To be honest there is no one in the entire Parliamentary Labour Party that could hold a candle to Johnson in terms of electability. I mistakenly thought his ship had sailed, but as we have just seen he was a fantastic campaigner and his intellect is head and shoulders above anyone Labour can muster. He is, sadly, a vote gathering machine, and will be for decades.
Is it fair to say the Starmer fans seem to be those who thought the Lib Dems were the ones to be with at the last GE?
Not in my case.
I think there are plenty though. People who didn’t want Brexit, hate Boris and Corbyn, loved ChangeUK, TIG etc and think there are lots of voters like them out there if only they can get the right salesperson. But maybe there just isn’t really a market for it outside of the political bubble
The thing is, there clearly is a market for those views. It's just that - as recently as 2015 - the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the LibDems, the SNP, the Greens and PC were all in that same space.
Now, it's possible that what the Labour Party should do is follow the Conservatives into the fiscally lose*, socially conservative sphere (and that was, after all, their position for a long time). But I don't think that is any panacea.
* Fiscally lose is something that always looks great in the short term, but the bills eventually need to get paid.
Is it fair to say the Starmer fans seem to be those who thought the Lib Dems were the ones to be with at the last GE?
Not in my case.
I think there are plenty though. People who didn’t want Brexit, hate Boris and Corbyn, loved ChangeUK, TIG etc and think there are lots of voters like them out there if only they can get the right salesperson. But maybe there just isn’t really a market for it outside of the political bubble
The thing is, there clearly is a market for those views. It's just that - as recently as 2015 - the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the LibDems, the SNP, the Greens and PC were all in that same space.
Now, it's possible that what the Labour Party should do is follow the Conservatives into the fiscally lose*, socially conservative sphere (and that was, after all, their position for a long time). But I don't think that is any panacea.
* Fiscally lose is something that always looks great in the short term, but the bills eventually need to get paid.
Is it fair to say the Starmer fans seem to be those who thought the Lib Dems were the ones to be with at the last GE?
Not in my case.
I think there are plenty though. People who didn’t want Brexit, hate Boris and Corbyn, loved ChangeUK, TIG etc and think there are lots of voters like them out there if only they can get the right salesperson. But maybe there just isn’t really a market for it outside of the political bubble
The thing is, there clearly is a market for those views. It's just that - as recently as 2015 - the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the LibDems, the SNP, the Greens and PC were all in that same space.
Now, it's possible that what the Labour Party should do is follow the Conservatives into the fiscally lose*, socially conservative sphere (and that was, after all, their position for a long time). But I don't think that is any panacea.
* Fiscally lose is something that always looks great in the short term, but the bills eventually need to get paid.
Well, there was a market for it. But since then those views have lost a referendum and two subsequent General Elections. The party touted by people holding those views to rip it up, never laid a glove on anyone. Maybe they're just not that popular anymore?
To be fair, once Brexit has been carried out and they stop whining about it, people may be more inclined to trust them again. It's all cyclical I guess
No , because she doesn't want it, she never wanted it.
She was never prepared to fight for it.
Source?
She went on holiday in the middle of the 2015 leadership election. If you really, really want the job, you don't do that.
Keith Starmer is not making plans for a holiday in March !!
I believe Yvette has suffered from ME in the past. Perhaps that has shaken her confidence, or perhaps she has always doubted her abilities. Whatever, she doesn't want the job now, and she never wanted it.
Shows the depths of the issue if people honestly think Yvette Cooper is a strong option after looking at what is really available. Career politician from a well connected background. Shrill, pompous remainer. Honestly she's not a whit better than Starmer and I'm no fan of his.
Is it fair to say the Starmer fans seem to be those who thought the Lib Dems were the ones to be with at the last GE?
Not in my case.
I think there are plenty though. People who didn’t want Brexit, hate Boris and Corbyn, loved ChangeUK, TIG etc and think there are lots of voters like them out there if only they can get the right salesperson. But maybe there just isn’t really a market for it outside of the political bubble
The thing is, there clearly is a market for those views. It's just that - as recently as 2015 - the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the LibDems, the SNP, the Greens and PC were all in that same space.
Now, it's possible that what the Labour Party should do is follow the Conservatives into the fiscally lose*, socially conservative sphere (and that was, after all, their position for a long time). But I don't think that is any panacea.
* Fiscally lose is something that always looks great in the short term, but the bills eventually need to get paid.
Well, there was a market for it. But since then those views have lost a referendum and two subsequent General Elections. The party touted by people holding those views to rip it up, never laid a glove on anyone. Maybe they're just not that popular anymore?
To be fair, once Brexit has been carried out and they stop whining about it, people may be more inclined to trust them again. It's all cyclical I guess
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, because I (and for example Richard Tyndall) are socially liberal, fiscally conservative and pro-Brexit.
But let's assume that 60% of the population are FL/SC and 40% are FC/SL.
(This ignores, of course, people like Sean Fear who are FC/SC, and another bunch of people who are FL/SL.)
It isn't immediately obvious that Labour's best strategy is to share the 60% with the Conservatives rather than dominating the other 40%. I mean, it might be the better strategy, but it's far from obvious.
And here's the other thing. The Conservatives got 45% of the vote by being the party of Brexit, and the party of the SC/FL. But they also only did that well because for some of us SL/FC folk, stopping Jeremy Corbyn was the absolute dominant factor in our voting.
To be honest there is no one in the entire Parliamentary Labour Party that could hold a candle to Johnson in terms of electability. I mistakenly thought his ship had sailed, but as we have just seen he was a fantastic campaigner and his intellect is head and shoulders above anyone Labour can muster. He is, sadly, a vote gathering machine, and will be for decades.
Out there in anecdote-land the punters love him.
It didnt feel that good two days before the election when he couldnt look hat a photo of a child on a phone and had been reduced to a bumbling fool.... Hindsight now proclaims him a genius...
Is it fair to say the Starmer fans seem to be those who thought the Lib Dems were the ones to be with at the last GE?
Not in my case.
I think there are plenty though. People who didn’t want Brexit, hate Boris and Corbyn, loved ChangeUK, TIG etc and think there are lots of voters like them out there if only they can get the right salesperson. But maybe there just isn’t really a market for it outside of the political bubble
The thing is, there clearly is a market for those views. It's just that - as recently as 2015 - the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the LibDems, the SNP, the Greens and PC were all in that same space.
Now, it's possible that what the Labour Party should do is follow the Conservatives into the fiscally lose*, socially conservative sphere (and that was, after all, their position for a long time). But I don't think that is any panacea.
* Fiscally lose is something that always looks great in the short term, but the bills eventually need to get paid.
Well, there was a market for it. But since then those views have lost a referendum and two subsequent General Elections. The party touted by people holding those views to rip it up, never laid a glove on anyone. Maybe they're just not that popular anymore?
To be fair, once Brexit has been carried out and they stop whining about it, people may be more inclined to trust them again. It's all cyclical I guess
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, because I (and for example Richard Tyndall) are socially liberal, fiscally conservative and pro-Brexit.
But let's assume that 60% of the population are FL/SC and 40% are FC/SL.
(This ignores, of course, people like Sean Fear who are FC/SC, and another bunch of people who are FL/SL.)
It isn't immediately obvious that Labour's best strategy is to share the 60% with the Conservatives rather than dominating the other 40%. I mean, it might be the better strategy, but it's far from obvious.
And here's the other thing. The Conservatives got 45% of the vote by being the party of Brexit, and the party of the SC/FL. But they also only did that well because for some of us SL/FC folk, stopping Jeremy Corbyn was the absolute dominant factor in our voting.
Is it fair to say the Starmer fans seem to be those who thought the Lib Dems were the ones to be with at the last GE?
Not in my case.
I think there are plenty though. People who didn’t want Brexit, hate Boris and Corbyn, loved ChangeUK, TIG etc and think there are lots of voters like them out there if only they can get the right salesperson. But maybe there just isn’t really a market for it outside of the political bubble
The thing is, there clearly is a market for those views. It's just that - as recently as 2015 - the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the LibDems, the SNP, the Greens and PC were all in that same space.
Now, it's possible that what the Labour Party should do is follow the Conservatives into the fiscally lose*, socially conservative sphere (and that was, after all, their position for a long time). But I don't think that is any panacea.
* Fiscally lose is something that always looks great in the short term, but the bills eventually need to get paid.
Well, there was a market for it. But since then those views have lost a referendum and two subsequent General Elections. The party touted by people holding those views to rip it up, never laid a glove on anyone. Maybe they're just not that popular anymore?
To be fair, once Brexit has been carried out and they stop whining about it, people may be more inclined to trust them again. It's all cyclical I guess
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, because I (and for example Richard Tyndall) are socially liberal, fiscally conservative and pro-Brexit.
But let's assume that 60% of the population are FL/SC and 40% are FC/SL.
(This ignores, of course, people like Sean Fear who are FC/SC, and another bunch of people who are FL/SL.)
It isn't immediately obvious that Labour's best strategy is to share the 60% with the Conservatives rather than dominating the other 40%. I mean, it might be the better strategy, but it's far from obvious.
And here's the other thing. The Conservatives got 45% of the vote by being the party of Brexit, and the party of the SC/FL. But they also only did that well because for some of us SL/FC folk, stopping Jeremy Corbyn was the absolute dominant factor in our voting.
With the minister for truth and wingnut-in-chief now in exile, Burgon has a lot of comedic weight to carry in this parliament.
What is his point? That Burgon really believed this was the first time Leeds had played Arsenal? This modern habit of piling in on what are obviously jokes can be quite tiresome. Trouble is, it works, so people will keep doing it.
To be honest there is no one in the entire Parliamentary Labour Party that could hold a candle to Johnson in terms of electability. I mistakenly thought his ship had sailed, but as we have just seen he was a fantastic campaigner and his intellect is head and shoulders above anyone Labour can muster. He is, sadly, a vote gathering machine, and will be for decades.
Out there in anecdote-land the punters love him.
It didnt feel that good two days before the election when he couldnt look hat a photo of a child on a phone and had been reduced to a bumbling fool.... Hindsight now proclaims him a genius...
Anecdote alert.The hospital incident has been explained to me as an exposition of his vulnerability, which was seen as a positive. Labour were also seen to be exploiting a personal tragedy. I was told by several hi-visibility clothing wearers that his JCB driving and milk delivering demonstrated that he is an authentic grafter. My interpretation of these activities was the polar opposite.
Almost 45% of voters like what they see. The general consensus is Boris' cheery optimism will see us through the hard times to come. Compare and contrast with the sour-faced Labour leadership debacle.
To be honest there is no one in the entire Parliamentary Labour Party that could hold a candle to Johnson in terms of electability. I mistakenly thought his ship had sailed, but as we have just seen he was a fantastic campaigner and his intellect is head and shoulders above anyone Labour can muster. He is, sadly, a vote gathering machine, and will be for decades.
Out there in anecdote-land the punters love him.
It didnt feel that good two days before the election when he couldnt look hat a photo of a child on a phone and had been reduced to a bumbling fool.... Hindsight now proclaims him a genius...
Boris is electable but is he a great campaigner? Has he really converted the country to Borisism? Has he even persuaded Conservative MPs?
To be honest there is no one in the entire Parliamentary Labour Party that could hold a candle to Johnson in terms of electability. I mistakenly thought his ship had sailed, but as we have just seen he was a fantastic campaigner and his intellect is head and shoulders above anyone Labour can muster. He is, sadly, a vote gathering machine, and will be for decades.
Out there in anecdote-land the punters love him.
It didnt feel that good two days before the election when he couldnt look hat a photo of a child on a phone and had been reduced to a bumbling fool.... Hindsight now proclaims him a genius...
Anecdote alert.The hospital incident has been explained to me as an exposition of his vulnerability, which was seen as a positive. Labour were also seen to be exploiting a personal tragedy. I was told by several hi-visibility clothing wearers that his JCB driving and milk delivering demonstrated that he is an authentic grafter. My interpretation of these activities was the polar opposite.
Almost 45% of voters like what they see. The general consensus is Boris' cheery optimism will see us through the hard times to come. Compare and contrast with the sour-faced Labour leadership debacle.
Labour revelled in their sourness. Bossy finger wagging puritans pleasuring each other with ever rising peaks of outrage over how awful life was in modern day Britain.
They had literally talked themselves into thinking that the nation over the last decade had descended into some Dickensian dystopia of millions of impoverished children starving and homeless, and if you didnt share their outrage you were morally defective.
Is it fair to say the Starmer fans seem to be those who thought the Lib Dems were the ones to be with at the last GE?
Not in my case.
I think there are plenty though. People who didn’t want Brexit, hate Boris and Corbyn, loved ChangeUK, TIG etc and think there are lots of voters like them out there if only they can get the right salesperson. But maybe there just isn’t really a market for it outside of the political bubble
The thing is, there clearly is a market for those views. It's just that - as recently as 2015 - the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the LibDems, the SNP, the Greens and PC were all in that same space.
Now, it's possible that what the Labour Party should do is follow the Conservatives into the fiscally lose*, socially conservative sphere (and that was, after all, their position for a long time). But I don't think that is any panacea.
* Fiscally lose is something that always looks great in the short term, but the bills eventually need to get paid.
Well, there was a market for it. But since then those views have lost a referendum and two subsequent General Elections. The party touted by people holding those views to rip it up, never laid a glove on anyone. Maybe they're just not that popular anymore?
To be fair, once Brexit has been carried out and they stop whining about it, people may be more inclined to trust them again. It's all cyclical I guess
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, because I (and for example Richard Tyndall) are socially liberal, fiscally conservative and pro-Brexit.
But let's assume that 60% of the population are FL/SC and 40% are FC/SL.
(This ignores, of course, people like Sean Fear who are FC/SC, and another bunch of people who are FL/SL.)
It isn't immediately obvious that Labour's best strategy is to share the 60% with the Conservatives rather than dominating the other 40%. I mean, it might be the better strategy, but it's far from obvious.
And here's the other thing. The Conservatives got 45% of the vote by being the party of Brexit, and the party of the SC/FL. But they also only did that well because for some of us SL/FC folk, stopping Jeremy Corbyn was the absolute dominant factor in our voting.
The question of today is why anyone wouldn't be "socially liberal, fiscally conservative and pro-Brexit."
Oh yeah. that'll be Labour. Lavery vs Starmer, spend, and wibble.
To be honest there is no one in the entire Parliamentary Labour Party that could hold a candle to Johnson in terms of electability. I mistakenly thought his ship had sailed, but as we have just seen he was a fantastic campaigner and his intellect is head and shoulders above anyone Labour can muster. He is, sadly, a vote gathering machine, and will be for decades.
Out there in anecdote-land the punters love him.
It didnt feel that good two days before the election when he couldnt look hat a photo of a child on a phone and had been reduced to a bumbling fool.... Hindsight now proclaims him a genius...
Anecdote alert.The hospital incident has been explained to me as an exposition of his vulnerability, which was seen as a positive. Labour were also seen to be exploiting a personal tragedy. I was told by several hi-visibility clothing wearers that his JCB driving and milk delivering demonstrated that he is an authentic grafter. My interpretation of these activities was the polar opposite.
Almost 45% of voters like what they see. The general consensus is Boris' cheery optimism will see us through the hard times to come. Compare and contrast with the sour-faced Labour leadership debacle.
Labour revelled in their sourness. Bossy finger wagging puritans pleasuring each other with ever rising peaks of outrage over how awful life was in modern day Britain.
They had literally talked themselves into thinking that the nation over the last decade had descended into some Dickensian dystopia of millions of impoverished children starving and homeless, and if you didnt share their outrage you were morally defective.
Pretty much the perfect summation of Labour's onanistic miserabilism. It's like they were describing some foreign country in the grip of famine, dictatorship, or natural disaster that most people simply didn't recognise...
To be honest there is no one in the entire Parliamentary Labour Party that could hold a candle to Johnson in terms of electability. I mistakenly thought his ship had sailed, but as we have just seen he was a fantastic campaigner and his intellect is head and shoulders above anyone Labour can muster. He is, sadly, a vote gathering machine, and will be for decades.
Out there in anecdote-land the punters love him.
It didnt feel that good two days before the election when he couldnt look hat a photo of a child on a phone and had been reduced to a bumbling fool.... Hindsight now proclaims him a genius...
Anecdote alert.The hospital incident has been explained to me as an exposition of his vulnerability, which was seen as a positive. Labour were also seen to be exploiting a personal tragedy. I was told by several hi-visibility clothing wearers that his JCB driving and milk delivering demonstrated that he is an authentic grafter. My interpretation of these activities was the polar opposite.
Almost 45% of voters like what they see. The general consensus is Boris' cheery optimism will see us through the hard times to come. Compare and contrast with the sour-faced Labour leadership debacle.
People just don’t warm to moaners, and I have to say that lefties, in my experience, seem more likely to be complaining about things. I guess that’s a feature of being the underdog and the supporter of underdog causes, but maybe best not for the leader to be seen that way
To be honest there is no one in the entire Parliamentary Labour Party that could hold a candle to Johnson in terms of electability. I mistakenly thought his ship had sailed, but as we have just seen he was a fantastic campaigner and his intellect is head and shoulders above anyone Labour can muster. He is, sadly, a vote gathering machine, and will be for decades.
Out there in anecdote-land the punters love him.
It didnt feel that good two days before the election when he couldnt look hat a photo of a child on a phone and had been reduced to a bumbling fool.... Hindsight now proclaims him a genius...
Anecdote alert.The hospital incident has been explained to me as an exposition of his vulnerability, which was seen as a positive. Labour were also seen to be exploiting a personal tragedy. I was told by several hi-visibility clothing wearers that his JCB driving and milk delivering demonstrated that he is an authentic grafter. My interpretation of these activities was the polar opposite.
Almost 45% of voters like what they see. The general consensus is Boris' cheery optimism will see us through the hard times to come. Compare and contrast with the sour-faced Labour leadership debacle.
Labour revelled in their sourness. Bossy finger wagging puritans pleasuring each other with ever rising peaks of outrage over how awful life was in modern day Britain.
They had literally talked themselves into thinking that the nation over the last decade had descended into some Dickensian dystopia of millions of impoverished children starving and homeless, and if you didnt share their outrage you were morally defective.
By and large they are right. It is just that people who vote didn't believe them.
Mark my words when it gets worse we on the left can carp and whinge with impunity, but still no one will believe us in the face of Boris' jaunty disposition.
I suppose one looking for the real sources of Labour support or of the depth of Labour's defeat would ask why the age gap is so much bigger than the class gap, and then not focus on the class / poverty rhetoric as much as what it says about young people's expectations/fears versus old people.
To be honest there is no one in the entire Parliamentary Labour Party that could hold a candle to Johnson in terms of electability. I mistakenly thought his ship had sailed, but as we have just seen he was a fantastic campaigner and his intellect is head and shoulders above anyone Labour can muster. He is, sadly, a vote gathering machine, and will be for decades.
Out there in anecdote-land the punters love him.
It didnt feel that good two days before the election when he couldnt look hat a photo of a child on a phone and had been reduced to a bumbling fool.... Hindsight now proclaims him a genius...
Boris is electable but is he a great campaigner? Has he really converted the country to Borisism? Has he even persuaded Conservative MPs?
Most MPs don't need persuasding of things, they're loyalists without massive ambition who will follow a leader who led them to victory. Not many people have the fire necessary to cause trouble.
As for Boris and whether he is a good campaigner, it's the eternal question of if he is genuinely great at it or simply good enough to defeat Corbyn, I dont think we can know for sure. He doesn't need to convert the masses to Borisism to dominate. From what I can tell if you're leader long enough people will just pretend you have an ism even if you don't.
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Is it fair to say the Starmer fans seem to be those who thought the Lib Dems were the ones to be with at the last GE?
Not in my case.
I think there are plenty though. People who didn’t want Brexit, hate Boris and Corbyn, loved ChangeUK, TIG etc and think there are lots of voters like them out there if only they can get the right salesperson. But maybe there just isn’t really a market for it outside of the political bubble
The thing is, there clearly is a market for those views. It's just that - as recently as 2015 - the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the LibDems, the SNP, the Greens and PC were all in that same space.
Now, it's possible that what the Labour Party should do is follow the Conservatives into the fiscally lose*, socially conservative sphere (and that was, after all, their position for a long time). But I don't think that is any panacea.
* Fiscally lose is something that always looks great in the short term, but the bills eventually need to get paid.
Well, there was a market for it. But since then those views have lost a referendum and two subsequent General Elections. The party touted by people holding those views to rip it up, never laid a glove on anyone. Maybe they're just not that popular anymore?
To be fair, once Brexit has been carried out and they stop whining about it, people may be more inclined to trust them again. It's all cyclical I guess
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, because I (and for example Richard Tyndall) are socially liberal, fiscally conservative and pro-Brexit.
But let's assume that 60% of the population are FL/SC and 40% are FC/SL.
(This ignores, of course, people like Sean Fear who are FC/SC, and another bunch of people who are FL/SL.)
It isn't immediately obvious that Labour's best strategy is to share the 60% with the Conservatives rather than dominating the other 40%. I mean, it might be the better strategy, but it's far from obvious.
And here's the other thing. The Conservatives got 45% of the vote by being the party of Brexit, and the party of the SC/FL. But they also only did that well because for some of us SL/FC folk, stopping Jeremy Corbyn was the absolute dominant factor in our voting.
Is it fair to say the Starmer fans seem to be those who thought the Lib Dems were the ones to be with at the last GE?
Not in my case.
I think there are plenty though. People who didn’t want Brexit, hate Boris and Corbyn, loved ChangeUK, TIG etc and think there are lots of voters like them out there if only they can get the right salesperson. But maybe there just isn’t really a market for it outside of the political bubble
The thing is, therething that always looks great in the short term, but the bills eventually need to get paid.
Well, there was a market for it. But since then those views have lost a referendum and two subsequent General Elections. The party touted by people holding those views to rip it up, never laid a glove on anyone. Maybe they're just not that popular anymore?
To be fair, once Brexit has been carried out and they stop whining about it, people may be more inclined to trust them again. It's all cyclical I guess
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, because I (and for example Richard Tyndall) are socially liberal, fiscally conservative and pro-Brexit.
But let's assume that 60% of the population are FL/SC and 40% are FC/SL.
(This ignores, of course, people like Sean Fear who are FC/SC, and another bunch of people who are FL/SL.)
It isn't immediately obvious that Labour's best strategy is to share the 60% with the Conservatives rather than dominating the other 40%. I mean, it might be the better strategy, but it's far from obvious.
And here's the other thing. The Conservatives got 45% of the vote by being the party of Brexit, and the party of the SC/FL. But they also only did that well because for some of us SL/FC folk, stopping Jeremy Corbyn was the absolute dominant factor in our voting.
That's a really fascinating analysis. Thanks for sharing.
Framing politics in terms of left-wing and right-wing might be simple for politicians, and comforting to activists, but it seems that these terms just aren’t that useful for talking about - or indeed to - the general public
That is, it's nonsense*. And that you can appeal to supposed left wingers with supposedly right wing policies, and supposed right wingers with left wing policies, if framed right, from the right person, or in the right situation and context.
*Ok, not total nonsense, it's good for generalities, whilst making the treating the two as immutable moral opponents as nonsense.
No , because she doesn't want it, she never wanted it.
She was never prepared to fight for it.
Source?
She went on holiday in the middle of the 2015 leadership election. If you really, really want the job, you don't do that.
Keith Starmer is not making plans for a holiday in March !!
I believe Yvette has suffered from ME in the past. Perhaps that has shaken her confidence, or perhaps she has always doubted her abilities. Whatever, she doesn't want the job now, and she never wanted it.
She really should have stood in 2010 instead of her husband.
Rightfully so, they shouldn't be in any other countries.
How about Iran's revolutionary guards?
Or Russians, or Chinese?
by the way - people realise that vote by the Iraqi's was non binding right?
USA could sort Israel-Palestine out but yet trump let's innocent children get tortured and murdered on a daily basis.
Your post is wrong in every way.
The US doesn't have the will to shape the middle-east. What goes on there is little to do with Trump. He doesn't let children be tortured and murdered - it's just not his responsibility.
The US could do some stuff. What would you like them to do?
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.
Rightfully so, they shouldn't be in any other countries.
How about Iran's revolutionary guards?
Or Russians, or Chinese?
by the way - people realise that vote by the Iraqi's was non binding right?
USA could sort Israel-Palestine out but yet trump let's innocent children get tortured and murdered on a daily basis.
Your post is wrong in every way.
The US doesn't have the will to shape the middle-east. What goes on there is little to do with Trump. He doesn't let children be tortured and murdered - it's just not his responsibility.
The US could do some stuff. What would you like them to do?
Recognise Palestine for starters? Like 138 other UN member states have done?
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.
What a load of dross. Boris won by going economically further to the left than Cameron.
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.
What a load of dross. Boris won by going economically further to the left than Cameron.
Is tilting to the left on investment a fundamental challenge to the country's character? No, it isn't. Corbyn went far left on both economics and culture, and got creamed as a result.
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.
What a load of dross. Boris won by going economically further to the left than Cameron.
Is tilting to the left on investment a fundamental challenge to the country's character? No, it isn't. Corbyn went far left on both economics and culture, and got creamed as a result.
I’m not disputing that Corbyn got creamed but your mad assertions about Britain being a “right wing” country and nonsense about “national character” is just dross.
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.
What a load of dross. Boris won by going economically further to the left than Cameron.
Is tilting to the left on investment a fundamental challenge to the country's character? No, it isn't. Corbyn went far left on both economics and culture, and got creamed as a result.
I’m not disputing that Corbyn got creamed but your mad assertions about Britain being a “right wing” country and nonsense about “national character” is just dross.
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.
Who constructed that essence? Unless it's a genetic phenotype, it's constructed by somebody.
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.
What a load of dross. Boris won by going economically further to the left than Cameron.
Is tilting to the left on investment a fundamental challenge to the country's character? No, it isn't. Corbyn went far left on both economics and culture, and got creamed as a result.
I’m not disputing that Corbyn got creamed but your mad assertions about Britain being a “right wing” country and nonsense about “national character” is just dross.
Remember only 42.5% voted Tory.
Only 32.2% voted Labour...
Which is a huge amount considering!
Lib + Lab got more votes than the Tories. Right-wing my ass.
Rightfully so, they shouldn't be in any other countries.
How about Iran's revolutionary guards?
Or Russians, or Chinese?
by the way - people realise that vote by the Iraqi's was non binding right?
USA could sort Israel-Palestine out but yet trump let's innocent children get tortured and murdered on a daily basis.
Your post is wrong in every way.
The US doesn't have the will to shape the middle-east. What goes on there is little to do with Trump. He doesn't let children be tortured and murdered - it's just not his responsibility.
The US could do some stuff. What would you like them to do?
Tell Israel to cease and If they don't, kill them.
Shows the depths of the issue if people honestly think Yvette Cooper is a strong option after looking at what is really available. Career politician from a well connected background. Shrill, pompous remainer. Honestly she's not a whit better than Starmer and I'm no fan of his.
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.
What a load of dross. Boris won by going economically further to the left than Cameron.
Is tilting to the left on investment a fundamental challenge to the country's character? No, it isn't. Corbyn went far left on both economics and culture, and got creamed as a result.
I’m not disputing that Corbyn got creamed but your mad assertions about Britain being a “right wing” country and nonsense about “national character” is just dross.
Remember only 42.5% voted Tory.
Only 32.2% voted Labour...
Which is a huge amount considering!
Lib + Lab got more votes than the Tories. Right-wing my ass.
By any normal measure that is a victory for Iran. Trump has completely screwed up.
If the US does do the chicken run, then Iran has the final victory, without a further shot being fired. It's helicopters off the roof time in Baghdad, 45 years on from Saigon.
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.
What a load of dross. Boris won by going economically further to the left than Cameron.
Is tilting to the left on investment a fundamental challenge to the country's character? No, it isn't. Corbyn went far left on both economics and culture, and got creamed as a result.
I’m not disputing that Corbyn got creamed but your mad assertions about Britain being a “right wing” country and nonsense about “national character” is just dross.
Remember only 42.5% voted Tory.
Only 32.2% voted Labour...
Which is a huge amount considering!
Lib + Lab got more votes than the Tories. Right-wing my ass.
Con 365 Lab 202 LDs..... 11 [stifles snigger]
Yes. No-one is disputing that Con won the election.
By any normal measure that is a victory for Iran. Trump has completely screwed up.
If the US does do the chicken run, then Iran has the final victory, without a further shot being fired. It's helicopters off the roof time in Baghdad, 45 years on from Saigon.
If Iran had known that all it would take to get the US out of Iraq was the death of Soleimani on Iraqi soil they would have arranged his death themselves.
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.
What a load of dross. Boris won by going economically further to the left than Cameron.
Is tilting to the left on investment a fundamental challenge to the country's character? No, it isn't. Corbyn went far left on both economics and culture, and got creamed as a result.
I’m not disputing that Corbyn got creamed but your mad assertions about Britain being a “right wing” country and nonsense about “national character” is just dross.
Remember only 43.6% voted Tory.
Only 32.2% voted Labour...
Which is a huge amount considering!
Lib + Lab got more votes than the Tories. Right-wing my ass.
Con 365 Lab 202 LDs..... 11 [stifles snigger]
Yes. No-one is disputing that Con won the election.
Your vote-share totals are wrong, BTW! Con+BXP+UKIP+UUP+DUP = 43.6+2.0+0.1+0.3+0.8 = 46.8%
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.
What a load of dross. Boris won by going economically further to the left than Cameron.
Is tilting to the left on investment a fundamental challenge to the country's character? No, it isn't. Corbyn went far left on both economics and culture, and got creamed as a result.
I’m not disputing that Corbyn got creamed but your mad assertions about Britain being a “right wing” country and nonsense about “national character” is just dross.
Remember only 42.5% voted Tory.
Actually 43.6% - the highest vote share for any party since the Blessed Margaret's first victory in 1979
By any normal measure that is a victory for Iran. Trump has completely screwed up.
If the US does do the chicken run, then Iran has the final victory, without a further shot being fired. It's helicopters off the roof time in Baghdad, 45 years on from Saigon.
Apparently not all US troops will be withdrawn but given the Iraqi government is mainly Shia and pro Iran, unless the US reinstalls former allies of Saddam or lets IS back in there is little alternative.
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.
What a load of dross. Boris won by going economically further to the left than Cameron.
Is tilting to the left on investment a fundamental challenge to the country's character? No, it isn't. Corbyn went far left on both economics and culture, and got creamed as a result.
I’m not disputing that Corbyn got creamed but your mad assertions about Britain being a “right wing” country and nonsense about “national character” is just dross.
Remember only 42.5% voted Tory.
Actually 43.6% - the highest vote share for any party since the Blessed Margaret's first victory in 1979
I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.
Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.
What a load of dross. Boris won by going economically further to the left than Cameron.
Is tilting to the left on investment a fundamental challenge to the country's character? No, it isn't. Corbyn went far left on both economics and culture, and got creamed as a result.
I’m not disputing that Corbyn got creamed but your mad assertions about Britain being a “right wing” country and nonsense about “national character” is just dross.
Remember only 43.6% voted Tory.
Only 32.2% voted Labour...
Which is a huge amount considering!
Lib + Lab got more votes than the Tories. Right-wing my ass.
Con 365 Lab 202 LDs..... 11 [stifles snigger]
Yes. No-one is disputing that Con won the election.
Your vote-share totals are wrong, BTW! Con+BXP+UKIP+UUP+DUP = 43.6+2.0+0.1+0.3+0.8 = 46.8%
Comments
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1214261588099817472
She was never prepared to fight for it.
Out there in anecdote-land the punters love him.
Now, it's possible that what the Labour Party should do is follow the Conservatives into the fiscally lose*, socially conservative sphere (and that was, after all, their position for a long time). But I don't think that is any panacea.
* Fiscally lose is something that always looks great in the short term, but the bills eventually need to get paid.
To be fair, once Brexit has been carried out and they stop whining about it, people may be more inclined to trust them again. It's all cyclical I guess
https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1214187870153576448
Keith Starmer is not making plans for a holiday in March !!
I believe Yvette has suffered from ME in the past. Perhaps that has shaken her confidence, or perhaps she has always doubted her abilities. Whatever, she doesn't want the job now, and she never wanted it.
But let's assume that 60% of the population are FL/SC and 40% are FC/SL.
(This ignores, of course, people like Sean Fear who are FC/SC, and another bunch of people who are FL/SL.)
It isn't immediately obvious that Labour's best strategy is to share the 60% with the Conservatives rather than dominating the other 40%. I mean, it might be the better strategy, but it's far from obvious.
And here's the other thing. The Conservatives got 45% of the vote by being the party of Brexit, and the party of the SC/FL. But they also only did that well because for some of us SL/FC folk, stopping Jeremy Corbyn was the absolute dominant factor in our voting.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jan/06/tottenham-investigation-finds-no-evidence-of-alleged-racism-against-chelseas-rudiger
Almost 45% of voters like what they see. The general consensus is Boris' cheery optimism will see us through the hard times to come. Compare and contrast with the sour-faced Labour leadership debacle.
They had literally talked themselves into thinking that the nation over the last decade had descended into some Dickensian dystopia of millions of impoverished children starving and homeless, and if you didnt share their outrage you were morally defective.
Oh yeah. that'll be Labour. Lavery vs Starmer, spend, and wibble.
https://twitter.com/joyce_karam/status/1214277318815952896?s=21
Mark my words when it gets worse we on the left can carp and whinge with impunity, but still no one will believe us in the face of Boris' jaunty disposition.
Arsenal full team on.
As for Boris and whether he is a good campaigner, it's the eternal question of if he is genuinely great at it or simply good enough to defeat Corbyn, I dont think we can know for sure. He doesn't need to convert the masses to Borisism to dominate. From what I can tell if you're leader long enough people will just pretend you have an ism even if you don't.
Or Russians, or Chinese?
by the way - people realise that vote by the Iraqi's was non binding right?
I'm currently working on a spreadsheet featuring the running totals for the 2019 general election as the results came in during the night.
Spent the new year in Boston, MA where the crowds were so well-behaved it was a bit disconcerting. No alcohol allowed in public of course.
That is, it's nonsense*. And that you can appeal to supposed left wingers with supposedly right wing policies, and supposed right wingers with left wing policies, if framed right, from the right person, or in the right situation and context.
*Ok, not total nonsense, it's good for generalities, whilst making the treating the two as immutable moral opponents as nonsense.
The US doesn't have the will to shape the middle-east. What goes on there is little to do with Trump. He doesn't let children be tortured and murdered - it's just not his responsibility.
The US could do some stuff. What would you like them to do?
Here’s the kit Liverpool will be playing in, in their FA Cup fourth round match versus Bristol City or Shrewsbury.
The United States have no allies on this.
https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1214249290303987713
Remember only 42.5% voted Tory.
Lib + Lab got more votes than the Tories. Right-wing my ass.
Isn't Iraq or Iran the middle East?
For the record, Israel is funded by USA.
Lab 202
LDs..... 11 [stifles snigger]
They've already threatened him.
If USA didn't fund Israel, there would be less people dying.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1214287246947434497
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1214288337642696705
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1214288975600467969
Con+BXP+UKIP+UUP+DUP = 43.6+2.0+0.1+0.3+0.8 = 46.8%
Lab+LD+SNP+SF+SDLP+APNI+PC+Grn = 32.2+11.6+3.9+0.6+0.4+0.4+0.5+2.7+0.1 = 52.4%
Trump of course opposed the Iraq invasion anyway
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
Good night.