Thanks for interesting header. This was the main reason I voted Remain. To support the vision of the nations of Europe being inextricably bound together in a high degree of joint enterprise. If this vision were to collapse there is a grave risk that insular, aggressive nationalism would spread like an R=5 virus.
One similarity between Starmer path to power and Smith/Blair’s In he 90s is that the Lib Dem’s are starting fro an anaemic position and some recovery there is useful to chip away soft Tory votes in places Labour cannot reach. The LDs need to find a decent leader who can work with Labour and create a bit of anti Tory momentum.
The key difference is Scotland. Unless Starmer can find a way to attack the flabby soft blue underbelly in the south (which is entirely possible) he has to fight two fronts.
Or just give up on Scotland and let the SNP stop the Tories?
He doesn't need to get Sturgeon in the cabinet, just dare her to vote down a Labour budget and explain to her country why she let the Tories back in.
Literally giving up on Scotland and supporting independence might be a good strategy to win over England.
I'm not advocating supporting Independence, my point is that trying to actively try to win seats in Scotland seems like a waste of resources. They can repeat publicly the views they are pro-Unionism, etc. I just think whether they lose in Scotland or not is really irrelevant at this point.
Being pro-union while going soft on the SNP means they will look like a poor imitation of the Tories. Actively changing their position on the union would allow them to position themselves as a patriotic people's party for England and make them a much harder target.
I've been to Katchanaburi, the Death Railway and the bridge over the river 'Kwai.'
The museum and cemetery at Katchanaburi is one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever seen. I wept at graves of people I never knew who lie buried an awfully long way from home.
I've been to a few military cemeteries but Katchanburi's the most harrowing. Dying in battle is one thing but dying of maltreatment and neglect because your captors believe that surrender is dishonourable seems different. And, as my wife said, they were, with one exception, all so young.
Otherwise the grave which I recall is someone in Germany who died on May 6th 1945. I have no idea who he was, or anything about him, but I always think of his family when there are 'end of the war' celebrations.
I'd reply with a love heart emoji if it existed on here. Great post. x
The hope, from Johnson's days as Mayor of London, was that he would have competent details people serving under him, as with his cycling commissioner. Thus far the evidence on that is not good.
When he was Mayor, nobody who worked for him was a threat to his job, and none of them had previously "betrayed" him so he could appoint on merit.
Neither is true now
He's also now mostly despised in London.
The rest of the country doesn't care what London thinks.
That's not my point, my point is that his actions historically haven't made him popular.
The hope, from Johnson's days as Mayor of London, was that he would have competent details people serving under him, as with his cycling commissioner. Thus far the evidence on that is not good.
When he was Mayor, nobody who worked for him was a threat to his job, and none of them had previously "betrayed" him so he could appoint on merit.
One similarity between Starmer path to power and Smith/Blair’s In he 90s is that the Lib Dem’s are starting fro an anaemic position and some recovery there is useful to chip away soft Tory votes in places Labour cannot reach. The LDs need to find a decent leader who can work with Labour and create a bit of anti Tory momentum.
The key difference is Scotland. Unless Starmer can find a way to attack the flabby soft blue underbelly in the south (which is entirely possible) he has to fight two fronts.
Or just give up on Scotland and let the SNP stop the Tories?
He doesn't need to get Sturgeon in the cabinet, just dare her to vote down a Labour budget and explain to her country why she let the Tories back in.
Literally giving up on Scotland and supporting independence might be a good strategy to win over England.
I'm not advocating supporting Independence, my point is that trying to actively try to win seats in Scotland seems like a waste of resources. They can repeat publicly the views they are pro-Unionism, etc. I just think whether they lose in Scotland or not is really irrelevant at this point.
Being pro-union while going soft on the SNP means they will look like a poor imitation of the Tories. Actively changing their position on the union would allow them to position themselves as a patriotic people's party for England and make them a much harder target.
You can do all of that - and I agree with you - whilst deep down accepting Scotland is basically a lost cause.
I've been to Katchanaburi, the Death Railway and the bridge over the river 'Kwai.'
The museum and cemetery at Katchanaburi is one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever seen. I wept at graves of people I never knew who lie buried an awfully long way from home.
I've been to a few military cemeteries but Katchanburi's the most harrowing. Dying in battle is one thing but dying of maltreatment and neglect because your captors believe that surrender is dishonourable seems different. And, as my wife said, they were, with one exception, all so young.
Otherwise the grave which I recall is someone in Germany who died on May 6th 1945. I have no idea who he was, or anything about him, but I always think of his family when there are 'end of the war' celebrations.
I'd reply with a love heart emoji if it existed on here. Great post. x
❤️
Oh!
Come on, spill the beans. What are the keystrokes please?
The hope, from Johnson's days as Mayor of London, was that he would have competent details people serving under him, as with his cycling commissioner. Thus far the evidence on that is not good.
When he was Mayor, nobody who worked for him was a threat to his job, and none of them had previously "betrayed" him so he could appoint on merit.
Neither is true now
He's also now mostly despised in London.
How long have you been in lockdown?
Get out of central London more.
Again, that wasn't my point. My point was that his actions historically have not made him popular.
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
For all that I can criticise Johnson he proved during the election campaign that he could win support for a vision of the future. Optimistically you might say we have two halves of a good political leader.
The hope, from Johnson's days as Mayor of London, was that he would have competent details people serving under him, as with his cycling commissioner. Thus far the evidence on that is not good.
In time we will come to see if Johnson won that election, or Corbyn lost it.
I maintain the view that Johnson isn't popular, he was just less unpopular than his opponent (albeit, a lot).
If tgat was the case May would have won in 2017 over Corbyn.
Boris is popular and charismatic, the most electorally successful Tory leader since Thatcher in terms of size of majority as well as having twice won the Mayoralty of London and led the winning Leave campaign.
Boris also has an appeal to blue collar, working class voters no Tory leader has had since Thatcher too. In fact even more so in the North and Midlands
May *did* win over Corbyn, she was again less unpopular than him. Corbyn at that stage was just less unpopular than he was in 2019.
I'm of the view strongly that Johnson isn't popular, he might be popular for at best, with just under half the country, around 40% I'd say is his natural approval, so 60% disapproval.
Johnson won in 2019 because Corbyn was deeply unpopular and had a terrible Brexit policy (and I say that in hindsight, having been one of those that supported it).
The Tories are currently polling 50% or more in most polls, not 40%. May also failed to win a majority against Corbyn.
In fact arguably Boris is the most popular Tory leader since Churchill after winning the war at the moment but unlike Churchill in 1945 Boris was able to convert that popularity into a Tory landslide in 2019
It is however unlikely that the government will collapse in acrimonious factionalism and parliamentary chaos as Major’s did. There is no equivalent of Lamont or Duncan Smith stirring up trouble on the backbenches because he has purged them all. There is nobody of status or principle left in the party anyway.
While it may be true that there is nobody (or few at any rate) of status and principle left, it is not true to say that there are no idiots on the backbenches willing to stir up trouble. IDS is one of them.
The hope, from Johnson's days as Mayor of London, was that he would have competent details people serving under him, as with his cycling commissioner. Thus far the evidence on that is not good.
When he was Mayor, nobody who worked for him was a threat to his job, and none of them had previously "betrayed" him so he could appoint on merit.
Neither is true now
He's also now mostly despised in London.
The rest of the country doesn't care what London thinks.
That's not my point, my point is that his actions historically haven't made him popular.
Given how London voted last time he probably has more upside than downside in 2024
I've been to Katchanaburi, the Death Railway and the bridge over the river 'Kwai.'
The museum and cemetery at Katchanaburi is one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever seen. I wept at graves of people I never knew who lie buried an awfully long way from home.
I've been to a few military cemeteries but Katchanburi's the most harrowing. Dying in battle is one thing but dying of maltreatment and neglect because your captors believe that surrender is dishonourable seems different. And, as my wife said, they were, with one exception, all so young.
Otherwise the grave which I recall is someone in Germany who died on May 6th 1945. I have no idea who he was, or anything about him, but I always think of his family when there are 'end of the war' celebrations.
I'd reply with a love heart emoji if it existed on here. Great post. x
❤️
Oh!
Come on, spill the beans. What are the keystrokes please?
🤷♂️
You have two routes.
1 use the emoji keyboard on your mobile device 2 type a colon and ‘heart’ and another colon.
I've been to Katchanaburi, the Death Railway and the bridge over the river 'Kwai.'
The museum and cemetery at Katchanaburi is one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever seen. I wept at graves of people I never knew who lie buried an awfully long way from home.
I've been to a few military cemeteries but Katchanburi's the most harrowing. Dying in battle is one thing but dying of maltreatment and neglect because your captors believe that surrender is dishonourable seems different. And, as my wife said, they were, with one exception, all so young.
Otherwise the grave which I recall is someone in Germany who died on May 6th 1945. I have no idea who he was, or anything about him, but I always think of his family when there are 'end of the war' celebrations.
I'd reply with a love heart emoji if it existed on here. Great post. x
❤️
Oh!
Come on, spill the beans. What are the keystrokes please?
One similarity between Starmer path to power and Smith/Blair’s In he 90s is that the Lib Dem’s are starting fro an anaemic position and some recovery there is useful to chip away soft Tory votes in places Labour cannot reach. The LDs need to find a decent leader who can work with Labour and create a bit of anti Tory momentum.
The key difference is Scotland. Unless Starmer can find a way to attack the flabby soft blue underbelly in the south (which is entirely possible) he has to fight two fronts.
Or just give up on Scotland and let the SNP stop the Tories?
He doesn't need to get Sturgeon in the cabinet, just dare her to vote down a Labour budget and explain to her country why she let the Tories back in.
The Tories being in power in Westminster is what Nicola wants. She will vote down any queen's speech that doesn't include a second indyref. It will be Starmer in Nicola's pocket this time. Labour needs to find a way to win without the SNP whether that's by wining seats in Scotland or more in England they can't go into the election being very obviously dependent on the SNP to get into power, you just won't win.
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
For all that I can criticise Johnson he proved during the election campaign that he could win support for a vision of the future. Optimistically you might say we have two halves of a good political leader.
The hope, from Johnson's days as Mayor of London, was that he would have competent details people serving under him, as with his cycling commissioner. Thus far the evidence on that is not good.
In time we will come to see if Johnson won that election, or Corbyn lost it.
I maintain the view that Johnson isn't popular, he was just less unpopular than his opponent (albeit, a lot).
If tgat was the case May would have won in 2017 over Corbyn.
Boris is popular and charismatic, the most electorally successful Tory leader since Thatcher in terms of size of majority as well as having twice won the Mayoralty of London and led the winning Leave campaign.
Boris also has an appeal to blue collar, working class voters no Tory leader has had since Thatcher too. In fact even more so in the North and Midlands
May *did* win over Corbyn, she was again less unpopular than him. Corbyn at that stage was just less unpopular than he was in 2019.
I'm of the view strongly that Johnson isn't popular, he might be popular for at best, with just under half the country, around 40% I'd say is his natural approval, so 60% disapproval.
Johnson won in 2019 because Corbyn was deeply unpopular and had a terrible Brexit policy (and I say that in hindsight, having been one of those that supported it).
The Tories are currently polling 50% or more in most polls, not 40%. May also failed to win a majority against Corbyn.
In fact arguably Boris is the most popular Tory leader since Churchill after winning the war at the moment but unlike Churchill in 1945 Boris was able to convert that popularity into a Tory landslide in 2019
They're polling 50% in a crisis, let's see where those polls are in 4 years time.
The hope, from Johnson's days as Mayor of London, was that he would have competent details people serving under him, as with his cycling commissioner. Thus far the evidence on that is not good.
When he was Mayor, nobody who worked for him was a threat to his job, and none of them had previously "betrayed" him so he could appoint on merit.
Neither is true now
He's also now mostly despised in London.
I think there's a lot of truth in that. I've been surprised at how vehement people are there about his tenure as mayor: full of hot air, vacuous ill-conceived plans, white elephant projects like the ridiculous cable car to nowhere, bluff and bluster.
It is however unlikely that the government will collapse in acrimonious factionalism and parliamentary chaos as Major’s did. There is no equivalent of Lamont or Duncan Smith stirring up trouble on the backbenches because he has purged them all. There is nobody of status or principle left in the party anyway.
While it may be true that there is nobody (or few at any rate) of status and principle left, it is not true to say that there are no idiots on the backbenches willing to stir up trouble. IDS is one of them.
Would Duncan Smith revolt against Johnson, who gave him Brexit? Seriously?
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
I've been to Katchanaburi, the Death Railway and the bridge over the river 'Kwai.'
The museum and cemetery at Katchanaburi is one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever seen. I wept at graves of people I never knew who lie buried an awfully long way from home.
I've been to a few military cemeteries but Katchanburi's the most harrowing. Dying in battle is one thing but dying of maltreatment and neglect because your captors believe that surrender is dishonourable seems different. And, as my wife said, they were, with one exception, all so young.
Otherwise the grave which I recall is someone in Germany who died on May 6th 1945. I have no idea who he was, or anything about him, but I always think of his family when there are 'end of the war' celebrations.
My sister (then c.28) visited Katchanburi, and was numbed by the sheer number of graves of men who hadn't reached that age.
One similarity between Starmer path to power and Smith/Blair’s In he 90s is that the Lib Dem’s are starting fro an anaemic position and some recovery there is useful to chip away soft Tory votes in places Labour cannot reach. The LDs need to find a decent leader who can work with Labour and create a bit of anti Tory momentum.
The key difference is Scotland. Unless Starmer can find a way to attack the flabby soft blue underbelly in the south (which is entirely possible) he has to fight two fronts.
Or just give up on Scotland and let the SNP stop the Tories?
He doesn't need to get Sturgeon in the cabinet, just dare her to vote down a Labour budget and explain to her country why she let the Tories back in.
Literally giving up on Scotland and supporting independence might be a good strategy to win over England.
I'm not advocating supporting Independence, my point is that trying to actively try to win seats in Scotland seems like a waste of resources. They can repeat publicly the views they are pro-Unionism, etc. I just think whether they lose in Scotland or not is really irrelevant at this point.
Being pro-union while going soft on the SNP means they will look like a poor imitation of the Tories. Actively changing their position on the union would allow them to position themselves as a patriotic people's party for England and make them a much harder target.
No it would make them look a poor imitation of the SNP and they would lose their Unionist voters to the Tories and LDs while unless they went for a pro hard Brexit position they would not win back the Leave voting working class in England either but that in turn would lose them middle class Remainers to the LDs and Greens while looking a poor imitation of Boris' Tories
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly. If the experience of the last few years have taught us anything, it is that there are no safe seats.
I've been to Katchanaburi, the Death Railway and the bridge over the river 'Kwai.'
The museum and cemetery at Katchanaburi is one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever seen. I wept at graves of people I never knew who lie buried an awfully long way from home.
I've been to a few military cemeteries but Katchanburi's the most harrowing. Dying in battle is one thing but dying of maltreatment and neglect because your captors believe that surrender is dishonourable seems different. And, as my wife said, they were, with one exception, all so young.
Otherwise the grave which I recall is someone in Germany who died on May 6th 1945. I have no idea who he was, or anything about him, but I always think of his family when there are 'end of the war' celebrations.
I'd reply with a love heart emoji if it existed on here. Great post. x
❤️
Oh!
Come on, spill the beans. What are the keystrokes please?
🤷♂️
You have two routes.
1 use the emoji keyboard on your mobile device 2 type a colon and ‘heart’ and another colon.
On PC's you can bring up the emoji keyboard using the Windows Key and Semicolon simultaneously.
Mike has long championed 'approval ratings' as the best indicator of voter intention and I think this is correct. The steady erosion of the Government's credibility is not good for the Conservatives. I think we all (myself included) had hoped the return of Boris would see us leap ahead but instead we have continued to experience misinformation, leaks, confusing signals, bluster and a general sense that they don't know what they are doing.
Well, here he is at prime minister’s questions this week. I quote at length and include the ums and ers because the halting prolixity, waffle and intellectual confusion need to be flagged up. An increasingly formidable Sir Keir Starmer had asked why Britain had abandoned its testing programme in March, only to resume it now.
The prime minister: “A-a-as I think is readily apparent, Mr Speaker, to everybody who has studied the, er, the situation, and I think the scientists would, er, confirm, the difficulty in mid-March was that, er, the, er, tracing capacity that we had — it had been useful … in the containment phase of the epidemic er, that capacity was no longer useful or relevant, since the, er, transmission from individuals within the UK um meant that it exceeded our capacity. … [A]as we get the new cases down, er, we will have a team that will genuinely be able to track and, er, trace hundreds of thousands of people across the country, and thereby to drive down the epidemic. And so, er, I mean, to put it in a nutshell, it is easier, er, to do now — now that we have built up the team on the, on the way out — than it was as er, the epidemic took off …”
One thing that really struck me yesterday is that Boris Johnson is no Winston Churchill.
Winston Churchill was also no Boris, at least in terms of electoral appeal, Churchill never won a majority as big as Boris has.
Churchill was the better statesman of course
This crisis needed a statesman. Someone to speak succinctly, authoritatively and collectively. To speak with a clear voice from a depth of wisdom, insight and foresight. To unite us as one people with a common goal.
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
Didn't you think the cones hotline was a fantastic idea?
I think to an extent Major and the cones hotline in particular was unfairly derided. I often sit in stationary traffic with two lanes coned off and not a workman in sight for days on end and think to myself, if only I could complain to someone who could stop this madness. The cones hotline is what I crave.
When the red top press decide they don't like someone, that person is damned if they do and are damned if they don't. To my mind Major's biggest faux Pas was the moral crusade (iirc unmarried mothers on the St Mellon's Estate in Cardiff were singled out as moral degenerates) only for news to emerge that Major had been shagging Edwina Currie.
Shagging Ms Currie was negative on two fronts, of course. Not just the moral one.
More seriously, some years ago I was done for speeding and went on the course, where part at least of the reason for miles of cones with b$%%^r all happening was to allow roads to finish 'hardening up'. There was also a need, IIRC, for access for the workers. Doesn't make it any less frustrating for the driver in the queue of course.
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly.
This is the question that I don't know the answer to, is the soft Tory/former Lib Dem vote as structurally unsound as the Labour vote was?
In 2019, although it didn't convert to any gains, the support for the Lib Dems in my 20,000 Tory seat was the most insane thing I've ever seen. In seats with much smaller majorities, real damage might be done? Who knows.
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly.
It can, but that doesn't change an iota of what I wrote.
Its quite plausible the result ends up with a Tory majority in England, but Lab minority government with SNP support in Westminster, in which case governing England will be nigh on impossible.
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly. If the experience of the last few years have taught us anything, it is that there are no safe seats.
And that would, if sustained, be a bloody good thing for everybody. Let’s hope it keeps going.
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly.
It can, but that doesn't change an iota of what I wrote.
Its quite plausible the result ends up with a Tory majority in England, but Lab minority government with SNP support in Westminster, in which case governing England will be nigh on impossible.
Which is why IMHO, Labour would be best to try and ensure a Lib Dem revival.
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly. If the experience of the last few years have taught us anything, it is that there are no safe seats.
Maybe, buy the difference is we're in power and will have retail offers for our Southern base. We're not likely to ignore them like Labour did with its own base for so many years.
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly. If the experience of the last few years have taught us anything, it is that there are no safe seats.
Maybe, buy the difference is we're in power and will have retail offers for our Southern base. We're not likely to ignore them like Labour did with its own base for so many years.
Talking about retail offers while all the shops are closed is ironic. How will you pay for them?
Off topic. I am sure that I am late to this, but just realised that Apple’s FaceID is not going to work with masks in a post lockdown world. Everyone will be taking their masks off to use they phones, that’s not a good thing.
Off topic. I am sure that I am late to this, but just realised that Apple’s FaceID is not going to work with masks in a post lockdown world. Everyone will be taking their masks off to use they phones, that’s not a good thing.
Mike has long championed 'approval ratings' as the best indicator of voter intention and I think this is correct. The steady erosion of the Government's credibility is not good for the Conservatives. I think we all (myself included) had hoped the return of Boris would see us leap ahead but instead we have continued to experience misinformation, leaks, confusing signals, bluster and a general sense that they don't know what they are doing.
Well, here he is at prime minister’s questions this week. I quote at length and include the ums and ers because the halting prolixity, waffle and intellectual confusion need to be flagged up. An increasingly formidable Sir Keir Starmer had asked why Britain had abandoned its testing programme in March, only to resume it now.
The prime minister: “A-a-as I think is readily apparent, Mr Speaker, to everybody who has studied the, er, the situation, and I think the scientists would, er, confirm, the difficulty in mid-March was that, er, the, er, tracing capacity that we had — it had been useful … in the containment phase of the epidemic er, that capacity was no longer useful or relevant, since the, er, transmission from individuals within the UK um meant that it exceeded our capacity. … [A]as we get the new cases down, er, we will have a team that will genuinely be able to track and, er, trace hundreds of thousands of people across the country, and thereby to drive down the epidemic. And so, er, I mean, to put it in a nutshell, it is easier, er, to do now — now that we have built up the team on the, on the way out — than it was as er, the epidemic took off …”
Off topic. I am sure that I am late to this, but just realised that Apple’s FaceID is not going to work with masks in a post lockdown world. Everyone will be taking their masks off to use they phones, that’s not a good thing.
Apple have thought of that - iOS 13.5 is going to make it easier to unlock your phone while wearing a maak
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly.
It can, but that doesn't change an iota of what I wrote.
Its quite plausible the result ends up with a Tory majority in England, but Lab minority government with SNP support in Westminster, in which case governing England will be nigh on impossible.
Which is why IMHO, Labour would be best to try and ensure a Lib Dem revival.
Indeed, Esher and Walton and Wokingham and Cities of London and Westminster are now more likely to be lost by the Tories to the LDs than Great Grimsby or Bishop Auckland or Harlow are to be lost to Labour.
Blair never won the former unlike the latter yet the latter have bigger Tory majorities now than the former
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly. If the experience of the last few years have taught us anything, it is that there are no safe seats.
And that would, if sustained, be a bloody good thing for everybody. Let’s hope it keeps going.
An end to safe seats would be the best thing to happen to democracy. A clearout of the fiefdoms and closed networks operating the Tory south would be a breath of fresh air.
Off topic. I am sure that I am late to this, but just realised that Apple’s FaceID is not going to work with masks in a post lockdown world. Everyone will be taking their masks off to use they phones, that’s not a good thing.
Apple have thought of that - iOS 13.5 is going to make it easier to unlock your phone while wearing a maak
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly.
It can, but that doesn't change an iota of what I wrote.
Its quite plausible the result ends up with a Tory majority in England, but Lab minority government with SNP support in Westminster, in which case governing England will be nigh on impossible.
Which is why IMHO, Labour would be best to try and ensure a Lib Dem revival.
No, Labour needs to rely on a Labour revival. Your route to power needs to be a majority not a coalition or minority. If you then get to 312 seats and get 20 Lib Dems on side it's fine but you can't go down the road of claiming victory because you got the Tories to under 325 seats, that kind of campaign will just result in another 60-80 seat majority for us.
In the past 100 years, Calvin Coolidge is the only sitting president to have won a second term in the wake of a recent recession.
Telegraph
The US was still coming out of recession when Obama beat Romney in 2012
Roosevelt won a third one in 1940 after the recession of 1937-38.
In any case, Coolidge (a) didn’t really win a second term (as he had replaced Harding in 1923) and (b) it was a very mild recession, a dip in the manufacturing index, compared to the depression of 1920 that the Dems were still blamed for.
So it is yet another stupid comment by the Telegraph. Honestly, I’m at the stage where I’d trust the Mail ahead of them.
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly. If the experience of the last few years have taught us anything, it is that there are no safe seats.
And that would, if sustained, be a bloody good thing for everybody. Let’s hope it keeps going.
An end to safe seats would be the best thing to happen to democracy. A clearout of the fiefdoms and closed networks operating the Tory south would be a breath of fresh air.
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It is however unlikely that the government will collapse in acrimonious factionalism and parliamentary chaos as Major’s did. There is no equivalent of Lamont or Duncan Smith stirring up trouble on the backbenches because he has purged them all. There is nobody of status or principle left in the party anyway.
Even if there were, there is limited risk of disciplinary implosion because he has a substantial majority (ironically, the sort Major would have had in 1992 on a UNS) so even if there were rebels they could not hold the government to ransom - and therefore, paradoxically, there are less likely to be rebels.
At the same time, Starmer does have a small, enfeebled party behind him and a potential focus for discontent in Macdonald and Burgon on the backbenches, who have not got the message yet. Hopefully, however, everyone else has and will back any changes Starmer makes.
So Starmer’s obstacles are more formidable. That is not to say they are insurmountable. If he is no Blair, Johnson is no Major. He has neither his intelligence nor his determination.
I would agree with almost everything you suggest, save for your underestimation of what a duplicitous bunch Tory MPs are. With friends like Michael Gove...
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly. If the experience of the last few years have taught us anything, it is that there are no safe seats.
And that would, if sustained, be a bloody good thing for everybody. Let’s hope it keeps going.
An end to safe seats would be the best thing to happen to democracy. A clearout of the fiefdoms and closed networks operating the Tory south would be a breath of fresh air.
An end to the rotten boroughs in the Welsh Valleys too.
One similarity between Starmer path to power and Smith/Blair’s In he 90s is that the Lib Dem’s are starting fro an anaemic position and some recovery there is useful to chip away soft Tory votes in places Labour cannot reach. The LDs need to find a decent leader who can work with Labour and create a bit of anti Tory momentum.
The key difference is Scotland. Unless Starmer can find a way to attack the flabby soft blue underbelly in the south (which is entirely possible) he has to fight two fronts.
Or just give up on Scotland and let the SNP stop the Tories?
He doesn't need to get Sturgeon in the cabinet, just dare her to vote down a Labour budget and explain to her country why she let the Tories back in.
Literally giving up on Scotland and supporting independence might be a good strategy to win over England.
I'm not advocating supporting Independence, my point is that trying to actively try to win seats in Scotland seems like a waste of resources. They can repeat publicly the views they are pro-Unionism, etc. I just think whether they lose in Scotland or not is really irrelevant at this point.
Being pro-union while going soft on the SNP means they will look like a poor imitation of the Tories. Actively changing their position on the union would allow them to position themselves as a patriotic people's party for England and make them a much harder target.
What about a policy of offering a tripartite referendum on FFA, Indy, Status Quo, and campaigning for FFA?
The hope, from Johnson's days as Mayor of London, was that he would have competent details people serving under him, as with his cycling commissioner. Thus far the evidence on that is not good.
When he was Mayor, nobody who worked for him was a threat to his job, and none of them had previously "betrayed" him so he could appoint on merit.
Neither is true now
He's also now mostly despised in London.
How long have you been in lockdown?
Get out of central London more.
Again, that wasn't my point. My point was that his actions historically have not made him popular.
The John Smith - Keir Starmer comparison is interesting.
The guess is that Smith would still have won in 1997 but probably with less of the charismatic Blair surge.
Starmer faces a different type of opponent to John Major. An assured pair of hands may appeal more to middle England because by 2024 Boris' lustre will have well and truly disappeared 'if' he continues in his current vein. I really thought he would come back and take charge but if anything things seem more chaotic now than they did with Raab holding the reins. If you take a step back and look at the briefings, mis-briefings, mixed messages, counter-claims, contradictions, backtracks, leaks, mis-leaks, more leaks, more mis-leaks of this past week alone it is chaos and shambles.
I've been to Katchanaburi, the Death Railway and the bridge over the river 'Kwai.'
The museum and cemetery at Katchanaburi is one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever seen. I wept at graves of people I never knew who lie buried an awfully long way from home.
I've been to a few military cemeteries but Katchanburi's the most harrowing. Dying in battle is one thing but dying of maltreatment and neglect because your captors believe that surrender is dishonourable seems different. And, as my wife said, they were, with one exception, all so young.
Otherwise the grave which I recall is someone in Germany who died on May 6th 1945. I have no idea who he was, or anything about him, but I always think of his family when there are 'end of the war' celebrations.
My sister (then c.28) visited Katchanburi, and was numbed by the sheer number of graves of men who hadn't reached that age.
My Sister in Law comes from the small Baltic fishing port of Eckenforde, a sort of German Brixham. There was a submarine school there and nearly all the, local men went into U boats. There are a phenomenal number of names on the memorial.
What struck me most though was the dates of death, continuing right through to the mid 1950's. PoW in the USSR mostly*.
It is a reminder too that for many the war didn’t end in May 1945. The institutions outlined in the header were mainly for Europeans. In the Far East our war aim was to restore the empire, as it was too for French, Dutch and even the Americans. Outside Europe the 1940s and 1950s were a time of nationalist uprisings against weakened empires.
* Including two uncles of my SiL. My father remarked rather unsympathetically, "shouldn't have been there in the first place".
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly.
It can, but that doesn't change an iota of what I wrote.
Its quite plausible the result ends up with a Tory majority in England, but Lab minority government with SNP support in Westminster, in which case governing England will be nigh on impossible.
Which is why IMHO, Labour would be best to try and ensure a Lib Dem revival.
No, Labour needs to rely on a Labour revival. Your route to power needs to be a majority not a coalition or minority. If you then get to 312 seats and get 20 Lib Dems on side it's fine but you can't go down the road of claiming victory because you got the Tories to under 325 seats, that kind of campaign will just result in another 60-80 seat majority for us.
The post War liberal ascendancy came about in reaction to the horrors of the War. Liberals were the big losers of the conflicts of the 1930s. Never again.
That liberal ascendancy has been under sustained attack in the past twenty years or so, when liberals made a poor job of justifying globalisation to those that perceived they weren't benefiting, and particularly since the Credit Crunch when ordinary people were left with the bills of feckless international bankers.
China clearly doesn't have an interest in the liberal international order when they see the prize of a Chinese order instead. The Trump tendency has opted out, as has the Brexiteer crowd misruling Britain; several European countries are in the hands of autocrats. Can the beleaguered internationalists in the European Union and a few other places hold the fort for liberalism?
Any change would need to very carefully done. Accusations of partisan vindictiveness would be inevitable and should not prevent reform if there is justification for reform, but some people will want to take advantage. Parties made the law overly complicated so they could claim confusion when issues arise, despite having the internal resources to ensure they are not confused. So problems with the commission are not the only issue.
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.
Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.
It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.
If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.
Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.
The real constitutionally-impossible situation that is quite plausible is Tories win England but a Lab minority backed by the SNP takes Westminster, though any time SNP abstains means the Tories have a majority.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
If the red wall can fall, so can the soft blue underbelly. If the experience of the last few years have taught us anything, it is that there are no safe seats.
And that would, if sustained, be a bloody good thing for everybody. Let’s hope it keeps going.
An end to safe seats would be the best thing to happen to democracy. A clearout of the fiefdoms and closed networks operating the Tory south would be a breath of fresh air.
An end to the rotten boroughs in the Welsh Valleys too.
A reduction in safe seats seems a more attainable goal than an end to them. There are some places, albeit far fewer, which support one party so strongly they will always be safe seats in any system unless you just have a national list or something.
My Sister in Law comes from the small Baltic fishing port of Eckenforde, a sort of German Brixham. There was a submarine school there and nearly all the, local men went into U boats. There are a phenomenal number of names on the memorial.
I once asked a friend, an expert in military history, whether being a U-boat crewman in WWII was very dangerous.
I well remember his answer.
‘No. If you were British or American, it was very dangerous. If you were German, it was a stone certainty.’
As usual from Mr Herdson an interesting and thought provoking piece. Much as I’d never wish ill health on anyone, the news that Trump staffers are coming down with COVID has me sorely tempted.
But Trump isn’t the root of the problem - his eventual departure will still leave a lot of disenchanted Americans who feel the system is against them - and “Trump 2” might be even worse.
Trump is giving a massive boost to anti-American sentiment worldwide. UK is still probably the most pro-USA country in Europe and barely anyone has a good word to say for him outside of the Farage/Banks axis.
The hope, from Johnson's days as Mayor of London, was that he would have competent details people serving under him, as with his cycling commissioner. Thus far the evidence on that is not good.
When he was Mayor, nobody who worked for him was a threat to his job, and none of them had previously "betrayed" him so he could appoint on merit.
Neither is true now
He's also now mostly despised in London.
I think there's a lot of truth in that. I've been surprised at how vehement people are there about his tenure as mayor: full of hot air, vacuous ill-conceived plans, white elephant projects like the ridiculous cable car to nowhere, bluff and bluster.
Who'd have thought it?
There are still no bridges east of Tower Bridge until you get to Tilbury.
Instead of building the absolutely needed Thames Gateway bridge, Bozza wasted millions on a Garden Bridge that nobody wanted and was never built and a cable car tourist trap that most Londoners have never used and never will.
Any change would need to very carefully done. Accusations of partisan vindictiveness would be inevitable and should not prevent reform if there is justification for reform, but some people will want to take advantage. Parties made the law overly complicated so they could claim confusion when issues arise, despite having the internal resources to ensure they are not confused. So problems with the commission are not the only issue.
The need for change is because the accusations of partisan vindictiveness are already there - and legion.
Any change would need to very carefully done. Accusations of partisan vindictiveness would be inevitable and should not prevent reform if there is justification for reform, but some people will want to take advantage. Parties made the law overly complicated so they could claim confusion when issues arise, despite having the internal resources to ensure they are not confused. So problems with the commission are not the only issue.
I asked my mum what she did seventy five years ago for VE Day. I get the impression it was something of an anticlimax. They had been waiting for an announcement about the end of the war for days, but there was seemingly some delay. At the same time stuff was still going on in the Far East etc.
She got the afternoon off school and her family went to a church service where they sang patriotic hymns.
Edit she was laughing at the idea of VE Day themed tea parties and asked whether they were intending to bake cakes made without butter, sugar and eggs but with a kind of artificial cream made from horse serum.
One similarity between Starmer path to power and Smith/Blair’s In he 90s is that the Lib Dem’s are starting fro an anaemic position and some recovery there is useful to chip away soft Tory votes in places Labour cannot reach. The LDs need to find a decent leader who can work with Labour and create a bit of anti Tory momentum.
The key difference is Scotland. Unless Starmer can find a way to attack the flabby soft blue underbelly in the south (which is entirely possible) he has to fight two fronts.
Or just give up on Scotland and let the SNP stop the Tories?
He doesn't need to get Sturgeon in the cabinet, just dare her to vote down a Labour budget and explain to her country why she let the Tories back in.
Literally giving up on Scotland and supporting independence might be a good strategy to win over England.
I'm not advocating supporting Independence, my point is that trying to actively try to win seats in Scotland seems like a waste of resources. They can repeat publicly the views they are pro-Unionism, etc. I just think whether they lose in Scotland or not is really irrelevant at this point.
Being pro-union while going soft on the SNP means they will look like a poor imitation of the Tories. Actively changing their position on the union would allow them to position themselves as a patriotic people's party for England and make them a much harder target.
What about a policy of offering a tripartite referendum on FFA, Indy, Status Quo, and campaigning for FFA?
“Right you've convinced me. Later this week I shall lose my thirty pound land virginity. I remain to be convinced it will have a lasting positive effect on my mental health.”
I would be delighted to advise on what you need to buy! Could I not be taken on such visits as a buyer - like those art buyers poncey rich people have? I will wear my mask - made on my sewing machine last night and very fetching - you tell me the budget and I will blow it. It will do wonders for your garden and my mental health! 😀
Stay away from the tat though. Agapanthus, peonies, dahlias, crocosmias, geums and foxgloves will be starting to come through. One tip: never buy plants that are in full flower because the flowering will not last long once you are home, unless you are good at deadheading or it is a plant which will repeat flower. Buy plants with plenty of buds so you - rather than the garden centre - get the full benefit.
And check the roots. Many plants will likely be pot bound with the roots would tightly round and round. Ideally, you don’t want these as they take a bit longer to get established in the ground unless you pull the roots a bit to allow them to spread.
I asked my mum what she did seventy five years ago for VE Day. I get the impression it was something of an anticlimax. They had been waiting for an announcement about the end of the war for days, but there was seemingly some delay. At the same time stuff was still going on in the Far East etc.
She got the afternoon off school and her family went to a church service where they sang patriotic hymns.
Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?
What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.
For all that I can criticise Johnson he proved during the election campaign that he could win support for a vision of the future. Optimistically you might say we have two halves of a good political leader.
The hope, from Johnson's days as Mayor of London, was that he would have competent details people serving under him, as with his cycling commissioner. Thus far the evidence on that is not good.
In time we will come to see if Johnson won that election, or Corbyn lost it.
I maintain the view that Johnson isn't popular, he was just less unpopular than his opponent (albeit, a lot).
It's never one or the other. Johnson was clearly much helped by his opponent being Corbyn but you dont win by such a large margin without having skills and popularity to exploit that. Similarly, Corbyn was much helped in 2017 by his opponent being May but you dont close the gap as significantly as he did as quickly as he did without having the skills and popularity (however temporarily) to exploit that.
I didnt think Boris would win outright let alone so big, and I was wrong about that mostly because I thought it was mostly him being less unpopular than that he had any actual popularity. The outcome says otherwise. I still dont like him, but he garnered genuine support not just benefited from the disgruntled labour ranks.
Ultimately Labour needs to have a reason for people to vote Labour other than "get the Tories out". That doesn't resonate with 50% of the population, a primary campaign message needs to fish from a larger pool.
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNewsUK/status/1259042461520977920?s=20 Senior ministers have expressed fury at what one described as “weeks of insane briefing” to the media, accusing government hawks of trying to force Johnson into relaxing more measures, and claiming some newspapers were pursuing an anti-lockdown agenda because of fears about sales.
The current Tory cabinet has to be the worst in many years, most of them belong on the backbenches.
Major's Cabinets from 1992 to 1997 were full of heavyweights Heseltine, Clarke, Hurd, Portillo, Howard, Redwood, Rifkind, Lilley etc but fat lot of good it did them in 1997
Ultimately Labour needs to have a reason for people to vote Labour other than "get the Tories out". That doesn't resonate with 50% of the population, a primary campaign message needs to fish from a larger pool.
A key weakness of Labour was that actually their campaign was very negative. One left wing economist couldn’t understand why ‘people didn’t seem to grasp they can have a nicer lifestyle at others’ expense. We clearly didn’t make them understand who the enemy is.’
That’s the language of Donald Trump.
The way to win is to explain how you will deliver secure jobs, nice housing and good public services. And also, how you will pay for them using something vaguely akin to fiscal reality. Beyond that, I don’t think most people care about whether others use private alternatives or have better houses.
Did Johnson offer an alternative that matched this idea? No. But he offered to get Brexit done. That coupled with Labour’s incoherence and stupid policies was enough.
Promised myself a screen free day, but just wanted to thank David again for his article. I find it thoughtful and moving. Hope David finds a way to return to politics. I fear the Tory party has moved on, but hopefully there is a place for him somewhere.
Any change would need to very carefully done. Accusations of partisan vindictiveness would be inevitable and should not prevent reform if there is justification for reform, but some people will want to take advantage. Parties made the law overly complicated so they could claim confusion when issues arise, despite having the internal resources to ensure they are not confused. So problems with the commission are not the only issue.
The need for change is because the accusations of partisan vindictiveness are already there - and legion.
I wasnt saying change might not be needed, the point was even when change is needed it needs to be carefully done and not over correct in partisan scoresettling.
Take something like electoral boundaries as an example of a similar issue - if a benefit exists to one side it's fair to correct that even though that correction benefits the other, since its restoring balance. But changing things to benefit thr other side unfairly would not be a reasonable reaction.
Change needs to be evidenced based, rational and fair. That would be justifiable. But given the emotiveness on this issue care needs to be taken that it isnt just a pile on of the commission because they are hated
Its like the manifesto commitment to look at the courts. There are things to look at quite reasonably, but motivation was very clearly one of naked hostility because of recent decisions so it would be easy to go too far
Comments
Get out of central London more.
Come on, spill the beans. What are the keystrokes please?
In fact arguably Boris is the most popular Tory leader since Churchill after winning the war at the moment but unlike Churchill in 1945 Boris was able to convert that popularity into a Tory landslide in 2019
Telegraph
You have two routes.
1 use the emoji keyboard on your mobile device
2 type a colon and ‘heart’ and another colon.
Who'd have thought it?
Surely even he isn’t that dim.
Given the SNP won't vote on England-only matters it means Labour would be incapable of properly governing England . . . and it will be in the SNP's interests to ensure Westminster is gummed up.
Plus the SNP will demand an independence referendum but them winning it would hand England back to the Tories who had won in England.
Actually, we do have one.
Her Majesty the Queen
More seriously, some years ago I was done for speeding and went on the course, where part at least of the reason for miles of cones with b$%%^r all happening was to allow roads to finish 'hardening up'. There was also a need, IIRC, for access for the workers.
Doesn't make it any less frustrating for the driver in the queue of course.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-nottinghamshire-52577485
In 2019, although it didn't convert to any gains, the support for the Lib Dems in my 20,000 Tory seat was the most insane thing I've ever seen. In seats with much smaller majorities, real damage might be done? Who knows.
Its quite plausible the result ends up with a Tory majority in England, but Lab minority government with SNP support in Westminster, in which case governing England will be nigh on impossible.
*Thinks hard about Iain Duncan Smith’s career*
No bet...
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1259022650648772609?s=20
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1259026067253231617?s=20
https://twitter.com/cstross/status/1258383784963121152
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/apple-wants-to-make-face-id-work-better-with-your-face-mask-heres-what-we-know-update/
Blair never won the former unlike the latter yet the latter have bigger Tory majorities now than the former
So it is yet another stupid comment by the Telegraph. Honestly, I’m at the stage where I’d trust the Mail ahead of them.
https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1259041739320541186?s=20
Onward!
The guess is that Smith would still have won in 1997 but probably with less of the charismatic Blair surge.
Starmer faces a different type of opponent to John Major. An assured pair of hands may appeal more to middle England because by 2024 Boris' lustre will have well and truly disappeared 'if' he continues in his current vein. I really thought he would come back and take charge but if anything things seem more chaotic now than they did with Raab holding the reins. If you take a step back and look at the briefings, mis-briefings, mixed messages, counter-claims, contradictions, backtracks, leaks, mis-leaks, more leaks, more mis-leaks of this past week alone it is chaos and shambles.
Ah, my coat...
What struck me most though was the dates of death, continuing right through to the mid 1950's. PoW in the USSR mostly*.
It is a reminder too that for many the war didn’t end in May 1945. The institutions outlined in the header were mainly for Europeans. In the Far East our war aim was to restore the empire, as it was too for French, Dutch and even the Americans. Outside Europe the 1940s and 1950s were a time of nationalist uprisings against weakened empires.
* Including two uncles of my SiL. My father remarked rather unsympathetically, "shouldn't have been there in the first place".
That liberal ascendancy has been under sustained attack in the past twenty years or so, when liberals made a poor job of justifying globalisation to those that perceived they weren't benefiting, and particularly since the Credit Crunch when ordinary people were left with the bills of feckless international bankers.
China clearly doesn't have an interest in the liberal international order when they see the prize of a Chinese order instead. The Trump tendency has opted out, as has the Brexiteer crowd misruling Britain; several European countries are in the hands of autocrats. Can the beleaguered internationalists in the European Union and a few other places hold the fort for liberalism?
Big day tomorrow - will his right flank begin to subside dramatically afterwards ?
I well remember his answer.
‘No. If you were British or American, it was very dangerous. If you were German, it was a stone certainty.’
Instead of building the absolutely needed Thames Gateway bridge, Bozza wasted millions on a Garden Bridge that nobody wanted and was never built and a cable car tourist trap that most Londoners have never used and never will.
She got the afternoon off school and her family went to a church service where they sang patriotic hymns.
Edit she was laughing at the idea of VE Day themed tea parties and asked whether they were intending to bake cakes made without butter, sugar and eggs but with a kind of artificial cream made from horse serum.
Will Swinford tell us.
FPT for @dixiedean
“Right you've convinced me. Later this week I shall lose my thirty pound land virginity. I remain to be convinced it will have a lasting positive effect on my mental health.”
I would be delighted to advise on what you need to buy! Could I not be taken on such visits as a buyer - like those art buyers poncey rich people have? I will wear my mask - made on my sewing machine last night and very fetching - you tell me the budget and I will blow it. It will do wonders for your garden and my mental health! 😀
Stay away from the tat though. Agapanthus, peonies, dahlias, crocosmias, geums and foxgloves will be starting to come through. One tip: never buy plants that are in full flower because the flowering will not last long once you are home, unless you are good at deadheading or it is a plant which will repeat flower. Buy plants with plenty of buds so you - rather than the garden centre - get the full benefit.
And check the roots. Many plants will likely be pot bound with the roots would tightly round and round. Ideally, you don’t want these as they take a bit longer to get established in the ground unless you pull the roots a bit to allow them to spread.
Have fun!
I wouldn’t want the likes of Patel or Raab on a parish council, never mind the backbenches of the Commons.
That said, there are even worse nutters behind them (Francois, anybody)?
I didnt think Boris would win outright let alone so big, and I was wrong about that mostly because I thought it was mostly him being less unpopular than that he had any actual popularity. The outcome says otherwise. I still dont like him, but he garnered genuine support not just benefited from the disgruntled labour ranks.
His flies, for starters...
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNewsUK/status/1259042461520977920?s=20
Senior ministers have expressed fury at what one described as “weeks of insane briefing” to the media, accusing government hawks of trying to force Johnson into relaxing more measures, and claiming some newspapers were pursuing an anti-lockdown agenda because of fears about sales.
That’s the language of Donald Trump.
The way to win is to explain how you will deliver secure jobs, nice housing and good public services. And also, how you will pay for them using something vaguely akin to fiscal reality. Beyond that, I don’t think most people care about whether others use private alternatives or have better houses.
Did Johnson offer an alternative that matched this idea? No. But he offered to get Brexit done. That coupled with Labour’s incoherence and stupid policies was enough.
Take something like electoral boundaries as an example of a similar issue - if a benefit exists to one side it's fair to correct that even though that correction benefits the other, since its restoring balance. But changing things to benefit thr other side unfairly would not be a reasonable reaction.
Change needs to be evidenced based, rational and fair. That would be justifiable. But given the emotiveness on this issue care needs to be taken that it isnt just a pile on of the commission because they are hated
Its like the manifesto commitment to look at the courts. There are things to look at quite reasonably, but motivation was very clearly one of naked hostility because of recent decisions so it would be easy to go too far