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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is 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.
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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.
Your party does not represent the majority.
Apart from 2015, when they voted UKIP, the median voter almost always votes LD but we are not a LD country either
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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.
Your party does not represent the majority.
It's more right than left. When was the last time there was a left-wing government?
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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.
Your party does not represent the majority.
Apart from 2015, when they voted UKIP, the median voter almost always votes LD but we are not a LD country either
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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.
Your party does not represent the majority.
It's more right than left. When was the last time there was a left-wing government?
What government we end up with is a product of our electoral system. It is no comment on the “nature” of the country. I’m not saying that Britain is left-wing either.
I’m just saying that to loudly proclaim that Labour lost because the country is inherently right-wing is wishful thinking at best.
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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.
Your party does not represent the majority.
Apart from 2015, when they voted UKIP, the median voter almost always votes LD but we are not a LD country either
Literally irrelevant.
No absolutely relevant, the Tories may not have got over 50% of the vote since 1931 but then Labour has never got over 50% of the vote
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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.
Your party does not represent the majority.
It's more right than left. When was the last time there was a left-wing government?
What government we end up with is a product of our electoral system. It is no comment on the “nature” of the country. I’m not saying that Britain is left-wing either.
I’m just saying that to loudly proclaim that Labour lost because the country is inherently right-wing is wishful thinking at best.
Well they said inherently center-right, which I think is believable judging by how rarely left-wing governments have been elected in the past.
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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.
Your party does not represent the majority.
It's more right than left. When was the last time there was a left-wing government?
What government we end up with is a product of our electoral system. It is no comment on the “nature” of the country. I’m not saying that Britain is left-wing either.
I’m just saying that to loudly proclaim that Labour lost because the country is inherently right-wing is wishful thinking at best.
Well they said inherently center-right, which I think is believable judging by how rarely left-wing governments have been elected in the past.
What government we end up with is a product of our electoral system. It is evidence of nothing else. In 2019 Lib + Lab was higher than Con. That would suggest 2019 Britain is centre-left no?
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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.
Your party does not represent the majority.
Apart from 2015, when they voted UKIP, the median voter almost always votes LD but we are not a LD country either
Literally irrelevant.
No absolutely relevant, the Tories may not have got over 50% of the vote since 1931 but then Labour has never got over 50% of the vote
Go Boris! I bet he'll screw the Leavers over immigration too, perhaps by opening the floodgates from South America and Asia. Send 'em to Sedgefield and give the natives some genuine reasons to weep in their chip papers.
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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.
Your party does not represent the majority.
Apart from 2015, when they voted UKIP, the median voter almost always votes LD but we are not a LD country either
Literally irrelevant.
No absolutely relevant, the Tories may not have got over 50% of the vote since 1931 but then Labour has never got over 50% of the vote
Another irrelevant fact.
Absolutely relevant, in fact you have to go back to 1880 to find a non Tory Party which got over 50% of the vote, the Liberals under Lord Hartington
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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.
Your party does not represent the majority.
Apart from 2015, when they voted UKIP, the median voter almost always votes LD but we are not a LD country either
Literally irrelevant.
No absolutely relevant, the Tories may not have got over 50% of the vote since 1931 but then Labour has never got over 50% of the vote
Another irrelevant fact.
Absolutely relevant in fact you have to go back to 1880 to find a non Tory Party which got over 50% of the vote, the Liberals under Lord Hartington
Why are you talking about a party getting over 50% of the vote? Nobody else is.
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 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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.
Your party does not represent the majority.
It's more right than left. When was the last time there was a left-wing government?
What government we end up with is a product of our electoral system. It is no comment on the “nature” of the country. I’m not saying that Britain is left-wing either.
I’m just saying that to loudly proclaim that Labour lost because the country is inherently right-wing is wishful thinking at best.
Well they said inherently center-right, which I think is believable judging by how rarely left-wing governments have been elected in the past.
What government we end up with is a product of our electoral system. It is evidence of nothing else. In 2019 Lib + Lab was higher than Con. That would suggest 2019 Britain is centre-left no?
Given from 2010 to 2015 the Liberals were in coalition with the Tories, no
@isam over 98% of Blyth is white and born in the UK. Fear of immigration maybe motivated voters there but it was just that, an irrational fear.
Crikey, a percentage point knocked off the Blyth white population in 10 minutes! (though what skin colour has to do with EU migrations effect on the British labour market is beyond me)
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.
@isam over 98% of Blyth is white and born in the UK. Fear of immigration maybe motivated voters there but it was just that, an irrational fear.
Crikey, a percentage point knocked off the Blyth white population in 10 minutes! (though what skin colour has to do with EU migrations effect on the British labour market is beyond me)
What are you arguing here?
Blyth is 98% born in the UK. It has negligible EU immigration. It is a white supremacists wet dream. I should know: I used to work there.
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 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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.
Your party does not represent the majority.
It's more right than left. When was the last time there was a left-wing government?
What government we end up with is a product of our electoral system. It is no comment on the “nature” of the country. I’m not saying that Britain is left-wing either.
I’m just saying that to loudly proclaim that Labour lost because the country is inherently right-wing is wishful thinking at best.
Well they said inherently center-right, which I think is believable judging by how rarely left-wing governments have been elected in the past.
What government we end up with is a product of our electoral system. It is evidence of nothing else. In 2019 Lib + Lab was higher than Con. That would suggest 2019 Britain is centre-left no?
Given from 2010 to 2015 the Liberals were in coalition with the Tories, no
Exactly. Its disputed. Therefore the assertion that Britain’s national character is right-wing 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.
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
Just rejoice at that news.
Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.
Your party does not represent the majority.
It's more right than left. When was the last time there was a left-wing government?
What government we end up with is a product of our electoral system. It is no comment on the “nature” of the country. I’m not saying that Britain is left-wing either.
I’m just saying that to loudly proclaim that Labour lost because the country is inherently right-wing is wishful thinking at best.
Well they said inherently center-right, which I think is believable judging by how rarely left-wing governments have been elected in the past.
@isam over 98% of Blyth is white and born in the UK. Fear of immigration maybe motivated voters there but it was just that, an irrational fear.
Crikey, a percentage point knocked off the Blyth white population in 10 minutes! (though what skin colour has to do with EU migrations effect on the British labour market is beyond me)
What are you arguing here?
Blyth is 98% born in the UK. It has negligible EU immigration. It is a white supremacists wet dream. I should know: I used to work there.
Good for you. I had no idea until tonight that the ‘vast majority of Brexit voters’ lived in Blyth.
@isam over 98% of Blyth is white and born in the UK. Fear of immigration maybe motivated voters there but it was just that, an irrational fear.
Crikey, a percentage point knocked off the Blyth white population in 10 minutes! (though what skin colour has to do with EU migrations effect on the British labour market is beyond me)
What are you arguing here?
Blyth is 98% born in the UK. It has negligible EU immigration. It is a white supremacists wet dream. I should know: I used to work there.
Good for you. I had no idea until tonight that the ‘vast majority of Brexit voters’ lived in Blyth.
Blyth Valley is the poster child for the “red wall” crumbling “due to Brexit”.
Amazingly the DoD are now saying the letter was a draft, and releasing it was a mistake, but it apparently did get to the Iraqis, who then confirmed its receipt to news agencies like AFP and Reuters.
@isam over 98% of Blyth is white and born in the UK. Fear of immigration maybe motivated voters there but it was just that, an irrational fear.
Crikey, a percentage point knocked off the Blyth white population in 10 minutes! (though what skin colour has to do with EU migrations effect on the British labour market is beyond me)
What are you arguing here?
Blyth is 98% born in the UK. It has negligible EU immigration. It is a white supremacists wet dream. I should know: I used to work there.
Good for you. I had no idea until tonight that the ‘vast majority of Brexit voters’ lived in Blyth.
Blyth Valley is the poster child for the “red wall” crumbling “due to Brexit”.
It’s telling that you know nothing about it.
Yes, “ok” I can’t be bothered “to bicker” about it.
Amazingly the DoD are now saying the letter was a draft, and releasing it was a mistake, but it apparently did get to the Iraqis, who then confirmed its receipt to news agencies like AFP and Reuters.
Iran and the US have something rather significant and dangerous in common: in both cases, the shifting power struggles within the government and military, and the disconnect between the formal structures and where power lies, make it hard to tell who is actually running things, if indeed anyone is.
Iran and the US have something rather significant and dangerous in common: in both cases, the shifting power struggles within the government and military, and the disconnect between the formal structures and where power lies, make it hard to tell who is actually running things, if indeed anyone is.
Rather profound and very worrying if that is true of the USA.
Iran and the US have something rather significant and dangerous in common: in both cases, the shifting power struggles within the government and military, and the disconnect between the formal structures and where power lies, make it hard to tell who is actually running things, if indeed anyone is.
Rather profound and very worrying if that is true of the USA.
Amazingly the DoD are now saying the letter was a draft, and releasing it was a mistake, but it apparently did get to the Iraqis, who then confirmed its receipt to news agencies like AFP and Reuters.
"It is true that one reason we lost the election was that Labour’s campaign lacked a coherent narrative. But this was a failure of campaign strategy, not of our socialist programme."
Go Boris! I bet he'll screw the Leavers over immigration too, perhaps by opening the floodgates from South America and Asia. Send 'em to Sedgefield and give the natives some genuine reasons to weep in their chip papers.
I think the key phrases in this articles are "he believes" and "above his pay grade". In other words, he doesn't know and he doesn't even pretend he really knows. I appreciate there is value to the personal thoughts of someone with some access/insight to Johnson, but we shouldn't take it too seriously. He isn't even an aide on trade.
"It is true that one reason we lost the election was that Labour’s campaign lacked a coherent narrative. But this was a failure of campaign strategy, not of our socialist programme."
Milne and Murphy thrown under the bus.
It's a well-established tradition of the Stalinist left that after any setback a few apparatchiks get shot, and of course they are expected to be grateful for the opportunity to make by their sacrifice one last contribution to The Cause.
"It is true that one reason we lost the election was that Labour’s campaign lacked a coherent narrative. But this was a failure of campaign strategy, not of our socialist programme."
Milne and Murphy thrown under the bus.
Well that would be a positive start.
She strikes me as being far too ambitious to be ideological. I don't like her.
Amazingly the DoD are now saying the letter was a draft, and releasing it was a mistake, but it apparently did get to the Iraqis, who then confirmed its receipt to news agencies like AFP and Reuters.
"I haven’t rushed to announce my candidacy because I wanted to take time to reflect following the devastating results in December. I didn’t emerge from the election with a ready-made leadership campaign because my every effort during the election went into campaigning for a Labour victory. I’m not driven by personal ambition, but by my principles and an unwavering desire to change our country and our world for the better."
I am always interested in re-opening rail lines, even better if steam trains are used !!
Nah, re-opened rail lines are always easier to "do" if they're part of the National Rail network. Most heritage railways are closed from January to March!
I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.
My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
I am always interested in re-opening rail lines, even better if steam trains are used !!
Nah, re-opened rail lines are always easier to "do" if they're part of the National Rail network. Most heritage railways are closed from January to March!
I agree with you Sunil.
Just being nostalgic but reopening some branch lines is an excellent idea
Amazingly the DoD are now saying the letter was a draft, and releasing it was a mistake, but it apparently did get to the Iraqis, who then confirmed its receipt to news agencies like AFP and Reuters.
I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.
My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.
My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.
My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
I am always interested in re-opening rail lines, even better if steam trains are used !!
Nah, re-opened rail lines are always easier to "do" if they're part of the National Rail network. Most heritage railways are closed from January to March!
I agree with you Sunil.
Just being nostalgic but reopening some branch lines is an excellent idea
Just by chance, discovered the Princes Risborough & Chinnor Railway was open on New Year's Day, my first addition for 2020, albeit less than 5 miles! It won't re-open to the public till March...
Just checked back in to discover that Rebecca Large-Baileys is doing Love Island this year. What are her odds?
3.65
Seems rather short for her to win Love Island. Do Manc blondes have a good track record on the show? (I tried to watch it once but couldn’t grasp the rules)
Just checked back in to discover that Rebecca Large-Baileys is doing Love Island this year. What are her odds?
3.65
Seems rather short for her to win Love Island. Do Manc blondes have a good track record on the show? (I tried to watch it once but couldn’t grasp the rules)
Blondes don’t tend to win actually. Normally brunettes.
I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.
My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
Why?
I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.
For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.
There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.
My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
Why?
I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.
For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.
There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
You wont be laughing when a series of events with a non-zero chance of happening leads to the election of Prime Minister RLB.
I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.
My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
Why?
I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.
For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.
There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
Well meaningless votes is a fact of life for much of the country under FPP. Am I expected to pity you?
Remember we came within a whisker of a Corbyn government in 2017 - presumably not the intention of your true blue brethren who snivelingly helped carry him to the leadership?
I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.
My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
Why?
I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.
For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.
There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
You wont be laughing when a series of events with a non-zero chance of happening leads to the election of Prime Minister RLB.
Corbyn came close in 2017.
That's true, but it doesn't seem uncivic, merely risky for the person involved as they might contribute to an outcome they don't like later.
I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.
My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
Why?
I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.
For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.
There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
You wont be laughing when a series of events with a non-zero chance of happening leads to the election of Prime Minister RLB.
Corbyn came close in 2017.
55 seats short, I think you mean. (or, if you prefer, just 4 more seats than won by Gordon in 2010)
Just checked back in to discover that Rebecca Large-Baileys is doing Love Island this year. What are her odds?
3.65
Seems rather short for her to win Love Island. Do Manc blondes have a good track record on the show? (I tried to watch it once but couldn’t grasp the rules)
Blondes don’t tend to win actually. Normally brunettes.
Interesting.
Presumably it’s an unfriendly climate for redheads?
A relief that he won’t stand. A truly nightmarish potential candidate from the macho bully boy union left.
There was a theory there was never any intention he would stand, just that the suggestion he might would make RLB look better by comparison. Whether that theory is true or not, it worked.
"It is true that one reason we lost the election was that Labour’s campaign lacked a coherent narrative. But this was a failure of campaign strategy, not of our socialist programme."
The risible Cole looks and acts exactly like a leftie’s stereotype of a Tory boy.
As for Yvette, there’s not a single shred of evidence she is motivated to be leader. I’m generally a fan, but she’s becoming a bit of a queen over the water.
Comments
Your party does not represent the majority.
Never mind, it’s over now.
https://twitter.com/michaeljswalker/status/1214176076806660096
Doesn’t mean HYFUD’s post isn’t the same relentless drivel of meaningless soundbites.
Am I doing this right?
I’m just saying that to loudly proclaim that Labour lost because the country is inherently right-wing is wishful thinking at best.
I think I will sit this out for now
Blyth is 98% born in the UK. It has negligible EU immigration. It is a white supremacists wet dream. I should know: I used to work there.
It’s telling that you know nothing about it.
SNAFU
What channel?
https://twitter.com/georgia_gould/status/1214302720875802626?s=21
https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1214311166765420544?s=21
Milne and Murphy thrown under the bus.
No reason for you to get involved in the US/Iran scrap, Big_G.
She strikes me as being far too ambitious to be ideological. I don't like her.
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/grant-shapps-ashington-blyth-trains-17521599
Sorry for the typo.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1214317484398039047
"I haven’t rushed to announce my candidacy because I wanted to take time to reflect following the devastating results in December. I didn’t emerge from the election with a ready-made leadership campaign because my every effort during the election went into campaigning for a Labour victory. I’m not driven by personal ambition, but by my principles and an unwavering desire to change our country and our world for the better."
Except winning elections.
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/01/rebecca-long-bailey-labour-leadership-socialism
"We have a mountain to climb comrades..."
Only because your members choose to elect Corbyn twice instead of someone who could be PM.
My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
Just being nostalgic but reopening some branch lines is an excellent idea
I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.
For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.
There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
Corbyn came close in 2017.
Remember we came within a whisker of a Corbyn government in 2017 - presumably not the intention of your true blue brethren who snivelingly helped carry him to the leadership?
(or, if you prefer, just 4 more seats than won by Gordon in 2010)
Presumably it’s an unfriendly climate for redheads?
"We have a mountain to climb comrades..."
But I would have previously furiously denied that we were creating a mountain in the first place.
As for Yvette, there’s not a single shred of evidence she is motivated to be leader. I’m generally a fan, but she’s becoming a bit of a queen over the water.