratic or socialist principles.
All true, but Blair actually won elections and got to implement his manifesto, as opposed to every other Labour leader of the past 40 years, all of whom lost elections and got to watch the Conservatives in power.
So, do Labour want to win elections? Because if so, they'll need to find someone like Tony Blair.
Clement Attlee won a landslide for Labour in 1945 and other Labour leaders have managed to combine sensible policies with a genuine belief in socialist principles.
I don't think many Labour people would be content to win at any cost. They've been there.
Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:
HILARIOUS!
LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
I think you're kind of missing the point. For a LOT of Labour people, Blair wasn't really Labour. Mandeleson's comment that he doesn't care if people get filthy rich would have been the final straw were it not for the trump card of all, the illegal Iraq War.
Blair is poison to most on the left. It doesn't matter if he 'won.' So did Thatcher. Doesn't mean she had social democratic or socialist principles.
All true, but Blair actually won elections and got to implement his manifesto, as opposed to every other Labour leader of the past 40 years, all of whom lost elections and got to watch the Conservatives in power.
So, do Labour want to win elections? Because if so, they'll need to find someone like Tony Blair.
As I said last night, I think Labour's plan now is to stay hard left and wait until the public are bored of the Tories. Then, when the people are finally exhausted of the wicked Tories, to be the only other game in town and win by default.
As a strategy I don't think it will work, surely a moderate centre left alternative will come along in the years (decades?) before that happens, but I think the far left have realised their best shot at power is to sit and wait in control of the Labour party and hope to get lucky. Eventually.
It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.
Exhibit one: the totally bonkers and righteously angry Laurie Penny. https://thebaffler.com/latest/necessary-anger-penny A complete failure to understand why calling people evil racist bigots doesn’t persuade them to vote for you.
She does actually state in it she gets that her anger is not something that should be led with when seeking votes, so she does at least get that much. But its still an epically long whinge of no greater substance than that she is mad her football team lost.
Although she also says a majority of women voted against the tories but I thought in the end it turned out that was not the case?
I’m not sure even Labour Party members see her as the second coming, and 5/2 is too short.
I've not got a Scooby about how this market is going to play out - it will all be about which factions and unions back which candidates, and very little to do with anything the candidates themselves do or say (unless they completely screw up). If St. Jeremy announces his backing for a candidate, it's going to be all over as a contest.
That said, 5/2 seems way too short for someone so lightweight.
Jeremy won't endorse anyone, nor I think will McDonnell. Everyone I know is reserving judgment (including me) until we've actually heard who the candidates are and what they say they want. There's a lot of spinning going on but no substance yet.
Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.
His odds were so long that I thought worth a punt as a long shot.
Labour need their Micheal Howard or John Smith before their Blair. Not Blair in terms of policy, but Blair in terms of charisma and appeal to a plurality of voters.
It may be too early but atm there is little sign that they have any understanding of what just happened to them. The voters gave the the dockside hooker treatment because the MPs gave in to the Momentum/Militant tendency. There will be no significant recovery till the party gets back towards the centre ground.
Yeah but it's not that simple. The Centre Ground isn't where a lot of the country currently sits. Half the country is pro-Brexit. If Labour move to the centre they're going to abandon the rest of their crumbling northern wall.
It is complicated - I voted remain myself but I think around 30% of the remainers like me have always accepted the 2016 result. The UK centre is clearly not where many on the left think it is. I feel we have to accept closure on Brexit probably for at least a decade. I'd obviously in my position like a close relationship with the EU at least with regard to those of us living in it. It takes two to tango - I'm not sure about the EU although I think my own residency in Spain remains very well disposed towards the UK. It is what it is.
Labour's strongest card is one they don't realise yet that they are holding.
I suspect that Brexit will be, if not a disaster then a long term dip. The markets are wising up to this and since the election have wobbled. The situation won't pick up for at least 5 years, probably 10 and may never recover.
There's every chance that Brexit will be an unmitigated disaster.
At some point during the next decade a half-decent Labour leader won't have to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
I’m not sure even Labour Party members see her as the second coming, and 5/2 is too short.
I've not got a Scooby about how this market is going to play out - it will all be about which factions and unions back which candidates, and very little to do with anything the candidates themselves do or say (unless they completely screw up). If St. Jeremy announces his backing for a candidate, it's going to be all over as a contest.
That said, 5/2 seems way too short for someone so lightweight.
Jeremy won't endorse anyone, nor I think will McDonnell. Everyone I know is reserving judgment (including me) until we've actually heard who the candidates are and what they say they want. There's a lot of spinning going on but no substance yet.
Thanks for the updates Nick, glad we have some people on here who understand the Kremlinology!
Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:
HILARIOUS!
LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
I think you're kind of missing the point. For a LOT of Labour people, Blair wasn't really Labour. Mandeleson's comment that he doesn't care if people get filthy rich would have been the final straw were it not for the trump card of all, the illegal Iraq War.
Blair is poison to most on the left. It doesn't matter if he 'won.' So did Thatcher. Doesn't mean she had social democratic or socialist principles.
All true, but Blair actually won elections and got to implement his manifesto, as opposed to every other Labour leader of the past 40 years, all of whom lost elections and got to watch the Conservatives in power.
So, do Labour want to win elections? Because if so, they'll need to find someone like Tony Blair.
As I said last night, I think Labour's plan now is to stay hard left and wait until the public are bored of the Tories. Then, when the people are finally exhausted of the wicked Tories, to be the only other game in town and win by default.
As a strategy I don't think it will work, surely a moderate centre left alternative will come along in the years (decades?) before that happens, but I think the far left have realised their best shot at power is to sit and wait in control of the Labour party and hope to get lucky. Eventually.
Given the size of the Tory majority, another left winger in the Corbyn mould would surely see those clinging to the Labour franchise actually leave it to the socialists. They have 5 years to make the Lib Dems the second party, or even set up a new one without being seen as anti democrats who only care about overturning a vote they lost (and promised to honour)
Rebecca who? Are the membership who voted for Corbyn twice, really going to go for such an utter lightweight?
Do they realise that, in order to win an election and govern, they have to persuade and win over a couple of million people who just voted for the blue team, not simply their own fanatical membership?
I wonder if it isn't so much 'getting back' voters who switched, as recovering those who didn't vote at all. Or, of course, encouraging younger voters.Turnout was just over 67%, about 1.3% down on 2017. Indeed turnout in this century has generally been down on that at the end of the last, and the 80+% of the 1950's seem an unattainable dream. Is there a case for compulsory voting, as in Australia?
Compulsory voting is an abomination. If politicians don’t offer anything the public wants to vote for, the pressure should be on the politicians to do better, not force the public to buy something they don’t want.
I agree. While that will in effect be counted as accepting the status quo that is far preferable to forcing people to make a choice when they do not want to.
Compulsory voting, for me, is taking entirely the wrong message from a problem, in this case concerns over turnout. The solution is to make people want to turnout, but that's hard, so just force them to.
Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.
His odds were so long that I thought worth a punt as a long shot.
Labour need their Micheal Howard or John Smith before their Blair. Not Blair in terms of policy, but Blair in terms of charisma and appeal to a plurality of voters.
It may be too early but atm there is little sign that they have any understanding of what just happened to them. The voters gave the the dockside hooker treatment because the MPs gave in to the Momentum/Militant tendency. There will be no significant recovery till the party gets back towards the centre ground.
Yeah but it's not that simple. The Centre Ground isn't where a lot of the country currently sits. Half the country is pro-Brexit. If Labour move to the centre they're going to abandon the rest of their crumbling northern wall.
That northern wall just got trashed by a beast spouting blue fire. And it is getting lined up to come round for another go.....
Meanwhile, the defenders on the wall eschew heavy weaponry, continuing instead to make yet another batch of snowballs....
Rebecca who? Are the membership who voted for Corbyn twice, really going to go for such an utter lightweight?
Do they realise that, in order to win an election and govern, they have to persuade and win over a couple of million people who just voted for the blue team, not simply their own fanatical membership?
How many members of the public knew who Corbyn was when the process started in 2015? About the same as RLB now would be my guess. It's not a barrier to success. Her policies, however, could be.
I'd never heard of him in 2015. Itd be nice if he returned to such obscurity but given most of the candidates seen to agree his policies were fantastic he is going to be the adored party grandee now as no one serious as a contender will call him out.
I love Mary Archer’s description of her husband having a “gift for inaccurate précis”!
Archer told the story (against himself) that when he told an astonished interlocutor that Mary had accepted his marriage proposal the response was “I hope your children have her looks and her brains”!
So everything everybody hears on the doorstep seems to confirm their existing priors. Is everybody full of shit about what they're hearing or are the voters trying to be friendly and reflecting their opinions back at them?
One thing New Labour absolutely don’t get is voter frustration with mass immigration.
I’ve heard both Blair and Jim Murphy make good points in recent days about the lunacy of the far Left, and then throw in how good openness to immigration is for the economy and cultural enrichment.
Many political factions are incapable of learning lessons it seems.
I have heard the Tories make the same point about openness to immigration for the economy and cultural enrichment as recently as a couple of weeks ago. There is a disconnect there too.
It is a sense of loss of community that drives anti immigrant sentiment. This is part of the paradox that areas where there has been insignificant inward migration and even a declining population can be very hardline on the issue.
The loss of community inherent in the loss of jobs for life in manufacturing industry and large employers causes collateral damage to social solidarity, whether in the High St, church or Trade Union. It is simply much harder to feel a sense of social solidarity working in a call centre than down the pit or in a steelworks or factory.
This leaves nationalism as one of the few areas of fraying social solidarity, but even that "imagined community" is under threat, and fraying or split.
When considering Cummings vs. MoD I experience a similar emotional pang to watching Man Utd vs Chelsea: it's a shame they both can't lose.
I see no reason they could not both lose. He could mess things up significantly without achieving him aim for instance
Defence spending is one massive money-eating black hole at the moment, it would be pretty difficult to make it any worse from the government's point of view. Much more procurement could be done off-the-shelf, rather than endlessly trying to reinvent the wheel.
One thing New Labour absolutely don’t get is voter frustration with mass immigration.
I’ve heard both Blair and Jim Murphy make good points in recent days about the lunacy of the far Left, and then throw in how good openness to immigration is for the economy and cultural enrichment.
Many political factions are incapable of learning lessons it seems.
I have heard the Tories make the same point about openness to immigration for the economy and cultural enrichment as recently as a couple of weeks ago. There is a disconnect there too.
It is a sense of loss of community that drives anti immigrant sentiment. This is part of the paradox that areas where there has been insignificant inward migration and even a declining population can be very hardline on the issue.
The loss of community inherent in the loss of jobs for life in manufacturing industry and large employers causes collateral damage to social solidarity, whether in the High St, church or Trade Union. It is simply much harder to feel a sense of social solidarity working in a call centre than down the pit or in a steelworks or factory.
This leaves nationalism as one of the few areas of fraying social solidarity, but even that "imagined community" is under threat, and fraying or split.
Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:
HILARIOUS!
LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
I think you're kind of missing the point. For a LOT of Labour people, Blair wasn't really Labour. Mandeleson's comment that he doesn't care if people get filthy rich would have been the final straw were it not for the trump card of all, the illegal Iraq War.
Blair is poison to most on the left. It doesn't matter if he 'won.' So did Thatcher. Doesn't mean she had social democratic or socialist principles.
All true, but Blair actually won elections and got to implement his manifesto, as opposed to every other Labour leader of the past 40 years, all of whom lost elections and got to watch the Conservatives in power.
So, do Labour want to win elections? Because if so, they'll need to find someone like Tony Blair.
Clement Attlee won a landslide for Labour in 1945 and other Labour leaders have managed to combine sensible policies with a genuine belief in socialist principles.
Precisely one Labour leader, other than those two, has won a general election (discounting Macdonald in the 1920s, who had two spells of minority government). That man was Harold Wilson, who was elected Labour leader 56 years ago. He was also the last Labour leader other than Blair to exceed a 40% share of the national popular vote, and the last Labour leader other than Blair to win more than 270 seats at a general election, which he did on five occasions.
In that same 56 year period, five Tory leaders have won overall majorities and six have achieved 40% or more of the popular vote. How centrist four of those six were is of course another question.
That suggests to me that strategies other than Blair’s not only do not work, but have not done so for a very long time. Maybe it would be better to try a variation on his strategy, rather than say something that hasn’t worked for over fifty years might still work if we give it another chance?
The double clown strategy. First a Corbyn, then someone even worse.
Difficult to disagree with that.
Labour are slightly hamstrung by the idea that they feel the 'need' to put a woman in the top post. The problem being that there's no one of any calibre. Yvette Cooper comes closest but as a Blairite there's little chance. Thornberry is marmite. Loved and hated. And that's it. I don't rate any of the other sisters I'm afraid.
They'd be far better to put a top bloke in there than install a token female. I mean, it hardly served the LibDems well did it?
Rachel Reeves? Female, young-ish. Not “tainted” by Blair/brown years. Took precaution of sitting out some of Corbynite period having children. Chair of select committee.
All true, but Blair actually won elections and got to implement his manifesto, as opposed to every other Labour leader of the past 40 years, all of whom lost elections and got to watch the Conservatives in power.
So, do Labour want to win elections? Because if so, they'll need to find someone like Tony Blair.
As I said last night, I think Labour's plan now is to stay hard left and wait until the public are bored of the Tories. Then, when the people are finally exhausted of the wicked Tories, to be the only other game in town and win by default.
As a strategy I don't think it will work, surely a moderate centre left alternative will come along in the years (decades?) before that happens, but I think the far left have realised their best shot at power is to sit and wait in control of the Labour party and hope to get lucky. Eventually.
Given the size of the Tory majority, another left winger in the Corbyn mould would surely see those clinging to the Labour franchise actually leave it to the socialists. They have 5 years to make the Lib Dems the second party, or even set up a new one without being seen as anti democrats who only care about overturning a vote they lost (and promised to honour)
By retaining control of the Labour party, the far left have the best chance of being in power they will ever have. If they cede control of that power, their chance is gone for a generation or more.
So long as Labour remain the main party of opposition, they have a chance, however slim. A whopping recession. A disastrous brexit. The dog days of twenty years of Tory rule marred by scandal and incompetence. Who knows. As long as they are the alternative, they have a chance.
They might even have a chance if moderate Labour split. Let's imagine this "blue labour" takes more votes away from the Tories and Lib dems than it does from Labour (I'm assuming anyone still voting Labour broadly agrees with Corbynism). It's possible under FPTP to win a majority at around 30% under a 4 way split.
We think the far left are stupid, but they have learned their lessons from 1983 and beyond. They will not let go of the Labour party this time, not so long as it remains a plausible route into power.
Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:
HILARIOUS!
LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
I think you're kind of missing the point. For a LOT of Labour people, Blair wasn't really Labour. Mandeleson's comment that he doesn't care if people get filthy rich would have been the final straw were it not for the trump card of all, the illegal Iraq War.
Blair is poison to most on the left. It doesn't matter if he 'won.' So did Thatcher. Doesn't mean she had social democratic or socialist principles.
All true, but Blair actually won elections and got to implement his manifesto, as opposed to every other Labour leader of the past 40 years, all of whom lost elections and got to watch the Conservatives in power.
So, do Labour want to win elections? Because if so, they'll need to find someone like Tony Blair.
Or concede tory government is not that bad as its not worth compromising to prevent.
It's the same as those who criticised no deal but would not have done anything to stop it, or people like Phillip's moaning occasionally about Corbyn while doing nothing - if you mean what you say, in this case about Tories being evil and needing a labour government, small compromises should not be a line you cannot cross in order to win.
I lived in Sunderland around 1960 and knew of many people 'who'd been' on the Jarrow March. One or two of them had been.
Born there in 1954 and well remember the 1964 GE when the Tories lost Sunderland south. Been Labour ever since but all 3 Sunderland seats could have gone on the 12th had the Brexit party not stood. I think the NE is finally changing.
Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:
HILARIOUS!
LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
I think you're kind of missing the point. For a LOT of Labour people, Blair wasn't really Labour. Mandeleson's comment that he doesn't care if people get filthy rich would have been the final straw were it not for the trump card of all, the illegal Iraq War.
Blair is poison to most on the left. It doesn't matter if he 'won.' So did Thatcher. Doesn't mean she had social democratic or socialist principles.
All true, but Blair actually won elections and got to implement his manifesto, as opposed to every other Labour leader of the past 40 years, all of whom lost elections and got to watch the Conservatives in power.
So, do Labour want to win elections? Because if so, they'll need to find someone like Tony Blair.
Clement Attlee won a landslide for Labour in 1945 and other Labour leaders have managed to combine sensible policies with a genuine belief in socialist principles.
I don't think many Labour people would be content to win at any cost. They've been there.
It doesnt have to be at any cost. But some cost at least?
I begin to like her even more than I do her sensible policies on lifelong learning, which are unfortunately balanced by a lack of understanding of school systems.
I have an eight foot horn to go and play with. Have a good morning.
I lived in Sunderland around 1960 and knew of many people 'who'd been' on the Jarrow March. One or two of them had been.
That's like Ian Botham's story that many times more people have told him over the years that they were at Headingly for the last day of the 1981 Ashes Test, than could possibly have been in the ground that day.
Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:
HILARIOUS!
LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
I think you're kind of missing the point. For a LOT of Labour people, Blair wasn't really Labour. Mandeleson's comment that he doesn't care if people get filthy rich would have been the final straw were it not for the trump card of all, the illegal Iraq War.
Blair is poison to most on the left. It doesn't matter if he 'won.' So did Thatcher. Doesn't mean she had social democratic or socialist principles.
All true, but Blair actually won elections and got to implement his manifesto, as opposed to every other Labour leader of the past 40 years, all of whom lost elections and got to watch the Conservatives in power.
So, do Labour want to win elections? Because if so, they'll need to find someone like Tony Blair.
Clement Attlee won a landslide for Labour in 1945 and other Labour leaders have managed to combine sensible policies with a genuine belief in socialist principles.
Precisely one Labour leader, other than those two, has won a general election (discounting Macdonald in the 1920s, who had two spells of minority government). That man was Harold Wilson, who was elected Labour leader 56 years ago. He was also the last Labour leader other than Blair to exceed a 40% share of the national popular vote, and the last Labour leader other than Blair to win more than 270 seats at a general election, which he did on five occasions.
In that same 56 year period, five Tory leaders have won overall majorities and six have achieved 40% or more of the popular vote. How centrist four of those six were is of course another question.
That suggests to me that strategies other than Blair’s not only do not work, but have not done so for a very long time. Maybe it would be better to try a variation on his strategy, rather than say something that hasn’t worked for over fifty years might still work if we give it another chance?
The lesson is that you have to have a strategy of seeking to attract potential Tory voters. The starting point for this has to be to engage with those people. And yes, that includes engaging with the media that deliver their news and political messaging. When all we here from Labour is “f off and join the Tories” they are screwed.
I begin to like her even more than I do her sensible policies on lifelong learning, which are unfortunately balanced by a lack of understanding of school systems.
I have an eight foot horn to go and play with. Have a good morning.
Or whoever runs her twitter account does at least. I cannot recall any big Rayner gaffes so if she has them theyve not stuck, she doesn't come across badly, and the one thing I know about her, rising to be a senior mp despite not having oodles of education is a positive brand.
I lived in Sunderland around 1960 and knew of many people 'who'd been' on the Jarrow March. One or two of them had been.
That's like Ian Botham's story that many times more people have told him over the years that they were at Headingly for the last day of the 1981 Ashes Test, than could possibly have been in the ground that day.
Especially as if you watch the highlights you can see that the ground was still half empty!
Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:
HILARIOUS!
LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
I think you're kind of missing the point. For a LOT of Labour people, Blair wasn't really Labour. Mandeleson's comment that he doesn't care if people get filthy rich would have been the final straw were it not for the trump card of all, the illegal Iraq War.
Blair is poison to most on the left. It doesn't matter if he 'won.' So did Thatcher. Doesn't mean she had social democratic or socialist principles.
Poison to Labour Party members/activists, or poison to (potential) Labour Party voters?
Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:
HILARIOUS!
LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
I think you're kind of missing the point. For a LOT of Labour people, Blair wasn't really Labour. Mandeleson's comment that he doesn't care if people get filthy rich would have been the final straw were it not for the trump card of all, the illegal Iraq War.
Blair is poison to most on the left. It doesn't matter if he 'won.' So did Thatcher. Doesn't mean she had social democratic or socialist principles.
Then Labour as a party of government is over. You cannot win from the hard left or hard right. If Blairite Centre Left government - and ALL that it achieved for people in these communities is no different than Thatcherism then its done.
I am in absolute agreement that Labour have been punished in their former Red Wall because not enough material change has been made. But with respect to it thats not the fault of national government, its local and regional Labour politicians happy to sit back doing nothing whilst thinking "just blame the Tories" is enough to get them personally re-elected. I've seen and heard it. When we took unexpected council seats in 2015 we were told we had no rights to expect any help keeping them, "but don't worry we'll always keep our heartland seats and that will keep us in power".
Such dripping disdain for the electorate. I love John Harris's stuff in the Guardian - video from Wrexham straight after the election with someone complaining about Labour - "they've been in office for 20 years in Wales and say its all Westminster's fault". Same with the woman doing the rounds on Twitter having voted Tory in Leigh "for a change". But the Tories have been in power for 9 years protests the interviewer - "not in Leigh they haven't"
I lived in Sunderland around 1960 and knew of many people 'who'd been' on the Jarrow March. One or two of them had been.
Born there in 1954 and well remember the 1964 GE when the Tories lost Sunderland south. Been Labour ever since but all 3 Sunderland seats could have gone on the 12th had the Brexit party not stood. I think the NE is finally changing.
Just had a look. The old Sunderland S seat had been marginal for a couple of elections until the Tories won it at a by-election in 1953. The rather right-wing (according to Wikipedia) Paul Williams held it until 1964, It remained marginal until 1966.
I lived in Sunderland around 1960 and knew of many people 'who'd been' on the Jarrow March. One or two of them had been.
That's like Ian Botham's story that many times more people have told him over the years that they were at Headingly for the last day of the 1981 Ashes Test, than could possibly have been in the ground that day.
Especially as if you watch the highlights you can see that the ground was still half empty!
Yep, it was a small ground and half empty, can't have been more than six or seven thousand actually there on the Tuesday afternoon that was the final day.
Labour's strongest card is one they don't realise yet that they are holding.
I suspect that Brexit will be, if not a disaster then a long term dip. The markets are wising up to this and since the election have wobbled. The situation won't pick up for at least 5 years, probably 10 and may never recover.
There's every chance that Brexit will be an unmitigated disaster.
At some point during the next decade a half-decent Labour leader won't have to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
I suspect Johnson will want to mitigate his disaster, despite his current rhetoric. Nevertheless the Johnson regime is shaping up to be highly despotic and he doesn't normally face up to his responsibilities, so who knows?
All true, but Blair actually won elections and got to implement his manifesto, as opposed to every other Labour leader of the past 40 years, all of whom lost elections and got to watch the Conservatives in power.
So, do Labour want to win elections? Because if so, they'll need to find someone like Tony Blair.
As I said last night, I think Labour's plan now is to stay hard left and wait until the public are bored of the Tories. Then, when the people are finally exhausted of the wicked Tories, to be the only other game in town and win by default.
As a strategy I don't think it will work, surely a moderate centre left alternative will come along in the years (decades?) before that happens, but I think the far left have realised their best shot at power is to sit and wait in control of the Labour party and hope to get lucky. Eventually.
Given the size of the Tory majority, another left winger in the Corbyn mould would surely see those clinging to the Labour franchise actually leave it to the socialists. They have 5 years to make the Lib Dems the second party, or even set up a new one without being seen as anti democrats who only care about overturning a vote they lost (and promised to honour)
By retaining control of the Labour party, the far left have the best chance of being in power they will ever have. If they cede control of that power, their chance is gone for a generation or more.
So long as Labour remain the main party of opposition, they have a chance, however slim. A whopping recession. A disastrous brexit. The dog days of twenty years of Tory rule marred by scandal and incompetence. Who knows. As long as they are the alternative, they have a chance.
They might even have a chance if moderate Labour split. Let's imagine this "blue labour" takes more votes away from the Tories and Lib dems than it does from Labour (I'm assuming anyone still voting Labour broadly agrees with Corbynism). It's possible under FPTP to win a majority at around 30% under a 4 way split.
We think the far left are stupid, but they have learned their lessons from 1983 and beyond. They will not let go of the Labour party this time, not so long as it remains a plausible route into power.
Yes, what I mean is the people who like to think of themselves as moderate and centrist should leave if a Corbynite wins the leadership contest. They would surely by then be an alcoholic reaching rock bottom, and have five years to reinvent themselves in a new party.
"Blue Labour" voters would have voted for Boris I reckon. Corbyn is probably more in tune with them than the Starmer/Phillips/Thornberry types
Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.
His odds were so long that I thought worth a punt as a long shot.
Labour need their Micheal Howard or John Smith before their Blair. Not Blair in terms of policy, but Blair in terms of charisma and appeal to a plurality of voters.
It may be too early but atm there is little sign that they have any understanding of what just happened to them. The voters gave the the dockside hooker treatment because the MPs gave in to the Momentum/Militant tendency. There will be no significant recovery till the party gets back towards the centre ground.
Yeah but it's not that simple. The Centre Ground isn't where a lot of the country currently sits. Half the country is pro-Brexit. If Labour move to the centre they're going to abandon the rest of their crumbling northern wall.
The Red Wall is the very definition of the centre ground. Working people who are economically progressive and socially conservative. Blair got it instinctively - "Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime". Yet what do we see these days? Labour politicians attacking anyone who wants to be tough on crime - "Tory values".
Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.
His odds were so long that I thought worth a punt as a long shot.
Labour need their Micheal Howard or John Smith before their Blair. Not Blair in terms of policy, but Blair in terms of charisma and appeal to a plurality of voters.
It may be too early but atm there is little sign that they have any understanding of what just happened to them. The voters gave the the dockside hooker treatment because the MPs gave in to the Momentum/Militant tendency. There will be no significant recovery till the party gets back towards the centre ground.
Yeah but it's not that simple. The Centre Ground isn't where a lot of the country currently sits. Half the country is pro-Brexit. If Labour move to the centre they're going to abandon the rest of their crumbling northern wall.
The Red Wall is the very definition of the centre ground. Working people who are economically progressive and socially conservative. Blair got it instinctively - "Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime". Yet what do we see these days? Labour politicians attacking anyone who wants to be tough on crime - "Tory values".
When ChangeUK/TIG etc started, Matthew Goodwin said the gap in the market for a new party is where you state; "economically progressive and socially conservative." A total misreading from Chuka, Soubry et al. Boris and Cummings seemed to understand it.
I lived in Sunderland around 1960 and knew of many people 'who'd been' on the Jarrow March. One or two of them had been.
That's like Ian Botham's story that many times more people have told him over the years that they were at Headingly for the last day of the 1981 Ashes Test, than could possibly have been in the ground that day.
Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.
His odds were so long that I thought worth a punt as a long shot.
Labour need their Micheal Howard or John Smith before their Blair. Not Blair in terms of policy, but Blair in terms of charisma and appeal to a plurality of voters.
Labour needs a Kinnock before their Smith replacement - the party first has to be made electable with the unelectable parties either removed or put back in their place.
I was going to rejoin to vote for a sensible leader but hesitated because I can't even see a Kinnock let alone a Smith/Blair figure even likely to be in the running, let alone with a chance of winning.
The Momentum take over has just about seen off anybody with any credibility or stature. I can't see Labour winning a GE for at least 10 years. The loss of 45 seats in Scotland is making it an uphill struggle for anyone. A Corbyn-lite leader hasn't got a hope.
I begin to like her even more than I do her sensible policies on lifelong learning, which are unfortunately balanced by a lack of understanding of school systems.
I have an eight foot horn to go and play with. Have a good morning.
Or whoever runs her twitter account does at least. I cannot recall any big Rayner gaffes so if she has them theyve not stuck, she doesn't come across badly, and the one thing I know about her, rising to be a senior mp despite not having oodles of education is a positive brand.
I think my ex girlfriends brother works for her. If we were still in touch I'd try and get some info. But that is not an option!
Labour's strongest card is one they don't realise yet that they are holding.
I suspect that Brexit will be, if not a disaster then a long term dip. The markets are wising up to this and since the election have wobbled. The situation won't pick up for at least 5 years, probably 10 and may never recover.
There's every chance that Brexit will be an unmitigated disaster.
At some point during the next decade a half-decent Labour leader won't have to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
I suspect Johnson will want to mitigate his disaster, despite his current rhetoric. Nevertheless the Johnson regime is shaping up to be highly despotic and he doesn't normally face up to his responsibilities, so who knows?
of course.. it might be the re-making of the UK... who kniows
Labour's strongest card is one they don't realise yet that they are holding.
I suspect that Brexit will be, if not a disaster then a long term dip. The markets are wising up to this and since the election have wobbled. The situation won't pick up for at least 5 years, probably 10 and may never recover.
There's every chance that Brexit will be an unmitigated disaster.
At some point during the next decade a half-decent Labour leader won't have to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
I'm an ex-member and I see Labour under Corbyn as culpable for Brexit as the Tories so I don't see how that works. You cannot be an enabler for Brexit at the time and then pretend you wanted to remain if it goes belly up
I begin to like her even more than I do her sensible policies on lifelong learning, which are unfortunately balanced by a lack of understanding of school systems.
I have an eight foot horn to go and play with. Have a good morning.
I’m afraid that she gives every impression of not being very bright. Cunning, perhaps. The defence wheeled out is that she is ill-educated but clever although evidence of that in practice seems thin on the ground. She’s no Bevin. Or even John Major.
Labour's strongest card is one they don't realise yet that they are holding.
I suspect that Brexit will be, if not a disaster then a long term dip. The markets are wising up to this and since the election have wobbled. The situation won't pick up for at least 5 years, probably 10 and may never recover.
There's every chance that Brexit will be an unmitigated disaster.
At some point during the next decade a half-decent Labour leader won't have to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
I suspect Johnson will want to mitigate his disaster, despite his current rhetoric. Nevertheless the Johnson regime is shaping up to be highly despotic and he doesn't normally face up to his responsibilities, so who knows?
of course.. it might be the re-making of the UK... who kniows
You mean an unmitigated Brexit disaster will be the remaking of the UK? Hard to see that, but, hey. As I say, I suspect Johnson is too much in love with his own premiership not to mitigate. Revolutions have a habit of eating their own children.
Labour's strongest card is one they don't realise yet that they are holding.
I suspect that Brexit will be, if not a disaster then a long term dip. The markets are wising up to this and since the election have wobbled. The situation won't pick up for at least 5 years, probably 10 and may never recover.
There's every chance that Brexit will be an unmitigated disaster.
At some point during the next decade a half-decent Labour leader won't have to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
I suspect Johnson will want to mitigate his disaster, despite his current rhetoric. Nevertheless the Johnson regime is shaping up to be highly despotic and he doesn't normally face up to his responsibilities, so who knows?
“Despotic”. Step back from the keyboard and visit reality.
Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.
His odds were so long that I thought worth a punt as a long shot.
Labour need their Micheal Howard or John Smith before their Blair. Not Blair in terms of policy, but Blair in terms of charisma and appeal to a plurality of voters.
It may be too early but atm there is little sign that they have any understanding of what just happened to them. The voters gave the the dockside hooker treatment because the MPs gave in to the Momentum/Militant tendency. There will be no significant recovery till the party gets back towards the centre ground.
Yeah but it's not that simple. The Centre Ground isn't where a lot of the country currently sits. Half the country is pro-Brexit. If Labour move to the centre they're going to abandon the rest of their crumbling northern wall.
The Red Wall is the very definition of the centre ground. Working people who are economically progressive and socially conservative. Blair got it instinctively - "Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime". Yet what do we see these days? Labour politicians attacking anyone who wants to be tough on crime - "Tory values".
When ChangeUK/TIG etc started, Matthew Goodwin said the gap in the market for a new party is where you state; "economically progressive and socially conservative." A total misreading from Chuka, Soubry et al. Boris and Cummings seemed to understand it.
Cummings is a classic political strategist. His objective is victori in whatever the current battle is. Johnson wants to be PM. Cummings paints him a picture of how to be for a decade, Johnson says "great". I don't think Shagger has the first clue how normal people live, but then again neither do the Labour lot.
Opportunity Knocks for the Tories here. They have said the Right Things. If they can actually deliver even a basic framework of what people want, they will win the next couple of elections. Their known Elephant is Brexit. People want "it", "it being the silver bullet to cure their lives of all the things they don't entirely understand. Johnson knows that "IT" will make their lives worse not better.
The test of Johnson will be delivering a softer than soft Brexit in 2020 and persuading his supporters that it is the harder than hard Brexit they have fixated about these last few months. If he can persuade the Hannan-ite leavers that EEA is OK (as Hannan said over and over and over) then Johnson delivers Brexit (meand Brexit), avoids chlorine chicken, gives voters the semblance of Freedom, and wins big.
Labour's strongest card is one they don't realise yet that they are holding.
I suspect that Brexit will be, if not a disaster then a long term dip. The markets are wising up to this and since the election have wobbled. The situation won't pick up for at least 5 years, probably 10 and may never recover.
There's every chance that Brexit will be an unmitigated disaster.
At some point during the next decade a half-decent Labour leader won't have to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
I suspect Johnson will want to mitigate his disaster, despite his current rhetoric. Nevertheless the Johnson regime is shaping up to be highly despotic and he doesn't normally face up to his responsibilities, so who knows?
of course.. it might be the re-making of the UK... who kniows
You mean an unmitigated Brexit disaster will be the remaking of the UK? Hard to see that, but, hey. As I say, I suspect Johnson is too much in love with his own premiership not to mitigate. Revolutions have a habit of eating their own children.
no just Brexit,.. everyone is assuming it will be a disaster(it probably will be) .. but it might not be.....
Imagine if the Conservative Party had been seized by a libertarian faction ideologically committed to a flat tax of 20%, the privatisation of the NHS and the abandonment of state education provision.
Imagine that the Conservatives had just lost two elections in a row by standing on this platform.
Now imagine that every contender for the Conservative leadership feels the need to reaffirm their belief in massive tax cuts for the rich and the immediate dismantling of the NHS in order to be electable.
That's the equivalent of where Labour are now. It is absolute madness, but nonetheless, that is where we are.
Who will stand up and tell the emperor he has no clothes?
All true, but Blair actually won elections and got to implement his manifesto, as opposed to every other Labour leader of the past 40 years, all of whom lost elections and got to watch the Conservatives in power.
So, do Labour want to win elections? Because if so, they'll need to find someone like Tony Blair.
As I said last night, I think Labour's plan now is to stay hard left and wait until the public are bored of the Tories. Then, when the people are finally exhausted of the wicked Tories, to be the only other game in town and win by default.
As a strategy I don't think it will work, surely a moderate centre left alternative will come along in the years (decades?) before that happens, but I think the far left have realised their best shot at power is to sit and wait in control of the Labour party and hope to get lucky. Eventually.
Given the size of the Tory majority, another left winger in the Corbyn mould would surely see those clinging to the Labour franchise actually leave it to the socialists. They have 5 years to make the Lib Dems the second party, or even set up a new one without being seen as anti democrats who only care about overturning a vote they lost (and promised to honour)
By retaining control of the Labour party, the far left have the best chance of being in power they will ever have. If they cede control of that power, their chance is gone for a generation or more.
So long as Labour remain the main party of opposition, they have a chance, however slim. A whopping recession. A disastrous brexit. The dog days of twenty years of Tory rule marred by scandal and incompetence. Who knows. As long as they are the alternative, they have a chance.
They might even have a chance if moderate Labour split. Let's imagine this "blue labour" takes more votes away from the Tories and Lib dems than it does from Labour (I'm assuming anyone still voting Labour broadly agrees with Corbynism). It's possible under FPTP to win a majority at around 30% under a 4 way split.
We think the far left are stupid, but they have learned their lessons from 1983 and beyond. They will not let go of the Labour party this time, not so long as it remains a plausible route into power.
I think you may be right, under our archaic election system both the options available are always in with a chance. Tories had better hope that things don't go disastrously wrong for them in the next few years or their beloved unrepresentative election system might bite them well and truly on the ar*e. A Marxist government with 35% of the vote!
These tediously predictable attacks on Blair wilfully ignore his progressive and indeed ‘socialist’ achievements, which include securing the future of the NHS (which had the Tories won in 1997 would have been heading for privatisation), the minimum wage (which the Tories opposed bitterly) and a massive cultural shift which reversed the homophobia of the Major regime.
The basic lesson for Labour is you have to create a platform capable of winning an election if you want to change the lives of the people you ostensibly care about.
Imagine if the Conservative Party had been seized by a libertarian faction ideologically committed to a flat tax of 20%, the privatisation of the NHS and the abandonment of state education provision.
Imagine that the Conservatives had just lost two elections in a row by standing on this platform.
Now imagine that every contender for the Conservative leadership feels the need to reaffirm their belief in massive tax cuts for the rich and the immediate dismantling of the NHS in order to be electable.
That's the equivalent of where Labour are now. It is absolute madness, but nonetheless, that is where we are.
Who will stand up and tell the emperor he has no clothes?
I wonder if Blair mightleave or be kicked out of Labour in the next few years, if they do pick another Corbynite (and most of them appear to be appealing for Corbynite votes, understandably as that is the selectorate) - at some point his heresy of attacking, even obliquely, the great JC and his policies, will surely be too much for the party to accept. After all, what did he ever achieve for people?
Imagine if the Conservative Party had been seized by a libertarian faction ideologically committed to a flat tax of 20%, the privatisation of the NHS and the abandonment of state education provision.
Imagine that the Conservatives had just lost two elections in a row by standing on this platform.
Now imagine that every contender for the Conservative leadership feels the need to reaffirm their belief in massive tax cuts for the rich and the immediate dismantling of the NHS in order to be electable.
That's the equivalent of where Labour are now. It is absolute madness, but nonetheless, that is where we are.
Who will stand up and tell the emperor he has no clothes?
Tony Blair. But no one will listen.
From reading the output of numerous lefty commentators over the past ten days, they're very much still at the first stage of grief.
Imagine if the Conservative Party had been seized by a libertarian faction ideologically committed to a flat tax of 20%, the privatisation of the NHS and the abandonment of state education provision.
Imagine that the Conservatives had just lost two elections in a row by standing on this platform.
Now imagine that every contender for the Conservative leadership feels the need to reaffirm their belief in massive tax cuts for the rich and the immediate dismantling of the NHS in order to be electable.
That's the equivalent of where Labour are now. It is absolute madness, but nonetheless, that is where we are.
Who will stand up and tell the emperor he has no clothes?
Fundamentally the Conservatives are simply better at politics than the Labour Party, and a hell of a lot more ruthless when it comes to resolving political problems.
Tony Blair's catastrophic mistake was Iraq. It upset a lot of people who would otherwise have been tolerant of him, and it wasn't just the immediate action; it was what ensued.
Imagine if the Conservative Party had been seized by a libertarian faction ideologically committed to a flat tax of 20%, the privatisation of the NHS and the abandonment of state education provision.
Imagine that the Conservatives had just lost two elections in a row by standing on this platform.
Now imagine that every contender for the Conservative leadership feels the need to reaffirm their belief in massive tax cuts for the rich and the immediate dismantling of the NHS in order to be electable.
That's the equivalent of where Labour are now. It is absolute madness, but nonetheless, that is where we are.
Who will stand up and tell the emperor he has no clothes?
Tony Blair. But no one will listen.
To the naked that's an affirmation of their strategy
I wonder if Blair mightleave or be kicked out of Labour in the next few years, if they do pick another Corbynite (and most of them appear to be appealing for Corbynite votes, understandably as that is the selectorate) - at some point his heresy of attacking, even obliquely, the great JC and his policies, will surely be too much for the party to accept. After all, what did he ever achieve for people?
When considering Cummings vs. MoD I experience a similar emotional pang to watching Man Utd vs Chelsea: it's a shame they both can't lose.
I see no reason they could not both lose. He could mess things up significantly without achieving him aim for instance
Defence spending is one massive money-eating black hole at the moment, it would be pretty difficult to make it any worse from the government's point of view. Much more procurement could be done off-the-shelf, rather than endlessly trying to reinvent the wheel.
Every government since WW2 has used defence procurement as a digging-holes-and-filling-them-in job creation exercise. Not even somebody as energetically psychotic as Cummings is going to change that.
Tony Blair's catastrophic mistake was Iraq. It upset a lot of people who would otherwise have been tolerant of him, and it wasn't just the immediate action; it was what ensued.
Labour's strongest card is one they don't realise yet that they are holding.
I suspect that Brexit will be, if not a disaster then a long term dip. The markets are wising up to this and since the election have wobbled. The situation won't pick up for at least 5 years, probably 10 and may never recover.
There's every chance that Brexit will be an unmitigated disaster.
At some point during the next decade a half-decent Labour leader won't have to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
I suspect Johnson will want to mitigate his disaster, despite his current rhetoric. Nevertheless the Johnson regime is shaping up to be highly despotic and he doesn't normally face up to his responsibilities, so who knows?
“Despotic”. Step back from the keyboard and visit reality.
Reality is that Johnson is allergic to scrutiny and accountability that goes beyond political expediency. If you are as inherently dishonest as Johnson, you naturally will resist scrutiny and accountability. I think that's Johnson's driver rather than power lust. Government without accountability is a despotic one.
The only Brexit component that Johnson has personally contributed to so far is the Northern Ireland Protocol, despite publicly denying the terms that he signed up to. Johnson signed up to this arrangement solely so he can claim an "oven-ready Brexit" deal. It's worth diving in:
No-one in Northern Ireland wants this border. The best that can be said for it is that a land border would be even worse.
What people in Northern Ireland think about their own border and constitutional future played absolutely no part in Boris Johnson's negotiation.
This border promises to be a hard one if the rUK goes through with a 2020 minimal FTA.
Northern Ireland doesn't have much of an economy but what it does have is oriented to the UK. A hard border will impose costs on Northern Ireland business that will bankrupt a significant part of it and raise prices generally in the province.
Ultimately, Northern Ireland will likely look south than east. This may or may not be a good thing but it will happen without any discussion or management.
Johnson appears to be unaware of these consequences and is certainly not at all interested.
Tony Blair's catastrophic mistake was Iraq. It upset a lot of people who would otherwise have been tolerant of him, and it wasn't just the immediate action; it was what ensued.
This.
OK. Fair enough. What I don’t understand is the corollary that everything he did and stood for pre-Iraq needs to be reviled. Because believe me if Labour are to get to power again, it is going to need a leader who understands how it was that Blair won in 1997.
Tony Blair's catastrophic mistake was Iraq. It upset a lot of people who would otherwise have been tolerant of him, and it wasn't just the immediate action; it was what ensued.
Labour's strongest card is one they don't realise yet that they are holding.
ave to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
I suspect Johnson will want to mitigate his disaster, despite his current rhetoric. Nevertheless the Johnson regime is shaping up to be highly despotic and he doesn't normally face up to his responsibilities, so who knows?
“Despotic”. Step back from the keyboard and visit reality.
The only Brexit component that Johnson has personally contributed to so far is the Northern Ireland Protocol, despite publicly denying the terms that he signed up to. Johnson signed up to this arrangement solely so he can claim an "oven-ready Brexit" deal. It's worth diving in:
No-one in Northern Ireland wants this border. The best that can be said for it is that a land border would be even worse.
What people in Northern Ireland think about their own border and constitutional future played absolutely no part in Boris Johnson's negotiation.
This border promises to be a hard one if the rUK goes through with a 2020 minimal FTA.
Northern Ireland doesn't have much of an economy but what it does have is oriented to the UK. A hard border will impose costs on Northern Ireland business that will bankrupt a significant part of it and raise prices generally in the province.
Ultimately, Northern Ireland will likely look south than east. This may or may not be a good thing but it will happen without any discussion or management.
Johnson appears to be unaware of these consequences and is certainly not at all interested.
If you read the accounts from Irish journalists of the meeting between Johnson and Varadkar and the negotiations then it is clear that Johnson bent over backwards to get what the DUP wanted. The DUP were very strongly against the "backstop" and wanted a consent clause in the agreement. The consent clause that they wanted was a veto and for it to be operable before the implementation of the Irish Protocol. We were also constantly told that checks on the land border were a non-starter.
Johnson got no land border, the backstop removed. What he did not get was the DUP's consent mechanism, he got a consent mechanism with a simple majority and for it to be in action 4 years after implementation of the Irish protocol. The other side of the compromise would be checks on some goods on the NI/GB border, but the extent to be defined, although Johnson believes that he has an agreement with Varadkar that NI/GB trade should be unfettered.
Most people would argue that he got a compromise deal that should be acceptable to most sides, unfortunately the DUP do not do compromise. He certainly did not sell out Northern Ireland.
Labour's strongest card is one they don't realise yet that they are holding.
ave to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
I suspect Johnson will want to mitigate his disaster, despite his current rhetoric. Nevertheless the Johnson regime is shaping up to be highly despotic and he doesn't normally face up to his responsibilities, so who knows?
“Despotic”. Step back from the keyboard and visit reality.
The only Brexit component that Johnson has personally contributed to so far is the Northern Ireland Protocol, despite publicly denying the terms that he signed up to. Johnson signed up to this arrangement solely so he can claim an "oven-ready Brexit" deal. It's worth diving in:
No-one in Northern Ireland wants this border. The best that can be without any discussion or management.
Johnson appears to be unaware of these consequences and is certainly not at all interested.
If you read the accounts from Irish journalists of the meeting between Johnson and Varadkar and the negotiations then it is clear that Johnson bent over backwards to get what the DUP wanted. The DUP were very strongly against the "backstop" and wanted a consent clause in the agreement. The consent clause that they wanted was a veto and for it to be operable before the implementation of the Irish Protocol. We were also constantly told that checks on the land border were a non-starter.
Johnson got no land border, the backstop removed. What he did not get was the DUP's consent mechanism, he got a consent mechanism with a simple majority and for it to be in action 4 years after implementation of the Irish protocol. The other side of the compromise would be checks on some goods on the NI/GB border, but the extent to be defined, although Johnson believes that he has an agreement with Varadkar that NI/GB trade should be unfettered.
Most people would argue that he got a compromise deal that should be acceptable to most sides, unfortunately the DUP do not do compromise. He certainly did not sell out Northern Ireland.
He may or may not have sold out "Northern Ireland" but he created a pathway to a united Ireland that had hitherto not existed, and that had been dismissed out of hand by previous prime ministers and by our current prime minister.
Tony Blair's catastrophic mistake was Iraq. It upset a lot of people who would otherwise have been tolerant of him, and it wasn't just the immediate action; it was what ensued.
This.
OK. Fair enough. What I don’t understand is the corollary that everything he did and stood for pre-Iraq needs to be reviled. Because believe me if Labour are to get to power again, it is going to need a leader who understands how it was that Blair won in 1997.
I think Blair 's behaviour since he left office has been absolutely despicable -- basically, he has presided over asset-stripping poor countries. This has also contributed to the massive demolition of his reputation.
Blair has trashed himself and whatever good his Government has done. No-one listens to him. If I ever found myself in agreement with Blair, I'd worry.
I also think the achievements of Blair's government are minuscule, given the majorities he had and the authority he wielded. To whom much is given, from him much is expected.
You suggest he presided over "a massive cultural shift which reversed the homophobia of the Major regime." I disagree -- that cultural shift happened worldwide. This is a huge pointer that Blair had little to do with it. Even so, it is indeed astonishing how quickly this has been achieved -- Ireland has same sex marriage (& even Northern Ireland from 2020) -- something that would have been absolutely inconceivable in 1997.
The only point I will grant you from your original list is the minimum wage. The Blair Government can rightfully claim credit for that, and it was indeed vigorously opposed by the Tories.
Labour's strongest card is one they don't realise yet that they are holding.
ave to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
I suspect Johnson will want to mitigate his disaster, despite his current rhetoric. Nevertheless the Johnson regime is shaping up to be highly despotic and he doesn't normally face up to his responsibilities, so who knows?
“Despotic”. Step back from the keyboard and visit reality.
The only Brexit component that Johnson has personally contributed to so far is the Northern Ireland Protocol, despite publicly denying the terms that he signed up to. Johnson signed up to this arrangement solely so he can claim an "oven-ready Brexit" deal. It's worth diving in:
No-one in Northern Ireland wants this border. The best that can be without any discussion or management.
Johnson appears to be unaware of these consequences and is certainly not at all interested.
If you read the accounts from Irish journalists of the meeting between Johnson and Varadkar and the negotiations then it is clear that Johnson bent over backwards to get what the DUP wanted. The DUP were very strongly against the "backstop" and wanted a consent clause in the agreement. The consent clause that they wanted was a veto and for it to be operable before the implementation of the Irish Protocol. We were also constantly told that checks on the land border were a non-starter.
Johnson got no land border, the backstop removed. What he did not get was the DUP's consent mechanism, he got a consent mechanism with a simple majority and for it to be in action 4 years after implementation of the Irish protocol. The other side of the compromise would be checks on some goods on the NI/GB border, but the extent to be defined, although Johnson believes that he has an agreement with Varadkar that NI/GB trade should be unfettered.
Most people would argue that he got a compromise deal that should be acceptable to most sides, unfortunately the DUP do not do compromise. He certainly did not sell out Northern Ireland.
He may or may not have sold out "Northern Ireland" but he created a pathway to a united Ireland that had hitherto not existed, and that had been dismissed out of hand by previous prime ministers and by our current prime minister.
He has also potentially created a reason for NI to remain in the UK in perpetuity, that does not depend on where one stands on Cromwell or William III.
It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.
Some of the Labour loss of share was simply mind bogglingly big. Wentworth and Dearne in south Yorkshire for example. It has become a marginal now. I never even heard of Blyth Valley before this election......I suspect most Tories hadn't either......
Tony Blair's catastrophic mistake was Iraq. It upset a lot of people who would otherwise have been tolerant of him, and it wasn't just the immediate action; it was what ensued.
This.
OK. Fair enough. What I don’t understand is the corollary that everything he did and stood for pre-Iraq needs to be reviled. Because believe me if Labour are to get to power again, it is going to need a leader who understands how it was that Blair won in 1997.
I think Blair 's behaviour since he left office has been absolutely despicable -- basically, he has presided over asset-stripping poor countries. This has also contributed to the massive demolition of his reputation.
Blair has trashed himself and whatever good his Government has done. No-one listens to him. If I ever found myself in agreement with Blair, I'd worry.
I also think the achievements of Blair's government are minuscule, given the majorities he had and the authority he wielded. To whom much is given, from him much is expected.
You suggest he presided over "a massive cultural shift which reversed the homophobia of the Major regime." I disagree -- that cultural shift happened worldwide. This is a huge pointer that Blair had little to do with it. Even so, it is indeed astonishing how quickly this has been achieved -- Ireland has same sex marriage (& even Northern Ireland from 2020) -- something that would have been absolutely inconceivable in 1997.
The only point I will grant you from your original list is the minimum wage. The Blair Government can rightfully claim credit for that, and it was indeed vigorously opposed by the Tories.
I'll tell you what I think New Labour's best achievement was (okay, there were probably better ones, but it's one I really like): the ban on smoking in public places.
The double clown strategy. First a Corbyn, then someone even worse.
Difficult to disagree with that.
Labour are slightly hamstrung by the idea that they feel the 'need' to put a woman in the top post. The problem being that there's no one of any calibre. Yvette Cooper comes closest but as a Blairite there's little chance. Thornberry is marmite. Loved and hated. And that's it. I don't rate any of the other sisters I'm afraid.
They'd be far better to put a top bloke in there than install a token female. I mean, it hardly served the LibDems well did it?
I don't think Swinson was a token.
Okay. But she was pretty useless.
Sadly.
It maybe the libdems are simply finished as a party for a generation in terms of national politics. Whoever the libdems had picked would have done badly.
Tony Blair - massively popular in his day and he made his party electable. I'm proud to say he never seduced me but I do accept that Labour under all other subsequent leaders has not been in the game and are now further away from any prospect of power than ever. To win you have to understand the people you are trying to persuade. As all the world over they have very limited political interest generally and abhor ideologues. They want quiet lives and limited intrusion from governments most of the time. this of course is the antithesis of socialism but the reality of it explains a lot. For socialists to win they have to limit their ambitions.
No-one in Northern Ireland wants this border. The best that can be said for it is that a land border would be even worse.
What people in Northern Ireland think about their own border and constitutional future played absolutely no part in Boris Johnson's negotiation.
This border promises to be a hard one if the rUK goes through with a 2020 minimal FTA.
Northern Ireland doesn't have much of an economy but what it does have is oriented to the UK. A hard border will impose costs on Northern Ireland business that will bankrupt a significant part of it and raise prices generally in the province.
Ultimately, Northern Ireland will likely look south than east. This may or may not be a good thing but it will happen without any discussion or management.
Johnson appears to be unaware of these consequences and is certainly not at all interested.
If you read the accounts from Irish journalists of the meeting between Johnson and Varadkar and the negotiations then it is clear that Johnson bent over backwards to get what the DUP wanted. The DUP were very strongly against the "backstop" and wanted a consent clause in the agreement. The consent clause that they wanted was a veto and for it to be operable before the implementation of the Irish Protocol. We were also constantly told that checks on the land border were a non-starter.
Johnson got no land border, the backstop removed. What he did not get was the DUP's consent mechanism, he got a consent mechanism with a simple majority and for it to be in action 4 years after implementation of the Irish protocol. The other side of the compromise would be checks on some goods on the NI/GB border, but the extent to be defined, although Johnson believes that he has an agreement with Varadkar that NI/GB trade should be unfettered.
Most people would argue that he got a compromise deal that should be acceptable to most sides, unfortunately the DUP do not do compromise. He certainly did not sell out Northern Ireland.
It's no longer a backstop (if all else fails) because it's now the frontstop (the presumptive position). Saying he got rid of the backstop is highly disingenuous. The checks and costs on the Sea Border depend entirely on the degree that rUK diverges from the EU. Single Market + Customs Union means minimal costs; basic FTA, which is current direction of travel, means maximal costs. The "consent clause" will never be triggered, which is why it's drafted the way it is. It's a nuclear option that requires the substitution of a worse land border for a less bad sea border.
No-one in a famously fractious Northern Ireland supports this arrangement; no-one was asked for their opinion on an existential change. Which is quite remarkable if you think about it.
Last night I mentioned a Facebook friend promoting a change.org petition trying to get Jezza to change his mind. He justifies himself thusly:
“I want to show support for a man who i think is the greatest human being to be put up for leading this country. the good friday peace accord would never have happened without corbyn leading the way” etc.
Given this kind of devotion, it strikes me that the attempt to replace him will not be easy. Indeed, Contrary to Nick Palmer’s assertion that he will stay mute, there will be enormous pressure from his supporters to endorse someone/anyone.
Labour's strongest card is one they don't realise yet that they are holding.
I suspect that Brexit will be, if not a disaster then a long term dip. The markets are wising up to this and since the election have wobbled. The situation won't pick up for at least 5 years, probably 10 and may never recover.
There's every chance that Brexit will be an unmitigated disaster.
At some point during the next decade a half-decent Labour leader won't have to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
I suspect Johnson will want to mitigate his disaster, despite his current rhetoric. Nevertheless the Johnson regime is shaping up to be highly despotic and he doesn't normally face up to his responsibilities, so who knows?
“Despotic”. Step back from the keyboard and visit reality.
Reality is that Johnson is allergic to scrutiny and accountability that goes beyond political expediency. If you are as inherently dishonest as Johnson, you naturally will resist scrutiny and accountability. I think that's Johnson's driver rather than power lust. Government without accountability is a despotic one.
The only Brexit component that Johnson has personally contributed to so far is the Northern Ireland Protocol, despite publicly denying the terms that he signed up to. Johnson signed up to this arrangement solely so he can claim an "oven-ready Brexit" deal. It's worth diving in:
No-one in Northern Ireland wants this border. The best that can be said for it is that a land border would be even worse.
What people in Northern Ireland think about their own border and constitutional future played absolutely no part in Boris Johnson's negotiation.
This border promises to be a hard one if the rUK goes through with a 2020 minimal FTA.
Northern Ireland doesn't have much of an economy but what it does have is oriented to the UK. A hard border will impose costs on Northern Ireland business that will bankrupt a significant part of it and raise prices generally in the province.
Ultimately, Northern Ireland will likely look south than east. This may or may not be a good thing but it will happen without any discussion or management.
Johnson appears to be unaware of these consequences and is certainly not at all interested.
The Irish Sea border is only one factor pushing towards Irish Reunification. The collapse of the NI NHS makes the threat of going over to the ROI system much less of an issue surely.
There is a neat symmetry to Irish Reunification being on the table a century after the Independence of the 26 counties. It is the penultimate piece of the retreat from Empire to close the book on that period of expansionist history.
Labour's strongest card is one they don't realise yet that they are holding.
ave to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
I suspect Johnson will want to mitigate his disaster, despite his current rhetoric. Nevertheless the Johnson regime is shaping up to be highly despotic and he doesn't normally face up to his responsibilities, so who knows?
“Despotic”. Step back from the keyboard and visit reality.
The only Brexit component that Johnson has personally contributed to so far is the Northern Ireland Protocol, despite publicly denying the terms that he signed up to. Johnson signed up to this arrangement solely so he can claim an "oven-ready Brexit" deal. It's worth diving in:
No-one in Northern Ireland wants this border. The best that can be without any discussion or management.
Johnson appears to be unaware of these consequences and is certainly not at all interested.
If you read checks on the land border were a non-starter.
Johnson got no land border, the backstop removed. What he did not get was the DUP's consent mechanism, he got a consent mechanism with a simple majority and for it to be in action 4 years after implementation of the Irish protocol. The other side of the compromise would be checks on some goods on the NI/GB border, but the extent to be defined, although Johnson believes that he has an agreement with Varadkar that NI/GB trade should be unfettered.
Most people would argue that he got a compromise deal that should be acceptable to most sides, unfortunately the DUP do not do compromise. He certainly did not sell out Northern Ireland.
He may or may not have sold out "Northern Ireland" but he created a pathway to a united Ireland that had hitherto not existed, and that had been dismissed out of hand by previous prime ministers and by our current prime minister.
He has also potentially created a reason for NI to remain in the UK in perpetuity, that does not depend on where one stands on Cromwell or William III.
That is sadly wishful thinking. After the Belfast Agreement NI was in a position of not being (or being less) broken. Now the whole issue is front and centre.
Should Northern Ireland have been the tail that wagged the Brexit dog? Not sure but it has become the elephant in the room.
Looking more than ever as if he is actually mummified, and has risen from some ancient, richly decorated tomb, the Blair creature appears among us.
Once again he is here to tell us that in fact he knows better than everyone, despite having made, in Iraq, the worst single mistake in foreign policy of the past half-century.
Why do people still deal kindly with this person, who veers between being a vague, rambling nonentity and a raging warmonger, when not surrendering to terrorist murderers on shameful terms?
Generally he returns among us to drivel about the European issue, forgetting that he longed for this country to join the euro, a policy almost every breathing human now realises would have been a disaster.
But this time he has reappeared to gloat over Jeremy Corbyn’s failure and claim that Mr Corbyn’s revolutionary programme and Marxist past stopped him winning the Election.
This is very odd. We now know from his own lips, though 99 per cent of the British media have never reported it, that Mr Blair was himself once a Trotskyist.
He has never revealed which organisation he joined, though a close friend of his belonged to the International Marxist Group, which called for ‘Victory to the IRA’ and urged its student members to infiltrate and take over the moribund Labour Party in the 1970s, when no normal person under the age of 50 would have joined it.
An astonishing number of Mr Blair’s Cabinet were also ‘former’ Marxists – and these are just the ones we know about.
And, as it happens, Mr Blair was in a position to give ‘Victory to the IRA’ in his surrender to them in 1998 – the fact that it was a surrender is shown by the continued legal pursuit of British soldiers accused of crimes during the Troubles, and the effective mass pardon given to IRA killers, though people still refuse to see it.
As for Mr Blair’s other policies – rapid integration in the EU, participation in mad foreign wars, sale of our gold reserves just before the price shot up, a gigantic splurge in welfare and NHS spending way beyond our means, fanatical pursuit of political correctness – they are a mixture of zealotry and stupidity, slightly different from Mr Corbyn’s, but not in fact that different.
I just wish all those who managed to see the obvious Corbyn threat will one day understand the damage they allowed Mr Blair to do by praising him as the ‘moderate’ he never was.“
Last night I mentioned a Facebook friend promoting a change.org petition trying to get Jezza to change his mind. He justifies himself thusly:
“I want to show support for a man who i think is the greatest human being to be put up for leading this country. the good friday peace accord would never have happened without corbyn leading the way” etc.
Given this kind of devotion, it strikes me that the attempt to replace him will not be easy. Indeed, Contrary to Nick Palmer’s assertion that he will stay mute, there will be enormous pressure from his supporters to endorse someone/anyone.
"the attempt to replace him"? Corbyn is resigning isn`t he?
You can get 84/1 about him staying in post past June 2020 on Betfair by the way.
The double clown strategy. First a Corbyn, then someone even worse.
Difficult to disagree with that.
Labour are slightly hamstrung by the idea that they feel the 'need' to put a woman in the top post. The problem being that there's no one of any calibre. Yvette Cooper comes closest but as a Blairite there's little chance. Thornberry is marmite. Loved and hated. And that's it. I don't rate any of the other sisters I'm afraid.
They'd be far better to put a top bloke in there than install a token female. I mean, it hardly served the LibDems well did it?
I don't think Swinson was a token.
Okay. But she was pretty useless.
Sadly.
It maybe the libdems are simply finished as a party for a generation in terms of national politics. Whoever the libdems had picked would have done badly.
It may take an ex Labour figure like Umunna or Berger for the LDs to really put the Coalition years behind them and and be able to challenge Labour as the main rivals to the Tories.
The highest voteshare the Liberals have had in the last 50 years came under Roy Jenkins in the Alliance with David Steel in 1983 when they got 25%, Jenkins being ex Labour and in 2005 when they got 23% under Charles Kennedy who started off as Labour, a voteshare that continued under Clegg 5 years later
Comments
Sadly.
So, do Labour want to win elections? Because if so, they'll need to find someone like Tony Blair.
I don't think many Labour people would be content to win at any cost. They've been there.
As a strategy I don't think it will work, surely a moderate centre left alternative will come along in the years (decades?) before that happens, but I think the far left have realised their best shot at power is to sit and wait in control of the Labour party and hope to get lucky. Eventually.
Although she also says a majority of women voted against the tories but I thought in the end it turned out that was not the case?
I suspect that Brexit will be, if not a disaster then a long term dip. The markets are wising up to this and since the election have wobbled. The situation won't pick up for at least 5 years, probably 10 and may never recover.
There's every chance that Brexit will be an unmitigated disaster.
At some point during the next decade a half-decent Labour leader won't have to do very much to win power as long as they're not a terrorist-stained malfunctioning Marxist.
Compulsory voting, for me, is taking entirely the wrong message from a problem, in this case concerns over turnout. The solution is to make people want to turnout, but that's hard, so just force them to.
Meanwhile, the defenders on the wall eschew heavy weaponry, continuing instead to make yet another batch of snowballs....
https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1208523425339387904?s=21 I love Mary Archer’s description of her husband having a “gift for inaccurate précis”!
Archer told the story (against himself) that when he told an astonished interlocutor that Mary had accepted his marriage proposal the response was “I hope your children have her looks and her brains”!
It is a sense of loss of community that drives anti immigrant sentiment. This is part of the paradox that areas where there has been insignificant inward migration and even a declining population can be very hardline on the issue.
The loss of community inherent in the loss of jobs for life in manufacturing industry and large employers causes collateral damage to social solidarity, whether in the High St, church or Trade Union. It is simply much harder to feel a sense of social solidarity working in a call centre than down the pit or in a steelworks or factory.
This leaves nationalism as one of the few areas of fraying social solidarity, but even that "imagined community" is under threat, and fraying or split.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1208497219353108480?s=09
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/21/labour-after-the-debacle-what-comes-next
In that same 56 year period, five Tory leaders have won overall majorities and six have achieved 40% or more of the popular vote. How centrist four of those six were is of course another question.
That suggests to me that strategies other than Blair’s not only do not work, but have not done so for a very long time. Maybe it would be better to try a variation on his strategy, rather than say something that hasn’t worked for over fifty years might still work if we give it another chance?
No chance.
So long as Labour remain the main party of opposition, they have a chance, however slim. A whopping recession. A disastrous brexit. The dog days of twenty years of Tory rule marred by scandal and incompetence. Who knows. As long as they are the alternative, they have a chance.
They might even have a chance if moderate Labour split. Let's imagine this "blue labour" takes more votes away from the Tories and Lib dems than it does from Labour (I'm assuming anyone still voting Labour broadly agrees with Corbynism). It's possible under FPTP to win a majority at around 30% under a 4 way split.
We think the far left are stupid, but they have learned their lessons from 1983 and beyond. They will not let go of the Labour party this time, not so long as it remains a plausible route into power.
It's the same as those who criticised no deal but would not have done anything to stop it, or people like Phillip's moaning occasionally about Corbyn while doing nothing - if you mean what you say, in this case about Tories being evil and needing a labour government, small compromises should not be a line you cannot cross in order to win.
I begin to like her even more than I do her sensible policies on lifelong learning, which are unfortunately balanced by a lack of understanding of school systems.
I have an eight foot horn to go and play with. Have a good morning.
Angela, that is not an open fire.....
I am in absolute agreement that Labour have been punished in their former Red Wall because not enough material change has been made. But with respect to it thats not the fault of national government, its local and regional Labour politicians happy to sit back doing nothing whilst thinking "just blame the Tories" is enough to get them personally re-elected. I've seen and heard it. When we took unexpected council seats in 2015 we were told we had no rights to expect any help keeping them, "but don't worry we'll always keep our heartland seats and that will keep us in power".
Such dripping disdain for the electorate. I love John Harris's stuff in the Guardian - video from Wrexham straight after the election with someone complaining about Labour - "they've been in office for 20 years in Wales and say its all Westminster's fault". Same with the woman doing the rounds on Twitter having voted Tory in Leigh "for a change". But the Tories have been in power for 9 years protests the interviewer - "not in Leigh they haven't"
"Blue Labour" voters would have voted for Boris I reckon. Corbyn is probably more in tune with them than the Starmer/Phillips/Thornberry types
The Momentum take over has just about seen off anybody with any credibility or stature. I can't see Labour winning a GE for at least 10 years. The loss of 45 seats in Scotland is making it an uphill struggle for anyone. A Corbyn-lite leader hasn't got a hope.
I'm an ex-member and I see Labour under Corbyn as culpable for Brexit as the Tories so I don't see how that works. You cannot be an enabler for Brexit at the time and then pretend you wanted to remain if it goes belly up
She’s no Bevin. Or even John Major.
Opportunity Knocks for the Tories here. They have said the Right Things. If they can actually deliver even a basic framework of what people want, they will win the next couple of elections. Their known Elephant is Brexit. People want "it", "it being the silver bullet to cure their lives of all the things they don't entirely understand. Johnson knows that "IT" will make their lives worse not better.
The test of Johnson will be delivering a softer than soft Brexit in 2020 and persuading his supporters that it is the harder than hard Brexit they have fixated about these last few months. If he can persuade the Hannan-ite leavers that EEA is OK (as Hannan said over and over and over) then Johnson delivers Brexit (meand Brexit), avoids chlorine chicken, gives voters the semblance of Freedom, and wins big.
Imagine that the Conservatives had just lost two elections in a row by standing on this platform.
Now imagine that every contender for the Conservative leadership feels the need to reaffirm their belief in massive tax cuts for the rich and the immediate dismantling of the NHS in order to be electable.
That's the equivalent of where Labour are now. It is absolute madness, but nonetheless, that is where we are.
Who will stand up and tell the emperor he has no clothes?
https://twitter.com/andrew_adonis/status/1208691026791149568?s=21
The basic lesson for Labour is you have to create a platform capable of winning an election if you want to change the lives of the people you ostensibly care about.
The only Brexit component that Johnson has personally contributed to so far is the Northern Ireland Protocol, despite publicly denying the terms that he signed up to. Johnson signed up to this arrangement solely so he can claim an "oven-ready Brexit" deal. It's worth diving in:
https://twitter.com/Jerusalem_Post/status/1208674640635342850
Johnson got no land border, the backstop removed. What he did not get was the DUP's consent mechanism, he got a consent mechanism with a simple majority and for it to be in action 4 years after implementation of the Irish protocol. The other side of the compromise would be checks on some goods on the NI/GB border, but the extent to be defined, although Johnson believes that he has an agreement with Varadkar that NI/GB trade should be unfettered.
Most people would argue that he got a compromise deal that should be acceptable to most sides, unfortunately the DUP do not do compromise. He certainly did not sell out Northern Ireland.
Blair has trashed himself and whatever good his Government has done. No-one listens to him. If I ever found myself in agreement with Blair, I'd worry.
I also think the achievements of Blair's government are minuscule, given the majorities he had and the authority he wielded. To whom much is given, from him much is expected.
You suggest he presided over "a massive cultural shift which reversed the homophobia of the Major regime." I disagree -- that cultural shift happened worldwide. This is a huge pointer that Blair had little to do with it. Even so, it is indeed astonishing how quickly this has been achieved -- Ireland has same sex marriage (& even Northern Ireland from 2020) -- something that would have been absolutely inconceivable in 1997.
The only point I will grant you from your original list is the minimum wage. The Blair Government can rightfully claim credit for that, and it was indeed vigorously opposed by the Tories.
No-one in a famously fractious Northern Ireland supports this arrangement; no-one was asked for their opinion on an existential change. Which is quite remarkable if you think about it.
“I want to show support for a man who i think is the greatest human being to be put up for leading this country. the good friday peace accord would never have happened without corbyn leading the way” etc.
Given this kind of devotion, it strikes me that the attempt to replace him will not be easy. Indeed, Contrary to Nick Palmer’s assertion that he will stay mute, there will be enormous pressure from his supporters to endorse someone/anyone.
There is a neat symmetry to Irish Reunification being on the table a century after the Independence of the 26 counties. It is the penultimate piece of the retreat from Empire to close the book on that period of expansionist history.
Should Northern Ireland have been the tail that wagged the Brexit dog? Not sure but it has become the elephant in the room.
I have other analogies on request.
I particularly like Frida Haus and Ruth Les Thief.
Who would have thought the hard left were incapable of filtering an online letter?
https://twitter.com/chelleryn99/status/1208499155485765632?s=19
“Never forget that Blair was a Trotskyist too
Looking more than ever as if he is actually mummified, and has risen from some ancient, richly decorated tomb, the Blair creature appears among us.
Once again he is here to tell us that in fact he knows better than everyone, despite having made, in Iraq, the worst single mistake in foreign policy of the past half-century.
Why do people still deal kindly with this person, who veers between being a vague, rambling nonentity and a raging warmonger, when not surrendering to terrorist murderers on shameful terms?
Generally he returns among us to drivel about the European issue, forgetting that he longed for this country to join the euro, a policy almost every breathing human now realises would have been a disaster.
But this time he has reappeared to gloat over Jeremy Corbyn’s failure and claim that Mr Corbyn’s revolutionary programme and Marxist past stopped him winning the Election.
This is very odd. We now know from his own lips, though 99 per cent of the British media have never reported it, that Mr Blair was himself once a Trotskyist.
He has never revealed which organisation he joined, though a close friend of his belonged to the International Marxist Group, which called for ‘Victory to the IRA’ and urged its student members to infiltrate and take over the moribund Labour Party in the 1970s, when no normal person under the age of 50 would have joined it.
An astonishing number of Mr Blair’s Cabinet were also ‘former’ Marxists – and these are just the ones we know about.
And, as it happens, Mr Blair was in a position to give ‘Victory to the IRA’ in his surrender to them in 1998 – the fact that it was a surrender is shown by the continued legal pursuit of British soldiers accused of crimes during the Troubles, and the effective mass pardon given to IRA killers, though people still refuse to see it.
As for Mr Blair’s other policies – rapid integration in the EU, participation in mad foreign wars, sale of our gold reserves just before the price shot up, a gigantic splurge in welfare and NHS spending way beyond our means, fanatical pursuit of political correctness – they are a mixture of zealotry and stupidity, slightly different from Mr Corbyn’s, but not in fact that different.
I just wish all those who managed to see the obvious Corbyn threat will one day understand the damage they allowed Mr Blair to do by praising him as the ‘moderate’ he never was.“
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
Phillips seems to be doing particularly well of the current field, she also cane out best with a recent Yougov poll on net favourability
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1207760010442264576?s=20
You can get 84/1 about him staying in post past June 2020 on Betfair by the way.
The highest voteshare the Liberals have had in the last 50 years came under Roy Jenkins in the Alliance with David Steel in 1983 when they got 25%, Jenkins being ex Labour and in 2005 when they got 23% under Charles Kennedy who started off as Labour, a voteshare that continued under Clegg 5 years later