I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
How many days has it been so far?
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
For most of the time he was dealing with the obstructionists in Parliament. Now that they are out of the way...
Convenient get out, I wasn't aware Parliament was stopping him from implementing policies to bring the country back together.
If I was Labour, I would take the 2017 manifesto as the starting point because despite Corbyn and everything else, it did buck the trend in a decade of really poor results at least by voteshare.
We have to take them promising to deliver Brexit and Corbyn being unknown as two big reasons but the policies were more left wing than Labour had proposed in quite a while so I think from a pragmatic POV they would be silly to dump all of them, especially as the Tories have tacked left economically.
I'd propose something like:
Invest in buses Invest in the NHS Invest in infrastructure Invest in defence/Policing/CPS
They can have other stuff as well like railway nationalisation as the franchises expire (net cost: £0) but I'd run on the above pledges, similar to what Blair did in 1997.
With a leader people actually don't hate, I don't see why Labour can't get 40% of the vote again as it did in 2017. Am I missing something here?
You do realise that by the time of the next election Boris will have done all those things and more
I love your new found optimism for Boris. I hope he doesn't let you down.
Not just Boris, the whole government is confident and optimistic, and compared with the depressing unhappy labour party, it is refreshing
ISIS suicide bombers are usually pretty optimistic just before they blow themselves up.
Optimism is no substitute for facts.
Are you always so negative
Here you go again. Why would I be optimistic about the government? Because you say so? All evidence suggests otherwise.
I’m optimistic about plenty of things. Keir Starmer for example. The policy of the government is not one of them.
Regardless you just don’t get it. Conservatives keep saying that the time to unite and move forward is now but instead of being consolatory you belittle us and act triumphalist.
There’s no outstretched hand. There’s just the finger. If you want to unite the country you need to actually govern for all. Not just Dominic Cummings’s 43%.
You are upset in many ways and I doubt I can assuage your feelings no matter how far I outstretch my hand, though I would like to and do not feel the least bit triumphant, just relieved we did not get Corbyn
I ran a very successful business entirely predicated on leading change and enthusing my employees with optimism and to be honest many labour supporters should try it, it works
As far as a conservative plant is concerned I have been a conservative since I was asked to be a county councillor in the mid sixties when I was in my early twenties, and apart from voting for Blair twice, I have always voted conservative
Blind deluded optimism doesn't work. I work on facts not feelings.
If the company I work for is going bust, optimism isn't going to suddenly stop that from happening.
There's having a PMA and I understand that as a concept but being positive to an insane degree as you sometimes are, I have to say just makes me laugh as opposed to actually wanting to engage seriously with your points.
I say all this having been in the Labour bubble, you show very similar behaviour to a lot of the Momentum crowd, it's almost cult like.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
How many days has it been so far?
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
For most of the time he was dealing with the obstructionists in Parliament. Now that they are out of the way...
Convenient get out, I wasn't aware Parliament was stopping him from implementing policies to bring the country back together.
Nothing was happening in Parliament because of the Brexit deadlock, all political energy was focused on that.
Their recent changes to the funding formula for England seems to be a good start. That should bring more investment to the poorer regions, rather than focusing on already well-off areas.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
How many days has it been so far?
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
For most of the time he was dealing with the obstructionists in Parliament. Now that they are out of the way...
Convenient get out, I wasn't aware Parliament was stopping him from implementing policies to bring the country back together.
While I don't think he has even tried and will continue to not try, I do think it's not an unreasonable point that while Brexit was still a viciously live issue even the attempt was futile. No one would have come together while Brexit was still to be settled. Who could honestly believe that even had he tried such a thing with Brexit on the table it would have amounted to anything? It doesn't make his lack of care for such things ok, but I think the criticism needs to be proportionate.
I ran a very successful business entirely predicated on leading change and enthusing my employees with optimism and to be honest many labour supporters should try it, it works
As far as a conservative plant is concerned I have been a conservative since I was asked to be a county councillor in the mid sixties when I was in my early twenties, and apart from voting for Blair twice, I have always voted conservative
In my experience, management who successfully inspire optimism do not duck from the scrutiny of their workforce.
They confidently present a plan and then see it through. People are infused because they know the plan and they know the vision.
We do not know the plan. We do not know the vision. So why on earth would I be optimistic?
Liam Fox said only today that Brexit will make us less competitive. So where are we going to be more competitive? What is the plan?
Telling me that I don’t need to know the plan and I should just shut up and be optimistic is ridiculous.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
How many days has it been so far?
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
He got a new(ish) deal with the EU. He's won a large majority in an election. He's passed the Brexit Withdrawal bill that had paralysed the Commons for 3 years. He has got Stormont up and running after 3 years. He's made commitments on the NHS and the Police that should be followed up in the budget.
After years of paralysis things are starting to move again. There is a lot of catching up to do and not everything will go right but I share at least some of Big G's teenage enthusiasm for having a working government again.
If I was Labour, I would take the 2017 manifesto as the starting point because despite Corbyn and everything else, it did buck the trend in a decade of really poor results at least by voteshare.
We have to take them promising to deliver Brexit and Corbyn being unknown as two big reasons but the policies were more left wing than Labour had proposed in quite a while so I think from a pragmatic POV they would be silly to dump all of them, especially as the Tories have tacked left economically.
I'd propose something like:
Invest in buses Invest in the NHS Invest in infrastructure Invest in defence/Policing/CPS
They can have other stuff as well like railway nationalisation as the franchises expire (net cost: £0) but I'd run on the above pledges, similar to what Blair did in 1997.
With a leader people actually don't hate, I don't see why Labour can't get 40% of the vote again as it did in 2017. Am I missing something here?
You do realise that by the time of the next election Boris will have done all those things and more
I love your new found optimism for Boris. I hope he doesn't let you down.
Not just Boris, the whole government is confident and optimistic, and compared with the depressing unhappy labour party, it is refreshing
ISIS suicide bombers are usually pretty optimistic just before they blow themselves up.
Optimism is no substitute for facts.
Are you always so negative
Here you go again. Why would I be optimistic about the government? Because you say so? All evidence suggests otherwise.
I’m optimistic about plenty of things. Keir Starmer for example. The policy of the government is not one of them.
Regardless you just don’t get it. Conservatives keep saying that the time to unite and move forward is now but instead of being consolatory you belittle us and act triumphalist.
There’s no outstretched hand. There’s just the finger. If you want to unite the country you need to actually govern for all. Not just Dominic Cummings’s 43%.
You are upset in many ways and I doubt I can assuage your feelings no matter how far I outstretch my hand, though I would like to and do not feel the least bit triumphant, just relieved we did not get Corbyn
Perhaps if you hadn't spent quite a lot of time agreeing how terrible BJ was before your Damascene moment, folk who care about that sort of thing would look upon your outstretched hand less suspiciously.
I ran a very successful business entirely predicated on leading change and enthusing my employees with optimism and to be honest many labour supporters should try it, it works
As far as a conservative plant is concerned I have been a conservative since I was asked to be a county councillor in the mid sixties when I was in my early twenties, and apart from voting for Blair twice, I have always voted conservative
In my experience, management who successfully inspire optimism do not duck from the scrutiny of their workforce.
They confidently present a plan and then see it through. People are infused because they know the plan and they know the vision.
We do not know the plan. We do not know the vision. So why on earth would I be optimistic?
Liam Fox said only today that Brexit will make us less competitive. So where are we going to be more competitive? What is the plan?
Telling me that I don’t need to know the plan and I should just shut up and be optimistic is ridiculous.
I would never tell you 'to shut up'
I read your posts with genuine interest and to some extent understanding
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
How many days has it been so far?
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
For most of the time he was dealing with the obstructionists in Parliament. Now that they are out of the way...
Convenient get out, I wasn't aware Parliament was stopping him from implementing policies to bring the country back together.
Nothing was happening in Parliament because of the Brexit deadlock, all political energy was focused on that.
Their recent changing to the funding formula for England seems to be a good start. That should bring more investment to the poorer regions, rather than focusing on already well-off areas.
The Tories chose to deliver Brexit in the way they wanted to, that is entirely their fault therefore that the country is in such a mess in the first place.
If they'd got Parliament involved from day one instead of going towards hard Brexit we'd have left on time and the country wouldn't now be split.
Most of us were happy with a Norway-style Brexit but no, that wasn't Brexity enough for the hardline nutters in the Tory Party.
And this is what the next five years and beyond will be, it will never be the fault of Boris Johnson or his Government, it will be because other people didn't believe enough or had the absolute mad thought to actually call things out that were bad.
The idea Boris Johnson is this God-like figure who single handedly is going to rescue the UK from the abyss is the kind of utter nonsense I used to spout about Corbyn. It's odd seeing it from outside the bubble, no less terrifying I am sure for others.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
How many days has it been so far?
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
Negotiated a new withdrawal agreement, gained an 80 majority, got rid of Corbyn and got Brexit through Parliament.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
How many days has it been so far?
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
For most of the time he was dealing with the obstructionists in Parliament. Now that they are out of the way...
Convenient get out, I wasn't aware Parliament was stopping him from implementing policies to bring the country back together.
Nothing was happening in Parliament because of the Brexit deadlock, all political energy was focused on that.
Their recent changing to the funding formula for England seems to be a good start. That should bring more investment to the poorer regions, rather than focusing on already well-off areas.
The Tories chose to deliver Brexit in the way they wanted to, that is entirely their fault therefore that the country is in such a mess in the first place.
If they'd got Parliament involved from day one instead of going towards hard Brexit we'd have left on time and the country wouldn't now be split.
Most of us were happy with a Norway-style Brexit but no, that wasn't Brexity enough for the hardline nutters in the Tory Party.
And this is what the next five years and beyond will be, it will never be the fault of Boris Johnson or his Government, it will be because other people didn't believe enough or had the absolute mad thought to actually call things out that were bad.
The idea Boris Johnson is this God-like figure who single handedly is going to rescue the UK from the abyss is the kind of utter nonsense I used to spout about Corbyn. It's odd seeing it from outside the bubble, no less terrifying I am sure for others.
And the public approved of their strategy in a recent vote, rather than opting for Labour's policy (god alone knows what that was), or the revoke position of the Liberal Democrats.
As for Parliament, it was clear they were doing all they could to frustrate Brexit itself. It didn't have anything to do with a Norway-style Brexit or whatever, it was all about stopping the whole thing entirely.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
How many days has it been so far?
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
Negotiated a new withdrawal agreement, gained an 80 majority, got rid of Corbyn and got Brexit through Parliament.
Correct, although he hasn't done anything for the people or the country.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
How many days has it been so far?
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
For most of the time he was dealing with the obstructionists in Parliament. Now that they are out of the way...
Convenient get out, I wasn't aware Parliament was stopping him from implementing policies to bring the country back together.
Nothing was happening in Parliament because of the Brexit deadlock, all political energy was focused on that.
Their recent changing to the funding formula for England seems to be a good start. That should bring more investment to the poorer regions, rather than focusing on already well-off areas.
The Tories chose to deliver Brexit in the way they wanted to, that is entirely their fault therefore that the country is in such a mess in the first place.
If they'd got Parliament involved from day one instead of going towards hard Brexit we'd have left on time and the country wouldn't now be split.
Most of us were happy with a Norway-style Brexit but no, that wasn't Brexity enough for the hardline nutters in the Tory Party.
And this is what the next five years and beyond will be, it will never be the fault of Boris Johnson or his Government, it will be because other people didn't believe enough or had the absolute mad thought to actually call things out that were bad.
The idea Boris Johnson is this God-like figure who single handedly is going to rescue the UK from the abyss is the kind of utter nonsense I used to spout about Corbyn. It's odd seeing it from outside the bubble, no less terrifying I am sure for others.
And the public approved of their strategy in a recent vote, rather than opting for Labour's policy (god alone knows what that was), or the revoke position of the Liberal Democrats.
As for Parliament, it was clear they were doing all they could to frustrate Brexit itself. It didn't have anything to do with a Norway-style Brexit or whatever, it was all about stopping the whole thing entirely.
This is just deliberately misleading. We don’t know what their strategy is. If you know it, please educate us.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
How many days has it been so far?
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
He got a new(ish) deal with the EU. He's won a large majority in an election. He's passed the Brexit Withdrawal bill that had paralysed the Commons for 3 years. He has got Stormont up and running after 3 years. He's made commitments on the NHS and the Police that should be followed up in the budget.
After years of paralysis things are starting to move again. There is a lot of catching up to do and not everything will go right but I share at least some of Big G's teenage enthusiasm for having a working government again.
He got the same deal May originally had - a deal he said no PM would ever accept.
He did - but that in itself means nothing.
Parliament was paralysed because the Tory Party refused to compromise on anything and involve any other party. It's not really a surprise that with a massive majority you can railroad through a deal like that, he could have railroaded through May's deal. Look at my point above though - it's a deal he said no PM could ever expect. It's a deal that at best will make this whole thing pointless, how will this bring the country back together?
The man responsible for that was going to get sacked, so I don't think you can really credit Boris Johnson with that. Julian Smith is the consistent thread and person who worked on it - he deserves the credit not Johnson who appeared at the end. What exactly did Johnson do?
He's made some commitments to hire the Police that his Government originally cut, some hospitals that turned out to be significantly less than he promised and promised money which still puts the NHS below what it actually needs and is still low by historical standards.
I don't see how you can call these achievements. They all unravel under any scrutiny which is exactly what happens to pretty much everything he has done in office.
Which in many ways just makes it worse that Labour was so utterly useless that they couldn't beat him.
Last month Labour polled 33% under Corbyn on a GB basis. Not good - but a higher than the 31.2% under Milliband in 2015 and the 29.7% under Brown in 2010. What would Labour have polled last month had Starmer been leader?
What I would agree with is that we still need constructive steps to bring people together again. The most obvious Brexit related step would be a generous and unilateral step to remove all and any concerns about EU citizens in the UK right of abode, work, study, health and access to public services. Just do it. Now. We will eventually but it will be profoundly unhelpful to get dragged kicking and screaming into this during the negotiations. Oh, and commit to continuing to fund Erasmus too.
And the public approved of their strategy in a recent vote, rather than opting for Labour's policy (god alone knows what that was), or the revoke position of the Liberal Democrats.
As for Parliament, it was clear they were doing all they could to frustrate Brexit itself. It didn't have anything to do with a Norway-style Brexit or whatever, it was all about stopping the whole thing entirely.
This is just deliberately misleading. We don’t know what their strategy is. If you know it, please educate us.
Tells you everything you need to know about the appeal of the Labour and LD position, doesn't it?
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
How many days has it been so far?
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
He got a new(ish) deal with the EU. He's won a large majority in an election. He's passed the Brexit Withdrawal bill that had paralysed the Commons for 3 years. He has got Stormont up and running after 3 years. He's made commitments on the NHS and the Police that should be followed up in the budget.
After years of paralysis things are starting to move again. There is a lot of catching up to do and not everything will go right but I share at least some of Big G's teenage enthusiasm for having a working government again.
Johnson dumped a political settlement on Northern Ireland so bad that it in part shocked politicians in that place to get their act together. Johnson can claim credit for getting Stormont up and running, but perhaps not in the way intended.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
ay because they are supposed to say it. Even as the various sides were excoriating each other in the most vicious terms they would talk about how they offered unity. It's meaningless drivel, and impossible to boot.
Actually tackling peoples fears and worries head on might help rather than just dismissing them as Remoaners.
“Don’t worry we’re not going to lower food standards” for example.
But obviously they can’t do that because there is no plan. Our future is entirely dependent on the good will of others.
And the public approved of their strategy in a recent vote, rather than opting for Labour's policy (god alone knows what that was), or the revoke position of the Liberal Democrats.
As for Parliament, it was clear they were doing all they could to frustrate Brexit itself. It didn't have anything to do with a Norway-style Brexit or whatever, it was all about stopping the whole thing entirely.
This is just deliberately misleading. We don’t know what their strategy is. If you know it, please educate us.
Tells you everything you need to know about the appeal of the Labour and LD position, doesn't it?
Please tell us what the Tory strategy is. If you don’t know just say. We are not talking about Labour or Lib Dems are they are not relevant to this discussion.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
ay because they are supposed to say it. Even as the various sides were excoriating each other in the most vicious terms they would talk about how they offered unity. It's meaningless drivel, and impossible to boot.
Actually tackling peoples fears and worries head on might help rather than just dismissing them as Remoaners.
“Don’t worry we’re not going to lower food standards” for example.
But obviously they can’t do that because there is no plan. Our future is entirely dependent on the good will of others.
And the public approved of their strategy in a recent vote, rather than opting for Labour's policy (god alone knows what that was), or the revoke position of the Liberal Democrats.
As for Parliament, it was clear they were doing all they could to frustrate Brexit itself. It didn't have anything to do with a Norway-style Brexit or whatever, it was all about stopping the whole thing entirely.
This is just deliberately misleading. We don’t know what their strategy is. If you know it, please educate us.
Tells you everything you need to know about the appeal of the Labour and LD position, doesn't it?
Please tell us what the Tory strategy is. If you don’t know just say. We are not talking about Labour or Lib Dems are they are not relevant to this discussion.
The withdrawal agreement followed by a free trade agreement that doesn't lock the UK into the EU's customs territory.
And the public approved of their strategy in a recent vote, rather than opting for Labour's policy (god alone knows what that was), or the revoke position of the Liberal Democrats.
As for Parliament, it was clear they were doing all they could to frustrate Brexit itself. It didn't have anything to do with a Norway-style Brexit or whatever, it was all about stopping the whole thing entirely.
This is just deliberately misleading. We don’t know what their strategy is. If you know it, please educate us.
Tells you everything you need to know about the appeal of the Labour and LD position, doesn't it?
Please tell us what the Tory strategy is. If you don’t know just say. We are not talking about Labour or Lib Dems are they are not relevant to this discussion.
The withdrawal agreement followed by a free trade agreement that doesn't lock the UK into the EU's customs territory.
And what are we willing to give in exchange for that FTA? What will change compared to now? What are our negotiating aims?
The EU is transparent about all of this.
What will we do if it cant be agreed? How will the effects of WTO be mitigated?
On topic, I don't especially think that there is much to be gained by Labour hopefuls embracing Blair as such. He's very much yesterday's man, and his public approval ratings these days aren't great. He tarnished his reputation towards the end of his tenure, and isn't a good brand today.
But they do need to learn from him, and it is hard to disagree with much of Blair's piece in the Observer today. Crucially:
1. There is no route to victory that doesn't involve people who voted for Johnson last month. They've got to stop using "Tory" as a term of abuse about moderates in their own ranks and outside.
2. If your answer to every policy question is "we'll write a cheque" then you get individual policies that poll well but look fiscally incontinent and pie-in-the-sky when people step back and look at the overall picture. You need a shorter list of pledges which feel realistic and offer something to those concerned about traditionally "right wing" issues too.
3. Optimism wins. I know Labour will say their spending plans were about investment in a brighter future, but it didn't come across, partly due to Corbyn being an Eeyore. You've got to talk in terms of "giving all our children the very best schools" rather than leading on "the Tories have f***ed the education system". Blair had that in 1997.
4. You make decisions rationally based on maximising the prospect of getting into office, so you can help the people you purport to represent. One implication is having a sane targeting strategy. Labour's approach in 2019 often seemed based on spite - ludicrous decapitation plays, starving marginal Labour moderates to help Momentum no-hopers, piling into the seats of defectors rather than making a difference in a seat that really needed it next door. In 1997, in seats where Labour weren't going to win, they were perfectly happy to let the Lib Dems keep the Tories pinned down - it meant Labour resources were effectively used, and those Lib Dem MPs might have been handy had the result not been a Labour landslide.
Last month Labour polled 33% under Corbyn on a GB basis. Not good - but a higher than the 31.2% under Milliband in 2015 and the 29.7% under Brown in 2010. What would Labour have polled last month had Starmer been leader?
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
How many days has it been so far?
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
He got a new(ish) deal with the EU. He's won a large majority in an election. He's passed the Brexit Withdrawal bill that had paralysed the Commons for 3 years. He has got Stormont up and running after 3 years. He's made commitments on the NHS and the Police that should be followed up in the budget.
After years of paralysis things are starting to move again. There is a lot of catching up to do and not everything will go right but I share at least some of Big G's teenage enthusiasm for having a working government again.
Johnson dumped a political settlement on Northern Ireland so bad that it in part shocked politicians in that place to get their act together. Johnson can claim credit for getting Stormont up and running, but perhaps not in the way intended.
He also blackmailed them with the NHS situation and by making it clear that the new gay marriage and abortion laws were not the end of it by any means. He has forced the parties to take responsibility. This is a good thing. All NI need now is some vaguely competent parties.
And the public approved of their strategy in a recent vote, rather than opting for Labour's policy (god alone knows what that was), or the revoke position of the Liberal Democrats.
As for Parliament, it was clear they were doing all they could to frustrate Brexit itself. It didn't have anything to do with a Norway-style Brexit or whatever, it was all about stopping the whole thing entirely.
This is just deliberately misleading. We don’t know what their strategy is. If you know it, please educate us.
Tells you everything you need to know about the appeal of the Labour and LD position, doesn't it?
Please tell us what the Tory strategy is. If you don’t know just say. We are not talking about Labour or Lib Dems are they are not relevant to this discussion.
The withdrawal agreement followed by a free trade agreement that doesn't lock the UK into the EU's customs territory.
And what are we willing to give in exchange for that FTA? What will change compared to now? What are our negotiating aims?
The EU is transparent about all of this.
What will we do if it cant be agreed? How will the effects of WTO be mitigated?
Both sides gain by having a FTA, and I think the aim is to make trade as frictionless as possible, whilst still retain the ability to have an independent trade policy.
If it can't be agreed, probably a series of deals covering certain sectors. But the impact of no deal would be felt on both sides, and I think both sides want to avoid it.
Another example: What is the government’s plan for regeneration of towns like Blyth?
It obviously isn’t “Australian style points system” so what is it?
They've already announced plans to change the investment funding formula to focus on deprived areas, rather than focusing solely on financial returns.
So what will that achieve for a town like Blyth? What is going to change?
More investment, I imagine!
Like what?
You know, the stuff that is usually paid for out of the public purse. They wouldn't have announced a change in the funding policy if they weren't going to use it to target areas like Blyth. As for specific plans, those haven't been announced yet, so it would be pointless for me to speculate.
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
For most of the time he was dealing with the obstructionists in Parliament. Now that they are out of the way...
Convenient get out, I wasn't aware Parliament was stopping him from implementing policies to bring the country back together.
Nothing was happening in Parliament because of the Brexit deadlock, all political energy was focused on that.
Their recent changing to the funding formula for England seems to be a good start. That should bring more investment to the poorer regions, rather than focusing on already well-off areas.
The Tories chose to deliver Brexit in the way they wanted to, that is entirely their fault therefore that the country is in such a mess in the first place.
If they'd got Parliament involved from day one instead of going towards hard Brexit we'd have left on time and the country wouldn't now be split.
Most of us were happy with a Norway-style Brexit but no, that wasn't Brexity enough for the hardline nutters in the Tory Party.
And this is what the next five years and beyond will be, it will never be the fault of Boris Johnson or his Government, it will be because other people didn't believe enough or had the absolute mad thought to actually call things out that were bad.
The idea Boris Johnson is this God-like figure who single handedly is going to rescue the UK from the abyss is the kind of utter nonsense I used to spout about Corbyn. It's odd seeing it from outside the bubble, no less terrifying I am sure for others.
And the public approved of their strategy in a recent vote, rather than opting for Labour's policy (god alone knows what that was), or the revoke position of the Liberal Democrats.
As for Parliament, it was clear they were doing all they could to frustrate Brexit itself. It didn't have anything to do with a Norway-style Brexit or whatever, it was all about stopping the whole thing entirely.
This is just deliberately misleading. We don’t know what their strategy is. If you know it, please educate us.
Pass the deal they already negotiated. Then seek a comprehensive trade deal, allowing for divergence with EU standards where practical/desirable.
The bill was already before the Commons; which was refusing to (agree a timetable to) pass it. It's a bit daft pretending you didn't know what the strategy was, especially given how opaque Labour were on the issue.
On topic, I don't especially think that there is much to be gained by Labour hopefuls embracing Blair as such. He's very much yesterday's man, and his public approval ratings these days aren't great. He tarnished his reputation towards the end of his tenure, and isn't a good brand today.
But they do need to learn from him, and it is hard to disagree with much of Blair's piece in the Observer today. Crucially:
1. There is no route to victory that doesn't involve people who voted for Johnson last month. They've got to stop using "Tory" as a term of abuse about moderates in their own ranks and outside.
2. If your answer to every policy question is "we'll write a cheque" then you get individual policies that poll well but look fiscally incontinent and pie-in-the-sky when people step back and look at the overall picture. You need a shorter list of pledges which feel realistic and offer something to those concerned about traditionally "right wing" issues too.
3. Optimism wins. I know Labour will say their spending plans were about investment in a brighter future, but it didn't come across, partly due to Corbyn being an Eeyore. You've got to talk in terms of "giving all our children the very best schools" rather than leading on "the Tories have f***ed the education system". Blair had that in 1997.
4. You make decisions rationally based on maximising the prospect of getting into office, so you can help the people you purport to represent. One implication is having a sane targeting strategy. Labour's approach in 2019 often seemed based on spite - ludicrous decapitation plays, starving marginal Labour moderates to help Momentum no-hopers, piling into the seats of defectors rather than making a difference in a seat that really needed it next door. In 1997, in seats where Labour weren't going to win, they were perfectly happy to let the Lib Dems keep the Tories pinned down - it meant Labour resources were effectively used, and those Lib Dem MPs might have been handy had the result not been a Labour landslide.
And also, it is often forgotten, but Blair was seriously considering an arrangement with Liberals. The massive landslide removed that from the agenda.
With Scotland seemingly lost, and boundary changes, Labour can't form a majority as far as I can see barring some kind of amazing result.
Navy 1) Get more planes for the carriers. The F35B is the only plane that can use them, but they're hideously expensive and we don't have enough of them. So either buy more or um, do something: rebuild the Harrier production line, build X32s, build YAK-141s, build some STOL drones, something... 2) Get more ships 1: Get something that can defend the carriers. We can use them integrated with the Americans but we can't do it by ourselves 3) Get more ships 2: Get some smaller ships for the cheap stuff like onshore bombardment or intercepting pirates 4) Get more ships 3: Get some support vessels; we are short of auxiliary ships that service and provision the fighting ships
I can't recall the poll but I think Starmer's popularity is on the same level as Johnson's - which we must not forget is net negative, he is nothing like a Blair in that respect - which is better than Corbyn, Ed and Brown all started, I think.
Lies, Lies and damn statistics.
11% of people have a positive opinion of Starmer. 35% have a positive opinion of Johnson. Neither figure really matters as the question is who is best placed to attract swing voters in the right seats, and how can motivate their base to actually turn up.
One of the fundamental problems of Corbyn surely is that he actively motivated people to vote against him. I can't think somebody like Starmer will have the same problem?
The worst criticism of him seems to be that he's a bit boring but ambivalence towards him might do very well if Johnson ends up screwing up?
The crucial thing for Labour is looking like a natural alternative Government very early on. My understanding is people were ready for Blair to be PM from 1994 onwards, hence Labour needs to look decent from next year really.
Depends how many cockups he presided over during his time at the CPS.
There's a lowly paid researcher in CCHQ currently very excited that the 4 days they spent compiling a list of murders and rapes committed by people Sir Keir declined to prosecute will not have been time wasted.
I imagine Sir Keir will be more damaged by his major push to prosecute benefits cheats in his period in office.
Labour needs someone that can relate to regular people. Not the third middle class straight male from a small area of North London in a row.
I suspect your first paragraph would positively strike a chord with the voting squeezed middle.
'Benefit scroungers' on the other hand don't vote.
It's not just three in a row for North London. The three before that were all Scots, and before that three that were welsh or represented welsh constituencies. You have to go back to Harold Wilson to find a non-London English leader.
On topic, I don't especially think that there is much to be gained by Labour hopefuls embracing Blair as such. He's very much yesterday's man, and his public approval ratings these days aren't great. He tarnished his reputation towards the end of his tenure, and isn't a good brand today.
But they do need to learn from him, and it is hard to disagree with much of Blair's piece in the Observer today. Crucially:
1. There is no route to victory that doesn't involve people who voted for Johnson last month. They've got to stop using "Tory" as a term of abuse about moderates in their own ranks and outside.
2. If your answer to every policy question is "we'll write a cheque" then you get individual policies that poll well but look fiscally incontinent and pie-in-the-sky when people step back and look at the overall picture. You need a shorter list of pledges which feel realistic and offer something to those concerned about traditionally "right wing" issues too.
3. Optimism wins. I know Labour will say their spending plans were about investment in a brighter future, but it didn't come across, partly due to Corbyn being an Eeyore. You've got to talk in terms of "giving all our children the very best schools" rather than leading on "the Tories have f***ed the education system". Blair had that in 1997.
4. You make decisions rationally based on maximising the prospect of getting into office, so you can help the people you purport to represent. One implication is having a sane targeting strategy. Labour's approach in 2019 often seemed based on spite - ludicrous decapitation plays, starving marginal Labour moderates to help Momentum no-hopers, piling into the seats of defectors rather than making a difference in a seat that really needed it next door. In 1997, in seats where Labour weren't going to win, they were perfectly happy to let the Lib Dems keep the Tories pinned down - it meant Labour resources were effectively used, and those Lib Dem MPs might have been handy had the result not been a Labour landslide.
And also, it is often forgotten, but Blair was seriously considering an arrangement with Liberals. The massive landslide removed that from the agenda.
With Scotland seemingly lost, and boundary changes, Labour can't form a majority as far as I can see barring some kind of amazing result.
It is estimated in 1997 that the LDs won an extra 20 seats because of the quiet pact between Ashdown and Blair. Starmer would be wise to repeat that.
As for Parliament, it was clear they were doing all they could to frustrate Brexit itself. It didn't have anything to do with a Norway-style Brexit or whatever, it was all about stopping the whole thing entirely.
There is this tendency to speak of the last parliament as if were a single entity with a single goal, to frustrate Brexit or similar. That's no more true of parliament than it is of people in general.
If it were true, parliament would probably have voted to revoke Article 50. It would certainly have voted for another referendum. Actually, there were indicative votes on each of these things which failed, spectacularly in the case of the former.
The problem with the last parliament was that different parts of it wanted too many different things, too obstinately. There were extremists on both sides who were so extreme that MPs in the middle couldn't go along with either of them, and the extremists wouldn't accept compromise. One set of extremists won the general election. That is all.
Another example: What is the government’s plan for regeneration of towns like Blyth?
It obviously isn’t “Australian style points system” so what is it?
They've already announced plans to change the investment funding formula to focus on deprived areas, rather than focusing solely on financial returns.
So what will that achieve for a town like Blyth? What is going to change?
More investment, I imagine!
Like what?
You know, the stuff that is usually paid for out of the public purse. They wouldn't have announced a change in the funding policy if they weren't going to use it to target areas like Blyth. As for specific plans, those haven't been announced yet, so it would be pointless for me to speculate.
The people of Blyth are going to get full fibre broadband (Ponhub are very happy), I have read that some train stations in the NE are going to re-open and also roads are going to be upgraded.
Last month Labour polled 33% under Corbyn on a GB basis. Not good - but a higher than the 31.2% under Milliband in 2015 and the 29.7% under Brown in 2010. What would Labour have polled last month had Starmer been leader?
Another example: What is the government’s plan for regeneration of towns like Blyth?
It obviously isn’t “Australian style points system” so what is it?
They've already announced plans to change the investment funding formula to focus on deprived areas, rather than focusing solely on financial returns.
Apparently the investment funding formula already allowed greater funding in the North of England but the government ignored the formula for political reasons and invested more in the South anyway. Maybe it will switch funding from the south to north, also for political reasons. We'll see.
Another example: What is the government’s plan for regeneration of towns like Blyth?
It obviously isn’t “Australian style points system” so what is it?
They've already announced plans to change the investment funding formula to focus on deprived areas, rather than focusing solely on financial returns.
Apparently the investment funding formula already allowed greater funding in the North of England but the government ignored the formula for political reasons and invested more in the South anyway. Maybe it will switch funding from the south to north, also for political reasons. We'll see.
What's the source for this? I had read that it was focused on areas with the highest multiplier, i.e. return on investment.
Do the Conservatives also need to come to terms with Boris Johnson having won the biggest Conservative majority in 30 years, and select only stupid, duplicitous clowns as their leaders from now on?
My observation of comments in this thread is a presumption that the Johnson Conservative government has absolutely no connection with the nine previous years of Conservative government.
Quite an amazing tweet from Williamson when you think about it.
If he says the "proper response" to a statement by the Board of Deputies of British Jews is to step up the "boycott, divestment, sanctions" (BDS) campaign, he's making it clear that the target of BDS (in his view) is Jews generally as opposed to the current Netanyahu Government in Israel. That's textbook antisemitism.
I am of the view that RLB would do worse than Corbyn.
I feel a bit sorry for her. She is pitching for the leadership too early in her career. I don't know how true it is, but via the newspapers you get the distinct feeling she is not sure about running.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
How many days has it been so far?
Well he's been the PM since July, what has he done?
For most of the time he was dealing with the obstructionists in Parliament. Now that they are out of the way...
Convenient get out, I wasn't aware Parliament was stopping him from implementing policies to bring the country back together.
Nothing was happening in Parliament because of the Brexit deadlock, all political energy was focused on that.
Their recent changing to the funding formula for England seems to be a good start. That should bring more investment to the poorer regions, rather than focusing on already well-off areas.
The Tories chose to deliver Brexit in the way they wanted to, that is entirely their fault therefore that the country is in such a mess in the first place.
If they'd got Parliament involved from day one instead of going towards hard Brexit we'd have left on time and the country wouldn't now be split.
Most of us were happy with a Norway-style Brexit but no, that wasn't Brexity enough for the hardline nutters in the Tory Party.
And this is what the next five years and beyond will be, it will never be the fault of Boris Johnson or his Government, it will be because other people didn't believe enough or had the absolute mad thought to actually call things out that were bad.
The idea Boris Johnson is this God-like figure who single handedly is going to rescue the UK from the abyss is the kind of utter nonsense I used to spout about Corbyn. It's odd seeing it from outside the bubble, no less terrifying I am sure for others.
The 2015 & 2017 parliaments never had any intention of delivering any sort of brexit. They only ever backed a referendum as a way of ensuring the UK remained in the EU. They then spent three years trying to find a way of not implementing the result and retaining their jobs.
I am of the view that RLB would do worse than Corbyn.
I feel a bit sorry for her. She is pitching for the leadership too early in her career. I don't know how true it is, but via the newspapers you get the distinct feeling she is not sure about running.
They wanted Pidcock but she lost her seat.
She wanted Rayner to run for leader, that much is obvious. But Rayner is too pragmatic for these people.
Another example: What is the government’s plan for regeneration of towns like Blyth?
It obviously isn’t “Australian style points system” so what is it?
They've already announced plans to change the investment funding formula to focus on deprived areas, rather than focusing solely on financial returns.
Apparently the investment funding formula already allowed greater funding in the North of England but the government ignored the formula for political reasons and invested more in the South anyway. Maybe it will switch funding from the south to north, also for political reasons. We'll see.
What's the source for this? I had read that it was focused on areas with the highest multiplier, i.e. return on investment.
Projects are ranked on value for money. Projects in the North of England with higher vfm ratings were ignored in favour of projects with lower vfm ratings in the South. They weren't following their own guidelines essentially.
I should add the Conservatives have an interest in doling out pork to the north of England that they they didn't have before. So it may actually change.
I am of the view that RLB would do worse than Corbyn.
I feel a bit sorry for her. She is pitching for the leadership too early in her career. I don't know how true it is, but via the newspapers you get the distinct feeling she is not sure about running.
Perhaps Corbyn was right that the party needs a "period of reflection". Clearly things changed drastically between 2017 and 2019 to cause Jeremy Corbyn's fall from grace but without understanding what it was (and no-one seems very interested in finding out) then it is hard to place our bets, or for Labour to know how best to proceed.
Pass the deal they already negotiated. Then seek a comprehensive trade deal, allowing for divergence with EU standards where practical/desirable.
The bill was already before the Commons; which was refusing to (agree a timetable to) pass it. It's a bit daft pretending you didn't know what the strategy was, especially given how opaque Labour were on the issue.
This is just obtuse. Labour has nothing to do with this. I have only joined the Labour party after the election.
The withdrawal bill is not relevant. That merely facilitates the transition.
“Allowing for divergence”
Like what? Employment rights? Environmental protections?
And you wonder why “Remainers” are not optimistic?
Regardless the EU’s entire negotiation strategy is to avoid divergence. It’s their no.1 aim.
My observation of comments in this thread is a presumption that the Johnson Conservative government has absolutely no connection with the nine previous years of Conservative government.
Or indeed no connection to the Boris Johnson of that period, different bloke entirely.
Another example: What is the government’s plan for regeneration of towns like Blyth?
It obviously isn’t “Australian style points system” so what is it?
They've already announced plans to change the investment funding formula to focus on deprived areas, rather than focusing solely on financial returns.
So what will that achieve for a town like Blyth? What is going to change?
More investment, I imagine!
Like what?
You know, the stuff that is usually paid for out of the public purse. They wouldn't have announced a change in the funding policy if they weren't going to use it to target areas like Blyth. As for specific plans, those haven't been announced yet, so it would be pointless for me to speculate.
Can you not see why I’m not optimistic then? Just vacuous words about “investment”.
We’ll see won’t we.
I’m willing to eat my words and praise the government when I believe they’ve made positive changes. I’ve always said this.
Last month Labour polled 33% under Corbyn on a GB basis. Not good - but a higher than the 31.2% under Milliband in 2015 and the 29.7% under Brown in 2010. What would Labour have polled last month had Starmer been leader?
My observation of comments in this thread is a presumption that the Johnson Conservative government has absolutely no connection with the nine previous years of Conservative government.
Or indeed no connection to the Boris Johnson of that period, different bloke entirely.
It's happening all over again, we'll talk a good talk until October and then we will capitulate just as at every other stage.
I have this feeling we're just going to repeat the beginnings of May's Government.
This government is faced with exactly the same conundrum that May faced, except that they don’t have to keep a bunch of crazed extremists (pick your group here) on side.
Same decisions still have to be made. Same trade-offs to argue over.
I guess at least we’ll get /a decision/ this time around, but the fact that said decision is still going to make a bunch of Leavers (ignoring Remainers for the moment) unhappy hasn’t actually changed.
What I would agree with is that we still need constructive steps to bring people together again. The most obvious Brexit related step would be a generous and unilateral step to remove all and any concerns about EU citizens in the UK right of abode, work, study, health and access to public services. Just do it. Now. We will eventually but it will be profoundly unhelpful to get dragged kicking and screaming into this during the negotiations. Oh, and commit to continuing to fund Erasmus too.
It's been done about half a dozen times already. Offering citizenship to anyone from the EU was an overtly generous offer residence for anyone for less than £100 and citizenship for anyone who wishes to following that.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
You get elected to deliver your manifesto not your opponents, the Tories won a majority and are delivering it.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
You get elected to deliver your manifesto not your opponents, the Tories won a majority and are delivering it.
Boris Johnson also won on a mandate to bring the country back together again, he promised that in his victory speech.
My observation of comments in this thread is a presumption that the Johnson Conservative government has absolutely no connection with the nine previous years of Conservative government.
Oddly enough, my main observation during the GE, which I repeated in my thread the other day, was the degree to which Johnson ignored the previous nine years of Conservative Government. I never heard Theresa May or David Cameron even mentioned nor did I hear anything about the achievements of their Governments.
Indeed, you'd be forgiven for thinking Johnson was the Opposition leader taking over from a Government which seemed to have no voice in its own defence.
I do have to be honest and say that so far I've seen very little from Johnson or the Tories to reunite the country, they're playing to their 44%/52% base very well but they were elected to reunite the country and I've seen very little that intends to actually bring the country back together again.
You get elected to deliver your manifesto not your opponents, the Tories won a majority and are delivering it.
Boris Johnson also won on a mandate to bring the country back together again, he promised that in his victory speech.
Remains to be seen how he intends to do that.
He is, he is delivering the Brexit 52% of voters voted for, once that is done we can then come back together and move on as the Tories deliver their manifesto commitments
Delusion as an avenue of criticism is really not going to work for you for a long time.
*ever
I think an ability to hold your hands up when you're wrong is a good start, which I have.
It would have been very easy for me to just run away but I didn't.
Do you feel big now? Are you a big boy?
I feel fine, thanks for asking.
I'm glad you stayed around; that has nothing to do with my comment, which was about you chucking around accusations of delusion without a shred of self-awareness.
My observation of comments in this thread is a presumption that the Johnson Conservative government has absolutely no connection with the nine previous years of Conservative government.
Oddly enough, my main observation during the GE, which I repeated in my thread the other day, was the degree to which Johnson ignored the previous nine years of Conservative Government. I never heard Theresa May or David Cameron even mentioned nor did I hear anything about the achievements of their Governments.
Indeed, you'd be forgiven for thinking Johnson was the Opposition leader taking over from a Government which seemed to have no voice in its own defence.
That was clearly deliberate wasn’t it. I can’t recall whether Gordon Brown tried the same but would expect similar. Harder though when he was ChEx throughout the whole period.
My observation of comments in this thread is a presumption that the Johnson Conservative government has absolutely no connection with the nine previous years of Conservative government.
Oddly enough, my main observation during the GE, which I repeated in my thread the other day, was the degree to which Johnson ignored the previous nine years of Conservative Government. I never heard Theresa May or David Cameron even mentioned nor did I hear anything about the achievements of their Governments.
Indeed, you'd be forgiven for thinking Johnson was the Opposition leader taking over from a Government which seemed to have no voice in its own defence.
Indeed. Johnson was a minister in the previous government that he opposed and which he has nothing to do with. Also be claims credit for putting an end to the drift and delay that he more than anyone was responsible for.
My observation of comments in this thread is a presumption that the Johnson Conservative government has absolutely no connection with the nine previous years of Conservative government.
Oddly enough, my main observation during the GE, which I repeated in my thread the other day, was the degree to which Johnson ignored the previous nine years of Conservative Government. I never heard Theresa May or David Cameron even mentioned nor did I hear anything about the achievements of their Governments.
Indeed, you'd be forgiven for thinking Johnson was the Opposition leader taking over from a Government which seemed to have no voice in its own defence.
That was clearly deliberate wasn’t it. I can’t recall whether Gordon Brown tried the same but would expect similar. Harder though when he was ChEx throughout the whole period.
No, I think Gordon Brown tried to defend the Government's record. My curiousity is not only was Johnson unwilling to talk about the previous few months when he was PM but also the time he was FS in Theresa May's Government.
It's been an almost Orwellian re-writing and airbrushing of history.
My observation of comments in this thread is a presumption that the Johnson Conservative government has absolutely no connection with the nine previous years of Conservative government.
Or indeed no connection to the Boris Johnson of that period, different bloke entirely.
He is, he is delivering the Brexit 52% of voters voted for, once that is done we can then come back together and move on as the Tories deliver their manifesto commitments
The first bit I get but it's the "come back together and move on" bit with which I'm struggling. Any decision that's taken has winners and losers such as IR35 tax changes, HS2 or LHR3 - whatever the Government decides it will face opposition.
Not everyone is signed up to this free spending high borrowing centralising agenda - it's also perfectly proper the Government is held to account and to scrutiny whether from friend or foe.
My observation of comments in this thread is a presumption that the Johnson Conservative government has absolutely no connection with the nine previous years of Conservative government.
Oddly enough, my main observation during the GE, which I repeated in my thread the other day, was the degree to which Johnson ignored the previous nine years of Conservative Government. I never heard Theresa May or David Cameron even mentioned nor did I hear anything about the achievements of their Governments.
Indeed, you'd be forgiven for thinking Johnson was the Opposition leader taking over from a Government which seemed to have no voice in its own defence.
That was clearly deliberate wasn’t it. I can’t recall whether Gordon Brown tried the same but would expect similar. Harder though when he was ChEx throughout the whole period.
No, I think Gordon Brown tried to defend the Government's record. My curiousity is not only was Johnson unwilling to talk about the previous few months when he was PM but also the time he was FS in Theresa May's Government.
It's been an almost Orwellian re-writing and airbrushing of history.
About Johnson's achievements. I don't like the man, but to give him credit where for once it's due, he did win the outright majority that eluded his two predecessors. I think a lot of the boosterism is due to that one fact.
My observation of comments in this thread is a presumption that the Johnson Conservative government has absolutely no connection with the nine previous years of Conservative government.
Oddly enough, my main observation during the GE, which I repeated in my thread the other day, was the degree to which Johnson ignored the previous nine years of Conservative Government. I never heard Theresa May or David Cameron even mentioned nor did I hear anything about the achievements of their Governments.
Indeed, you'd be forgiven for thinking Johnson was the Opposition leader taking over from a Government which seemed to have no voice in its own defence.
That was clearly deliberate wasn’t it. I can’t recall whether Gordon Brown tried the same but would expect similar. Harder though when he was ChEx throughout the whole period.
No, I think Gordon Brown tried to defend the Government's record. My curiousity is not only was Johnson unwilling to talk about the previous few months when he was PM but also the time he was FS in Theresa May's Government.
It's been an almost Orwellian re-writing and airbrushing of history.
This is the gift that the whole Benn Act theatre gave Boris Johnson - he ran an election *almost* as an opposition leader.
He was opposed by the existing parliament. Which he defeated in the election.
Pass the deal they already negotiated. Then seek a comprehensive trade deal, allowing for divergence with EU standards where practical/desirable.
The bill was already before the Commons; which was refusing to (agree a timetable to) pass it. It's a bit daft pretending you didn't know what the strategy was, especially given how opaque Labour were on the issue.
Regardless the EU’s entire negotiation strategy is to avoid divergence. It’s their no.1 aim.
I am not sure that is correct. They are happy for us to diverge, as long as they can insulate themselves and NI from the effects of that divergence. That obviously means effective Customs on the Channel and Irish Sea.
Comments
Their recent changes to the funding formula for England seems to be a good start. That should bring more investment to the poorer regions, rather than focusing on already well-off areas.
They confidently present a plan and then see it through. People are infused because they know the plan and they know the vision.
We do not know the plan. We do not know the vision. So why on earth would I be optimistic?
Liam Fox said only today that Brexit will make us less competitive. So where are we going to be more competitive? What is the plan?
Telling me that I don’t need to know the plan and I should just shut up and be optimistic is ridiculous.
He's won a large majority in an election.
He's passed the Brexit Withdrawal bill that had paralysed the Commons for 3 years.
He has got Stormont up and running after 3 years.
He's made commitments on the NHS and the Police that should be followed up in the budget.
After years of paralysis things are starting to move again. There is a lot of catching up to do and not everything will go right but I share at least some of Big G's teenage enthusiasm for having a working government again.
I read your posts with genuine interest and to some extent understanding
If they'd got Parliament involved from day one instead of going towards hard Brexit we'd have left on time and the country wouldn't now be split.
Most of us were happy with a Norway-style Brexit but no, that wasn't Brexity enough for the hardline nutters in the Tory Party.
And this is what the next five years and beyond will be, it will never be the fault of Boris Johnson or his Government, it will be because other people didn't believe enough or had the absolute mad thought to actually call things out that were bad.
The idea Boris Johnson is this God-like figure who single handedly is going to rescue the UK from the abyss is the kind of utter nonsense I used to spout about Corbyn. It's odd seeing it from outside the bubble, no less terrifying I am sure for others.
As for Parliament, it was clear they were doing all they could to frustrate Brexit itself. It didn't have anything to do with a Norway-style Brexit or whatever, it was all about stopping the whole thing entirely.
We don’t know what their strategy is. If you know it, please educate us.
He did - but that in itself means nothing.
Parliament was paralysed because the Tory Party refused to compromise on anything and involve any other party. It's not really a surprise that with a massive majority you can railroad through a deal like that, he could have railroaded through May's deal. Look at my point above though - it's a deal he said no PM could ever expect. It's a deal that at best will make this whole thing pointless, how will this bring the country back together?
The man responsible for that was going to get sacked, so I don't think you can really credit Boris Johnson with that. Julian Smith is the consistent thread and person who worked on it - he deserves the credit not Johnson who appeared at the end. What exactly did Johnson do?
He's made some commitments to hire the Police that his Government originally cut, some hospitals that turned out to be significantly less than he promised and promised money which still puts the NHS below what it actually needs and is still low by historical standards.
I don't see how you can call these achievements. They all unravel under any scrutiny which is exactly what happens to pretty much everything he has done in office.
Which in many ways just makes it worse that Labour was so utterly useless that they couldn't beat him.
It obviously isn’t “Australian style points system” so what is it?
You just have your head stuck in the sand. Stop believing every word that Adonis speaks and listen to what the people in power are saying.
https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1216387237950169088
You can't keep a good man down.
The EU is transparent about all of this.
What will we do if it cant be agreed? How will the effects of WTO be mitigated?
But they do need to learn from him, and it is hard to disagree with much of Blair's piece in the Observer today. Crucially:
1. There is no route to victory that doesn't involve people who voted for Johnson last month. They've got to stop using "Tory" as a term of abuse about moderates in their own ranks and outside.
2. If your answer to every policy question is "we'll write a cheque" then you get individual policies that poll well but look fiscally incontinent and pie-in-the-sky when people step back and look at the overall picture. You need a shorter list of pledges which feel realistic and offer something to those concerned about traditionally "right wing" issues too.
3. Optimism wins. I know Labour will say their spending plans were about investment in a brighter future, but it didn't come across, partly due to Corbyn being an Eeyore. You've got to talk in terms of "giving all our children the very best schools" rather than leading on "the Tories have f***ed the education system". Blair had that in 1997.
4. You make decisions rationally based on maximising the prospect of getting into office, so you can help the people you purport to represent. One implication is having a sane targeting strategy. Labour's approach in 2019 often seemed based on spite - ludicrous decapitation plays, starving marginal Labour moderates to help Momentum no-hopers, piling into the seats of defectors rather than making a difference in a seat that really needed it next door. In 1997, in seats where Labour weren't going to win, they were perfectly happy to let the Lib Dems keep the Tories pinned down - it meant Labour resources were effectively used, and those Lib Dem MPs might have been handy had the result not been a Labour landslide.
If it can't be agreed, probably a series of deals covering certain sectors. But the impact of no deal would be felt on both sides, and I think both sides want to avoid it.
The bill was already before the Commons; which was refusing to (agree a timetable to) pass it. It's a bit daft pretending you didn't know what the strategy was, especially given how opaque Labour were on the issue.
With Scotland seemingly lost, and boundary changes, Labour can't form a majority as far as I can see barring some kind of amazing result.
Army
1) Reverse the reduced size of the Challenger tank force:
2) Complete the Warrior upgrade program;
3) Complete the Strike Brigade concept and work out what - if anything - can be done with the Ajax, which is too heavy to be carried by the planes we have and too fragile to travel long distances without transporters - which we don't have:
4) Consider dropping the L85A3 entirely after 2025; it's far too heavy for modern weapons:
Navy
1) Get more planes for the carriers. The F35B is the only plane that can use them, but they're hideously expensive and we don't have enough of them. So either buy more or um, do something: rebuild the Harrier production line, build X32s, build YAK-141s, build some STOL drones, something...
2) Get more ships 1: Get something that can defend the carriers. We can use them integrated with the Americans but we can't do it by ourselves
3) Get more ships 2: Get some smaller ships for the cheap stuff like onshore bombardment or intercepting pirates
4) Get more ships 3: Get some support vessels; we are short of auxiliary ships that service and provision the fighting ships
Air Force
1) Start working towards greater use of drones. The Europeans are doing this already
If it were true, parliament would probably have voted to revoke Article 50. It would certainly have voted for another referendum. Actually, there were indicative votes on each of these things which failed, spectacularly in the case of the former.
The problem with the last parliament was that different parts of it wanted too many different things, too obstinately. There were extremists on both sides who were so extreme that MPs in the middle couldn't go along with either of them, and the extremists wouldn't accept compromise. One set of extremists won the general election. That is all.
https://twitter.com/OwenWntr/status/1216355200191139840
Do the Conservatives also need to come to terms with Boris Johnson having won the biggest Conservative majority in 30 years, and select only stupid, duplicitous clowns as their leaders from now on?
If he says the "proper response" to a statement by the Board of Deputies of British Jews is to step up the "boycott, divestment, sanctions" (BDS) campaign, he's making it clear that the target of BDS (in his view) is Jews generally as opposed to the current Netanyahu Government in Israel. That's textbook antisemitism.
She wanted Rayner to run for leader, that much is obvious. But Rayner is too pragmatic for these people.
I should add the Conservatives have an interest in doling out pork to the north of England that they they didn't have before. So it may actually change.
The withdrawal bill is not relevant. That merely facilitates the transition.
“Allowing for divergence”
Like what? Employment rights? Environmental protections?
And you wonder why “Remainers” are not optimistic?
Regardless the EU’s entire negotiation strategy is to avoid divergence. It’s their no.1 aim.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1133315320725352453?s=20
Just vacuous words about “investment”.
We’ll see won’t we.
I’m willing to eat my words and praise the government when I believe they’ve made positive changes. I’ve always said this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7Mhokzv-jw
Astonishing levels of delusion
I have this feeling we're just going to repeat the beginnings of May's Government.
Same decisions still have to be made. Same trade-offs to argue over.
I guess at least we’ll get /a decision/ this time around, but the fact that said decision is still going to make a bunch of Leavers (ignoring Remainers for the moment) unhappy hasn’t actually changed.
*ever
Boyle Sports have purchased all the William Hill outlets.
It would have been very easy for me to just run away but I didn't.
Do you feel big now? Are you a big boy?
Remains to be seen how he intends to do that.
Indeed, you'd be forgiven for thinking Johnson was the Opposition leader taking over from a Government which seemed to have no voice in its own defence.
I'm glad you stayed around; that has nothing to do with my comment, which was about you chucking around accusations of delusion without a shred of self-awareness.
It's been an almost Orwellian re-writing and airbrushing of history.
Boris has always been consistent in being willing to say whatever it takes to further his political career at the time.
Not everyone is signed up to this free spending high borrowing centralising agenda - it's also perfectly proper the Government is held to account and to scrutiny whether from friend or foe.
But right now, midday on January 13th 2020, the depth of midwinter, it is...
20C in New York City. There is no minus. It is 20C
He was opposed by the existing parliament. Which he defeated in the election.
That is the narrative given to him.