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.
Well that is the job of the opposition. In reality full unity can only ever be achieved in a dictatorship as no alternative view is allowed
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.
Given we are leaving the single market and customs union there will have to be some customs and border checks, the degree of alignment beyond that just determines how far tariffs are avoided and how many checks are required after any future trade deal
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.
Free spending and cheap borrowing is exactly what was voted for. So long as the government and voters can borrow cheaply and spend hard Boris is in clover.
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
Meteorological oddness. That was SeanT's middle name, although you may not recall him
The thing is that 20C in NY in the middle of winter is wildly unlikely even if the climate has changed a bit, and nobody (that I know of) is suggesting the climate has changed a lot. So it's as rare as rocking horse poo, or much the same.
I'm slightly with you on the 'alarm, alarm' front. But alarm as to what? That's much harder.
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.
If you want to make state intervention to reduce the adverse effects of the markets on Brexitland, then surely VFM is not the best criteria. Surely the whole point is to spend on projects that are otherwise not commercially viable.
For example, a redistribution of research monies away from the Russell Group and Oxbridge to the newer Universities in places like Lincoln, Bolton, and Falmouth. The point of such investment should be to give young people a reason to stay and to develop new businesses, rather than join the internal migration to London, Manchester and Sheffield.
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.
PB Tories (ad nauseam): grave mistake for LDs not to big up their part in the 2010-2015 coalition. Also PB Tories: Tories in government 2010-2019 you say? Nowt to do with us.
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
Meteorological oddness. That was SeanT's middle name, although you may not recall him
The thing is that 20C in NY in the middle of winter is wildly unlikely even if the climate has changed a bit, and nobody (that I know of) is suggesting the climate has changed a lot. So it's as rare as rocking horse poo, or much the same.
I'm slightly with you on the 'alarm, alarm' front. But alarm as to what? That's much harder.
I believe the record high for NY in January is 72F - a couple of times in the last century - so 20C, though remarkable, is not unprecedented. NY gets some pretty extreme weather swings.
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.
If you want to make state intervention to reduce the adverse effects of the markets on Brexitland, then surely VFM is not the best criteria. Surely the whole point is to spend on projects that are otherwise not commercially viable.
For example, a redistribution of research monies away from the Russell Group and Oxbridge to the newer Universities in places like Lincoln, Bolton, and Falmouth. The point of such investment should be to give young people a reason to stay and to develop new businesses, rather than join the internal migration to London, Manchester and Sheffield.
If that is to work, universities need a hinterland with a substantial business sector in place; kids are not going to stay in say Lincoln just because the local uni gets more money. So such investment is likely to go to the Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield type universities. Regional magnets are likely to remain such. Though with better transport links, the evolution of greater conurbations (along the M62 corridor, for example), is possible.
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
Hold on a moment - some of us voted for a Socialist Brexit, to be delivered by an incoming Labour government.
Remain voters such as your good self should not presume what Brexit we voted for.
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
Hold on a moment - some of us voted for a Socialist Brexit, to be delivered by an incoming Labour government.
Remain voters such as your good self should not presume what Brexit we voted for.
It’s akin to the FPTP mentality - if you win, you have a mandate for anything.
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.
If you want to make state intervention to reduce the adverse effects of the markets on Brexitland, then surely VFM is not the best criteria. Surely the whole point is to spend on projects that are otherwise not commercially viable.
For example, a redistribution of research monies away from the Russell Group and Oxbridge to the newer Universities in places like Lincoln, Bolton, and Falmouth. The point of such investment should be to give young people a reason to stay and to develop new businesses, rather than join the internal migration to London, Manchester and Sheffield.
If that is to work, universities need a hinterland with a substantial business sector in place; kids are not going to stay in say Lincoln just because the local uni gets more money. So such investment is likely to go to the Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield type universities. Regional magnets are likely to remain such. Though with better transport links, the evolution of greater conurbations (along the M62 corridor, for example), is possible.
The problem with good communication links is that it turns small cities into commuter towns. Not just for work but also for social life. Then they move where their friends are.
Who wants to stay in Wigan (my birthplace) when Manchester is on your doorstep.
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.
Not according to their documentation. They don’t want a low tax, low regulation large economy on their doorstep and who can blame them.
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
Meteorological oddness. That was SeanT's middle name, although you may not recall him
The thing is that 20C in NY in the middle of winter is wildly unlikely even if the climate has changed a bit, and nobody (that I know of) is suggesting the climate has changed a lot. So it's as rare as rocking horse poo, or much the same.
I'm slightly with you on the 'alarm, alarm' front. But alarm as to what? That's much harder.
Is @Byronic posting from the future now? Today is the 12th January, both here and in NY.
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
Hold on a moment - some of us voted for a Socialist Brexit, to be delivered by an incoming Labour government.
Remain voters such as your good self should not presume what Brexit we voted for.
No. The conservatives know what you voted for so be quiet and unify.
Acording to Wikipedia, the record high in January for New York City (which is apparently a "Humid subtropical climate") is 22C, so it isn't really something to worry about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Climate
The problem with good communication links is that it turns small cities into commuter towns. Not just for work but also for social life. Then they move where their friends are.
Who wants to stay in Wigan (my birthplace) when Manchester is on your doorstep.
Quite. A bit of Johnson cash spaffing isn’t going to change that. But better Manchester than London.
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
Hold on a moment - some of us voted for a Socialist Brexit, to be delivered by an incoming Labour government.
Remain voters such as your good self should not presume what Brexit we voted for.
We have a Tory government elected with a majority based on a manifesto as to how they would deliver Brexit, that is now the Brexit there is a mandate for
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
Hold on a moment - some of us voted for a Socialist Brexit, to be delivered by an incoming Labour government.
Remain voters such as your good self should not presume what Brexit we voted for.
We have a Tory government elected with a majority based on a manifesto as to how they would deliver Brexit, that is now the Brexit there is a mandate for
Let’s be honest the detail in the manifesto is non-existant. Not even BJ knows how its going to turn out. Therefore there is no mandate for a type of Brexit. There is merely a mandate for Boris to try and implement something.
Acording to Wikipedia, the record high in January for New York City (which is apparently a "Humid subtropical climate") is 22C, so it isn't really something to worry about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Climate
Almost without fail, claims of record heat or other wild alarmist nonsense bear no relation to actual climate history. With reference to the US i suggest checking Tony Heller's blog for some perspective on how time and time again the past is seen to mirror the present. https://realclimatescience.com/2020/01/fake-data-and-real-superstition/
It's been mild and benign across most of the Northern Hemisphere for most of the time. In recent winters, a mild western Europe has been balanced by a colder eastern coast of North America but not this year.
The very cold air has been bottled up in Alaska and Greenland both of which have been record-breaking low temperatures.
The question is whether any of this very cold air will be able to leak out as the atmosphere changes in the second half of winter.
On topic, Thornberry is near the bottom of my preference list, but I thought her answer to the inane score-out-of-ten question was excellent.
It would be delusional to pretend that Corbyn wasn't responsible for the disastrous end to his leadership, or for other disasters like Labour's failure to deal with antisemitism. That doesn't mean you have to condemn everything about him. It's easy to forget that he took over a party that was keener on austerity than the current Tories are, and which had just used "Controls on Immigration" as one of its general election slogans. He caused a sustained shift to the left in the government's economic policy by gaining seats in 2017. Labour has a really tough task making itself electable, but at least it doesn't have to work out what it stands for at the same time, which was the case 2015.
But sadly the ability to see nuance is a dangerous thing at the moment. Much better to flaunt your ideological purity, not matter where you sit on the political spectrum.
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.
I generally agree (and I like Kicorse, a welcome new poster, on the last thread: "Labour has the right values both economically and on social issues. We just have to learn to stop hating people who disagree with us. That applies to centrists as much as socialists"). We were however pretty crap at predicting winnables - Broxtowe, for example, was given up by Labour nationally in both 1997 and 2005 (we had virtually zero central support).
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.
Bringing the country back together again is code for 'shut up, you lost'. It's also something that PMs, even Thatcher, tend to say having just won an election. It doesn't mean anything.
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
Hold on a moment - some of us voted for a Socialist Brexit, to be delivered by an incoming Labour government.
Remain voters such as your good self should not presume what Brexit we voted for.
We have a Tory government elected with a majority based on a manifesto as to how they would deliver Brexit, that is now the Brexit there is a mandate for
Boris didn't really tell us what kind of Brexit he had in mind, only that it will be 'great'.
I generally agree (and I like Kicorse, a welcome new poster, on the last thread: "Labour has the right values both economically and on social issues. We just have to learn to stop hating people who disagree with us. That applies to centrists as much as socialists"). We were however pretty crap at predicting winnables - Broxtowe, for example, was given up by Labour nationally in both 1997 and 2005 (we had virtually zero central support).
I tried to explain that to a friend of mine (a former local councillor) and it ended up him calling me a Tory.
There are a large number of people in Labour who can't even see that they need to learn from Tony Blair.
I am of the view that RLB would do worse than Corbyn.
She lacks his baggage and doesn't seem a hugely bad performer, but she lacks the fervent worship he gets and as the continuity Corbyn candidate is clearly not offering anything that has not already been attempted before, so would seem a poor choice. One more heave is a ridiculous strategy.
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.
This again? He doesn't. Who hasn't promised and therefore had a mandate to bring people together?
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
Meteorological oddness. That was SeanT's middle name, although you may not recall him
The thing is that 20C in NY in the middle of winter is wildly unlikely even if the climate has changed a bit, and nobody (that I know of) is suggesting the climate has changed a lot. So it's as rare as rocking horse poo, or much the same.
I'm slightly with you on the 'alarm, alarm' front. But alarm as to what? That's much harder.
Is @Byronic posting from the future now? Today is the 12th January, both here and in NY.
Posting from the future? He normally posts from another planet.
Labour's best electoral future seemingly is taking all the good parts of the 2017 manifesto and then junking what made it all go wrong in 2019.
The leader and Brexit were two massive issues and are now gone, so if they pick Starmer, Nandy or Phillips they're probably in the best position they possibly can be in.
I won't write off a Labour minority Government in 2024 as a ~6% swing would produce a minority Government. Less if the LDs make headway in their 100 targets.
There is still much hatred for Brexit in the South where LDs saw a large increase in their vote and a lot of close second places in many cases. Remains to be seen if that was a temporary increase due to Brexit.
I also wonder if any past LD heartlands like in Cornwall might make a return now Brexit is off the agenda. Thoughts?
Labour's best electoral future seemingly is taking all the good parts of the 2017 manifesto and then junking what made it all go wrong in 2019.
The leader and Brexit were two massive issues and are now gone, so if they pick Starmer, Nandy or Phillips they're probably in the best position they possibly can be in.
I think it grossly understates the problems they face to say, essentially, dust down the 2017 manifesto and be less grumpy than Corbyn.
They have just heavily lost an election where the fundamentals were actually pretty good for them - relatively unpopular Tory leader, divided party of government which had failed in its key objective, national crisis, and insipid economy.
They don't look anywhere close to being a Government in waiting. They need a heavy injection of discipline, a complete change in electoral strategy, a new internal culture and language, an agenda which is looks serious rather than freebie-driven, a strategy to deal with Scotland. It's a huge, huge task for Starmer or anyone else.
Labour's best electoral future seemingly is taking all the good parts of the 2017 manifesto and then junking what made it all go wrong in 2019.
The leader and Brexit were two massive issues and are now gone, so if they pick Starmer, Nandy or Phillips they're probably in the best position they possibly can be in.
I won't write off a Labour minority Government in 2024 as a ~6% swing would produce a minority Government. Less if the LDs make headway in their 100 targets.
There is still much hatred for Brexit in the South where LDs saw a large increase in their vote and a lot of close second places in many cases. Remains to be seen if that was a temporary increase due to Brexit.
I also wonder if any past LD heartlands like in Cornwall might make a return now Brexit is off the agenda. Thoughts?
Brexit will never be off the agenda, if you voted leave then any problems that the UK have will be remoaners fault for not signing up to the new future and for remianers it will be brexit. The UK has decided to split itself down the middle and the only winner is ABDP Johnson. But that’s life!
Labour's best electoral future seemingly is taking all the good parts of the 2017 manifesto and then junking what made it all go wrong in 2019.
The leader and Brexit were two massive issues and are now gone, so if they pick Starmer, Nandy or Phillips they're probably in the best position they possibly can be in.
I think it grossly understates the problems they face to say, essentially, dust down the 2017 manifesto and be less grumpy than Corbyn.
They have just heavily lost an election where the fundamentals were actually pretty good for them - relatively unpopular Tory leader, divided party of government which had failed in its key objective, national crisis, and insipid economy.
They don't look anywhere close to being a Government in waiting. They need a heavy injection of discipline, a complete change in electoral strategy, a new internal culture and language, an agenda which is looks serious rather than freebie-driven, a strategy to deal with Scotland. It's a huge, huge task for Starmer or anyone else.
I don't disagree with the analysis you've made - but I do think if you are to look at Labour's performance in the 2010s, the 2017 performance was the best and hence it logically makes sense to see what did work that year and what didn't.
My point is that Labour could be in a much worse position if it chooses RLB or ET, at least with Starmer he'll be pragmatic enough to move the party as needed.
I wouldn't write them off yet, just 15 years ago the Tories were seemingly dead and buried.
Mrs Thatcher. Hated by lefties globally. Hero of our time.
The Grandmother of Brexit. She devastated the manufacturing base and communities of the North, Midlands, Scotland and Wales, setting the seeds for the angry populist revolt against Southerners in sevice industries.
Labour's best electoral future seemingly is taking all the good parts of the 2017 manifesto and then junking what made it all go wrong in 2019.
The leader and Brexit were two massive issues and are now gone, so if they pick Starmer, Nandy or Phillips they're probably in the best position they possibly can be in.
I won't write off a Labour minority Government in 2024 as a ~6% swing would produce a minority Government. Less if the LDs make headway in their 100 targets.
There is still much hatred for Brexit in the South where LDs saw a large increase in their vote and a lot of close second places in many cases. Remains to be seen if that was a temporary increase due to Brexit.
I also wonder if any past LD heartlands like in Cornwall might make a return now Brexit is off the agenda. Thoughts?
No Labour needs a rethink.
Whose support do we need? The squeezed middle.
What do the squeezed middle like? The NHS, low taxes, low borrowing, cheap booze, cheap petrol, cheap holidays and cheap TV and Broadband.
What do the squeezed middle dislike? Terrorists, rapists, murderers, scroungers, foreigners (even if they haven't met one) and foreign aid.
What do they really not want government to get involved in? Climate change, healthy eating, banning private education, removing university fees, saving libraries, reforming the HoL and getting involved with foreign conflicts we have no business getting involved with.
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.
Isee.
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.
For example, a redistribution of research monies away from the Russell Group and Oxbridge to the newer Universities in places like Lincoln, Bolton, and Falmouth. The point of such investment should be to give young people a reason to stay and to develop new businesses, rather than join the internal migration to London, Manchester and Sheffield.
If that is to work, universities need a hinterland with a substantial business sector in place; kids are not...
I have something of a professional interest in this. Taking the example of 'how do we keep people in Wigan' - two things are needed: teansport links, so that Wiganers can take advantave of jobs elsewhere (esp. Manchester). Placemaking, so that Wigan is a pleasant olace to live. Both of these things cost money, but neither are particularly hard. Those things done, many more will choose to stay somewhere where they can get much more for their money. Wigan itself has many of the elements if a pretty nice town. There is nothing inevitable ir one-way about decline in northern industrial towns: look at the examole if Hebden Bridge 30 years ago. Wigan also has the rather important advantage that it is the sort of place a couple xould live and commute to two different job markets (e.g., Manchester, Liverpool, Preston). This only deals with those potentially able and motivated to leave of course! We also have the quite hard long term challenge of raising skill levels and aspirations in towns like Wigan. We haven't been good at this in the UK in the past.
On vfm, I attribute under-investment in the north largely to a London-based civil service rather than any political favouritism. To many in the civil service the north is an unexplored and possibly mythical country.
Mrs Thatcher. Hated by lefties globally. Hero of our time.
The Grandmother of Brexit. She devastated the manufacturing base and communities of the North, Midlands, Scotland and Wales, setting the seeds for the angry populist revolt against Southerners in sevice industries.
Haven't we just handsomely rewarded her satanic spawn for all that?
William Pulteney, 1St Earl of Bath. He is the only Prime Minister never to have made a mistake, and to have left the country with as much money as when he came into office.
Admittedly, he was only Prime Minister for 48 hours, 52 minutes and 11 seconds, which gives him a slight advantage over say, Walpole.
William Pulteney, 1St Earl of Bath. He is the only Prime Minister never to have made a mistake, and to have left the country with as much money as when he came into office.
Admittedly, he was only Prime Minister for 48 hours, 52 minutes and 11 seconds, which gives him a slight advantage over say, Walpole.
That is quite an achievement. Corbyn could have devastated the place in 48 hours!
Labour should and I hope will stay well beyond power until they update their economic and social world-view beyond the 19th Century (and I do mean the 19th). The world really has moved on.
The principles of a shared prosperity and a shared responsibility are good. Stealing and rabble rousing aren't appropriate solutions in those areas though.
I have not heard a sensible word out of the mouth of a Labour politician on economic matters since Darling left the scene, and even he mostly spouted nonsense.
Labour's electability depends on their next leader's choice of shadow chancellor.
On vfm, I attribute under-investment in the north largely to a London-based civil service rather than any political favouritism. To many in the civil service the north is an unexplored and possibly mythical country.
The best thing Johnson could do is move the capital to Sheffield. Think of all those jobs, all those infrastructure projects, the foreign embassies. And it would help the government too. Imagine our civil service finally having an adequate water and power supply, etc.
Labour should and I hope will stay well beyond power until they update their economic and social world-view beyond the 19th Century (and I do mean the 19th). The world really has moved on.
The principles of a shared prosperity and a shared responsibility are good. Stealing and rabble rousing aren't appropriate solutions in those areas though.
I have not heard a sensible word out of the mouth of a Labour politician on economic matters since Darling left the scene, and even he mostly spouted nonsense.
Labour's electability depends on their next leader's choice of shadow chancellor.
The sensible thing to do would be to give that to the deputy leader.
The worry about this leadership election is that if Starmer wins he may feel obliged to give it to Long Bailey as meat to his Corbynista wing.
Mrs Thatcher. Hated by lefties globally. Hero of our time.
The Grandmother of Brexit. She devastated the manufacturing base and communities of the North, Midlands, Scotland and Wales, setting the seeds for the angry populist revolt against Southerners in sevice industries.
Haven't we just handsomely rewarded her satanic spawn for all that?
Brexiteers crocodile tears for coalfield towns is an interesting conversion from 35 years ago, though of course that was when those same voters voted for Labour's Brexitism.
If that is to work, universities need a hinterland with a substantial business sector in place; kids are not...
I have something of a professional interest in this. Taking the example of 'how do we keep people in Wigan' - two things are needed: teansport links, so that Wiganers can take advantave of jobs elsewhere (esp. Manchester). Placemaking, so that Wigan is a pleasant olace to live. Both of these things cost money, but neither are particularly hard. Those things done, many more will choose to stay somewhere where they can get much more for their money. Wigan itself has many of the elements if a pretty nice town. There is nothing inevitable ir one-way about decline in northern industrial towns: look at the examole if Hebden Bridge 30 years ago. Wigan also has the rather important advantage that it is the sort of place a couple xould live and commute to two different job markets (e.g., Manchester, Liverpool, Preston). This only deals with those potentially able and motivated to leave of course! We also have the quite hard long term challenge of raising skill levels and aspirations in towns like Wigan. We haven't been good at this in the UK in the past.
On vfm, I attribute under-investment in the north largely to a London-based civil service rather than any political favouritism. To many in the civil service the north is an unexplored and possibly mythical country.
I agree with quite a lot of that - and making places nice to live in is essential, particularly where smallish towns are rapidly and inexorably losing retail from the town centre.
But not everywhere can become a fashionable middle class enclave like Hebden Bridge (which incidentally doesn’t have exactly great transport links), and that’s not somewhere ambitious graduates out of university are going to gravitate to in any event (which is where the conversation started out).
Labour should and I hope will stay well beyond power until they update their economic and social world-view beyond the 19th Century (and I do mean the 19th). The world really has moved on.
The principles of a shared prosperity and a shared responsibility are good. Stealing and rabble rousing aren't appropriate solutions in those areas though.
I have not heard a sensible word out of the mouth of a Labour politician on economic matters since Darling left the scene, and even he mostly spouted nonsense.
Labour's electability depends on their next leader's choice of shadow chancellor.
The sensible thing to do would be to give that to the deputy leader.
The worry about this leadership election is that if Starmer wins he may feel obliged to give it to Long Bailey as meat to his Corbynista wing.
The Deputy Leader is going to be Angela Rayner, it's an elected position.
I am of the view that RLB would do worse than Corbyn.
She lacks his baggage and doesn't seem a hugely bad performer, but she lacks the fervent worship he gets and as the continuity Corbyn candidate is clearly not offering anything that has not already been attempted before, so would seem a poor choice. One more heave is a ridiculous strategy.
She has little if any charisma and just does not have that ..je ne sais quoi... that makes someome a leader.
Yvette was talked up espcially by OGH but she had the same problem.
Labour should and I hope will stay well beyond power until they update their economic and social world-view beyond the 19th Century (and I do mean the 19th). The world really has moved on.
The principles of a shared prosperity and a shared responsibility are good. Stealing and rabble rousing aren't appropriate solutions in those areas though.
I have not heard a sensible word out of the mouth of a Labour politician on economic matters since Darling left the scene, and even he mostly spouted nonsense.
Labour's electability depends on their next leader's choice of shadow chancellor.
The sensible thing to do would be to give that to the deputy leader.
The worry about this leadership election is that if Starmer wins he may feel obliged to give it to Long Bailey as meat to his Corbynista wing.
The Deputy Leader is going to be Angela Rayner, it's an elected position.
Yes, I know. I am saying that the person who is elected deputy should be made Shadow Chancellor.
On vfm, I attribute under-investment in the north largely to a London-based civil service rather than any political favouritism. To many in the civil service the north is an unexplored and possibly mythical country.
The best thing Johnson could do is move the capital to Sheffield. Think of all those jobs, all those infrastructure projects, the foreign embassies. And it would help the government too. Imagine our civil service finally having an adequate water and power supply, etc.
But it will never happen.
Yes, moving the capital would do plenty of good. Decoupling government from the City. Reducing polarisation between London and the rest of the UK. Invigorating the economy of another region.
Not sure an existing city like Sheffield would be able to absorb the additional infrastructure, so a new city would make more sense. Especially as there is a housing crisis. Plus, if it were a new city, it would almost certainly aim to be carbon neutral.
Other countries have capitals outside the main city. If Washington or Canberra are anything to go by, you just create another successful city full of hated metropolitan elites. Sheffield, to choose one example, is already a thoroughly Labour city full of the kinds of people despised by the Brexit identity/supremacy/ultimatum.
Other countries have capitals outside the main city. If Washington or Canberra are anything to go by, you just create another successful city full of hated metropolitan elites. Sheffield, to choose one example, is already a thoroughly Labour city full of the kinds of people despised by the Brexit identity/supremacy/ultimatum.
Perhaps the Monster Raving Loony idea of "Putting Parliament on Wheels" - actually returning to the old idea that the King/Queen would move around the country, holding parliament on the way...
Other countries have capitals outside the main city. If Washington or Canberra are anything to go by, you just create another successful city full of hated metropolitan elites. Sheffield, to choose one example, is already a thoroughly Labour city full of the kinds of people despised by the Brexit identity/supremacy/ultimatum.
Liverpool. It's 80% Labour by ancient tradition, it might actually make it more Conservative.
On vfm, I attribute under-investment in the north largely to a London-based civil service rather than any political favouritism. To many in the civil service the north is an unexplored and possibly mythical country.
The best thing Johnson could do is move the capital to Sheffield. Think of all those jobs, all those infrastructure projects, the foreign embassies. And it would help the government too. Imagine our civil service finally having an adequate water and power supply, etc.
But it will never happen.
Yes, moving the capital would do plenty of good. Decoupling government from the City. Reducing polarisation between London and the rest of the UK. Invigorating the economy of another region.
Not sure an existing city like Sheffield would be able to absorb the additional infrastructure, so a new city would make more sense. Especially as there is a housing crisis. Plus, if it were a new city, it would almost certainly aim to be carbon neutral.
But as you say, it won't happen.
The horror from the Blob at having to go a live/work in a "Gammon" environment would be an exquisite bliss to behold.
Labour should and I hope will stay well beyond power until they update their economic and social world-view beyond the 19th Century (and I do mean the 19th). The world really has moved on.
The principles of a shared prosperity and a shared responsibility are good. Stealing and rabble rousing aren't appropriate solutions in those areas though.
I have not heard a sensible word out of the mouth of a Labour politician on economic matters since Darling left the scene, and even he mostly spouted nonsense.
Labour's electability depends on their next leader's choice of shadow chancellor.
The sensible thing to do would be to give that to the deputy leader.
The worry about this leadership election is that if Starmer wins he may feel obliged to give it to Long Bailey as meat to his Corbynista wing.
Calm down Ydoethur. Starmer hasn't won yet. Carts, horses and all that.
Labour should and I hope will stay well beyond power until they update their economic and social world-view beyond the 19th Century (and I do mean the 19th). The world really has moved on.
The principles of a shared prosperity and a shared responsibility are good. Stealing and rabble rousing aren't appropriate solutions in those areas though.
I have not heard a sensible word out of the mouth of a Labour politician on economic matters since Darling left the scene, and even he mostly spouted nonsense.
Labour's electability depends on their next leader's choice of shadow chancellor.
The sensible thing to do would be to give that to the deputy leader.
The worry about this leadership election is that if Starmer wins he may feel obliged to give it to Long Bailey as meat to his Corbynista wing.
The Deputy Leader is going to be Angela Rayner, it's an elected position.
Yes, I know. I am saying that the person who is elected deputy should be made Shadow Chancellor.
Labour should and I hope will stay well beyond power until they update their economic and social world-view beyond the 19th Century (and I do mean the 19th). The world really has moved on.
The principles of a shared prosperity and a shared responsibility are good. Stealing and rabble rousing aren't appropriate solutions in those areas though.
I have not heard a sensible word out of the mouth of a Labour politician on economic matters since Darling left the scene, and even he mostly spouted nonsense.
Labour's electability depends on their next leader's choice of shadow chancellor.
The sensible thing to do would be to give that to the deputy leader.
The worry about this leadership election is that if Starmer wins he may feel obliged to give it to Long Bailey as meat to his Corbynista wing.
The Deputy Leader is going to be Angela Rayner, it's an elected position.
Yes, I know. I am saying that the person who is elected deputy should be made Shadow Chancellor.
That could be Burgon! Noooooo!
Ummm...no. Not in this space time continuum it couldn’t be.
Other countries have capitals outside the main city. If Washington or Canberra are anything to go by, you just create another successful city full of hated metropolitan elites. Sheffield, to choose one example, is already a thoroughly Labour city full of the kinds of people despised by the Brexit identity/supremacy/ultimatum.
Perhaps the Monster Raving Loony idea of "Putting Parliament on Wheels" - actually returning to the old idea that the King/Queen would move around the country, holding parliament on the way...
Labour should and I hope will stay well beyond power until they update their economic and social world-view beyond the 19th Century (and I do mean the 19th). The world really has moved on.
The principles of a shared prosperity and a shared responsibility are good. Stealing and rabble rousing aren't appropriate solutions in those areas though.
I have not heard a sensible word out of the mouth of a Labour politician on economic matters since Darling left the scene, and even he mostly spouted nonsense.
Labour's electability depends on their next leader's choice of shadow chancellor.
The sensible thing to do would be to give that to the deputy leader.
The worry about this leadership election is that if Starmer wins he may feel obliged to give it to Long Bailey as meat to his Corbynista wing.
The Deputy Leader is going to be Angela Rayner, it's an elected position.
Yes, I know. I am saying that the person who is elected deputy should be made Shadow Chancellor.
Labour should and I hope will stay well beyond power until they update their economic and social world-view beyond the 19th Century (and I do mean the 19th). The world really has moved on.
The principles of a shared prosperity and a shared responsibility are good. Stealing and rabble rousing aren't appropriate solutions in those areas though.
I have not heard a sensible word out of the mouth of a Labour politician on economic matters since Darling left the scene, and even he mostly spouted nonsense.
Labour's electability depends on their next leader's choice of shadow chancellor.
The sensible thing to do would be to give that to the deputy leader.
The worry about this leadership election is that if Starmer wins he may feel obliged to give it to Long Bailey as meat to his Corbynista wing.
The Deputy Leader is going to be Angela Rayner, it's an elected position.
Yes, I know. I am saying that the person who is elected deputy should be made Shadow Chancellor.
That could be Burgon! Noooooo!
Ummm...no. Not in this space time continuum it couldn’t be.
Tell me you haven't had second thoughts now I have alerted you to such a scary proposition.
Labour's best electoral future seemingly is taking all the good parts of the 2017 manifesto and then junking what made it all go wrong in 2019.
The leader and Brexit were two massive issues and are now gone, so if they pick Starmer, Nandy or Phillips they're probably in the best position they possibly can be in.
I think it grossly understates the problems they face to say, essentially, dust down the 2017 manifesto and be less grumpy than Corbyn.
They have just heavily lost an election where the fundamentals were actually pretty good for them - relatively unpopular Tory leader, divided party of government which had failed in its key objective, national crisis, and insipid economy.
They don't look anywhere close to being a Government in waiting. They need a heavy injection of discipline, a complete change in electoral strategy, a new internal culture and language, an agenda which is looks serious rather than freebie-driven, a strategy to deal with Scotland. It's a huge, huge task for Starmer or anyone else.
Just out of interest, what should Labour’s “strategy to deal with Scotland” be?
William Pulteney, 1St Earl of Bath. He is the only Prime Minister never to have made a mistake, and to have left the country with as much money as when he came into office.
Admittedly, he was only Prime Minister for 48 hours, 52 minutes and 11 seconds, which gives him a slight advantage over say, Walpole.
Labour's best electoral future seemingly is taking all the good parts of the 2017 manifesto and then junking what made it all go wrong in 2019.
The leader and Brexit were two massive issues and are now gone, so if they pick Starmer, Nandy or Phillips they're probably in the best position they possibly can be in.
I think it grossly understates the problems they face to say, essentially, dust down the 2017 manifesto and be less grumpy than Corbyn.
They have just heavily lost an election where the fundamentals were actually pretty good for them - relatively unpopular Tory leader, divided party of government which had failed in its key objective, national crisis, and insipid economy.
They don't look anywhere close to being a Government in waiting. They need a heavy injection of discipline, a complete change in electoral strategy, a new internal culture and language, an agenda which is looks serious rather than freebie-driven, a strategy to deal with Scotland. It's a huge, huge task for Starmer or anyone else.
Just out of interest, what should Labour’s “strategy to deal with Scotland” be?
I can't see a way forward for Labour in Scotland, either inside or outside the Union. There really is no way back.
Labour's headache now is they need the support of the SNP to form a government in Westminster, a condition of which would be Indyref2, which post Brexit will fall heavily to leave.
On that note Gordon Brown could have been Labour's penultimate PM. Edit. Or even the last.
Other countries have capitals outside the main city. If Washington or Canberra are anything to go by, you just create another successful city full of hated metropolitan elites. Sheffield, to choose one example, is already a thoroughly Labour city full of the kinds of people despised by the Brexit identity/supremacy/ultimatum.
Perhaps the Monster Raving Loony idea of "Putting Parliament on Wheels" - actually returning to the old idea that the King/Queen would move around the country, holding parliament on the way...
It worked when most people couldn't safely travel around, but now we have lots of civil servants and politicians to hold to account, it's easier to do that by putting them in one place. Doesn't have to be London, but they'd be detested by the same people whose brains are activated by the phrase "the Blob" either way.
Labour's best electoral future seemingly is taking all the good parts of the 2017 manifesto and then junking what made it all go wrong in 2019.
The leader and Brexit were two massive issues and are now gone, so if they pick Starmer, Nandy or Phillips they're probably in the best position they possibly can be in.
I think it grossly understates the problems they face to say, essentially, dust down the 2017 manifesto and be less grumpy than Corbyn.
They have just heavily lost an election where the fundamentals were actually pretty good for them - relatively unpopular Tory leader, divided party of government which had failed in its key objective, national crisis, and insipid economy.
They don't look anywhere close to being a Government in waiting. They need a heavy injection of discipline, a complete change in electoral strategy, a new internal culture and language, an agenda which is looks serious rather than freebie-driven, a strategy to deal with Scotland. It's a huge, huge task for Starmer or anyone else.
I don't disagree with the analysis you've made - but I do think if you are to look at Labour's performance in the 2010s, the 2017 performance was the best and hence it logically makes sense to see what did work that year and what didn't.
My point is that Labour could be in a much worse position if it chooses RLB or ET, at least with Starmer he'll be pragmatic enough to move the party as needed.
I wouldn't write them off yet, just 15 years ago the Tories were seemingly dead and buried.
The last line is incorrect. The Tories were in far better shape 15 years ago than Labour is now. The Populus poll in January 2005 (i.e. exactly 15 years ago) showed Lab 38% Con 33%. At the May 2005 General Election, the Tony Blair Labour government managed a majority of just 3% over Michael Howard's Tories.
Labour's position is much closer to the Tories' situation at the 1997 General Election. In 1997, Tony Blair's Labour was at 43% with a John Major-led Tory Party at 31%. The respective figures are now almost the same, but in reverse (44% v 32%). This suggests it will be a lot more than 15 years before Labour achieves a solid working majority.
Labour's best electoral future seemingly is taking all the good parts of the 2017 manifesto and then junking what made it all go wrong in 2019.
The leader and Brexit were two massive issues and are now gone, so if they pick Starmer, Nandy or Phillips they're probably in the best position they possibly can be in.
I think it grossly understates the problems they face to say, essentially, dust down the 2017 manifesto and be less grumpy than Corbyn.
They have just heavily lost an election where the fundamentals were actually pretty good for them - relatively unpopular Tory leader, divided party of government which had failed in its key objective, national crisis, and insipid economy.
They don't look anywhere close to being a Government in waiting. They need a heavy injection of discipline, a complete change in electoral strategy, a new internal culture and language, an agenda which is looks serious rather than freebie-driven, a strategy to deal with Scotland. It's a huge, huge task for Starmer or anyone else.
I don't disagree with the analysis you've made - but I do think if you are to look at Labour's performance in the 2010s, the 2017 performance was the best and hence it logically makes sense to see what did work that year and what didn't.
My point is that Labour could be in a much worse position if it chooses RLB or ET, at least with Starmer he'll be pragmatic enough to move the party as needed.
I wouldn't write them off yet, just 15 years ago the Tories were seemingly dead and buried.
Blair famously warned his party at the time that the Tories were not dead, only sleeping. The same will no doubt prove true of Labour if they can move away from the crazies.
Somewhat amazingly, the Tory vote share has increased at every single general election since TB's first landslide...
Other countries have capitals outside the main city. If Washington or Canberra are anything to go by, you just create another successful city full of hated metropolitan elites. Sheffield, to choose one example, is already a thoroughly Labour city full of the kinds of people despised by the Brexit identity/supremacy/ultimatum.
Perhaps the Monster Raving Loony idea of "Putting Parliament on Wheels" - actually returning to the old idea that the King/Queen would move around the country, holding parliament on the way...
It worked when most people couldn't safely travel around, but now we have lots of civil servants and politicians to hold to account, it's easier to do that by putting them in one place. Doesn't have to be London, but they'd be detested by the same people whose brains are activated by the phrase "the Blob" either way.
Oh, the "Blob" exists. It's just that it's membership is comic in their belief that they are the heirs to Sir Humphrey and the absolute "expertise" that they wield.
The 50 year papers on the Nimrod fiasco will be wonderful - the moment when the principal fool was told that the minister would not force someone to sign an airworthiness certificate for un-airworthy design was, by all accounts, marvellous.
Labour should and I hope will stay well beyond power until they update their economic and social world-view beyond the 19th Century (and I do mean the 19th). The world really has moved on.
The principles of a shared prosperity and a shared responsibility are good. Stealing and rabble rousing aren't appropriate solutions in those areas though.
I have not heard a sensible word out of the mouth of a Labour politician on economic matters since Darling left the scene, and even he mostly spouted nonsense.
Labour's electability depends on their next leader's choice of shadow chancellor.
The sensible thing to do would be to give that to the deputy leader.
The worry about this leadership election is that if Starmer wins he may feel obliged to give it to Long Bailey as meat to his Corbynista wing.
The Deputy Leader is going to be Angela Rayner, it's an elected position.
Yes, I know. I am saying that the person who is elected deputy should be made Shadow Chancellor.
That could be Burgon! Noooooo!
Ummm...no. Not in this space time continuum it couldn’t be.
Tell me you haven't had second thoughts now I have alerted you to such a scary proposition.
Second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth thoughts.
But surely even a Labour party that elected Corbyn wouldn't be *that* crazy...
Comments
https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/chicago-il/60608/weather-forecast/348308
The thing is that 20C in NY in the middle of winter is wildly unlikely even if the climate has changed a bit, and nobody (that I know of) is suggesting the climate has changed a lot. So it's as rare as rocking horse poo, or much the same.
I'm slightly with you on the 'alarm, alarm' front. But alarm as to what? That's much harder.
Forever ?
For example, a redistribution of research monies away from the Russell Group and Oxbridge to the newer Universities in places like Lincoln, Bolton, and Falmouth. The point of such investment should be to give young people a reason to stay and to develop new businesses, rather than join the internal migration to London, Manchester and Sheffield.
Also PB Tories: Tories in government 2010-2019 you say? Nowt to do with us.
NY gets some pretty extreme weather swings.
So such investment is likely to go to the Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield type universities. Regional magnets are likely to remain such.
Though with better transport links, the evolution of greater conurbations (along the M62 corridor, for example), is possible.
Remain voters such as your good self should not presume what Brexit we voted for.
I'm guessing early Feb, along with NPR and even possibly LHR3, as soon as Brexit is 'done'.
Who wants to stay in Wigan (my birthplace) when Manchester is on your doorstep.
It’s a race to the bottom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Climate
But better Manchester than London.
Popcorn at the ready.
no relation to actual climate history. With reference to the US i suggest checking
Tony Heller's blog for some perspective on how time and time again the past is seen to mirror the present.
https://realclimatescience.com/2020/01/fake-data-and-real-superstition/
Give a reason for your answer....
The very cold air has been bottled up in Alaska and Greenland both of which have been record-breaking low temperatures.
The question is whether any of this very cold air will be able to leak out as the atmosphere changes in the second half of winter.
It would be delusional to pretend that Corbyn wasn't responsible for the disastrous end to his leadership, or for other disasters like Labour's failure to deal with antisemitism. That doesn't mean you have to condemn everything about him. It's easy to forget that he took over a party that was keener on austerity than the current Tories are, and which had just used "Controls on Immigration" as one of its general election slogans. He caused a sustained shift to the left in the government's economic policy by gaining seats in 2017. Labour has a really tough task making itself electable, but at least it doesn't have to work out what it stands for at the same time, which was the case 2015.
But sadly the ability to see nuance is a dangerous thing at the moment. Much better to flaunt your ideological purity, not matter where you sit on the political spectrum.
It's also something that PMs, even Thatcher, tend to say having just won an election. It doesn't mean anything.
There are a large number of people in Labour who can't even see that they need to learn from Tony Blair.
The leader and Brexit were two massive issues and are now gone, so if they pick Starmer, Nandy or Phillips they're probably in the best position they possibly can be in.
I won't write off a Labour minority Government in 2024 as a ~6% swing would produce a minority Government. Less if the LDs make headway in their 100 targets.
There is still much hatred for Brexit in the South where LDs saw a large increase in their vote and a lot of close second places in many cases. Remains to be seen if that was a temporary increase due to Brexit.
I also wonder if any past LD heartlands like in Cornwall might make a return now Brexit is off the agenda. Thoughts?
They have just heavily lost an election where the fundamentals were actually pretty good for them - relatively unpopular Tory leader, divided party of government which had failed in its key objective, national crisis, and insipid economy.
They don't look anywhere close to being a Government in waiting. They need a heavy injection of discipline, a complete change in electoral strategy, a new internal culture and language, an agenda which is looks serious rather than freebie-driven, a strategy to deal with Scotland. It's a huge, huge task for Starmer or anyone else.
My point is that Labour could be in a much worse position if it chooses RLB or ET, at least with Starmer he'll be pragmatic enough to move the party as needed.
I wouldn't write them off yet, just 15 years ago the Tories were seemingly dead and buried.
manufacturing base and communities of the North, Midlands, Scotland and Wales, setting the seeds for the angry populist revolt against Southerners in sevice industries.
Whose support do we need? The squeezed middle.
What do the squeezed middle like? The NHS, low taxes, low borrowing, cheap booze, cheap petrol, cheap holidays and cheap TV and Broadband.
What do the squeezed middle dislike? Terrorists, rapists, murderers, scroungers, foreigners (even if they haven't met one) and foreign aid.
What do they really not want government to get involved in? Climate change, healthy eating, banning private education, removing university fees, saving libraries, reforming the HoL and getting involved with foreign conflicts we have no business getting involved with.
Hmmm?
Taking the example of 'how do we keep people in Wigan' - two things are needed: teansport links, so that Wiganers can take advantave of jobs elsewhere (esp. Manchester).
Placemaking, so that Wigan is a pleasant olace to live.
Both of these things cost money, but neither are particularly hard.
Those things done, many more will choose to stay somewhere where they can get much more for their money. Wigan itself has many of the elements if a pretty nice town. There is nothing inevitable ir one-way about decline in northern industrial towns: look at the examole if Hebden Bridge 30 years ago. Wigan also has the rather important advantage that it is the sort of place a couple xould live and commute to two different job markets (e.g., Manchester, Liverpool, Preston).
This only deals with those potentially able and motivated to leave of course! We also have the quite hard long term challenge of raising skill levels and aspirations in towns like Wigan. We haven't been good at this in the UK in the past.
On vfm, I attribute under-investment in the north largely to a London-based civil service rather than any political favouritism. To many in the civil service the north is an unexplored and possibly mythical country.
Admittedly, he was only Prime Minister for 48 hours, 52 minutes and 11 seconds, which gives him a slight advantage over say, Walpole.
The principles of a shared prosperity and a shared responsibility are good. Stealing and rabble rousing aren't appropriate solutions in those areas though.
I have not heard a sensible word out of the mouth of a Labour politician on economic matters since Darling left the scene, and even he mostly spouted nonsense.
Labour's electability depends on their next leader's choice of shadow chancellor.
But it will never happen.
The worry about this leadership election is that if Starmer wins he may feel obliged to give it to Long Bailey as meat to his Corbynista wing.
But not everywhere can become a fashionable middle class enclave like Hebden Bridge (which incidentally doesn’t have exactly great transport links), and that’s not somewhere ambitious graduates out of university are going to gravitate to in any event (which is where the conversation started out).
Yvette was talked up espcially by OGH but she had the same problem.
Not sure an existing city like Sheffield would be able to absorb the additional infrastructure, so a new city would make more sense. Especially as there is a housing crisis. Plus, if it were a new city, it would almost certainly aim to be carbon neutral.
But as you say, it won't happen.
It's 80% Labour by ancient tradition, it might actually make it more Conservative.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-worst-deal
That said, the grass has been wet solidly since early October. A dry week would be a real novelty.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/17/bernie-sanders-mystery-soviet-video-revealed-1330347
Labour's headache now is they need the support of the SNP to form a government in Westminster, a condition of which would be Indyref2, which post Brexit will fall heavily to leave.
On that note Gordon Brown could have been Labour's penultimate PM. Edit. Or even the last.
Labour's position is much closer to the Tories' situation at the 1997 General Election. In 1997, Tony Blair's Labour was at 43% with a John Major-led Tory Party at 31%. The respective figures are now almost the same, but in reverse (44% v 32%). This suggests it will be a lot more than 15 years before Labour achieves a solid working majority.
Somewhat amazingly, the Tory vote share has increased at every single general election since TB's first landslide...
The 50 year papers on the Nimrod fiasco will be wonderful - the moment when the principal fool was told that the minister would not force someone to sign an airworthiness certificate for un-airworthy design was, by all accounts, marvellous.
But surely even a Labour party that elected Corbyn wouldn't be *that* crazy...