In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
In practice, I can understand why so many people love the monarchy, and that there are many positives to having the most prominent royal family in the world. As for schools, I can understand why private education is popular, and a blanket ban is unlikely to be a vote winner amongst the general public. Policy wise you're right; disincentivize is probably a better word - "encouraging" the top universities, and public bodies to recruit the best candidates, rather than the "best educated". Closing things down is negative - giving more people a chance to shine is a positive.
I agree with you entirely. It's just a matter of turning this into policies. I say "just" but in practice - given the peculiar (almost sentimental) attachment that so many in this country have to entrenched inequality and thus the tendency to label any serious attempt to address it as "Class War" - this is the hard bit.
Class War gets you 200 seats and complete political irrelevance.
The Right Honourable Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC MP - a symbol of the vertiginous social mobility enabled by the Thatcher-Blair settlement if ever there was one - seems to have the sense to appreciate this.
Basically, the more his policies upset you, the closer Labour will be to regaining power...
While I'm a long way away in Los Angeles, I find myself increasingly impressed with Keir. He's sensibly put Brexit behind, he's not got dodgy terrorist friends, and he's not interested in class warfare.
If Boris and Brexit stumble, he'll be a very reasonable sounding person criticising from the sidelines.
Will it be enough? Probably not, but he could run the Conservatives close in 2024. And given the dominance of the SNP and the existence of Northern Ireland, he could deny the Conservatives a majority again.
Agreed. The dullness question is there, but at least he's sane and not of the looney left.
Hasn't said anything yet to scare any horses or send any red lights.
It's 20th January, not 20th February for new members to get a vote in the Labour leadership election.
The interesting bit, though, is that there is essentially a two-part nomination process - you get your MP/MEP backing (you'll need 22) and you'll then have a month to get the CLP or affiliate/union backing. This will help candidates like Nandy and Phillips get onto the final ballot, and is quite unexpected. It could be that we have a wider field than many - including me - were anticipating. This may be the Stop Starmer play.
It's 20th January, not 20th February for new members to get a vote in the Labour leadership election.
The interesting bit, though, is that there is essentially a two-part nomination process - you get your MP/MEP backing (you'll need 22) and you'll then have a month to get the CLP or affiliate/union backing. This will help candidates like Nandy and Phillips get onto the final ballot, and is quite unexpected. It could be that we have a wider field than many - including me - were anticipating. This may be the Stop Starmer play.
I thought it was always going to be a two-part nomination process.
It's 20th January, not 20th February for new members to get a vote in the Labour leadership election.
The interesting bit, though, is that there is essentially a two-part nomination process - you get your MP/MEP backing (you'll need 22) and you'll then have a month to get the CLP or affiliate/union backing. This will help candidates like Nandy and Phillips get onto the final ballot, and is quite unexpected. It could be that we have a wider field than many - including me - were anticipating. This may be the Stop Starmer play.
The stop Starmer crowd certainly don't want Phillips instead of him.
In theory I'm a republican who would ban private education tomorrow (and church schools, which in my area create a middle class/working class divide).
.
I agree with you entirely. It's just a matter of turning this into policies. I say "just" but in practice - given the peculiar (almost sentimental) attachment that so many in this country have to entrenched inequality and thus the tendency to label any serious attempt to address it as "Class War" - this is the hard bit.
"Class War" would be a charge that is levelled, I agree, but the main issue for me, as a liberal, is that banning private schools curtails freedom.
y.
We should abolish all state schools/the Department for Education and use the money to give parents vouchers for schools of their choice.
It is entirely up to the parents if they wish to top up these vouchers.
Free markets work, the DfE, comprehensives, grammar schools do not.
It was quite striking when we first moved from having children at the local nursery (paid for by vouchers) to the local primary school (state run). In the former, we were treated as customers; our opinion was valuable, it was recignised that we could have chosen and could still choose to go elsewhere, the nursery strove to provide the sort of education and environment we would want for our children; at the latter, it felt like we had to do as we were told and put up with things as they were. After all, what else were we going to do?
Elder Grandson is a teacher in a state primary school; he really wishes more parents would engage sensibly with the school, instead of turning up occasionally to complain.
Well we do. And all the parents we know do. This is a pretty engaged area. But still, at the least, you are constantly struck by the expectation of the school that there will be at least one parent waiting around at home all day. The number of times you get rather less than a week's notice to be in school at some point during the working day. And that's before the issue that some of the teachers have a very tenuous relationship with adequacy - so if you happen to draw a short straw in a particular year, bad luck. Many of the teachers, I should stress, are great. Most are at least good. But whether you end up with a great teacher for your child feels like merely whether the cards happen to fall for you or not.
Off topic, I'm seeing Ricky Gervais's Golden Globes speech being rt-ed approvingly by KT Hopkins, Leave.EU, Paul Joseph Watson and the like. Perhaps not the effect he was aiming for, or perhaps it was, who knows any more?
He did a joke about super wokeness. That's all you have to do to please the Hopkins crowd. You and I could do it no sweat.
It's 20th January, not 20th February for new members to get a vote in the Labour leadership election.
The interesting bit, though, is that there is essentially a two-part nomination process - you get your MP/MEP backing (you'll need 22) and you'll then have a month to get the CLP or affiliate/union backing. This will help candidates like Nandy and Phillips get onto the final ballot, and is quite unexpected. It could be that we have a wider field than many - including me - were anticipating. This may be the Stop Starmer play.
Couldn't they do that more effectively by applying the only former NUM Officers called Ian rule?
It really is a comedy show. First of April rather than the fourth would have been most appropriate.
On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.
The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.
What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.
Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.
6 days into the NY and we have:-
1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power. 2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit. 3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes. 4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before. 5. IS on the rise again. 6. No clear US strategy. 7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.
How encouraging .....
De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.
I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.
UAE spent $3.3bn on an oil pipeline that bypasses the Straight of Hormuz. Right now that’s looking like money very well spent.
There’s also an economic blockade of Qatar by most of the rest of the Gulf states, as they are funding Iran and the war in Yemen. At the heart of pretty much everything in the region is the centuries-old Sunni v Shia Muslim conflict.
It's 20th January, not 20th February for new members to get a vote in the Labour leadership election.
The interesting bit, though, is that there is essentially a two-part nomination process - you get your MP/MEP backing (you'll need 22) and you'll then have a month to get the CLP or affiliate/union backing. This will help candidates like Nandy and Phillips get onto the final ballot, and is quite unexpected. It could be that we have a wider field than many - including me - were anticipating. This may be the Stop Starmer play.
Couldn't they do that more effectively by applying the only former NUM Officers called Ian rule?
It really is a comedy show.
Can an MEP sign BEFORE the end of the month, and would that signature still count?
While I'm a long way away in Los Angeles, I find myself increasingly impressed with Keir. He's sensibly put Brexit behind, he's not got dodgy terrorist friends, and he's not interested in class warfare.
If Boris and Brexit stumble, he'll be a very reasonable sounding person criticising from the sidelines.
Will it be enough? Probably not, but he could run the Conservatives close in 2024. And given the dominance of the SNP and the existence of Northern Ireland, he could deny the Conservatives a majority again.
I think it might well be enough. Last month Labour got a third of the vote despite having the weakest front bench any major party has had in living memory, with a superannuated 60s hard-left, terrorist-supporting, anti-Semitic leader who wasn't even supported by his own MPs or by the Labour mayor of London, and all this on a platform which was completely risible even before they announced they'd bung £58bn at a very undeserving cause.
If the Labour brand is so incredibly strong that it can survive that and still get so many votes and seats, how well will they do if they are led by someone sane, who is not mired in a moral sewer, and who appreciates the importance of putting forward a vaguely credible manifesto?
What about all the ‘oh Jeremy Corbyn’ massive? Will they vote for people you consider normal? They loved Jez
One thing that doesn’t seem to occur to those citing passing the 11 plus and going to a grammar as solid working class credentials for a labour leadership contender is that to anyone under 40 that is the epitome of a moneyed upper middle class lifestyle
You have written down the name of either the Rep or Dem Pres or Vice-Pres candidate in every US election from 1952 to 2004 EXCEPT JUST ONE - some timespan eh!
No Googling! The 3 surnames? (Two are easy, the 3rd more difficult) The one GE you haven't covered?
On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.
The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.
What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.
Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.
6 days into the NY and we have:-
1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power. 2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit. 3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes. 4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before. 5. IS on the rise again. 6. No clear US strategy. 7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.
How encouraging .....
De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.
I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.
UAE spent $3.3bn on an oil pipeline that bypasses the Straight of Hormuz. Right now that’s looking like money very well spent.
There’s also an economic blockade of Qatar by most of the rest of the Gulf states, as they are funding Iran and the war in Yemen. At the heart of pretty much everything in the region is the centuries-old Sunni v Shia Muslim conflict.
It's 20th January, not 20th February for new members to get a vote in the Labour leadership election.
The interesting bit, though, is that there is essentially a two-part nomination process - you get your MP/MEP backing (you'll need 22) and you'll then have a month to get the CLP or affiliate/union backing. This will help candidates like Nandy and Phillips get onto the final ballot, and is quite unexpected. It could be that we have a wider field than many - including me - were anticipating. This may be the Stop Starmer play.
Couldn't they do that more effectively by applying the only former NUM Officers called Ian rule?
It really is a comedy show.
Can an MEP sign BEFORE the end of the month, and would that signature still count?
While I'm a long way away in Los Angeles, I find myself increasingly impressed with Keir. He's sensibly put Brexit behind, he's not got dodgy terrorist friends, and he's not interested in class warfare.
If Boris and Brexit stumble, he'll be a very reasonable sounding person criticising from the sidelines.
Will it be enough? Probably not, but he could run the Conservatives close in 2024. And given the dominance of the SNP and the existence of Northern Ireland, he could deny the Conservatives a majority again.
I think it might well be enough. Last month Labour got a third of the vote despite having the weakest front bench any major party has had in living memory, with a superannuated 60s hard-left, terrorist-supporting, anti-Semitic leader who wasn't even supported by his own MPs or by the Labour mayor of London, and all this on a platform which was completely risible even before they announced they'd bung £58bn at a very undeserving cause.
If the Labour brand is so incredibly strong that it can survive that and still get so many votes and seats, how well will they do if they are led by someone sane, who is not mired in a moral sewer, and who appreciates the importance of putting forward a vaguely credible manifesto?
What about all the ‘oh Jeremy Corbyn’ massive? Will they vote for people you consider normal? They loved Jez
I’m guessing that they are by and large in safe Labour (London, Liverpool, etc.) seats already.
While I'm a long way away in Los Angeles, I find myself increasingly impressed with Keir. He's sensibly put Brexit behind, he's not got dodgy terrorist friends, and he's not interested in class warfare.
If Boris and Brexit stumble, he'll be a very reasonable sounding person criticising from the sidelines.
Will it be enough? Probably not, but he could run the Conservatives close in 2024. And given the dominance of the SNP and the existence of Northern Ireland, he could deny the Conservatives a majority again.
I think it might well be enough. Last month Labour got a third of the vote despite having the weakest front bench any major party has had in living memory, with a superannuated 60s hard-left, terrorist-supporting, anti-Semitic leader who wasn't even supported by his own MPs or by the Labour mayor of London, and all this on a platform which was completely risible even before they announced they'd bung £58bn at a very undeserving cause.
If the Labour brand is so incredibly strong that it can survive that and still get so many votes and seats, how well will they do if they are led by someone sane, who is not mired in a moral sewer, and who appreciates the importance of putting forward a vaguely credible manifesto?
As well as they did under Ed Miliband?
Seriously, you make some good points. But the takeaway may be that the Labour vote share is largely uncorrelated with (perceptions of) their leader's competence, and that UK elections boil down to: if the Conservatives have a credible proposition, they get in. If they don't, and Labour do, then Labour get in. If neither do, then the country votes Conservative, but only by a narrow margin.
I think you have to go back quite a long way to find a counterexample. But, it may be that I am defining propositions as credible or otherwise retrospectively based on whether they resulted in majorities at the ballot box.
You have written down the name of either the Rep or Dem Pres or Vice-Pres candidate in every US election from 1952 to 2004 EXCEPT JUST ONE - some timespan eh!
No Googling! The 3 surnames? (Two are easy, the 3rd more difficult) The one GE you haven't covered?
Nixon and Bush have to be two of them. Clinton? Although that overlaps a lot with Bush. 2012 the odd one out?
You have written down the name of either the Rep or Dem Pres or Vice-Pres candidate in every US election from 1952 to 2004 EXCEPT JUST ONE - some timespan eh!
No Googling! The 3 surnames? (Two are easy, the 3rd more difficult) The one GE you haven't covered?
On Iran, Boris/Macron asking them not to retaliate is wishful thinking. Politically, they have to retaliate meaningfully, and everyone knows this. Face.
The best the West can hope for (Iran will lump in the UK and Israel regardless of what we say) is to contain that retaliation and not to respond to it when it comes.
What worries me most is the kidnapping of a high-level Western general/admiral/politician who would then be brutally lynched and murdered, probably on TV.
Or some act of terrorism arranged by Iran but carried out by one of its affiliates.
6 days into the NY and we have:-
1. Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power. 2. The likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries will follow suit. 3. Trump threatening to carry out war crimes. 4. Iraq in an even greater mess than before. 5. IS on the rise again. 6. No clear US strategy. 7. The rest of the West hoping for de-escalation but with no clear way of achieving it.
How encouraging .....
De-escalation is an appeal to reason, and there is no reason there. Too many leaders and their affiliates out there in the Middle East seem to relish conflict; it’s almost as if they have nothing better to do.
I’d like to see the UAE, Jordan and Oman exercise a bit more influence and containment over there, to be honest. Christ knows if they ever would.
The Sultan of Oman may be on his way out soon (cancer). He has no children so it is unclear who the successor will be.
Expect another conservative Islamist takeover then.
Hard to know. The Sultan is of course an autocrat but is also somewhat unorthodox being known for his handsome male bodyguards. Perhaps as a result the Omanis have been known to turn a blind eye to activities that might get one into trouble elsewhere in the Arab world, provided discretion is maintained.
Rumour is (apart from *that* rumour) that Qaboos and his courtiers have decided and agreed who will succeed him already, in writing. I do hope so, as a smooth transition would be preferable all round. Oman is a lovely, lovely place.
I wonder who gets the (absolutely feckin' enormous) yacht?
Oman is indeed a lovely place, and they’re doing their best to stay neutral in the conflict that’s drawn in all of their neighbours.
You have written down the name of either the Rep or Dem Pres or Vice-Pres candidate in every US election from 1952 to 2004 EXCEPT JUST ONE - some timespan eh!
No Googling! The 3 surnames? (Two are easy, the 3rd more difficult) The one GE you haven't covered?
Bush, Nixon, Reagen ?
The guy with the fruit importers name? David Maxwell Fyffe?
You have written down the name of either the Rep or Dem Pres or Vice-Pres candidate in every US election from 1952 to 2004 EXCEPT JUST ONE - some timespan eh!
No Googling! The 3 surnames? (Two are easy, the 3rd more difficult) The one GE you haven't covered?
Bush, Nixon, Reagen ?
I don't think Reagan. I think its the 1996 Presidential candidates who's name I forget
You have written down the name of either the Rep or Dem Pres or Vice-Pres candidate in every US election from 1952 to 2004 EXCEPT JUST ONE - some timespan eh!
No Googling! The 3 surnames? (Two are easy, the 3rd more difficult) The one GE you haven't covered?
Bush, Nixon, Reagen ?
The guy with the fruit importers name? David Maxwell Fyffe?
Only joking- former Conservative Welsh Secretary. Bob Dole!
You have written down the name of either the Rep or Dem Pres or Vice-Pres candidate in every US election from 1952 to 2004 EXCEPT JUST ONE - some timespan eh!
No Googling! The 3 surnames? (Two are easy, the 3rd more difficult) The one GE you haven't covered?
Bush, Nixon, Reagen ?
I don't think Reagan. I think its the 1996 Presidential candidates who's name I forget
It's 20th January, not 20th February for new members to get a vote in the Labour leadership election.
The interesting bit, though, is that there is essentially a two-part nomination process - you get your MP/MEP backing (you'll need 22) and you'll then have a month to get the CLP or affiliate/union backing. This will help candidates like Nandy and Phillips get onto the final ballot, and is quite unexpected. It could be that we have a wider field than many - including me - were anticipating. This may be the Stop Starmer play.
I thought it was always going to be a two-part nomination process.
Yep, I should have mentioned the timeframe. There's a month between the MP/MEP nominations and the CLP/affiliate/union ones. The tighter the gap between them, the harder it would be for anyone other than Starmer and Long Bailey to get onto the ballot. This brings the CLPs much more into play.
It's 20th January, not 20th February for new members to get a vote in the Labour leadership election.
The interesting bit, though, is that there is essentially a two-part nomination process - you get your MP/MEP backing (you'll need 22) and you'll then have a month to get the CLP or affiliate/union backing. This will help candidates like Nandy and Phillips get onto the final ballot, and is quite unexpected. It could be that we have a wider field than many - including me - were anticipating. This may be the Stop Starmer play.
I thought it was always going to be a two-part nomination process.
Yep, I should have mentioned the timeframe. There's a month between the MP/MEP nominations and the CLP/affiliate/union ones. The tighter the gap between them, the harder it would be for anyone other than Starmer and Long Bailey to get onto the ballot. This brings the CLPs much more into play.
Starmer's online TV pitch is dripping with rose tinted nostalgia and ancient 1980s grievances against Fatcha.
'When the tories closed the pits'. Jeez listen to yourself.
He's trying to become leader of the Labour Party. Of course he must know it's absolute tosh, but you have to say nonsense like that to get the gig.
Much like Johnson, the Conservative Party, and letterboxes/bank robbers.
Not quite - to get the gig Boris had simply to say we were leaving the EU on October 31st, do or die. That fantasy was what the party wanted to hear, despite it obviously not being in his power to deliver it.
Starmer's online TV pitch is dripping with rose tinted nostalgia and ancient 1980s grievances against Fatcha.
'When the tories closed the pits'. Jeez listen to yourself.
Some of us still like that sort of rhetoric. I am sure after a few years of Johnson it will become as pertinent as it was back in the day.
Comfort food for members. Won't do him any harm, but in the wider electorate he'll need to reach out more, which i'm sure he will.
The ultimate success of whoever gets the gig is down to Boris Johnson's star rising or falling, unless of course Ian Lavery wins. Under that circumstance Boris could sell the UK to Trump for a pound and still get a landslide.
Agreed. The dullness question is there, but at least he's sane and not of the looney left.
Hasn't said anything yet to scare any horses or send any red lights.
This is becoming a trope. Starmer is NOT dull. He's intelligent and articulate and on top of that I pick up warmth and humour and a certain decency. That's not too shabby. Looks the part too. All in all a quality package. Now of course it would be fantastic if on top of the foregoing he was also a laugh-a-minute comic talent of the very first rank - but I for one am not going to reject him out of hand because he isn't.
Just watched Starmer on Marr. If I forgive him the insipid answer on private schools I found him very impressive. My determination not to vote for him might be sorely tested at this rate.
He realises that attacking private schools is an example of something that is more thinkable than it is doable.
And people might start mentioning that he went to one!
Sam we've done this. From a solidly working class background (nurse, toolmaker) he passed the exams to get into a free grammar school which, midway through his time there, went fee-paying.
How that is a negative point against him goodness only knows.
Agreed. The dullness question is there, but at least he's sane and not of the looney left.
Hasn't said anything yet to scare any horses or send any red lights.
This is becoming a trope. Starmer is NOT dull. He's intelligent and articulate and on top of that I pick up warmth and humour and a certain decency. That's not too shabby. Looks the part too. All in all a quality package. Now of course it would be fantastic if on top of the foregoing he was also a laugh-a-minute comic talent of the very first rank - but I for one am not going to reject him out of hand because he isn't.
Just watched Starmer on Marr. If I forgive him the insipid answer on private schools I found him very impressive. My determination not to vote for him might be sorely tested at this rate.
He realises that attacking private schools is an example of something that is more thinkable than it is doable.
And people might start mentioning that he went to one!
Sam we've done this. From a solidly working class background (nurse, toolmaker) he passed the exams to get into a free grammar school which, midway through his time there, went fee-paying.
How that is a negative point against him goodness only knows.
In fact, he imo is the very image of what Labour should be about. No silver spoon, damn hard work to get to the top of his profession and then entered politics. Apart from the ovaries thing I can think of no better candidate or poster child to be Lab leader right now.
Not quite - to get the gig Boris had simply to say we were leaving the EU on October 31st, do or die. That fantasy was what the party wanted to hear, despite it obviously not being in his power to deliver it.
It was the commitment that near enough unified the Conservatives, produced the overreach ultimately of the Letwin proposals and triggered the near landslide victory though ? So though he could never deliver it it was a fantasy that lead to ultimately victory.
While I'm a long way away in Los Angeles, I find myself increasingly impressed with Keir. He's sensibly put Brexit behind, he's not got dodgy terrorist friends, and he's not interested in class warfare.
If Boris and Brexit stumble, he'll be a very reasonable sounding person criticising from the sidelines.
Will it be enough? Probably not, but he could run the Conservatives close in 2024. And given the dominance of the SNP and the existence of Northern Ireland, he could deny the Conservatives a majority again.
I think it might well be enough. Last month Labour got a third of the vote despite having the weakest front bench any major party has had in living memory, with a superannuated 60s hard-left, terrorist-supporting, anti-Semitic leader who wasn't even supported by his own MPs or by the Labour mayor of London, and all this on a platform which was completely risible even before they announced they'd bung £58bn at a very undeserving cause.
If the Labour brand is so incredibly strong that it can survive that and still get so many votes and seats, how well will they do if they are led by someone sane, who is not mired in a moral sewer, and who appreciates the importance of putting forward a vaguely credible manifesto?
Starmer will not frighten moderate Tories thinking of switching to the LibDems. Labour only has a chance next time if the LibDems pick up Tory-held seats.
Just watched Starmer on Marr. If I forgive him the insipid answer on private schools I found him very impressive. My determination not to vote for him might be sorely tested at this rate.
He realises that attacking private schools is an example of something that is more thinkable than it is doable.
And people might start mentioning that he went to one!
Sam we've done this. From a solidly working class background (nurse, toolmaker) he passed the exams to get into a free grammar school which, midway through his time there, went fee-paying.
How that is a negative point against him goodness only knows.
PB Tories first went for RLB saying she was unelectable for being both stupid and a Corbynite. Now Starmer is favourite, he is unelectable because he is as dull as Ed and a public schoolboy to boot. They'll be saying Ian Lavery is an ignorant NUM stooge next...oh wait...
You have written down the name of either the Rep or Dem Pres or Vice-Pres candidate in every US election from 1952 to 2004 EXCEPT JUST ONE - some timespan eh!
No Googling! The 3 surnames? (Two are easy, the 3rd more difficult) The one GE you haven't covered?
While I'm a long way away in Los Angeles, I find myself increasingly impressed with Keir. He's sensibly put Brexit behind, he's not got dodgy terrorist friends, and he's not interested in class warfare.
If Boris and Brexit stumble, he'll be a very reasonable sounding person criticising from the sidelines.
Will it be enough? Probably not, but he could run the Conservatives close in 2024. And given the dominance of the SNP and the existence of Northern Ireland, he could deny the Conservatives a majority again.
I think it might well be enough. Last month Labour got a third of the vote despite having the weakest front bench any major party has had in living memory, with a superannuated 60s hard-left, terrorist-supporting, anti-Semitic leader who wasn't even supported by his own MPs or by the Labour mayor of London, and all this on a platform which was completely risible even before they announced they'd bung £58bn at a very undeserving cause.
If the Labour brand is so incredibly strong that it can survive that and still get so many votes and seats, how well will they do if they are led by someone sane, who is not mired in a moral sewer, and who appreciates the importance of putting forward a vaguely credible manifesto?
Starmer will not frighten moderate Tories thinking of switching to the LibDems. Labour only has a chance next time if the LibDems pick up Tory-held seats.
If Starmer (or someone else) succeeds in purging the loons who have taken over Labour, and comes up with a sane policy platform, then some Conservative voters in Lab/Com marginals will vote Labour, or perhaps LibDem. It is not as though Boris has high favourability ratings, and things are likely to get worse for him as the inevitable compromises and cock-ups kick in. This feels to me much like 1992: much of the country is thoroughly fed up with the Conservatives, and will kick them out as soon as there is a viable alternative.
Of course that assumes that the Labour Party wants to be a viable alternative. We don't know that yet.
Agreed. The dullness question is there, but at least he's sane and not of the looney left.
Hasn't said anything yet to scare any horses or send any red lights.
This is becoming a trope. Starmer is NOT dull. He's intelligent and articulate and on top of that I pick up warmth and humour and a certain decency. That's not too shabby. Looks the part too. All in all a quality package. Now of course it would be fantastic if on top of the foregoing he was also a laugh-a-minute comic talent of the very first rank - but I for one am not going to reject him out of hand because he isn't.
You picked up that there was no anti-semitism in the Labour Party “because if there were I would not be a member”. Your judgment needs some work.
Just watched Starmer on Marr. If I forgive him the insipid answer on private schools I found him very impressive. My determination not to vote for him might be sorely tested at this rate.
He realises that attacking private schools is an example of something that is more thinkable than it is doable.
And people might start mentioning that he went to one!
Sam we've done this. From a solidly working class background (nurse, toolmaker) he passed the exams to get into a free grammar school which, midway through his time there, went fee-paying.
How that is a negative point against him goodness only knows.
PB Tories first went for RLB saying she was unelectable for being both stupid and a Corbynite. Now Starmer is favourite, he is unelectable because he is as dull as Ed and a public schoolboy to boot. They'll be saying Ian Lavery is an ignorant NUM stooge next...oh wait...
The difficulty Lab had at 10.01pm on May 7th 2015 was what did Lab offer that the Cons didn't as they were within a gnat's crochet of each other around the centre of British politics. And there followed with several Ed-type centre leftists and...The Jezziah!
Well he was different, but we saw what the British public thought of that. The question remains, however: what is, or should be the difference between the Cons and Lab. Take Brexit out (which is not a left/right issue) and the answer lies in how much people think the Cons have moved to the right. Has it done so? Perhaps. We shall see how Dom and the ERG shape up. If so there is merit in having a sensible centre left type, eg Starmer in charge of Lab. If not, then I don't think it matters and the Party might well elect a Corbyn-lite candidate.
While I'm a long way away in Los Angeles, I find myself increasingly impressed with Keir. He's sensibly put Brexit behind, he's not got dodgy terrorist friends, and he's not interested in class warfare.
If Boris and Brexit stumble, he'll be a very reasonable sounding person criticising from the sidelines.
Will it be enough? Probably not, but he could run the Conservatives close in 2024. And given the dominance of the SNP and the existence of Northern Ireland, he could deny the Conservatives a majority again.
I think it might well be enough. Last month Labour got a third of the vote despite having the weakest front bench any major party has had in living memory, with a superannuated 60s hard-left, terrorist-supporting, anti-Semitic leader who wasn't even supported by his own MPs or by the Labour mayor of London, and all this on a platform which was completely risible even before they announced they'd bung £58bn at a very undeserving cause.
If the Labour brand is so incredibly strong that it can survive that and still get so many votes and seats, how well will they do if they are led by someone sane, who is not mired in a moral sewer, and who appreciates the importance of putting forward a vaguely credible manifesto?
Starmer will not frighten moderate Tories thinking of switching to the LibDems. Labour only has a chance next time if the LibDems pick up Tory-held seats.
If Starmer (or someone else) succeeds in purging the loons who have taken over Labour, and comes up with a sane policy platform, then some Conservative voters in Lab/Com marginals will vote Labour, or perhaps LibDem. It is not as though Boris has high favourability ratings, and things are likely to get worse for him as the inevitable compromises and cock-ups kick in. This feels to me much like 1992: much of the country is thoroughly fed up with the Conservatives, and will kick them out as soon as there is a viable alternative.
Of course that assumes that the Labour Party wants to be a viable alternative. We don't know that yet.
While I'm a long way away in Los Angeles, I find myself increasingly impressed with Keir. He's sensibly put Brexit behind, he's not got dodgy terrorist friends, and he's not interested in class warfare.
If Boris and Brexit stumble, he'll be a very reasonable sounding person criticising from the sidelines.
Will it be enough? Probably not, but he could run the Conservatives close in 2024. And given the dominance of the SNP and the existence of Northern Ireland, he could deny the Conservatives a majority again.
I think it might well be enough. Last month Labour got a third of the vote despite having the weakest front bench any major party has had in living memory, with a superannuated 60s hard-left, terrorist-supporting, anti-Semitic leader who wasn't even supported by his own MPs or by the Labour mayor of London, and all this on a platform which was completely risible even before they announced they'd bung £58bn at a very undeserving cause.
If the Labour brand is so incredibly strong that it can survive that and still get so many votes and seats, how well will they do if they are led by someone sane, who is not mired in a moral sewer, and who appreciates the importance of putting forward a vaguely credible manifesto?
Starmer will not frighten moderate Tories thinking of switching to the LibDems. Labour only has a chance next time if the LibDems pick up Tory-held seats.
If Starmer (or someone else) succeeds in purging the loons who have taken over Labour, and comes up with a sane policy platform, then some Conservative voters in Lab/Com marginals will vote Labour, or perhaps LibDem. It is not as though Boris has high favourability ratings, and things are likely to get worse for him as the inevitable compromises and cock-ups kick in. This feels to me much like 1992: much of the country is thoroughly fed up with the Conservatives, and will kick them out as soon as there is a viable alternative.
Of course that assumes that the Labour Party wants to be a viable alternative. We don't know that yet.
Just watched Starmer on Marr. If I forgive him the insipid answer on private schools I found him very impressive. My determination not to vote for him might be sorely tested at this rate.
He realises that attacking private schools is an example of something that is more thinkable than it is doable.
And people might start mentioning that he went to one!
Sam we've done this. From a solidly working class background (nurse, toolmaker) he passed the exams to get into a free grammar school which, midway through his time there, went fee-paying.
How that is a negative point against him goodness only knows.
PB Tories first went for RLB saying she was unelectable for being both stupid and a Corbynite. Now Starmer is favourite, he is unelectable because he is as dull as Ed and a public schoolboy to boot. They'll be saying Ian Lavery is an ignorant NUM stooge next...oh wait...
The difficulty Lab had at 10.01pm on May 7th 2015 was what did Lab offer that the Cons didn't as they were within a gnat's crochet of each other around the centre of British politics. And there followed with several Ed-type centre leftists and...The Jezziah!
Well he was different, but we saw what the British public thought of that. The question remains, however: what is, or should be the difference between the Cons and Lab. Take Brexit out (which is not a left/right issue) and the answer lies in how much people think the Cons have moved to the right. Has it done so? Perhaps. We shall see how Dom and the ERG shape up. If so there is merit in having a sensible centre left type, eg Starmer in charge of Lab. If not, then I don't think it matters and the Party might well elect a Corbyn-lite candidate.
Class War gets you 200 seats and complete political irrelevance.
The Right Honourable Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC MP - a symbol of the vertiginous social mobility enabled by the Thatcher-Blair settlement if ever there was one - seems to have the sense to appreciate this.
Basically, the more his policies upset you, the closer Labour will be to regaining power...
Look I get what you're saying, I do, and perhaps if the party does go ahead and drop the idea of making a serious attempt to redistribute wealth and opportunity - which looks inevitable to me - then this does indeed render them electable. I still cling to the notion that winning from the Left is doable with a great leader but I accept that this rightly belongs in the "believe when seen" box.
Just watched Starmer on Marr. If I forgive him the insipid answer on private schools I found him very impressive. My determination not to vote for him might be sorely tested at this rate.
He realises that attacking private schools is an example of something that is more thinkable than it is doable.
And people might start mentioning that he went to one!
Sam we've done this. From a solidly working class background (nurse, toolmaker) he passed the exams to get into a free grammar school which, midway through his time there, went fee-paying.
How that is a negative point against him goodness only knows.
PB Tories first went for RLB saying she was unelectable for being both stupid and a Corbynite. Now Starmer is favourite, he is unelectable because he is as dull as Ed and a public schoolboy to boot. They'll be saying Ian Lavery is an ignorant NUM stooge next...oh wait...
How many people are saying he's unelectable? That he's dull is just part of his character.
I can't see many people here saying he's going to lose the next election. On the contrary.
If your intention was either to sign up only in order to participate in the ballot, or to keep your options open on whether to continue as a member depending on the outcome, it would appear to be cheaper to join now as a full member paying by a monthly direct debit which could potentially be cancelled after April. Especially if you're "unwaged" i.e. not in full time employment. That said, there might be some small print saying otherwise.
Agreed. The dullness question is there, but at least he's sane and not of the looney left.
Hasn't said anything yet to scare any horses or send any red lights.
This is becoming a trope. Starmer is NOT dull. He's intelligent and articulate and on top of that I pick up warmth and humour and a certain decency. That's not too shabby. Looks the part too. All in all a quality package. Now of course it would be fantastic if on top of the foregoing he was also a laugh-a-minute comic talent of the very first rank - but I for one am not going to reject him out of hand because he isn't.
Oh, he is dull. Have you heard him speak? Now, intelligent and articulate I will certainly grant you. Dull does not contradict that. And warmth and humour? I couldn't say either way, but I don't disbelieve it. And looks the part: certainly. Labour haven't had a leader who looked the part since Blair. But he certainly doesn't sparkle. He doesn't pass the 'would I want to be having a pint with him' test. But that isn't a negative, or if it is, it's a very, very minor negative. John Smith was dull. People can accommodate dull very happily. Dull beats anti-semitic. Dull beats imbecilic. Dull beats careless. Dull beats tone-deaf. Dull beats having a message no-one wants to hear. In many cases, dull is an asset.
Comments
Hasn't said anything yet to scare any horses or send any red lights.
The interesting bit, though, is that there is essentially a two-part nomination process - you get your MP/MEP backing (you'll need 22) and you'll then have a month to get the CLP or affiliate/union backing. This will help candidates like Nandy and Phillips get onto the final ballot, and is quite unexpected. It could be that we have a wider field than many - including me - were anticipating. This may be the Stop Starmer play.
Many of the teachers, I should stress, are great. Most are at least good. But whether you end up with a great teacher for your child feels like merely whether the cards happen to fall for you or not.
It really is a comedy show. First of April rather than the fourth would have been most appropriate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habshan–Fujairah_oil_pipeline
There’s also an economic blockade of Qatar by most of the rest of the Gulf states, as they are funding Iran and the war in Yemen. At the heart of pretty much everything in the region is the centuries-old Sunni v Shia Muslim conflict.
You have written down the name of either the Rep or Dem Pres or Vice-Pres candidate in every US election from 1952 to 2004 EXCEPT JUST ONE - some timespan eh!
No Googling!
The 3 surnames? (Two are easy, the 3rd more difficult)
The one GE you haven't covered?
'When the tories closed the pits'. Jeez listen to yourself.
Seriously, you make some good points. But the takeaway may be that the Labour vote share is largely uncorrelated with (perceptions of) their leader's competence, and that UK elections boil down to: if the Conservatives have a credible proposition, they get in. If they don't, and Labour do, then Labour get in. If neither do, then the country votes Conservative, but only by a narrow margin.
I think you have to go back quite a long way to find a counterexample. But, it may be that I am defining propositions as credible or otherwise retrospectively based on whether they resulted in majorities at the ballot box.
😏
How that is a negative point against him goodness only knows.
And I'm red on him ffs.
So though he could never deliver it it was a fantasy that lead to ultimately victory.
Of course that assumes that the Labour Party wants to be a viable alternative. We don't know that yet.
Well he was different, but we saw what the British public thought of that. The question remains, however: what is, or should be the difference between the Cons and Lab. Take Brexit out (which is not a left/right issue) and the answer lies in how much people think the Cons have moved to the right. Has it done so? Perhaps. We shall see how Dom and the ERG shape up. If so there is merit in having a sensible centre left type, eg Starmer in charge of Lab. If not, then I don't think it matters and the Party might well elect a Corbyn-lite candidate.
Easter Election looking almost inevitable.
Iran and Shia Islam in particular is a country and culture that loves their martyrs. They are not afraid of death in the way the west is.
America should think twice before launching any full scale war. It would make Iraq look like a picnic.
FINISHED!
I can't see many people here saying he's going to lose the next election. On the contrary.
Now, intelligent and articulate I will certainly grant you. Dull does not contradict that. And warmth and humour? I couldn't say either way, but I don't disbelieve it. And looks the part: certainly. Labour haven't had a leader who looked the part since Blair. But he certainly doesn't sparkle. He doesn't pass the 'would I want to be having a pint with him' test.
But that isn't a negative, or if it is, it's a very, very minor negative. John Smith was dull. People can accommodate dull very happily. Dull beats anti-semitic. Dull beats imbecilic. Dull beats careless. Dull beats tone-deaf. Dull beats having a message no-one wants to hear. In many cases, dull is an asset.