Would it be fair to say Starmer is the candidate Boris would least like to face? reckon so.
Not close to any candidate but impression is that Starmer would do a better job of holding Johnson to account (which as charlatan he wants to avoid) but Nandy would score better on emotional intelligence, also against Johnson.
Both candidates world make far better prime ministers than Johnson, but it may not matter. Johnson's advantage is structural. He has united erstwhile leavers while remainers are split between several parties. Plurality, not majority, of voters, is what counts in the UK political system.
By 2023 or 2024 it is far from clear that Brexit will be at all salient re- voting behaviour. I do find it a bit odd that quite a few Tories on here appear convinced that the Red Wall which crumbled so badly over the two and a half years between the 2017 and 2019 elections cannot be largely rebuilt over the four year period or so to the next election.The loss of Corbyn's toxicity is likely to boost Labour significantly in white working class seats.
The red wall crumbled over a period 2005-2019. It wasn't just Corbyn - though he accelerated it.
Labour could reorient themselves to red wall seats and rebuild it Or it could completely disappear into Metropolitan identity politics. It's up to them, really.
But there was little sign until 2017 of traditional Labour seats turning to the Tories. I did find the collapse in turnout in those heartland seats significant in 2001 - early signs that Blair had failed to deliver for them. Burnley and Redcar went Libdem in 2010 but swung back to Labour in 2015.Moreover, in 2019 there were some areas which have some history of Tory representation since World War 2 which did not desert Labour - Sunderland South , Hartlepool , Tynemouth and parts of Newcastle upon Tyne. I also see some parrallel re- the Poll Tax disaster for the Tories at the 1990 Local Elections. Under a new Leader the issue had effectively disappeared by the 1991 elections and saw much stronger results for the Tories. By the time of the April 1992 GE it was barely mentioned at all.
Well exactly. Apart from USA on Japan their "use" is to threaten and deter and at this they are thought to be supremely effective. And if this is true you would be crazy not to want or have them. Like we and USA and Russia and Israel and France etc seem to do - and also NK and Iran. The corollary of this being that if you do have or want them you are most likely not crazy. But you certainly have to be pretty crazy to fire them and kill millions of people. Ergo if you have them you can probably never fire them because you will not be sufficiently crazy. Which means - since this is obvious - that they cannot be as effective as first thought at deterrence and therefore you are crazy to want or have them.
You can tie yourselves up in knots on strategic deterrence.
It’s easy to make a moral case for a world with no nukes. I’m arguing it would be irresponsible and unsafe for us not to renew ours.
Starmer is a far more credible figure than Kinnoch. Kinnoch never looked PM material. I watched him a few years ago on HIGNFY, long after I had passed the opportunity to vote for his party while he was LoTO. He was sooo cringingly embarrassing even though he had years on his side. better than Corbyn and Foot perhaps, but not much more so. Jess Phillips is more likeable than Kinnoch, but she is definitely the Kinnoch figure
I am not a Kinnock fan, by any means. I don't like him. But he is way, way better than Jess.
Jess "Stab in the Front" Philips could never manage anything as good as this:
"Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Why is my wife, Glenys, the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?
Was it because all our predecessors were 'thick'? Did they lack talent - those people who could sing, and play, and recite and write poetry; those people who could make wonderful, beautiful things with their hands; those people who could dream dreams, see visions; those people who had such a sense of perception as to know in times so brutal, so oppressive, that they could win their way out of that by coming together?"
Comments
Grist to my mill.
And my mill does need some grist right now TBH.
I also see some parrallel re- the Poll Tax disaster for the Tories at the 1990 Local Elections. Under a new Leader the issue had effectively disappeared by the 1991 elections and saw much stronger results for the Tories. By the time of the April 1992 GE it was barely mentioned at all.
It’s easy to make a moral case for a world with no nukes. I’m arguing it would be irresponsible and unsafe for us not to renew ours.
Jess "Stab in the Front" Philips could never manage anything as good as this:
"Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Why is my wife, Glenys, the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?
Was it because all our predecessors were 'thick'? Did they lack talent - those people who could sing, and play, and recite and write poetry; those people who could make wonderful, beautiful things with their hands; those people who could dream dreams, see visions; those people who had such a sense of perception as to know in times so brutal, so oppressive, that they could win their way out of that by coming together?"
So good in fact, that Joe Biden nicked it.