IIRC Jolyon Maugham was strongly against taking that line.
Cliffs all over the country should have a special express lane available should Jolyon Maugham ever wish to use them.
Aren’t you the charmer?
Takes one to know one?
I haven’t yet reached the point of fantasising about imprisoning political opponents on mental health grounds or imagining their murder or encouraged suicide. But perhaps the death cult is so morally bankrupt that it can’t see anything wrong with that.
IIRC Jolyon Maugham was strongly against taking that line.
Cliffs all over the country should have a special express lane available should Jolyon Maugham ever wish to use them.
Weren't you having the vapours over a person who used the term 'vermin' about refugees being described as vermin? At least we know we have your approval for wishing she would chuck herself over a cliff.
I haven't seen any comment on the fact that Yvette Cooper is now 4th favourite for Lab leader at 16.
Presumably this suggests she is seriously considering running.
Bad news for RLB if she does - just imagine a 4 way TV debate between RLB, Starmer, Nandy and Cooper. RLB would get shown up very badly indeed.
If you are left leaning you're going for RBL.
If you're on the centre/right of the party you'd surely opt for Starmer.
I've seen lots of posts of support for both these candidates but next to none for YC so i'm struggling to see where her support will come from.
Personally, I think YC would be by far the most dangerous opponent for Boris Johnson. She's serious, but not shouty. She's intelligent.
She may not have a natural constituency, but are there enough Labour members prepared to pick electability over ideology?
As a counter-point to “intelligent” I give you HIPs. What have you seen her to to make her (politically) “intelligent”? Equally, not smiling does not mean somebody is serious.
I haven't seen any comment on the fact that Yvette Cooper is now 4th favourite for Lab leader at 16.
Presumably this suggests she is seriously considering running.
Bad news for RLB if she does - just imagine a 4 way TV debate between RLB, Starmer, Nandy and Cooper. RLB would get shown up very badly indeed.
If you are left leaning you're going for RBL.
If you're on the centre/right of the party you'd surely opt for Starmer.
I've seen lots of posts of support for both these candidates but next to none for YC so i'm struggling to see where her support will come from.
Personally, I think YC would be by far the most dangerous opponent for Boris Johnson. She's serious, but not shouty. She's intelligent.
She may not have a natural constituency, but are there enough Labour members prepared to pick electability over ideology?
Given Johnson is dishonest and an incompetent minister (but a good politician), maybe Labour should look for someone who is honest and competent (while still being a good politician). Not sure who that is ...
Cooper or more realistically Starmer might lead Labour to the sort of "respectable" defeat Ed Miliband managed in 2024
Indeed, Labour have to find their Neil Kinnock or Michael Howard before they can get to their Tony Blair or David Cameron
Do they?
The next five years may see the Conservatives put in place FTAs with the US and the EU, avoid a serious recession, and deal with many of the structural issues with the UK economy. In which case, it won't matter who the Labour leader is.
Or it could be the case that we manage to crash out the EU transition without a deal at the end of 2020, and a US FTA could be rather harder to find agreement on than expected (by Prime Minister Johnson). We could see manufacturing job losses, and a housing downturn, and the UK suffering badly in a recession. In which case, then so long as Labour don't choose a complete Muppet, then they'll win.
Remember, though, the following.
Firstly, people blame others (i.e. the government) for their difficulties, but attribute all successes to their own efforts. This means that the winners from Brexit will see their newfound success as a result of their brilliance, while the losers will blame the Government and Brexit. Remember also that any company looking to close a factory in the UK in the next three years will blame Brexit, irrespective of any underlying causes.
Secondly, the UK economy is much much weaker now than in 2007. Government debt-to-GDP is 90% not 40%. The country is no longer a net creditor to the world, but a substantial debtor. We continue to have very low levels of household savings, and a high current account deficit. And the longer we put off tackling these issues, the worse it will be when they come home to roost,
Thirdly, the UK economy - like Japan and Italy and most of the rest of the developed world - is affected by the mother of all drags on economic growth: a worsening dependency ratio. This means that government healthcare and pension costs will continue to rise, with a diminishing number of people of working age to pay the bills.
Boris has to be careful here. Bercow is the Leavers' ultimate bogeyman, surpassing even Grieve, Soubry and Gina Miller. Boris is lord of all he surveys at present, but if the politics start to chill the peasants will be at his throat in a jiffy if he looks to be creeping back to the old ways and dishing out baubles to the liberal elite. Boris's bedrock doesn't consist of gentleman players who are impressed by abiding by the rules. I suspect Dom understands this and will guide Boris accordingly.
Bercow is now irrelevant as anything other than an object of ridicule when humiliating himself on Italian television.
Best forgotten, along with Soubry, Miller and Grieve, in the interests of national healing.
They are already a footnote in political history.
What exactly do you plan to do with the more than half of the population that still thinks Brexit is a mistake?
Most people will probably do what you would do if it had been 52-48, the other way. Ignore them. Please don't bother denying that's what you would have done.
Anyway, OGH has managed to flush out all the diehards this morning, much as I expect he intended.
If one were approaching it from first principles, John Bercow would obviously be getting a peerage. Quite apart from it being something that comes up with the rations for Speakers, he has been the most considerable Speaker of any of our lifetimes. You might not like him or what he stood for, but he was undeniably important: exactly the sort of person who should be honoured in the (stupid) system that Britain has.
Nigel Farage has been an entirely malign influence on British politics. Nevertheless, he represents a substantial strand of British political opinion. A peerage would, regrettably, be in order here too.
Oliver Letwin provokes the most irrational hatred among the crazier Leavers. Why is quite beyond me: he was utterly consistent in arguing that Britain should leave the EU with a deal and sought only to make sure that Britain did not leave the EU without a deal and to make sure that the terms of the deal were properly examined. This was apparently far too much for the extremists, who have made him into their latest hate figure. As a man who has provided public service for a generation, he too would be entirely fitting for a peerage. The only argument against him is based on a hatred of pluralism.
Now Brexit is done, it's interesting that the nativists are returning to fine British hate figures rather than poor old Tusk, Barnier etc. I'm sure the moment BJ is thwarted in getting the shitload of post Brexit stuff done that needs to be done, normal service will be resumed.
As far as this particular British nativist is concerned, I've never had much scorn for those figures - and I positively like Juncker. All just doing their job. It's the supine examples from our own political class I find problematical.
If it's convention that John Bercow will be elevated to the Lords, then I suppose it must happen, though it would be nice if those whose lives he made miserable were also honoured. With Letwin, I am less sure of the reason. Should all ex-MP's be ennobled?
Cooper or more realistically Starmer might lead Labour to the sort of "respectable" defeat Ed Miliband managed in 2024
If they win 50 more seats - which should be attainable under a vaguely sane and competent leader - then there is a realistic chance they could form a minority government unless Scotland secedes in the meanwhile.
But they would need a leader capable of building a coalition to do that, and that’s not Long Bailey, Butler, Lavery or evening Starmer.
Indeed. Do you think the majority of sceptics will become more or less enamoured with Brexit if it coincides with the country languishing still further in economic doldrums?
The nature of economic analysis is that it will take a decade at least before it becomes clear if you're right about the country's economic performance after leaving the EU, and even then there will be plenty of reasons to argue about it.
There are no control experiments in macroeconomics.
Don't forget that Alastair is quite the economic sage and was the first to spot the post referendum recession:
Comments
She may not have a natural constituency, but are there enough Labour members prepared to pick electability over ideology?
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/working-class-voters-hated-labour-antisemitism-says-former-mp-who-took-unite-and-skwawkbox-to-court-1.494644
Some of us predicted this:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/27/ultimately-corbyns-got-to-compromise-on-antisemitism-or-else-risk-splitting-the-party/
But I never foresaw the scale or breadth of the damage.
The next five years may see the Conservatives put in place FTAs with the US and the EU, avoid a serious recession, and deal with many of the structural issues with the UK economy. In which case, it won't matter who the Labour leader is.
Or it could be the case that we manage to crash out the EU transition without a deal at the end of 2020, and a US FTA could be rather harder to find agreement on than expected (by Prime Minister Johnson). We could see manufacturing job losses, and a housing downturn, and the UK suffering badly in a recession. In which case, then so long as Labour don't choose a complete Muppet, then they'll win.
Remember, though, the following.
Firstly, people blame others (i.e. the government) for their difficulties, but attribute all successes to their own efforts. This means that the winners from Brexit will see their newfound success as a result of their brilliance, while the losers will blame the Government and Brexit. Remember also that any company looking to close a factory in the UK in the next three years will blame Brexit, irrespective of any underlying causes.
Secondly, the UK economy is much much weaker now than in 2007. Government debt-to-GDP is 90% not 40%. The country is no longer a net creditor to the world, but a substantial debtor. We continue to have very low levels of household savings, and a high current account deficit. And the longer we put off tackling these issues, the worse it will be when they come home to roost,
Thirdly, the UK economy - like Japan and Italy and most of the rest of the developed world - is affected by the mother of all drags on economic growth: a worsening dependency ratio. This means that government healthcare and pension costs will continue to rise, with a diminishing number of people of working age to pay the bills.
If it's convention that John Bercow will be elevated to the Lords, then I suppose it must happen, though it would be nice if those whose lives he made miserable were also honoured. With Letwin, I am less sure of the reason. Should all ex-MP's be ennobled?
But they would need a leader capable of building a coalition to do that, and that’s not Long Bailey, Butler, Lavery or evening Starmer.
Taken the giblets out of the turkey