If your policy aims are based on reducing the wealth of the rich rather than helping the poor to get richer - and that is what a lot of people hear when you say serious attacks on privilege and inequality - then you are probably going to need to do things which will frighten a lot of people.
Well, yes, this is absolutely the point. Of course it is easier to utter platitudes about "the rising tide lifting all ships" but there is no way, not in reality, to make a serious dent in inequality without curbing the wealth and opportunities of those with a surfeit of both. Perhaps it is uncomfortable to admit this - which is why people even on the Left do not like to - but I think it's better that we do. To govern is to choose, they say. So, OK, we choose to do this. Frightens people? Fine, so long as it's the right people. In which case there will not be enough of them to cost general elections.
Except that the evidence clearly demonstrates that there _have_ been enough of them to cost Left Labour General Elections since 1974, or 1966 if you're looking for a working majority.
"Curbing the wealth and opportunities of those with a surfeit of both" is the kind of phrase that is going to lead me to join the Conservative Party for the first time, donate to it, and maybe even get off my backside and canvass for it!
Well there we are you see. You chaps want a Labour Party that tinkers at the edges of things. And if we give you one the great benefit we get is that you vote Tory in a calm state of mind not fearing the alternative. Hmm 😑
Well there we are you see. You chaps want a Labour Party that tinkers at the edges of things. And if we give you one the great benefit we get is that you vote Tory in a calm state of mind not fearing the alternative. Hmm 😑
No - the great benefit is that you might actually win and get to implement your policies!
Well there we are you see. You chaps want a Labour Party that tinkers at the edges of things. And if we give you one the great benefit we get is that you vote Tory in a calm state of mind not fearing the alternative. Hmm 😑
You misunderstand! I don't vote Tory out of massuve enthusiasm for the Conservative Party but because of the points raised by Oxfordsimon. I also think the £1 trillion pound manifesto was bonkers. But I recognise that there is a lot wring with the way we run things at the moment. There are problems which need more than a breezy assurance that things will be ok. But that argument will onlt get heard once Labour stop behaving like a lot of sixth formers looking for grievances. Now, having heard the argument, some may still conclude that what Labour propose is not the right solution. But some will be persuaded to vote for it. At the moment, the approach to politics is putting off voters before the proposals are given a chance.
What are the next big events? Brexit at the end of the month and a Cabinet reshuffle. Has Boris given a date for the reshuffle?
The budget, expected in February.
At least a February budget won't clash with Cheltenham.
Don't they have the budget in April anymore?
Cheltenham is bad news lol.
Nope - the budget was moved from the Autumn to the Spring - so needs to be held prior to April 5th in case things need to be announced for the next tax year.
Quite right. Keir the Seer can't beat Boris at the cranky-caper stuff. That would be like asking Sir Thomas More to compete with Dicky Pearce. No, Keir just needs to stay patient and cool. Soon enough the experts will reclaim the earth and Keir must position himself as their talisman.
That’s the most impressive thing Boris has ever done in my opinion. Respect.
But if you are banking on Kier, Um, Stammer to save the Earth, forget it. THERE IS NO WAY HE IS BECOMING LABOUR LEADER.
I’ll tell you who the next Labour leader is right now, get on whilst odds long. David lammy
Why Lammy, Egg? What evidence are you basing this on? Why are you so sure that Starmer will not become next LP leader?
+1. I think Lammy has near-zero chance.
Starmer is rightly favourite on current evidence and I'm sure he'd win if the selection was tomorrow. But don't underestimate name recognition. I've seen Starmer on TV countless times in the last year. Many of the others I've not seen at all. Ever. And I suppose I'm more engaged in Labour politics than 95% of members It's possible that when I finally see RLB or Phillips or someone else in action I'll be blown away. The same goes for the wider membership, surely. Starmer should not be better than evens.
At this point of the 2015 labour contest what chance did you give Corbyn?
As I have often said here this labour leadership contest is about two things. Firstly brexit. A far greater proportion of the electorate in this election are staunch remainers. And they are angry. Secondly the ability to lead. Corbyn didn’t lead. When the history of corbyn is written up he had his out of office on and there’s a picture of him sat astride a fence. And that sums it up beautifully. The key moment in the 2019 election was when corbyn refused to provide a lead on brexit, and claimed brexit neutrality. The result was labour area’s not so much voting Boris or Tory, but voting brexit. Corbyn did not lead the attack on brexit enough.
So thinking forward to this labour leadership election, what is the candidates proposal for the brexit Britain they will inherit that wins the remain vote? If a corbyn acolyte or any candidate tries to copy Corbyns lack of leadership with neutrality they will be floating upside down in seconds.
And there's always the lingering suspicion that Labour would use a moderate leader like Starmer to gain power and then dump him for a leftie like Lavery. Just as Livingstone dumped McIntosh at the GLC in 1981.
That's just not an even vaguely realistic comparison.
McIntosh could be dumped relatively easily because it was a simple vote by the Labour GLC group of 50 councillors (indeed a vote I believe they had to have as do many Council groups at the start of a new term with the councillors they have at that time).
Changing a Labour leader isn't anywhere near as easy. Firstly, it would need triggering by a confidence motion by Labour MPs and, despite some Corbynista new MPs, the Parliamentary party has nowhere near a far left majority. Secondly, it'd need a vote by the Labour Party even then - and that's simply inconceivable if Starmer had just taken them to an election win (note how reluctant Labour CLPs ultimately were to deselect MPs in the last Parliament - several votes were triggered but lost). Finally, even that supposes Starmer's leadership wouldn't have led to the extreme left being either expelled or drifting away over the next few years, and changes to rules to make a Labour PM safe from challenge.
The conclusion is that there's no serious question that Starmer would, if he won an election, serve the full term as Labour PM.
Labour should have done what Boris Johnson did with his vow of an Tory Islamophobia inquiry. Broken it and kicked it into the long grass of a general, everything is great inquiry.
Quite right. Keir the Seer can't beat Boris at the cranky-caper stuff. That would be like asking Sir Thomas More to compete with Dicky Pearce. No, Keir just needs to stay patient and cool. Soon enough the experts will reclaim the earth and Keir must position himself as their talisman.
That’s the most impressive thing Boris has ever done in my opinion. Respect.
But if you are banking on Kier, Um, Stammer to save the Earth, forget it. THERE IS NO WAY HE IS BECOMING LABOUR LEADER.
I’ll tell you who the next Labour leader is right now, get on whilst odds long. David lammy
Why Lammy, Egg? What evidence are you basing this on? Why are you so sure that Starmer will not become next LP leader?
+1. I think Lammy has near-zero chance.
Starmer is rightly favourite on current evidence and I'm sure he'd win if the selection was tomorrow. But don't underestimate name recognition. I've seen Starmer on TV countless times in the last year. Many of the others I've not seen at all. Ever. And I suppose I'm more engaged in Labour politics than 95% of members It's possible that when I finally see RLB or Phillips or someone else in action I'll be blown away. The same goes for the wider membership, surely. Starmer should not be better than evens.
Nick, what did you think of the common sense apparently displayed here:
Excuse me for butting in where I wasn't asked - but this piece, I think, makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone who doesn't vote Conservative really wants a Labour-led coalition of minor parties, all of which will do what they are told.
It's always pretty suspect when writers can't help themsleves but slip 'extreme right-wing' in to describe the current Conservative Party. I suppose in the narrow definition of some on the left that 'right-wing' = 'things I don't like' that the current Conservative Party is 'extreme right wing' - but not really by any other measurable criterion.
Quite right. Keir the Seer can't beat Boris at the cranky-caper stuff. That would be like asking Sir Thomas More to compete with Dicky Pearce. No, Keir just needs to stay patient and cool. Soon enough the experts will reclaim the earth and Keir must position himself as their talisman.
That’s the most impressive thing Boris has ever done in my opinion. Respect.
But if you are banking on Kier, Um, Stammer to save the Earth, forget it. THERE IS NO WAY HE IS BECOMING LABOUR LEADER.
I’ll tell you who the next Labour leader is right now, get on whilst odds long. David lammy
Why Lammy, Egg? What evidence are you basing this on? Why are you so sure that Starmer will not become next LP leader?
+1. I think Lammy has near-zero chance.
Starmer is rightly favourite on current evidence and I'm sure he'd win if the selection was tomorrow. But don't underestimate name recognition. I've seen Starmer on TV countless times in the last year. Many of the others I've not seen at all. Ever. And I suppose I'm more engaged in Labour politics than 95% of members It's possible that when I finally see RLB or Phillips or someone else in action I'll be blown away. The same goes for the wider membership, surely. Starmer should not be better than evens.
Nick, what did you think of the common sense apparently displayed here:
Excuse me for butting in where I wasn't asked - but this piece, I think, makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone who doesn't vote Conservative really wants a Labour-led coalition of minor parties, all of which will do what they are told.
It's always pretty suspect when writers can't help themsleves but slip 'extreme right-wing' in to describe the current Conservative Party. I suppose in the narrow definition of some on the left that 'right-wing' = 'things I don't like' that the current Conservative Party is 'extreme right wing' - but not really by any other measurable criterion.
The current Tory party is extreme right wing? Who seriously thinks that?
Quite right. Keir the Seer can't beat Boris at the cranky-caper stuff. That would be like asking Sir Thomas More to compete with Dicky Pearce. No, Keir just needs to stay patient and cool. Soon enough the experts will reclaim the earth and Keir must position himself as their talisman.
That’s the most impressive thing Boris has ever done in my opinion. Respect.
But if you are banking on Kier, Um, Stammer to save the Earth, forget it. THERE IS NO WAY HE IS BECOMING LABOUR LEADER.
I’ll tell you who the next Labour leader is right now, get on whilst odds long. David lammy
Why Lammy, Egg? What evidence are you basing this on? Why are you so sure that Starmer will not become next LP leader?
+1. I think Lammy has near-zero chance.
Starmer is rightly favourite on current evidence and I'm sure he'd win if the selection was tomorrow. But don't underestimate name recognition. I've seen Starmer on TV countless times in the last year. Many of the others I've not seen at all. Ever. And I suppose I'm more engaged in Labour politics than 95% of members It's possible that when I finally see RLB or Phillips or someone else in action I'll be blown away. The same goes for the wider membership, surely. Starmer should not be better than evens.
Nick, what did you think of the common sense apparently displayed here:
Excuse me for butting in where I wasn't asked - but this piece, I think, makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone who doesn't vote Conservative really wants a Labour-led coalition of minor parties, all of which will do what they are told.
It's always pretty suspect when writers can't help themsleves but slip 'extreme right-wing' in to describe the current Conservative Party. I suppose in the narrow definition of some on the left that 'right-wing' = 'things I don't like' that the current Conservative Party is 'extreme right wing' - but not really by any other measurable criterion.
The current Tory party is extreme right wing? Who seriously thinks that?
Nobody seriously thinks it, but fourth-rate Labour MPs hope that if they repeat it often enough it'll stick. There's no reasonable measure, either economic or social, by which it's actually correct.
Starmer is rightly favourite on current evidence and I'm sure he'd win if the selection was tomorrow. But don't underestimate name recognition. I've seen Starmer on TV countless times in the last year. Many of the others I've not seen at all. Ever. And I suppose I'm more engaged in Labour politics than 95% of members It's possible that when I finally see RLB or Phillips or someone else in action I'll be blown away. The same goes for the wider membership, surely. Starmer should not be better than evens.
Nick, what did you think of the common sense apparently displayed here:
Excuse me for butting in where I wasn't asked - but this piece, I think, makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone who doesn't vote Conservative really wants a Labour-led coalition of minor parties, all of which will do what they are told.
It's always pretty suspect when writers can't help themsleves but slip 'extreme right-wing' in to describe the current Conservative Party. I suppose in the narrow definition of some on the left that 'right-wing' = 'things I don't like' that the current Conservative Party is 'extreme right wing' - but not really by any other measurable criterion.
Agreed - it's lazy and inaccurate.
Extremely committed to a political position might be closer to the truth (but of course that also applied to Corbyn's Labour). And of course it is true that there are some extremists in both parties.
I’ve had food from five. Oddly the only time I normally see a West Cornwall Pasty Co. outlet is in central London.
There is a Miller & Carter down the road; seeing the map I might try it in order to strengthen my Welsh connections.
Wahaca (Mexican, and top in Inner London) was founded by the woman who won Masterchef a few years back. I doubt she'd get past the first round now, so high have the standards risen.
Went to a Miller & Carter a few weeks ago; was quite impressed. In comparison with other such chains, anyway.
Excuse me for butting in where I wasn't asked - but this piece, I think, makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone who doesn't vote Conservative really wants a Labour-led coalition of minor parties, all of which will do what they are told.
It's always pretty suspect when writers can't help themsleves but slip 'extreme right-wing' in to describe the current Conservative Party. I suppose in the narrow definition of some on the left that 'right-wing' = 'things I don't like' that the current Conservative Party is 'extreme right wing' - but not really by any other measurable criterion.
I think it's fairly well-established that any Lab and LibDem voters are willing to switch tactically to the others if it's clear that only they can beat the Tories, and the longer the Tories are in power the more true that will tend to be. So discreet encouragement of tactical voting is clearly in the interests of both.
I'm less convinced by the idea of parties organising grass-roots movements and making politics more bottom-up. In our crude FPTP system it does unfortunately come down to who shows up to the election with the biggest battalions. There is a danger that getting into local campaigning for diverse local issues is displacement activity in our winner-takes-all system. We've just seen that with the last GE - years of perfectly good grass-roots LD campaigning in a number of seats translated into nothing very much at Parliamentary level.
I'm a PR supporter and I'd be pleased if Labour adopted that, because cooperation then becomes much easier. But failing that, I'd hope that both parties elect leaders who are open to cooperation and see where that takes us. We both need to decide what we're actually for, and the LibDems possibly face that more acutely because of the fixation with Brexit in 2019. If they wander off to the right as the "sound finance/austerity as needed" party, then there isn't a basis for cooperation, but if they go for a leftish/greenish approach, then there should be.
Quite right. Keir the Seer can't beat Boris at the cranky-caper stuff. That would be like asking Sir Thomas More to compete with Dicky Pearce. No, Keir just needs to stay patient and cool. Soon enough the experts will reclaim the earth and Keir must position himself as their talisman.
That’s the most impressive thing Boris has ever done in my opinion. Respect.
But if you are banking on Kier, Um, Stammer to save the Earth, forget it. THERE IS NO WAY HE IS BECOMING LABOUR LEADER.
I’ll tell you who the next Labour leader is right now, get on whilst odds long. David lammy
Why Lammy, Egg? What evidence are you basing this on? Why are you so sure that Starmer will not become next LP leader?
+1. I think Lammy has near-zero chance.
Starmer is rightly favourite on current evidence and I'm sure he'd win if the selection was tomorrow. But don't underestimate name recognition. I've seen Starmer on TV countless times in the last year. Many of the others I've not seen at all. Ever. And I suppose I'm more engaged in Labour politics than 95% of members It's possible that when I finally see RLB or Phillips or someone else in action I'll be blown away. The same goes for the wider membership, surely. Starmer should not be better than evens.
Nick, what did you think of the common sense apparently displayed here:
Excuse me for butting in where I wasn't asked - but this piece, I think, makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone who doesn't vote Conservative really wants a Labour-led coalition of minor parties, all of which will do what they are told.
It's always pretty suspect when writers can't help themsleves but slip 'extreme right-wing' in to describe the current Conservative Party. I suppose in the narrow definition of some on the left that 'right-wing' = 'things I don't like' that the current Conservative Party is 'extreme right wing' - but not really by any other measurable criterion.
The current Tory party is extreme right wing? Who seriously thinks that?
Nobody seriously thinks it, but fourth-rate Labour MPs hope that if they repeat it often enough it'll stick. There's no reasonable measure, either economic or social, by which it's actually correct.
Well it's more right wing than it previously was given the position of the MPs Boris removed from the party.
<< The current Tory party is extreme right wing? Who seriously thinks that? >>
It depends what kind of Brexit Johnson chooses. He's toyed with the extreme-right tropes of the "Surrender Bill" accusations, but has now settled back into a kind of a centrist rhetoric.
Quite right. Keir the Seer can't beat Boris at the cranky-caper stuff. That would be like asking Sir Thomas More to compete with Dicky Pearce. No, Keir just needs to stay patient and cool. Soon enough the experts will reclaim the earth and Keir must position himself as their talisman.
That’s the most impressive thing Boris has ever done in my opinion. Respect.
But if you are banking on Kier, Um, Stammer to save the Earth, forget it. THERE IS NO WAY HE IS BECOMING LABOUR LEADER.
I’ll tell you who the next Labour leader is right now, get on whilst odds long. David lammy
Why Lammy, Egg? What evidence are you basing this on? Why are you so sure that Starmer will not become next LP leader?
+1. I think Lammy has near-zero chance.
Starmer is rightly favourite on current evidence and I'm sure he'd win if the selection was tomorrow. But don't underestimate name recognition. I've seen Starmer on TV countless times in the last year. Many of the others I've not seen at all. Ever. And I suppose I'm more engaged in Labour politics than 95% of members It's possible that when I finally see RLB or Phillips or someone else in action I'll be blown away. The same goes for the wider membership, surely. Starmer should not be better than evens.
Nick, what did you think of the common sense apparently displayed here:
Excuse me for butting in where I wasn't asked - but this piece, I think, makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone who doesn't vote Conservative really wants a Labour-led coalition of minor parties, all of which will do what they are told.
It's always pretty suspect when writers can't help themsleves but slip 'extreme right-wing' in to describe the current Conservative Party. I suppose in the narrow definition of some on the left that 'right-wing' = 'things I don't like' that the current Conservative Party is 'extreme right wing' - but not really by any other measurable criterion.
The current Tory party is extreme right wing? Who seriously thinks that?
Nobody seriously thinks it, but fourth-rate Labour MPs hope that if they repeat it often enough it'll stick. There's no reasonable measure, either economic or social, by which it's actually correct.
Thats simply untrue. Talk to any young socialists and you'll find a number who are convinced to the core of their being that the Tories represent the extreme right. I have no doubt a number of MPs genuinely believe the same.
I’ve had food from five. Oddly the only time I normally see a West Cornwall Pasty Co. outlet is in central London.
There is a Miller & Carter down the road; seeing the map I might try it in order to strengthen my Welsh connections.
Wahaca (Mexican, and top in Inner London) was founded by the woman who won Masterchef a few years back. I doubt she'd get past the first round now, so high have the standards risen.
Went to a Miller & Carter a few weeks ago; was quite impressed. In comparison with other such chains, anyway.
They're all the old Harvesters which have been done up and moved upmarket
Quite right. Keir the Seer can't beat Boris at the cranky-caper stuff. That would be like asking Sir Thomas More to compete with Dicky Pearce. No, Keir just needs to stay patient and cool. Soon enough the experts will reclaim the earth and Keir must position himself as their talisman.
That’s the most impressive thing Boris has ever done in my opinion. Respect.
But if you are banking on Kier, Um, Stammer to save the Earth, forget it. THERE IS NO WAY HE IS BECOMING LABOUR LEADER.
I’ll tell you who the next Labour leader is right now, get on whilst odds long. David lammy
Why Lammy, Egg? What evidence are you basing this on? Why are you so sure that Starmer will not become next LP leader?
+1. I think Lammy has near-zero chance.
Starmer is rightly favourite on current evidence and I'm sure he'd win if the selection was tomorrow. But don't underestimate name recognition. I've seen Starmer on TV countless times in the last year. Many of the others I've not seen at all. Ever. And I suppose I'm more engaged in Labour politics than 95% of members It's possible that when I finally see RLB or Phillips or someone else in action I'll be blown away. The same goes for the wider membership, surely. Starmer should not be better than evens.
Nick, what did you think of the common sense apparently displayed here:
Excuse me for butting in where I wasn't asked - but this piece, I think, makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone who doesn't vote Conservative really wants a Labour-led coalition of minor parties, all of which will do what they are told.
It's always pretty suspect when writers can't help themsleves but slip 'extreme right-wing' in to describe the current Conservative Party. I suppose in the narrow definition of some on the left that 'right-wing' = 'things I don't like' that the current Conservative Party is 'extreme right wing' - but not really by any other measurable criterion.
The current Tory party is extreme right wing? Who seriously thinks that?
Nobody seriously thinks it, but fourth-rate Labour MPs hope that if they repeat it often enough it'll stick. There's no reasonable measure, either economic or social, by which it's actually correct.
The particular writer in question isn't a fourth-rate Labour MP but a Professor of cultural and political theory at the University of East London. This takes nothing away from your point however.
Excuse me for butting in where I wasn't asked - but this piece, I think, makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone who doesn't vote Conservative really wants a Labour-led coalition of minor parties, all of which will do what they are told.
It's always pretty suspect when writers can't help themsleves but slip 'extreme right-wing' in to describe the current Conservative Party. I suppose in the narrow definition of some on the left that 'right-wing' = 'things I don't like' that the current Conservative Party is 'extreme right wing' - but not really by any other measurable criterion.
I think it's fairly well-established that 'any' Lab and LibDem voters are willing to switch tactically to the others if it's clear that only they can beat the Tories, and the longer the Tories are in power the more true that will tend to be. So discreet encouragement of tactical voting is clearly in the interests of both...
Excuse me for butting in where I wasn't asked - but this piece, I think, makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone who doesn't vote Conservative really wants a Labour-led coalition of minor parties, all of which will do what they are told.
It's always pretty suspect when writers can't help themsleves but slip 'extreme right-wing' in to describe the current Conservative Party. I suppose in the narrow definition of some on the left that 'right-wing' = 'things I don't like' that the current Conservative Party is 'extreme right wing' - but not really by any other measurable criterion.
I think it's fairly well-established that any Lab and LibDem voters are willing to switch tactically to the others if it's clear that only they can beat the Tories, and the longer the Tories are in power the more true that will tend to be. So discreet encouragement of tactical voting is clearly in the interests of both.
I'm less convinced by the idea of parties organising grass-roots movements and making politics more bottom-up. In our crude FPTP system it does unfortunately come down to who shows up to the election with the biggest battalions. There is a danger that getting into local campaigning for diverse local issues is displacement activity in our winner-takes-all system. We've just seen that with the last GE - years of perfectly good grass-roots LD campaigning in a number of seats translated into nothing very much at Parliamentary level.
I'm a PR supporter and I'd be pleased if Labour adopted that, because cooperation then becomes much easier. But failing that, I'd hope that both parties elect leaders who are open to cooperation and see where that takes us. We both need to decide what we're actually for, and the LibDems possibly face that more acutely because of the fixation with Brexit in 2019. If they wander off to the right as the "sound finance/austerity as needed" party, then there isn't a basis for cooperation, but if they go for a leftish/greenish approach, then there should be.
In your first sentence, I'd swap 'any' for 'some'. To those who think voters can be shuffled around like playing pieces, I give the examole if Ynys Mon 2019.
Starmer is rightly favourite on current evidence and I'm sure he'd win if the selection was tomorrow. But don't underestimate name recognition. I've seen Starmer on TV countless times in the last year. Many of the others I've not seen at all. Ever. And I suppose I'm more engaged in Labour politics than 95% of members It's possible that when I finally see RLB or Phillips or someone else in action I'll be blown away. The same goes for the wider membership, surely. Starmer should not be better than evens.
At this point of the 2015 labour contest what chance did you give Corbyn?
As I have often said here this labour leadership contest is about two things. Firstly brexit. A far greater proportion of the electorate in this election are staunch remainers. And they are angry. Secondly the ability to lead. Corbyn didn’t lead. When the history of corbyn is written up he had his out of office on and there’s a picture of him sat astride a fence. And that sums it up beautifully. The key moment in the 2019 election was when corbyn refused to provide a lead on brexit, and claimed brexit neutrality. The result was labour area’s not so much voting Boris or Tory, but voting brexit. Corbyn did not lead the attack on brexit enough.
So thinking forward to this labour leadership election, what is the candidates proposal for the brexit Britain they will inherit that wins the remain vote? If a corbyn acolyte or any candidate tries to copy Corbyns lack of leadership with neutrality they will be floating upside down in seconds.
I was relatively early in spotting Corbyn as a potential winner - I remember Mike asking me "Really?" and saying yes, I could see it.
My impression is that much of the membership is fed up with Brexit - "we've lost that one, we need to get over it". So while candidates will get asked about it, they'll be making a mistake if they drone on about the issue, let alone flirt with Rejoin. I think the default position will be "Fight No Deal, work for close cooperation". And insofar as Brexit is still a big thing, I think Starmer is well-placed to benefit - I associate him more than any other candidate with shifting Labour towards Remain.
His main weakness is that he's so very much Not a Northerner. Northern members don't seem to care very much, judging by YouGov (quite rightly IMO - you need to understand issues, doesn't matter if your personal life is involved), but a poll on how the wider electorate would vote with different leaders might show up some significant differences. But the fact that it's so easy to imagine him as PM is a big, big plus.
O/T: Sanders is pulling away in fund-raising - got $34 million in Q4, compared with $24 million for Buttigieg and $17 million for Warren and (!?) Yang. Biden figures not yet released.
I’ve had food from five. Oddly the only time I normally see a West Cornwall Pasty Co. outlet is in central London.
There is a Miller & Carter down the road; seeing the map I might try it in order to strengthen my Welsh connections.
Wahaca (Mexican, and top in Inner London) was founded by the woman who won Masterchef a few years back. I doubt she'd get past the first round now, so high have the standards risen.
Went to a Miller & Carter a few weeks ago; was quite impressed. In comparison with other such chains, anyway.
They're all the old Harvesters which have been done up and moved upmarket
Well, certainly up-market from Harvesters. And the one near us wasn't. Local Harvester still going 'strong'.
Labour should have done what Boris Johnson did with his vow of an Tory Islamophobia inquiry. Broken it and kicked it into the long grass of a general, everything is great inquiry.
Boris isn't facing an ECHR inquiry, unlike what the BNP did and Labour does.
Quite right. Keir the Seer can't beat Boris at the cranky-caper stuff. That would be like asking Sir Thomas More to compete with Dicky Pearce. No, Keir just needs to stay patient and cool. Soon enough the experts will reclaim the earth and Keir must position himself as their talisman.
That’s the most impressive thing Boris has ever done in my opinion. Respect
Starmer is rightly favourite on current evidence and I'm sure he'd win if the selection was tomorrow. But don't underestimate name recognition. I've seen Starmer on TV countless times in the last year. Many of the others I've not seen at all. Ever. And I suppose I'm more engaged in Labour politics than 95% of members It's possible that when I finally see RLB or Phillips or someone else in action I'll be blown away. The same goes for the wider membership, surely. Starmer should not be better than evens.
Nick, what did you think of the common sense apparently displayed here:
Excuse me for butting in where I wasn't asked - but this piece, I think, makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone who doesn't vote Conservative really wants a Labour-led coalition of minor parties, all of which will do what they are told.
It's always pretty suspect when writers can't help themsleves but slip 'extreme right-wing' in to describe the current Conservative Party. I suppose in the narrow definition of some on the left that 'right-wing' = 'things I don't like' that the current Conservative Party is 'extreme right wing' - but not really by any other measurable criterion.
The current Tory party is extreme right wing? Who seriously thinks that?
Nobody seriously thinks it, but fourth-rate Labour MPs hope that if they repeat it often enough it'll stick. There's no reasonable measure, either economic or social, by which it's actually correct.
I believe it. Economically this country is practising an extreme form of liassez faire capitalism that is holding productivity bacK through too much Shortermism and greed , socially we are becoming divided, the rich richer the working poor poorer increasingly live in different worlds, the underclass despised by this government hence comments like put down the people living on benefit street. The Home Secretary wants to hang people shows how reactionary and backward the values and philosophy at the very top. Best of all, The key government policy is nationalism ahead of sound economic judgement.
I would not be surprised if the NEC decided that a leadership election at this time should not happen. The far left will do everything they can to prevent Starmer winning.
To back up my comment on name recognition being significant for Starmer, here's favourability+name recognition from YouGov:
Starmer -4 (41% have heard of him) Long-Bailey -2 (24%) Phillips +2 (33%) Cooper -5 (65%) Lewis +5 (27%) Thornberry -8 (44%)
So most people have never heard of any of them except Cooper. That's a big blank canvas. None of them seem especially loved or hated by those who do know them, though Lewis's score is notable.
That’s the most impressive thing Boris has ever done in my opinion. Respect.
But if you are banking on Kier, Um, Stammer to save the Earth, forget it. THERE IS NO WAY HE IS BECOMING LABOUR LEADER.
I’ll tell you who the next Labour leader is right now, get on whilst odds long. David lammy
Why Lammy, Egg? What evidence are you basing this on? Why are you so sure that Starmer will not become next LP leader?
+1. I think Lammy has near-zero chance.
Starmer is rightly favourite on current evidence and I'm sure he'd win if the selection was tomorrow. But don't underestimate name recognition. I've seen Starmer on TV countless times in the last year. Many of the others I've not seen at all. Ever. And I suppose I'm more engaged in Labour politics than 95% of members It's possible that when I finally see RLB or Phillips or someone else in action I'll be blown away. The same goes for the wider membership, surely. Starmer should not be better than evens.
Nick, what did you think of the common sense apparently displayed here:
Excuse me for butting in where I wasn't asked - but this piece, I think, makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone who doesn't vote Conservative really wants a Labour-led coalition of minor parties, all of which will do what they are told.
It's always pretty suspect when writers can't help themsleves but slip 'extreme right-wing' in to describe the current Conservative Party. I suppose in the narrow definition of some on the left that 'right-wing' = 'things I don't like' that the current Conservative Party is 'extreme right wing' - but not really by any other measurable criterion.
The current Tory party is extreme right wing? Who seriously thinks that?
Nobody seriously thinks it, but fourth-rate Labour MPs hope that if they repeat it often enough it'll stick. There's no reasonable measure, either economic or social, by which it's actually correct.
Well it's more right wing than it previously was given the position of the MPs Boris removed from the party.
If one sees leaving the EU as right-wing, yes. On economics, Boris has moved the Tories to the left relative to Cameron and probably May.
Labour should have done what Boris Johnson did with his vow of an Tory Islamophobia inquiry. Broken it and kicked it into the long grass of a general, everything is great inquiry.
Boris isn't facing an ECHR inquiry, unlike what the BNP did and Labour does.
He was facing a police inquiry about a sofa, until he wasn't. People face inquiries all the time without consequences. Labour should have just brazened it out.
The current Tory party is extreme right wing? Who seriously thinks that?
Nobody seriously thinks it, but fourth-rate Labour MPs hope that if they repeat it often enough it'll stick. There's no reasonable measure, either economic or social, by which it's actually correct.
I think it confuses the issue that BoJo is "populist", is manifestly proud of being British, has a certain history of using non-woke language/expressing doubleungood thoughts, and his blockbuster policy of Brexit runs contrary to the narrative of progressive internationalism - on continental Europe the equivalent anti-EU movements are largely made of nutters and neofascists. So a lot of commentators are trying to lump him in with that lot, or tie him into a global populist trend that makes him the British Trump or Bolsonaro.
But in fact he may not prove to be a Plus-Quam-Thathcerite small-state "slasher", he may be relatively laissez-faire on immigration, in fact the BoJo version of One Nationism seems unlikely to fit many of the archetypes his detractors are trying to box him into. All political moments and movements are to some extent sui generis, but I think BoJo potentially represents something substantially new, certainly a significant turn away from May. The fact BoJo's bricolage of ambitions/past statements/voting coalition/persona incorporates elements reminiscent of Trumpian populism or isolationism has distracted his critics from the broader picture, which has a spirit of its own.
I wonder if, like Blair, he may not have a very deeply thought-through underlying political philosophy for his programme, but by luck or judgement has stumbled upon a positioning that works for the voters of its times. And his opponents simply haven't yet found the right tone of response or the correct mental box to slot him into - compare that with the mid 90s, the misjudged "Demon Eyes" campaign against Blair, and the Tories struggling to pin on New Labour the charge they represented a return to 70s-style industrial strife. Or the way Brown-era Labour adverts tried and failed to pin down Cameron as the Second Coming of Maggie, because again, the public had clocked that Cameron represented something different to that. Not saying that BoJoism is going to be as coherent or transformative as Thatcherism, or necessarily "successful" even on its own terms (which are yet to be made clear), just that there is something there but it may take time for quite what to become clear, even (maybe especially) to its opponents.
Incidentally Mr Essexit - as a fellow Brexiteer and a denizen of your fine county - would I be right to judge from your new profile picture that you have managed to meet one of your heroes?
I suppose I'm more engaged in Labour politics than 95% of members It's possible that when I finally see RLB or Phillips or someone else in action I'll be blown away. The same goes for the wider membership, surely. Starmer should not be better than evens.
At this point of the 2015 labour contest what chance did you give Corbyn?
As I have often said here this labour leadership contest is about two things. Firstly brexit. A far greater proportion of the electorate in this election are staunch remainers. And they are angry. Secondly the ability to lead. Corbyn didn’t lead. When the history of corbyn is written up he had his out of office on and there’s a picture of him sat astride a fence. And that sums it up beautifully. The key moment in the 2019 election was when corbyn refused to provide a lead on brexit, and claimed brexit neutrality. The result was labour area’s not so much voting Boris or Tory, but voting brexit. Corbyn did not lead the attack on brexit enough.
So thinking forward to this labour leadership election, what is the candidates proposal for the brexit Britain they will inherit that wins the remain vote? If a corbyn acolyte or any candidate tries to copy Corbyns lack of leadership with neutrality they will be floating upside down in seconds.
I was relatively early in spotting Corbyn as a potential winner - I remember Mike asking me "Really?" and saying yes, I could see it.
My impression is that much of the membership is fed up with Brexit - "we've lost that one, we need to get over it". So while candidates will get asked about it, they'll be making a mistake if they drone on about the issue, let alone flirt with Rejoin. I think the default position will be "Fight No Deal, work for close cooperation". And insofar as Brexit is still a big thing, I think Starmer is well-placed to benefit - I associate him more than any other candidate with shifting Labour towards Remain
“ My impression is that much of the membership is fed up with Brexit - "we've lost that one, we need to get over it". 😂
Really nick? Really? Brexit can ever be just another policy where the Tory’s have won the argument? That’s how the membership you are so down with really see it.
Go on, say yes. 🙂
Since 2015 the labour leadership haven’t even engaged with brexit argument, if they had the country wouldn’t be heading into a brexit future is the truth of the matter.
Enough to fence sitting and lack of leadership on brexit from top of the Labour Party defines this election.
The particular writer in question isn't a fourth-rate Labour MP but a Professor of cultural and political theory at the University of East London. This takes nothing away from your point however.
A professor maybe, but another person trying to claim that "1997...saw the beginning of Labour’s long decline in the northern heartlands".
That's totally false. If you look at the seats that Labour lost in 2019, then 1997 was almost universally a high point, with a significant increase on the vote share they'd achieved in the previous 20 years. Some red wall seats were 20% up on the 1980s vote share.
Mr. B, when you're convinced you're virtuous and your cause is righteous, it's not too far a step to assume one's opponents are wicked by nature.
I mean, they disagree with you. And you're good. So disagreeing with goodness is bound to make them evil. Right?
True of both sides of the political divide.
This article is relevant. https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/interviews/rhetoric-escalates-talking-lilliana-mason/ The problem comes when you begin to identify with your party so strongly that you cannot imagine ever voting for the other party. Democracy requires accountability. If an elected official does something that we don’t like, that doesn’t serve our interest, then we should have the option and the impetus to vote against this person next time. But really strong partisanship allows bad behavior to continue in government, and allows representatives to ignore or even work against our interests with virtually no consequence....
To back up my comment on name recognition being significant for Starmer, here's favourability+name recognition from YouGov:
Starmer -4 (41% have heard of him) Long-Bailey -2 (24%) Phillips +2 (33%) Cooper -5 (65%) Lewis +5 (27%) Thornberry -8 (44%)
So most people have never heard of any of them except Cooper. That's a big blank canvas. None of them seem especially loved or hated by those who do know them, though Lewis's score is notable.
To back up my comment on name recognition being significant for Starmer, here's favourability+name recognition from YouGov:
Starmer -4 (41% have heard of him) Long-Bailey -2 (24%) Phillips +2 (33%) Cooper -5 (65%) Lewis +5 (27%) Thornberry -8 (44%)
So most people have never heard of any of them except Cooper. That's a big blank canvas. None of them seem especially loved or hated by those who do know them, though Lewis's score is notable.
High recog for Yvette. Hopefully because of her dedicated public duty and not because she was the wife of Strictly contestant, Ed Balls.
Mr. B, when you're convinced you're virtuous and your cause is righteous, it's not too far a step to assume one's opponents are wicked by nature.
I mean, they disagree with you. And you're good. So disagreeing with goodness is bound to make them evil. Right?
True of both sides of the political divide.
This article is relevant. https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/interviews/rhetoric-escalates-talking-lilliana-mason/ The problem comes when you begin to identify with your party so strongly that you cannot imagine ever voting for the other party. Democracy requires accountability. If an elected official does something that we don’t like, that doesn’t serve our interest, then we should have the option and the impetus to vote against this person next time. But really strong partisanship allows bad behavior to continue in government, and allows representatives to ignore or even work against our interests with virtually no consequence....
To back up my comment on name recognition being significant for Starmer, here's favourability+name recognition from YouGov:
Starmer -4 (41% have heard of him) Long-Bailey -2 (24%) Phillips +2 (33%) Cooper -5 (65%) Lewis +5 (27%) Thornberry -8 (44%)
So most people have never heard of any of them except Cooper. That's a big blank canvas. None of them seem especially loved or hated by those who do know them, though Lewis's score is notable.
Lewis's scores (+ve, -ve, and heard of) are pretty similar to Liz Kendall, so maybe not notable in terms of a leadership election
Mr. B, when you're convinced you're virtuous and your cause is righteous, it's not too far a step to assume one's opponents are wicked by nature.
I mean, they disagree with you. And you're good. So disagreeing with goodness is bound to make them evil. Right?
True of both sides of the political divide.
This article is relevant. https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/interviews/rhetoric-escalates-talking-lilliana-mason/ The problem comes when you begin to identify with your party so strongly that you cannot imagine ever voting for the other party. Democracy requires accountability. If an elected official does something that we don’t like, that doesn’t serve our interest, then we should have the option and the impetus to vote against this person next time. But really strong partisanship allows bad behavior to continue in government, and allows representatives to ignore or even work against our interests with virtually no consequence....
We've just had an election where historically passionate and long-term Labour seats went Tory, and one last time where the opposite was true. That doesn't look like a country where partisanship is an excessive problem.
I think it confuses the issue that BoJo is "populist", is manifestly proud of being British, has a certain history of using non-woke language/expressing doubleungood thoughts, and his blockbuster policy of Brexit runs contrary to the narrative of progressive internationalism - on continental Europe the equivalent anti-EU movements are largely made of nutters and neofascists. So a lot of commentators are trying to lump him in with that lot, or tie him into a global populist trend that makes him the British Trump or Bolsonaro.
But in fact he may not prove to be a Plus-Quam-Thathcerite small-state "slasher", he may be relatively laissez-faire on immigration, in fact the BoJo version of One Nationism seems unlikely to fit many of the archetypes his detractors are trying to box him into. All political moments and movements are to some extent sui generis, but I think BoJo potentially represents something substantially new, certainly a significant turn away from May. The fact BoJo's bricolage of ambitions/past statements/voting coalition/persona incorporates elements reminiscent of Trumpian populism or isolationism has distracted his critics from the broader picture, which has a spirit of its own.
I wonder if, like Blair, he may not have a very deeply thought-through underlying political philosophy for his programme, but by luck or judgement has stumbled upon a positioning that works for the voters of its times. And his opponents simply haven't yet found the right tone of response or the correct mental box to slot him into - compare that with the mid 90s, the misjudged "Demon Eyes" campaign against Blair, and the Tories struggling to pin on New Labour the charge they represented a return to 70s-style industrial strife. Or the way Brown-era Labour adverts tried and failed to pin down Cameron as the Second Coming of Maggie, because again, the public had clocked that Cameron represented something different to that. Not saying that BoJoism is going to be as coherent or transformative as Thatcherism, or necessarily "successful" even on its own terms (which are yet to be made clear), just that there is something there but it may take time for quite what to become clear, even (maybe especially) to its opponents.
Incidentally Mr Essexit - as a fellow Brexiteer and a denizen of your fine county - would I be right to judge from your new profile picture that you have managed to meet one of your heroes?
Agree with all of that re: Boris.
I did manage to meet one of my heroes! Outside Euston, on my way to an appointment. I said, "Excuse me, are you Michael Gove?" to which he replied "I'm afraid I am." - very good natured chap. We chatted Brexit and the then-impending election for a bit and I got my selfie.
I did manage to meet one of my heroes! Outside Euston, on my way to an appointment. I said, "Excuse me, are you Michael Gove?" to which he replied "I'm afraid I am." - very good natured chap. We chatted Brexit and the then-impending election for a bit and I got my selfie.
That's a great story, well done! Also nice to see high-profile politicians being exposed to the public occasionally. I've often wondered what difference it makes that American politicians are rather more hermetically sealed / travel so much by jet etc.
I wonder if, like Blair, he may not have a very deeply thought-through underlying political philosophy for his programme, but by luck or judgement has stumbled upon a positioning that works for the voters of its times. And his opponents simply haven't yet found the right tone of response or the correct mental box to slot him into - compare that with the mid 90s, the misjudged "Demon Eyes" campaign against Blair, and the Tories struggling to pin on New Labour the charge they represented a return to 70s-style industrial strife.
This seems to me to be both insightful and very plausible.
Sir Keir Starmer does detail and forensic analysis, Boris Johnson does not.
It’ll be fun when Boris Johnson tries to bluster in the Commons.
Happy New Year to all!
Am still just about alive - if pathetically weak and exhausted - and about half a stone lighter.
Anyway, I disagree that forensic questioning will destroy Boris in the Commons. I an interview maybe but not in the Commons. If Starmer tries the courtroom approach, he will fail - he will come across, possibly, as a bully or pedant or both - and probably boring to boot. Lawyers’ forensic skills do not - unaltered - always come across well in real life or to ordinary folk
He needs to use those skills to undermine Boris by making him a figure of fun - not in the way Boris has created a “fun” figure for himself - but by making him risible, by needling him, by exposing the nastier Boris under the bluff persona, by making him seem like a Wizard of Oz figure - all talk and no substance, by showing that the substance does not actually amount to much for real life voters. Simply attacking him as if he were a witness won’t do.
No idea whether Starmer can do this and it will depend on what Boris does. So were I opposition leader I would watch Boris very carefully for a while to identify where his weaknesses are and not go for the obvious ones, for which Boris will be prepared, but to come at him out of left-field in unexpected ways.
I would however dearly like to know what @Charles’s Mum has on Starmer.
I wonder if, like Blair, he may not have a very deeply thought-through underlying political philosophy for his programme, but by luck or judgement has stumbled upon a positioning that works for the voters of its times. And his opponents simply haven't yet found the right tone of response or the correct mental box to slot him into - compare that with the mid 90s, the misjudged "Demon Eyes" campaign against Blair, and the Tories struggling to pin on New Labour the charge they represented a return to 70s-style industrial strife.
This seems to me to be both insightful and very plausible.
I think Blair beats Johnson for honesty. Or at least, did at the time of his election.
Sir Keir Starmer does detail and forensic analysis, Boris Johnson does not.
It’ll be fun when Boris Johnson tries to bluster in the Commons.
Happy New Year to all!
Am still just about alive - if pathetically weak and exhausted - and about half a stone lighter.
Anyway, I disagree that forensic questioning will destroy Boris in the Commons. I an interview maybe but not in the Commons. If Starmer tries the courtroom approach, he will fail - he will come across, possibly, as a bully or pedant or both - and probably boring to boot. Lawyers’ forensic skills do not - unaltered - always come across well in real life or to ordinary folk
He needs to use those skills to undermine Boris by making him a figure of fun - not in the way Boris has created a “fun” figure for himself - but by making him risible, by needling him, by exposing the nastier Boris under the bluff persona, by making him seem like a Wizard of Oz figure - all talk and no substance, by showing that the substance does not actually amount to much for real life voters. Simply attacking him as if he were a witness won’t do.
No idea whether Starmer can do this and it will depend on what Boris does. So were I opposition leader I would watch Boris very carefully for a while to identify where his weaknesses are and not go for the obvious ones, for which Boris will be prepared, but to come at him out of left-field in unexpected ways.
I would however dearly like to know what @Charles’s Mum has on Starmer.
Mr. B, when you're convinced you're virtuous and your cause is righteous, it's not too far a step to assume one's opponents are wicked by nature.
I mean, they disagree with you. And you're good. So disagreeing with goodness is bound to make them evil. Right?
True of both sides of the political divide.
This article is relevant. https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/interviews/rhetoric-escalates-talking-lilliana-mason/ The problem comes when you begin to identify with your party so strongly that you cannot imagine ever voting for the other party. Democracy requires accountability. If an elected official does something that we don’t like, that doesn’t serve our interest, then we should have the option and the impetus to vote against this person next time. But really strong partisanship allows bad behavior to continue in government, and allows representatives to ignore or even work against our interests with virtually no consequence....
Primary elections. They do wonders in America.
MP's who don't really belong to their party would be defenestrated or forced to tow the line.
Mr. B, when you're convinced you're virtuous and your cause is righteous, it's not too far a step to assume one's opponents are wicked by nature.
I mean, they disagree with you. And you're good. So disagreeing with goodness is bound to make them evil. Right?
True of both sides of the political divide.
This article is relevant. https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/interviews/rhetoric-escalates-talking-lilliana-mason/ The problem comes when you begin to identify with your party so strongly that you cannot imagine ever voting for the other party. Democracy requires accountability. If an elected official does something that we don’t like, that doesn’t serve our interest, then we should have the option and the impetus to vote against this person next time. But really strong partisanship allows bad behavior to continue in government, and allows representatives to ignore or even work against our interests with virtually no consequence....
The European elections of 2019 showed that many Labour and Conservative voters would indeed walk away from their own party. Just not across the divide.
The General Election of 2019 showed that many former Labour voters would indeed walk away from their own party - AND cross the divide.
(The Genral Election of 1997 showed the reverse at work.)
The problem doesn't lie with the voters. If you want to see the problem at work, look at those elected and non-elected figures who were so determined to prevent Brexit.
Being a white London Remainer isn't much of a problem on it's own. Combined with the fact he was in charge of their disastrous Brexit policy it is.
That is Starmer's central weakness, his unrestricted fanatical Remain/Rejoin policy could make him another Jo Swinson if the Conservatives make an issue about it.
The attack would be along the lines of: "Keir Starmer wants to redo Brexit all over again, do you?"
Sir Keir Starmer does detail and forensic analysis, Boris Johnson does not.
It’ll be fun when Boris Johnson tries to bluster in the Commons.
Happy New Year to all!
Am still just about alive - if pathetically weak and exhausted - and about half a stone lighter.
Anyway, I disagree that forensic questioning will destroy Boris in the Commons. I an interview maybe but not in the Commons. If Starmer tries the courtroom approach, he will fail - he will come across, possibly, as a bully or pedant or both - and probably boring to boot. Lawyers’ forensic skills do not - unaltered - always come across well in real life or to ordinary folk
He needs to use those skills to undermine Boris by making him a figure of fun - not in the way Boris has created a “fun” figure for himself - but by making him risible, by needling him, by exposing the nastier Boris under the bluff persona, by making him seem like a Wizard of Oz figure - all talk and no substance, by showing that the substance does not actually amount to much for real life voters. Simply attacking him as if he were a witness won’t do.
No idea whether Starmer can do this and it will depend on what Boris does. So were I opposition leader I would watch Boris very carefully for a while to identify where his weaknesses are and not go for the obvious ones, for which Boris will be prepared, but to come at him out of left-field in unexpected ways.
I would however dearly like to know what @Charles’s Mum has on Starmer.
Sir Keir Starmer does detail and forensic analysis, Boris Johnson does not.
It’ll be fun when Boris Johnson tries to bluster in the Commons.
Happy New Year to all!
Am still just about alive - if pathetically weak and exhausted - and about half a stone lighter.
Anyway, I disagree that forensic questioning will destroy Boris in the Commons. I an interview maybe but not in the Commons. If Starmer tries the courtroom approach, he will fail - he will come across, possibly, as a bully or pedant or both - and probably boring to boot. Lawyers’ forensic skills do not - unaltered - always come across well in real life or to ordinary folk
He needs to use those skills to undermine Boris by making him a figure of fun - not in the way Boris has created a “fun” figure for himself - but by making him risible, by needling him, by exposing the nastier Boris under the bluff persona, by making him seem like a Wizard of Oz figure - all talk and no substance, by showing that the substance does not actually amount to much for real life voters. Simply attacking him as if he were a witness won’t do.
No idea whether Starmer can do this and it will depend on what Boris does. So were I opposition leader I would watch Boris very carefully for a while to identify where his weaknesses are and not go for the obvious ones, for which Boris will be prepared, but to come at him out of left-field in unexpected ways.
I would however dearly like to know what @Charles’s Mum has on Starmer.
Sorry to hear it has knocked the stuffing out of you. The one benefit is that you can now eat half a stone worth of Neuhaus chocolates without consequence. Very fine, but damn, they are rich! Even I struggled to work my way through those at one sitting.
Austria is a largely rural country that rehabilitated its Nazis; neither is typical of European politics. Even Germany is not much like Austria, and those two are only separate countries because of great-power diplomacy.
If does get the job, Starmer better be bloody good at it. 'Cuz the Sisters are going to be looking for the tiniest of openings in which to insert their stilettos.
Cameron was talking about it fifteen years ago, and Thatcher over thirty years ago.
During Cameron’s term of office the amount of wind power capacity trebled and the amount of actual power generated quintupled. Before 2010, how many people thought we would end 2019 having barely used coal generation for electricity for the last eight months of the year? Yes, changing technology played a part but government policy to push green energy in the first four years of the coalition was very important as well.
So it is unfair, whatever you think of Cameron’s government, to say Kurz is ‘ahead of the game’ on green issues.
Mr. B, when you're convinced you're virtuous and your cause is righteous, it's not too far a step to assume one's opponents are wicked by nature.
I mean, they disagree with you. And you're good. So disagreeing with goodness is bound to make them evil. Right?
True of both sides of the political divide.
This article is relevant. https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/interviews/rhetoric-escalates-talking-lilliana-mason/ The problem comes when you begin to identify with your party so strongly that you cannot imagine ever voting for the other party. Democracy requires accountability. If an elected official does something that we don’t like, that doesn’t serve our interest, then we should have the option and the impetus to vote against this person next time. But really strong partisanship allows bad behavior to continue in government, and allows representatives to ignore or even work against our interests with virtually no consequence....
Primary elections. They do wonders in America.
MP's who don't really belong to their party would be defenestrated or forced to tow the line.
Being a white London Remainer isn't much of a problem on it's own. Combined with the fact he was in charge of their disastrous Brexit policy it is.
That is Starmer's central weakness, his unrestricted fanatical Remain/Rejoin policy could make him another Jo Swinson if the Conservatives make an issue about it.
The attack would be along the lines of: "Keir Starmer wants to redo Brexit all over again, do you?"
Don't think so. He just says "we're out, but we intend to be sensible about our ongoing trade relationships and not to do ourselves unnecessary damage".
That said, this is a pitch for four years down the road, not sure what our ongoing trade relationships will look like at that point.
Cameron was talking about it fifteen years ago, and Thatcher over thirty years ago.
During Cameron’s term of office the amount of wind power capacity trebled and the amount of actual power generated quintupled. Before 2010, how many people thought we would end 2019 having barely used coal generation for electricity for the last eight months of the year? Yes, changing technology played a part but government policy to push green energy in the first four years of the coalition was very important as well.
So it is unfair, whatever you think of Cameron’s government, to say Kurz is ‘ahead of the game’ on green issues.
With Goodwin, it seems that everything is an opportunity for effortful white-identity politics.
Sir Keir Starmer does detail and forensic analysis, Boris Johnson does not.
It’ll be fun when Boris Johnson tries to bluster in the Commons.
Happy New Year to all!
Am still just about alive - if pathetically weak and exhausted - and about half a stone lighter.
Anyway, I disagree that forensic questioning will destroy Boris in the Commons. I an interview maybe but not in the Commons. If Starmer tries the courtroom approach, he will fail - he will come across, possibly, as a bully or pedant or both - and probably boring to boot. Lawyers’ forensic skills do not - unaltered - always come across well in real life or to ordinary folk
He needs to use those skills to undermine Boris by making him a figure of fun - not in the way Boris has created a “fun” figure for himself - but by making him risible, by needling him, by exposing the nastier Boris under the bluff persona, by making him seem like a Wizard of Oz figure - all talk and no substance, by showing that the substance does not actually amount to much for real life voters. Simply attacking him as if he were a witness won’t do.
No idea whether Starmer can do this and it will depend on what Boris does. So were I opposition leader I would watch Boris very carefully for a while to identify where his weaknesses are and not go for the obvious ones, for which Boris will be prepared, but to come at him out of left-field in unexpected ways.
I would however dearly like to know what @Charles’s Mum has on Starmer.
"Keir Starmer does detail and forensic analysis".. really????. Then why was his time at the DPP such a fecking disaster. All he was interested in was these public TV announcements, to get his face into the media and get his name known to further his political career post being a civil servant. These ceased after he left, and a bloody good thing too.
Cameron was talking about it fifteen years ago, and Thatcher over thirty years ago.
During Cameron’s term of office the amount of wind power capacity trebled and the amount of actual power generated quintupled. Before 2010, how many people thought we would end 2019 having barely used coal generation for electricity for the last eight months of the year? Yes, changing technology played a part but government policy to push green energy in the first four years of the coalition was very important as well.
So it is unfair, whatever you think of Cameron’s government, to say Kurz is ‘ahead of the game’ on green issues.
Much of the 'green-ness', energy-wise, was down to the then Sec of State for Energy, one Ed Davey.
I think it confuses the issue that BoJo is "populist", is manifestly proud of being British, has a certain history of using non-woke language/expressing doubleungood thoughts, and his blockbuster policy of Brexit runs contrary to the narrative of progressive internationalism - on continental Europe the equivalent anti-EU movements are largely made of nutters and neofascists. So a lot of commentators are trying to lump him in with that lot, or tie him into a global populist trend that makes him the British Trump or Bolsonaro.
But in fact he may not prove to be a Plus-Quam-Thathcerite small-state "slasher", he may be relatively laissez-faire on immigration, in fact the BoJo version of One Nationism seems unlikely to fit many of the archetypes his detractors are trying to box him into. All political moments and movements are to some extent sui generis, but I think BoJo potentially represents something substantially new, certainly a significant turn away from May. The fact BoJo's bricolage of ambitions/past statements/voting coalition/persona incorporates elements reminiscent of Trumpian populism or isolationism has distracted his critics from the broader picture, which has a spirit of its own.
I wonder if, like Blair, he may not have a very deeply thought-through underlying political philosophy for his programme, but by luck or judgement has stumbled upon a positioning that works for the voters of its times. And his opponents simply haven't yet found the right tone of response or the correct mental box to slot him into - compare that with the mid 90s, the misjudged "Demon Eyes" campaign against Blair, and the Tories struggling to pin on New Labour the charge they represented a return to 70s-style industrial strife. Or the way Brown-era Labour adverts tried and failed to pin down Cameron as the Second Coming of Maggie, because again, the public had clocked that Cameron represented something different to that. Not saying that BoJoism is going to be as coherent or transformative as Thatcherism, or necessarily "successful" even on its own terms (which are yet to be made clear), just that there is something there but it may take time for quite what to become clear, even (maybe especially) to its opponents.
In political terms I suggest Silvio Berlusconi is the closest foreign prototype for Johnson. Both promote optimism as an actual policy direction; they have very similar foreign policy positions; both are populists with little respect for institutions, some liberal (not to say libertine) instincts mixed in with many more conservative ones; a tendency to issue flamboyant pledges that never materialise.
They both also have dodgy personal ethics. However, Johnson hasn't had Berlusconi's business success, nor is he guilty of that man's grotesque levels of corruption.
Cameron was talking about it fifteen years ago, and Thatcher over thirty years ago.
During Cameron’s term of office the amount of wind power capacity trebled and the amount of actual power generated quintupled. Before 2010, how many people thought we would end 2019 having barely used coal generation for electricity for the last eight months of the year? Yes, changing technology played a part but government policy to push green energy in the first four years of the coalition was very important as well.
So it is unfair, whatever you think of Cameron’s government, to say Kurz is ‘ahead of the game’ on green issues.
Much of the 'green-ness', energy-wise, was down to the then Sec of State for Energy, one Ed Davey.
He was good, but he also came only two years into the coalition after Huhne was banged up.
Mr. Doethur, hard for the Lib Dems to claim credit (even when deserved) given their punishment by the electorate and desire, both before and since, to repudiate their vile behaviour of actually seeking to hold office rather than act as a repository of votes cast for reasons of personal satisfaction.
Cameron was talking about it fifteen years ago, and Thatcher over thirty years ago.
During Cameron’s term of office the amount of wind power capacity trebled and the amount of actual power generated quintupled. Before 2010, how many people thought we would end 2019 having barely used coal generation for electricity for the last eight months of the year? Yes, changing technology played a part but government policy to push green energy in the first four years of the coalition was very important as well.
So it is unfair, whatever you think of Cameron’s government, to say Kurz is ‘ahead of the game’ on green issues.
Much of the 'green-ness', energy-wise, was down to the then Sec of State for Energy, one Ed Davey.
He was good, but he also came only two years into the coalition after Huhne was banged up.
Cameron was talking about it fifteen years ago, and Thatcher over thirty years ago.
During Cameron’s term of office the amount of wind power capacity trebled and the amount of actual power generated quintupled. Before 2010, how many people thought we would end 2019 having barely used coal generation for electricity for the last eight months of the year? Yes, changing technology played a part but government policy to push green energy in the first four years of the coalition was very important as well.
So it is unfair, whatever you think of Cameron’s government, to say Kurz is ‘ahead of the game’ on green issues.
Much of the 'green-ness', energy-wise, was down to the then Sec of State for Energy, one Ed Davey.
He was good, but he also came only two years into the coalition after Huhne was banged up.
So that's two LibDems in the job. Hmmmm.
LDs and Conservatives both cannot claim credit or disavow responsibility as they like for achievements of the Coalition. LD ministers though they were they served under Cameron's leadership so he and others can claim credit, but likewise they cannot claim sole credit if LDs had a larger hand in shaping the shared policy.
Cameron was talking about it fifteen years ago, and Thatcher over thirty years ago.
During Cameron’s term of office the amount of wind power capacity trebled and the amount of actual power generated quintupled. Before 2010, how many people thought we would end 2019 having barely used coal generation for electricity for the last eight months of the year? Yes, changing technology played a part but government policy to push green energy in the first four years of the coalition was very important as well.
So it is unfair, whatever you think of Cameron’s government, to say Kurz is ‘ahead of the game’ on green issues.
Much of the 'green-ness', energy-wise, was down to the then Sec of State for Energy, one Ed Davey.
He was good, but he also came only two years into the coalition after Huhne was banged up.
So that's two LibDems in the job. Hmmmm.
Yes, and there was David Cameron from the start of his leadership in 2005 talking about green issues...
I am not saying the Liberal Democrats do not deserve some credit. Just as, for example, Gordon Brown does for working so hard to get offshore wind up and running in the first place.
I do say Cameron grasped how important global warming and green energy was, and when in government he oversaw an extraordinary step change in how we generate power.
We’re well on course at this moment thanks to these people to having a non-carbon electricity grid in the next decade. That’s an incredible achievement.
And yes, lots of credit to share around. It shows our politicians have worked together very well on green issues, whatever their other shortcomings.
Which comes to my original point - those tweets are total BS that underplay the way our polity has developed on green issues.
Admittedly, that said, Austria generates more non-carbon energy than we do and has an all-electric railway network. So they start from an impressively high practical base.
Comments
Cheltenham is bad news lol.
"Curbing the wealth and opportunities of those with a surfeit of both" is the kind of phrase that is going to lead me to join the Conservative Party for the first time, donate to it, and maybe even get off my backside and canvass for it!
Well there we are you see. You chaps want a Labour Party that tinkers at the edges of things. And if we give you one the great benefit we get is that you vote Tory in a calm state of mind not fearing the alternative. Hmm 😑
But that argument will onlt get heard once Labour stop behaving like a lot of sixth formers looking for grievances.
Now, having heard the argument, some may still conclude that what Labour propose is not the right solution. But some will be persuaded to vote for it. At the moment, the approach to politics is putting off voters before the proposals are given a chance.
As I have often said here this labour leadership contest is about two things. Firstly brexit. A far greater proportion of the electorate in this election are staunch remainers. And they are angry. Secondly the ability to lead. Corbyn didn’t lead. When the history of corbyn is written up he had his out of office on and there’s a picture of him sat astride a fence. And that sums it up beautifully. The key moment in the 2019 election was when corbyn refused to provide a lead on brexit, and claimed brexit neutrality. The result was labour area’s not so much voting Boris or Tory, but voting brexit. Corbyn did not lead the attack on brexit enough.
So thinking forward to this labour leadership election, what is the candidates proposal for the brexit Britain they will inherit that wins the remain vote? If a corbyn acolyte or any candidate tries to copy Corbyns lack of leadership with neutrality they will be floating upside down in seconds.
McIntosh could be dumped relatively easily because it was a simple vote by the Labour GLC group of 50 councillors (indeed a vote I believe they had to have as do many Council groups at the start of a new term with the councillors they have at that time).
Changing a Labour leader isn't anywhere near as easy. Firstly, it would need triggering by a confidence motion by Labour MPs and, despite some Corbynista new MPs, the Parliamentary party has nowhere near a far left majority. Secondly, it'd need a vote by the Labour Party even then - and that's simply inconceivable if Starmer had just taken them to an election win (note how reluctant Labour CLPs ultimately were to deselect MPs in the last Parliament - several votes were triggered but lost). Finally, even that supposes Starmer's leadership wouldn't have led to the extreme left being either expelled or drifting away over the next few years, and changes to rules to make a Labour PM safe from challenge.
The conclusion is that there's no serious question that Starmer would, if he won an election, serve the full term as Labour PM.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/02/julian-castro-ends-presidential-bid-092604
It's always pretty suspect when writers can't help themsleves but slip 'extreme right-wing' in to describe the current Conservative Party. I suppose in the narrow definition of some on the left that 'right-wing' = 'things I don't like' that the current Conservative Party is 'extreme right wing' - but not really by any other measurable criterion.
Extremely committed to a political position might be closer to the truth (but of course that also applied to Corbyn's Labour). And of course it is true that there are some extremists in both parties.
I'm less convinced by the idea of parties organising grass-roots movements and making politics more bottom-up. In our crude FPTP system it does unfortunately come down to who shows up to the election with the biggest battalions. There is a danger that getting into local campaigning for diverse local issues is displacement activity in our winner-takes-all system. We've just seen that with the last GE - years of perfectly good grass-roots LD campaigning in a number of seats translated into nothing very much at Parliamentary level.
I'm a PR supporter and I'd be pleased if Labour adopted that, because cooperation then becomes much easier. But failing that, I'd hope that both parties elect leaders who are open to cooperation and see where that takes us. We both need to decide what we're actually for, and the LibDems possibly face that more acutely because of the fixation with Brexit in 2019. If they wander off to the right as the "sound finance/austerity as needed" party, then there isn't a basis for cooperation, but if they go for a leftish/greenish approach, then there should be.
It depends what kind of Brexit Johnson chooses. He's toyed with the extreme-right tropes of the "Surrender Bill" accusations, but has now settled back into a kind of a centrist rhetoric.
By December all will be clear.
I have no doubt a number of MPs genuinely believe the same.
I mean, they disagree with you. And you're good. So disagreeing with goodness is bound to make them evil. Right?
To those who think voters can be shuffled around like playing pieces, I give the examole if Ynys Mon 2019.
My impression is that much of the membership is fed up with Brexit - "we've lost that one, we need to get over it". So while candidates will get asked about it, they'll be making a mistake if they drone on about the issue, let alone flirt with Rejoin. I think the default position will be "Fight No Deal, work for close cooperation". And insofar as Brexit is still a big thing, I think Starmer is well-placed to benefit - I associate him more than any other candidate with shifting Labour towards Remain.
His main weakness is that he's so very much Not a Northerner. Northern members don't seem to care very much, judging by YouGov (quite rightly IMO - you need to understand issues, doesn't matter if your personal life is involved), but a poll on how the wider electorate would vote with different leaders might show up some significant differences. But the fact that it's so easy to imagine him as PM is a big, big plus.
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1212694447118524416
Economically this country is practising an extreme form of liassez faire capitalism that is holding productivity bacK through too much Shortermism and greed , socially we are becoming divided, the rich richer the working poor poorer increasingly live in different worlds, the underclass despised by this government hence comments like put down the people living on benefit street. The Home Secretary wants to hang people shows how reactionary and backward the values and philosophy at the very top. Best of all, The key government policy is nationalism ahead of sound economic judgement.
Starmer -4 (41% have heard of him)
Long-Bailey -2 (24%)
Phillips +2 (33%)
Cooper -5 (65%)
Lewis +5 (27%)
Thornberry -8 (44%)
So most people have never heard of any of them except Cooper. That's a big blank canvas. None of them seem especially loved or hated by those who do know them, though Lewis's score is notable.
But in fact he may not prove to be a Plus-Quam-Thathcerite small-state "slasher", he may be relatively laissez-faire on immigration, in fact the BoJo version of One Nationism seems unlikely to fit many of the archetypes his detractors are trying to box him into. All political moments and movements are to some extent sui generis, but I think BoJo potentially represents something substantially new, certainly a significant turn away from May. The fact BoJo's bricolage of ambitions/past statements/voting coalition/persona incorporates elements reminiscent of Trumpian populism or isolationism has distracted his critics from the broader picture, which has a spirit of its own.
I wonder if, like Blair, he may not have a very deeply thought-through underlying political philosophy for his programme, but by luck or judgement has stumbled upon a positioning that works for the voters of its times. And his opponents simply haven't yet found the right tone of response or the correct mental box to slot him into - compare that with the mid 90s, the misjudged "Demon Eyes" campaign against Blair, and the Tories struggling to pin on New Labour the charge they represented a return to 70s-style industrial strife. Or the way Brown-era Labour adverts tried and failed to pin down Cameron as the Second Coming of Maggie, because again, the public had clocked that Cameron represented something different to that. Not saying that BoJoism is going to be as coherent or transformative as Thatcherism, or necessarily "successful" even on its own terms (which are yet to be made clear), just that there is something there but it may take time for quite what to become clear, even (maybe especially) to its opponents.
Incidentally Mr Essexit - as a fellow Brexiteer and a denizen of your fine county - would I be right to judge from your new profile picture that you have managed to meet one of your heroes?
Really nick? Really? Brexit can ever be just another policy where the Tory’s have won the argument? That’s how the membership you are so down with really see it.
Go on, say yes. 🙂
Since 2015 the labour leadership haven’t even engaged with brexit argument, if they had the country wouldn’t be heading into a brexit future is the truth of the matter.
Enough to fence sitting and lack of leadership on brexit from top of the Labour Party defines this election.
That's totally false. If you look at the seats that Labour lost in 2019, then 1997 was almost universally a high point, with a significant increase on the vote share they'd achieved in the previous 20 years. Some red wall seats were 20% up on the 1980s vote share.
This article is relevant.
https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/interviews/rhetoric-escalates-talking-lilliana-mason/
The problem comes when you begin to identify with your party so strongly that you cannot imagine ever voting for the other party. Democracy requires accountability. If an elected official does something that we don’t like, that doesn’t serve our interest, then we should have the option and the impetus to vote against this person next time. But really strong partisanship allows bad behavior to continue in government, and allows representatives to ignore or even work against our interests with virtually no consequence....
I did manage to meet one of my heroes! Outside Euston, on my way to an appointment. I said, "Excuse me, are you Michael Gove?" to which he replied "I'm afraid I am." - very good natured chap. We chatted Brexit and the then-impending election for a bit and I got my selfie.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50973232
Other leaders, take note.
Am still just about alive - if pathetically weak and exhausted - and about half a stone lighter.
Anyway, I disagree that forensic questioning will destroy Boris in the Commons. I an interview maybe but not in the Commons. If Starmer tries the courtroom approach, he will fail - he will come across, possibly, as a bully or pedant or both - and probably boring to boot. Lawyers’ forensic skills do not - unaltered - always come across well in real life or to ordinary folk
He needs to use those skills to undermine Boris by making him a figure of fun - not in the way Boris has created a “fun” figure for himself - but by making him risible, by needling him, by exposing the nastier Boris under the bluff persona, by making him seem like a Wizard of Oz figure - all talk and no substance, by showing that the substance does not actually amount to much for real life voters. Simply attacking him as if he were a witness won’t do.
No idea whether Starmer can do this and it will depend on what Boris does. So were I opposition leader I would watch Boris very carefully for a while to identify where his weaknesses are and not go for the obvious ones, for which Boris will be prepared, but to come at him out of left-field in unexpected ways.
I would however dearly like to know what @Charles’s Mum has on Starmer.
Come on @Charles. Do your duty!
Some of them were sufficiently deluded to think they had the support of the voters. Bless.....
File under "Where are they now?" (Answer - not in the House of Lords.....)
They do wonders in America.
MP's who don't really belong to their party would be defenestrated or forced to tow the line.
The General Election of 2019 showed that many former Labour voters would indeed walk away from their own party - AND cross the divide.
(The Genral Election of 1997 showed the reverse at work.)
The problem doesn't lie with the voters. If you want to see the problem at work, look at those elected and non-elected figures who were so determined to prevent Brexit.
The attack would be along the lines of:
"Keir Starmer wants to redo Brexit all over again, do you?"
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/us/politics/julian-castro-dropping-out.html
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1212694721098899458
During Cameron’s term of office the amount of wind power capacity trebled and the amount of actual power generated quintupled. Before 2010, how many people thought we would end 2019 having barely used coal generation for electricity for the last eight months of the year? Yes, changing technology played a part but government policy to push green energy in the first four years of the coalition was very important as well.
So it is unfair, whatever you think of Cameron’s government, to say Kurz is ‘ahead of the game’ on green issues.
That said, this is a pitch for four years down the road, not sure what our ongoing trade relationships will look like at that point.
Proud to continue carry my European one until I have to renew it in about 3 years. Whether or not, of course........
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/just-2-per-cent-of-britain-s-power-now-comes-from-coal-in-australia-it-s-more-like-three-quarters-20200101-p53o71.html
I wonder if we will see Australia suddenly moving to wind, solar and tide?
They both also have dodgy personal ethics. However, Johnson hasn't had Berlusconi's business success, nor is he guilty of that man's grotesque levels of corruption.
He stopped using it when he found that every time he had written about Hitler’s connection with Austria it had been changed to, you guessed it,..
I am not saying the Liberal Democrats do not deserve some credit. Just as, for example, Gordon Brown does for working so hard to get offshore wind up and running in the first place.
I do say Cameron grasped how important global warming and green energy was, and when in government he oversaw an extraordinary step change in how we generate power.
We’re well on course at this moment thanks to these people to having a non-carbon electricity grid in the next decade. That’s an incredible achievement.
And yes, lots of credit to share around. It shows our politicians have worked together very well on green issues, whatever their other shortcomings.
Which comes to my original point - those tweets are total BS that underplay the way our polity has developed on green issues.
Admittedly, that said, Austria generates more non-carbon energy than we do and has an all-electric railway network. So they start from an impressively high practical base.