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.’
I think the casualty rate for U boat crews was about 90%.
Some other units had pretty dismal survival too. I had a patient who flew Seafires. From his training squadron of 36, only a handful survived the war, between accidents and combat. His carrier was heading out East to support the planned British invasion of Malaya when VJ day came.
He then settled down as an insurance broker in suburban Leicester. Must have been a remarkable change of lifestyle. Much as another old patient of mine who after finishing the war as Sergeant Major of the RTR, settled to work in a knitting machine factory.
“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!
By the by, one shrub that has done very well this year is the dwarf lilac. Heavenly scent too. Well worth anybody considering it to fill a space.
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.
I agree with this completely.
We (Labour) look far too much like we hate Britain. We need to make the patriotic and positive case for left wing policies, of which there are a great deal of ideas.
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?
It's wonkish and unconvincing.
Probably right. Refs do need to be binary really. OK - so Westminster Labour stays neutral and SLAB support Indy then. Perhaps that would square the circle.
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?
It's wonkish and unconvincing.
It's not merely unconvincing. It's laughable. We always come back to the same problem: without an English Parliament, any workable solution other than the break-up of Britain is impossible, because WLQ.
Thank you David for an excellent article. ‘Never again’ must not become an empty phrase or worse become mangled with jingoistic nationalism, or right wing political correctness.
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
True but nothing could have saved them in 1997. The Tories lost the 1997 election the instant they won the 1992 election. If they had lost in 1992 I suspect they would have come back to power in 1996.
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?
It's wonkish and unconvincing.
It's not merely unconvincing. It's laughable. We always come back to the same problem: without an English Parliament, any workable solution other than the break-up of Britain is impossible, because WLQ.
Not really, English votes for English laws is fine but England never had the demand for its own Parliament Scotland did or its own Assembly Northern Ireland did (nor did Wales really either, 49% of Welsh voters opposing devolution in 1997)
Interesting article as always from David. For my taste, it is excessively nostalgic for the wonders of Western foreign policy in the Cold War era - I agree that the balance of terror idea worked out right (because ultimately both sides' leaderships were not actually insane), but our behaviour in the Third World was often deeply cynical and sowed the seeds for a great deal of trouble and indeed tragedy later. Our intermittent support for convenient thugs from Afghanistan to Vietnam to Cambodia to Chile was just as disreputable as Putin's support for the gangsters in Chechnya and eastern Ukraine is today.
But one can pointlessly debate the past forever. Where David is right is that we established a consensus that democracy and mutually supportive development were good things, and then, for no obvious reason, we let it fall apart. It was possible 10 years ago to think that the longest period of European peace for many centuries would continue indefinitely. Now...well, with luck...
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.
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.’
Auf dem Grab eines Seemanns blühen keine Rosen.
I've been on U-2540 at Wilhelmshaven and it was fucking grim like a floating steampunk mausoleum. I've never been on an RN sub but I've been on a US Los Angeles class and that didn't seem that bad. For 45 minutes anyway. I might change my tune at the end of a 70 day patrol.
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
True but nothing could have saved them in 1997. The Tories lost the 1997 election the instant they won the 1992 election. If they had lost in 1992 I suspect they would have come back to power in 1996.
If they had lost in 1992 it would have been Heseltine v Kinnock in 1997 with Heseltine ironically closer to New Labour ideologically than PM Kinnock
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
True but nothing could have saved them in 1997. The Tories lost the 1997 election the instant they won the 1992 election. If they had lost in 1992 I suspect they would have come back to power in 1996.
Counterfactual.
Labour win around 300 seats in 1992, enough to take power backed by the Liberal Democrats, the Nats and the SDLP.
They are then in power on Black Wednesday.
Because John Smith and Gordon Brown are even more committed to the ERM than Major and Lamont, and Kinnock is inexperienced and indecisive, they leave withdrawal even later and do more damage to the British economy.
The following year, their unpopularity is breaking all records and Ashdown withdraws support. Another election is called, which Major wins with a huge majority.
Would Labour ever have recovered to lead another government?
I think there’s a reasonable chance they would not have done.
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?
It's wonkish and unconvincing.
It's not merely unconvincing. It's laughable. We always come back to the same problem: without an English Parliament, any workable solution other than the break-up of Britain is impossible, because WLQ.
The UK relied on its unitary nature allowing it to be conflated with Greater England, with Westminster as the English parliament. Devolution makes explicit that the union is not the same thing as England, rendering it unsustainable.
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.’
Auf dem Grab eines Seemanns blühen keine Rosen.
I've been on U-2540 at Wilhelmshaven and it was fucking grim like a floating steampunk mausoleum. I've never been on an RN sub but I've been on a US Los Angeles class and that didn't seem that bad. For 45 minutes anyway. I might change my tune at the end of a 70 day patrol.
An LA class is nuclear, surely? Just a tad different in both size and internal fitments!
I mean, you wouldn’t compare a Model T to a Ranger Wildtrak, would you?
Boris Johnson, of course, knows all about undoing things.
His flies, for starters...
He probably has someone do that for him.
Speaking of which, I gather that Trump has a "valet". More than one even. And yet his ties are always many many inches too long. You would expect tie length to fall within a valet's area of responsibility, but it would appear not in this case.
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.
Completely agree, Labour are most dangerous when they talk about what they will do for Workington man and his family. He doesn't care that they hate the Tories 11/10, that's not going to change his vote.
Labour hasn't done that since 2005 or 2001. Every election campaign since then has been a variation on keep or get the Tories out. 2017 probably came closest to talking about what Labour would do for voters, and it showed in the result, 12.7m people voted for a campaign that was led by Jezza.
Like I said, Labour needs to give people a reason to vote Labour.
Toby Young believes that his free speech is being infringed if he can't express his views without others also acting on their consequent view of him. Of course he believes he's being oppressed if he can't do as he pleases and hang the consequences.
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.
Toby Young believes that his free speech is being infringed if he can't express his views without others also acting on their consequent view of him. Of course he believes he's being oppressed if he can't do as he pleases and hang the consequences.
Yep, Toby’s inalienable right not to be inconvenienced is far more important than saving thousands of lives.
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
True but nothing could have saved them in 1997. The Tories lost the 1997 election the instant they won the 1992 election. If they had lost in 1992 I suspect they would have come back to power in 1996.
If they had lost in 1992 it would have been Heseltine v Kinnock in 1997 with Heseltine ironically closer to New Labour ideologically than PM Kinnock
Of course we will never know, but that is an interesting observation and reasonable assessment.
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.
Cemeteries tend to be part of my trips abroad, morbid cratur that I am. Berlin cemeteries have some startling grave stones with 30-40 names on them, all dated April-May 1945, I assume that they're essentially mass graves for civilians who perished when the city fell. Potsdam's Soviet war cemetery has a lot of headstones with 1946 as the terminal date, I'm guessing that they're bodies that were recovered in that year.
And of course there are all the Stolperstein which are de facto miniature gravestones.
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
Boris certainly has charisma but he still only got just over 1% more of the vote than May 2 years earlier.
His success in the "red wall" seats was as much down to Corbyn being anathema to regular Labour voters in those areas as it was to love of Boris.
Charisma is an asset but if there proves to be little substance behind it can soon look vacuous. By 2024 Boris is going to need a bit more than a breezy optimistic personna.
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.
Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings and Matt Hancock have all had Covid-19 and are all doves. Funny coincidence that.
Whoever Swinton's source(s?) is (are?) they likely shipped out Ferguson's breach of lockdown rules for his affair and have been relentlessly pushing an anti lockdown message that the Telegraph has been more than willing to hear.
Wonder if we can work out who it (they?) probably is (are?) by a process of elimination. They're probably also on the blower to Tom Newton Dunn and the rest of the red tops judging by the headlines a few days ago. I wonder if it's Cummings himself, not because he's against the lockdown but because he wants to make the press look like chumps.
On topic, good article, the problem is clear and real but I think too many of those who recognise the problem come up with the wrong solutions which tend to be variants of one of the following:
1) we can go back to what we had for the last sixty years and it will be all right 2) we can be even more internationalist and it will be all right 3) we can hang on the USA and it will be all right
Each of those answers are too optimistic, and based on wishful thinking rather than the reality.
The next 20-30 years are going to be nationalistic and competitive. Global institutions will have less power than they have done. There will be clashes between US, EU and China in each combination. Whatever happens with Trump, the US and EU will no longer be strong allies - one is a religious conservative poorly educated country that thinks it can go it alone, the other is a social democratic led organisation that can only exist with the sort of co-operation and compromise the US sees as weak.
Within that context the UK post Brexit has two choices, it can be a supplicant to any of the three global blocs, or it can go it alone.
Either way it becomes critical to relinquish our self identity as a global power, we cannot influence global foreign policy through anything other than soft power. Attempting to do so will result in consistent failure and wasted resources.
Post Brexit UK has to focus on soft power to spread its values, understand that as a country we are not in control of the world, and that attempting to shape the world is no longer our responsibility - simply because it is so far beyond our power and capability that it will be pointless.
Practical examples of this would be we cant pick and choose our trade partners based on human rights or governmental styles, we cant decide to referee wars in foreign countries, we will have to be nimble and adept when trade wars in the big blocks take place, our military power should become more focused on self defence rather than capability to project force globally.
No-one expects South Korea for example to be responsible for sorting out problems in the Middle East, or to maintain its historic cold shoulder to China in a futile attempt to change the Chinese govt. There is no reason why it needs to be the UKs responsibility either.
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.
Completely agree, Labour are most dangerous when they talk about what they will do for Workington man and his family. He doesn't care that they hate the Tories 11/10, that's not going to change his vote.
Labour hasn't done that since 2005 or 2001. Every election campaign since then has been a variation on keep or get the Tories out. 2017 probably came closest to talking about what Labour would do for voters, and it showed in the result, 12.7m people voted for a campaign that was led by Jezza.
Like I said, Labour needs to give people a reason to vote Labour.
Yes, perhaps unexpectedly I agree. Fighting the 2010 and 2015 elections were both depressing because I felt we had no serious arguments except that the other lot would be worse. People do tend to vote against something rather than for something, sadly, because they (so far) have thought the status quo was tolerable and they were wary of radical change. But even when they're fed up with the Tories, they need to hear a coherent alternative that they don't find scary.
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.
He was up against a two legged donkey and Swinson, people voted with eyes closed and ears plugged.
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.
Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings and Matt Hancock have all had Covid-19 and are all doves. Funny coincidence that.
Whoever Swinton's source(s?) is (are?) they likely shipped out Ferguson's breach of lockdown rules for his affair and have been relentlessly pushing an anti lockdown message that the Telegraph has been more than willing to hear.
Wonder if we can work out who it (they?) probably is (are?) by a process of elimination.
Only one man has the authority to brief like that credibly who isn't on that list - Dominic Raab.
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
True but nothing could have saved them in 1997. The Tories lost the 1997 election the instant they won the 1992 election. If they had lost in 1992 I suspect they would have come back to power in 1996.
Counterfactual.
Labour win around 300 seats in 1992, enough to take power backed by the Liberal Democrats, the Nats and the SDLP.
They are then in power on Black Wednesday.
Because John Smith and Gordon Brown are even more committed to the ERM than Major and Lamont, and Kinnock is inexperienced and indecisive, they leave withdrawal even later and do more damage to the British economy.
The following year, their unpopularity is breaking all records and Ashdown withdraws support. Another election is called, which Major wins with a huge majority.
Would Labour ever have recovered to lead another government?
I think there’s a reasonable chance they would not have done.
Of course we will never know, but that is an interesting observation and reasonable assessment. I'm repeating myself!
Hope everyone enjoyed the VE Day commemorations yesterday. Other countries are celebrating Victory Day or similar today. Sadly, for almost everyone still alive who was involved in the war, this will be their last such major commemoration, so we should thank them from the bottom of our hearts for all they did for us.
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?
It's wonkish and unconvincing.
It's not merely unconvincing. It's laughable. We always come back to the same problem: without an English Parliament, any workable solution other than the break-up of Britain is impossible, because WLQ.
And an English Parliament means the UK ceases to be meaningful. Thus the only way to save the UK is to render it meaningless. Oh dear.
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.
Completely agree, Labour are most dangerous when they talk about what they will do for Workington man and his family. He doesn't care that they hate the Tories 11/10, that's not going to change his vote.
Labour hasn't done that since 2005 or 2001. Every election campaign since then has been a variation on keep or get the Tories out. 2017 probably came closest to talking about what Labour would do for voters, and it showed in the result, 12.7m people voted for a campaign that was led by Jezza.
Like I said, Labour needs to give people a reason to vote Labour.
Yes, perhaps unexpectedly I agree. Fighting the 2010 and 2015 elections were both depressing because I felt we had no serious arguments except that the other lot would be worse. People do tend to vote against something rather than for something, sadly, because they (so far) have thought the status quo was tolerable and they were wary of radical change. But even when they're fed up with the Tories, they need to hear a coherent alternative that they don't find scary.
Interesting article as always from David. For my taste, it is excessively nostalgic for the wonders of Western foreign policy in the Cold War era - I agree that the balance of terror idea worked out right (because ultimately both sides' leaderships were not actually insane), but our behaviour in the Third World was often deeply cynical and sowed the seeds for a great deal of trouble and indeed tragedy later. Our intermittent support for convenient thugs from Afghanistan to Vietnam to Cambodia to Chile was just as disreputable as Putin's support for the gangsters in Chechnya and eastern Ukraine is today.
But one can pointlessly debate the past forever. Where David is right is that we established a consensus that democracy and mutually supportive development were good things, and then, for no obvious reason, we let it fall apart. It was possible 10 years ago to think that the longest period of European peace for many centuries would continue indefinitely. Now...well, with luck...
I agree that the post-War liberal ascendancy is over, as is the concept of the "West" as a coherent actor. China with a completely different world view is ascending, if not yet ascendant, and all countries will need make their accommodation with that. But you can shape your accommodation through acceptance, resistance and bypassing. Interesting times.
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.
Labour needs to confront and defeat the SNP. The last thing the SNP want for their independence agenda is a popular Labour majority government in London. They will not say it, but history shows us that they will do what they can to either conjure up a weak minority Labour admin or failing that an unpopular Tory there.
Labour should come up with its own devolution offer and do no deals.
Labour have nothing to offer , their fake federal junk has been abused too many times, they need to support independence and clear out the dross that is all that is left of the regional sub office unionist London party. They are going to get another kicking in 2021 and will only have seats due to the List seats for total useless losers.
More traffic (foot and road) here recently but, interestingly, the local shop seemed to be operating a one-in, one-out policy with a lower number of permitted customers. And I saw my first face mask today.
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.
Sunbathing really is a strange one. It seems to cause offence to the "rules must be followed literally gang" even when there is one person alone in a field.
It does not spread the disease at all, yes if you get fifty people in a field you might have to move them on to stop it reaching a hundred people and getting crowded, but show some British common sense when enforcing please.
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.
Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings and Matt Hancock have all had Covid-19 and are all doves. Funny coincidence that.
Whoever Swinton's source(s?) is (are?) they likely shipped out Ferguson's breach of lockdown rules for his affair and have been relentlessly pushing an anti lockdown message that the Telegraph has been more than willing to hear.
Wonder if we can work out who it (they?) probably is (are?) by a process of elimination.
Only one man has the authority to brief like that credibly who isn't on that list - Dominic Raab.
My other guess was Cummings playing Machiavellian games expanded upon in my original post but Raab fits occam's razor better.
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.
He was up against a two legged donkey and Swinson, people voted with eyes closed and ears plugged.
It's a part of it, but it is just plain complacency to suggest that's all of it. It's tantamount to the ultimate in lazy arguments that we still sometimes, which is that people did not know what they were doing when they voted X, which means those who opposed X don't need to consider what they did wrong (obviously there was no issue in Scotland, where it was not Boris who won). To their credit, the Tories did not end up doing that after their less subtantial than expected win in 2017 - while there was a lot of talk of people not realising what they were doing when voting Corbyn, or that people did not really mean it, they still reacted and changed what they promised to counteract the other reasons people voted for him.
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?
It's wonkish and unconvincing.
It's not merely unconvincing. It's laughable. We always come back to the same problem: without an English Parliament, any workable solution other than the break-up of Britain is impossible, because WLQ.
The UK relied on its unitary nature allowing it to be conflated with Greater England, with Westminster as the English parliament. Devolution makes explicit that the union is not the same thing as England, rendering it unsustainable.
Devolution moved the UK in a more Federal direction, with most domestic policy in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland decided at Holyrood and Cardiff and Stormont not Westminster. Longer term that is sustainable as there is little demand for English independence or an English Parliament
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.
Sunbathing really is a strange one. It seems to cause offence to the "rules must be followed literally gang" even when there is one person alone in a field.
It does not spread the disease at all, yes if you get fifty people in a field you might have to move them on to stop it reaching a hundred people and getting crowded, but show some British common sense when enforcing please.
If you're sunbathing in a field truly on your own it's unlikely the police will be there. Fishing is the one I can't get my head round. Never was a more solitary pursuit.
Totally off topic - I'm translating a Danish law on corporate governance, and was struck by the section on gender equality on corporate boards (towards which they say efforts should be made in large companies). Unlike every similar policy that I've seen, it doesn't talk about female inequality - it merely says that if there is a big imbalance to either gender, there should be a policy to reduce it.
Insofar as people feel this matters at all, it's how it should be phrased in the future - not in terms of males bad, females good, but of reasonable balance. I'd guess that it's evolved to that in Denmark because the initial situation of male dominance everywhere has eroded already.
NHS has intensified talks with Apple over its contact tracing app as its Isle of Wight trial is beset by problems, raising fears a back-up version may be needed
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.
Labour needs to confront and defeat the SNP. The last thing the SNP want for their independence agenda is a popular Labour majority government in London. They will not say it, but history shows us that they will do what they can to either conjure up a weak minority Labour admin or failing that an unpopular Tory there.
Labour should come up with its own devolution offer and do no deals.
Labour have nothing to offer , their fake federal junk has been abused too many times, they need to support independence and clear out the dross that is all that is left of the regional sub office unionist London party. They are going to get another kicking in 2021 and will only have seats due to the List seats for total useless losers.
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.
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.
Completely agree, Labour are most dangerous when they talk about what they will do for Workington man and his family. He doesn't care that they hate the Tories 11/10, that's not going to change his vote.
Labour hasn't done that since 2005 or 2001. Every election campaign since then has been a variation on keep or get the Tories out. 2017 probably came closest to talking about what Labour would do for voters, and it showed in the result, 12.7m people voted for a campaign that was led by Jezza.
Like I said, Labour needs to give people a reason to vote Labour.
Yes, perhaps unexpectedly I agree. Fighting the 2010 and 2015 elections were both depressing because I felt we had no serious arguments except that the other lot would be worse. People do tend to vote against something rather than for something, sadly, because they (so far) have thought the status quo was tolerable and they were wary of radical change. But even when they're fed up with the Tories, they need to hear a coherent alternative that they don't find scary.
Radical change =/= free broadband.
I know at least one person who says they voted Labour because of that policy, despite thinking it was unrealistic and would not happen. Funny old world.
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.
Sunbathing really is a strange one. It seems to cause offence to the "rules must be followed literally gang" even when there is one person alone in a field.
It does not spread the disease at all, yes if you get fifty people in a field you might have to move them on to stop it reaching a hundred people and getting crowded, but show some British common sense when enforcing please.
If you're sunbathing in a field truly on your own it's unlikely the police will be there. Fishing is the one I can't get my head round. Never was a more solitary pursuit.
Well the photo is a police officer moving on one person on a deserted beach. Agree re fishing, it just is completely harmless (apart from for the fish!).
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.
Completely agree, Labour are most dangerous when they talk about what they will do for Workington man and his family. He doesn't care that they hate the Tories 11/10, that's not going to change his vote.
Labour hasn't done that since 2005 or 2001. Every election campaign since then has been a variation on keep or get the Tories out. 2017 probably came closest to talking about what Labour would do for voters, and it showed in the result, 12.7m people voted for a campaign that was led by Jezza.
Like I said, Labour needs to give people a reason to vote Labour.
Yes, perhaps unexpectedly I agree. Fighting the 2010 and 2015 elections were both depressing because I felt we had no serious arguments except that the other lot would be worse. People do tend to vote against something rather than for something, sadly, because they (so far) have thought the status quo was tolerable and they were wary of radical change. But even when they're fed up with the Tories, they need to hear a coherent alternative that they don't find scary.
Radical change =/= free broadband.
I know at least one person who says they voted Labour because of that policy, despite thinking it was unrealistic and would not happen. Funny old world.
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.
Labour needs to confront and defeat the SNP. The last thing the SNP want for their independence agenda is a popular Labour majority government in London. They will not say it, but history shows us that they will do what they can to either conjure up a weak minority Labour admin or failing that an unpopular Tory there.
Labour should come up with its own devolution offer and do no deals.
They could (sort of) do that in 1997 because they had some authority in Scotland, now any such offer would have all the credibility of Gordon Brown's endless interventions. In any case who would believe that Labour would have the power to enact an offer even supposing it wasn't some pallid Devo plus 1% lashed up by 3rd raters in SLab?
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
Boris certainly has charisma but he still only got just over 1% more of the vote than May 2 years earlier.
His success in the "red wall" seats was as much down to Corbyn being anathema to regular Labour voters in those areas as it was to love of Boris.
Charisma is an asset but if there proves to be little substance behind it can soon look vacuous. By 2024 Boris is going to need a bit more than a breezy optimistic personna.
The LDs were up 4% on 2017 in 2019, Labour down 8%.
Boris won more than enough working class Labour Leave voters to make up for middle class Remainers lost to the LDs (with Labour losing a few to the Brexit Party too).
Working class Leave voters will still prefer Boris to Starmer, where Starmer might appeal is middle class Remain voters who hated Corbyn
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.
Labour needs to confront and defeat the SNP. The last thing the SNP want for their independence agenda is a popular Labour majority government in London. They will not say it, but history shows us that they will do what they can to either conjure up a weak minority Labour admin or failing that an unpopular Tory there.
Labour should come up with its own devolution offer and do no deals.
Labour have nothing to offer , their fake federal junk has been abused too many times, they need to support independence and clear out the dross that is all that is left of the regional sub office unionist London party. They are going to get another kicking in 2021 and will only have seats due to the List seats for total useless losers.
I would think that supporting or opposing independence was a pretty totemic issue for a lot of people. Even if it was not to the party's benefit it would seem odd to abandon that position in order to win more seats. Party's don't have to disappear because they are squeezed or hold a niche position, and they can only change so much.
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.
Completely agree, Labour are most dangerous when they talk about what they will do for Workington man and his family. He doesn't care that they hate the Tories 11/10, that's not going to change his vote.
Labour hasn't done that since 2005 or 2001. Every election campaign since then has been a variation on keep or get the Tories out. 2017 probably came closest to talking about what Labour would do for voters, and it showed in the result, 12.7m people voted for a campaign that was led by Jezza.
Like I said, Labour needs to give people a reason to vote Labour.
Yes, perhaps unexpectedly I agree. Fighting the 2010 and 2015 elections were both depressing because I felt we had no serious arguments except that the other lot would be worse. People do tend to vote against something rather than for something, sadly, because they (so far) have thought the status quo was tolerable and they were wary of radical change. But even when they're fed up with the Tories, they need to hear a coherent alternative that they don't find scary.
Radical change =/= free broadband.
I know at least one person who says they voted Labour because of that policy, despite thinking it was unrealistic and would not happen. Funny old world.
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.
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.
Sunbathing really is a strange one. It seems to cause offence to the "rules must be followed literally gang" even when there is one person alone in a field.
It does not spread the disease at all, yes if you get fifty people in a field you might have to move them on to stop it reaching a hundred people and getting crowded, but show some British common sense when enforcing please.
I think this is a British thing that absolutely gets to me and which doesn't seem to occur elsewhere. So this is a good rule, but should be applied sensibly and ignored when its implementation would clearly be a case of 'jobs worth'.
So if a policeman sees someone alone on a beach. Ignore it. Only when crowds appear enforce it.
In Southwold residents regularly go for a swim, by themselves, early in the morning. They walk to the beach, swim and leave. They are being stopped. How does this differ from cycling or walking? In fact you are more isolated.
I think it is a British trait that hates rules because when we have them we enforce them regardless, whereas in say France they implement them and ignore them and a blind eye is turned, unless they need enforcing..
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.
Labour needs to confront and defeat the SNP. The last thing the SNP want for their independence agenda is a popular Labour majority government in London. They will not say it, but history shows us that they will do what they can to either conjure up a weak minority Labour admin or failing that an unpopular Tory there.
Labour should come up with its own devolution offer and do no deals.
Labour have nothing to offer , their fake federal junk has been abused too many times, they need to support independence and clear out the dross that is all that is left of the regional sub office unionist London party. They are going to get another kicking in 2021 and will only have seats due to the List seats for total useless losers.
Even Sturgeon does not support pushing independence at the moment so why should Scottish Labour
@AlastairMeeks Do you think Raab was a big factor behind Johnson near panic-overworking himself to death when he got sick ?
I've seen worse theories.
Boris Johnson should still be off work. He looks terrible and he should recover properly.
Probably. Given how utterly flummoxed people were by the idea things could happen in his absence that might be one reason, but that things could, and he felt they might go in different ways than he'd like, would make sense.
Mr. Glenn, depends. If that's a reference to the withdrawal of the Canada deal, which was available until the point at which we indicated we wanted it, it's an entirely fair comment.
I think you're right to a large extent when it comes to international trade.
Security of supply has traditionally been associated with energy but may come to encompass many other goods, from food to medicine.
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.
Sunbathing really is a strange one. It seems to cause offence to the "rules must be followed literally gang" even when there is one person alone in a field.
It does not spread the disease at all, yes if you get fifty people in a field you might have to move them on to stop it reaching a hundred people and getting crowded, but show some British common sense when enforcing please.
I think this is a British thing that absolutely gets to me and which doesn't seem to occur elsewhere. So this is a good rule, but should be applied sensibly and ignored when its implementation would clearly be a case of 'jobs worth'.
So if a policeman sees someone alone on a beach. Ignore it. Only when crowds appear enforce it.
In Southwold residents regularly go for a swim, by themselves, early in the morning. They walk to the beach, swim and leave. They are being stopped. How does this differ from cycling or walking? In fact you are more isolated.
I think it is a British trait that hates rules because when we have them we enforce them regardless, whereas in say France they implement them and ignore them and a blind eye is turned, unless they need enforcing..
It absolutely does happen elsewhere, think about enforcement of jaywalking on empty streets in many countries as an example. I actually think the UK police are generally quite good about this kind of thing, we dont tend to enforce the speed limits exactly as an obvious example.
With the lockdown emotions are high, protocols are new and I think that has resulted in a minority of police over-reacting, but overall they have got the balance about right despite my whinging.
Be interesting to see if there's any movement from Barnier or if he goes to the wire demanding we give up our sovereign territories natural resources and sovereign right to set our own laws in which case talks may as well be abandoned.
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.
Would it not be more exact to say that the evidence against him was not strong enough to guarantee a conviction?
The same could be said of you and the Kennedy assassination of course.
That is why we have an assumption of innocence in law, so people don’t have to prove they didn’t do it, the state has to prove that they did. If the evidence against you is not strong enough to convict then you are not guilty of that offence.
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.
Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings and Matt Hancock have all had Covid-19 and are all doves. Funny coincidence that.
Whoever Swinton's source(s?) is (are?) they likely shipped out Ferguson's breach of lockdown rules for his affair and have been relentlessly pushing an anti lockdown message that the Telegraph has been more than willing to hear.
Wonder if we can work out who it (they?) probably is (are?) by a process of elimination.
Only one man has the authority to brief like that credibly who isn't on that list - Dominic Raab.
My other guess was Cummings playing Machiavellian games expanded upon in my original post but Raab fits occam's razor better.
It is clear that the government is now fundamentally divided over lifting the lockdown. The Boris Johnson post-election victory honeymoon is over. Will we see Johnson announcing moves to open up the economy either this week or in three weeks time? If not I sense that parliamentary support for the government will start to crumble.
Obviously, this will be affected by the situation in other European countries. Decisions made by the governments in the British Isles other than England will also play a part, and any new scientific results on vaccines and antibody tests.
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.
Completely agree, Labour are most dangerous when they talk about what they will do for Workington man and his family. He doesn't care that they hate the Tories 11/10, that's not going to change his vote.
Labour hasn't done that since 2005 or 2001. Every election campaign since then has been a variation on keep or get the Tories out. 2017 probably came closest to talking about what Labour would do for voters, and it showed in the result, 12.7m people voted for a campaign that was led by Jezza.
Like I said, Labour needs to give people a reason to vote Labour.
Yes, perhaps unexpectedly I agree. Fighting the 2010 and 2015 elections were both depressing because I felt we had no serious arguments except that the other lot would be worse. People do tend to vote against something rather than for something, sadly, because they (so far) have thought the status quo was tolerable and they were wary of radical change. But even when they're fed up with the Tories, they need to hear a coherent alternative that they don't find scary.
You may be surprised that I agree with you Nick, even though I was never a fan of Corbyn. In 2015 Miliband misjudged how open many potential voters would have been to a more expansive economic offer, and ended up tying himself in knots as he insisted on the eve of the election that Labour would borrow no more than the Tories, not even on capital investment, and chose to avoid campaigning on Osborne's projection of continued welfare austerity in the second half of the decade. People didn't believe Labour anyway but it ensured that Labour was able to offer only meagre alternatives which were so timid that they failed to be meaningful.
The hard left ultras are now running our constituency on a highly factional and divisive basis, with all the communications coming our reading as though they've been drafted by Momentum Central. What annoys me most about them is that they clearly think that if you didn't sign up to the Corbyn project lock stock and barrel then you must be a closet fan Blairite fan of the likes of Liz Kendall. It's straight out of the George Bush playbook, defining everyone as either with them or against them, and it's going to be even more divisive as they take do everything they can to undermine Starmer, as they will.
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.
Assuming the Lib Dem’s will do well just because centrists like the new Labour leader doesn’t seem well thought through. The Lib Dem’s did well when THEY had a plausible leader like Ashdown, Kennedy or Clegg. Who have they got now?
Assuming the Lib Dem’s will do well just because centrists like the new Labour leader doesn’t seem well thought through. The Lib Dem’s did well when THEY had a plausible leader like Ashdown, Kennedy or Clegg. Who have they got now?
It’s not ALL about Labour
Ed Davey and almost all their top 20 target seats are London or southern Remain voting Tory seats he might appeal to
But Cameron got understandably spooked and — proving himself years ahead of the game — announced plans to socially distance himself from the Dalai Lama. Indeed soon he was declaring that he saw no need ever to meet him again. The British government issued an apology to the Chinese authorities for all the offence caused and normal trade relations were eventually restored.
It was the account of the first meeting between British and Chinese officials after this affair that was so memorable. I was told that before the meeting could get under way, the CCP officials attended to a bit of old business. A copy of the British apology was pushed across the table towards the British officials, who were then asked to stand up and read it out loud, which they duly did. Sitting down afterwards, the lead Chinese official apparently smiled and said: ‘We just wanted to know you meant it.’
“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!
By the by, one shrub that has done very well this year is the dwarf lilac. Heavenly scent too. Well worth anybody considering it to fill a space.
What a wonderful view ... is it from your garden and where would that be pray? In general terms obviously.
Assuming the Lib Dem’s will do well just because centrists like the new Labour leader doesn’t seem well thought through. The Lib Dem’s did well when THEY had a plausible leader like Ashdown, Kennedy or Clegg. Who have they got now?
It’s not ALL about Labour
Ed Davey and almost all their top 20 target seats are London or southern Remain voting Tory seats he might appeal to
Maybe Ashdown, Kennedy and Clegg only seemed plausible and statesmanlike because they were long term leaders doing well, and I don’t think of Davey the same as he hasn’t had the chance to get that gravitas yet.
But the point still stands, it’s not about who the labour leader is as much as it is who the Lib Dem leader is. The arrogance of labour supporters to think it’s all about them is predictablely short sighted given their obsesssion with internal wrangling.
NHS has intensified talks with Apple over its contact tracing app as its Isle of Wight trial is beset by problems, raising fears a back-up version may be needed
As predicted by a few of us on here. Read PB to keep ahead of the news!!
LOL!!!
Possibly the best single comment I've read on the subject, from a tech blog:
The whole thing is poorly thought out. There seem to be two competing goals here. The first is to allow those who might have been infected to take precautions to prevent the spread. The second seems to be the desire for researchers to be able to model how the infection is spreading through the community. The first of these can be done using the Apple/Google API. The second cannot.
I get why researchers would love to have real time data on virus propagation. It will certainly help immensely with calibrating models and understanding a lot of questions we have. But in trying to push for this they will undermine the effectiveness of the app in meeting the first requirement. In the end it will likely fail at both goals.
They should just make what they want to do clear and have two apps. If you want to partake in the modelling research (to help the NHS if you will), then you can install the second app. If you just want to stay safe you install the first (and this could be an apple/google service with little to do with the govt). One benefit of this is that if you feel the tracking app is being abused by govt, you can stop using it in protest. By rolling it all together many will feel the compulsion to keep using it, but unless they eventually put police on the streets to check you have your phone and app, the data will just get progressively worse as trust in the govt is lost (and it is already being lost). https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16330468&cid=60035546
Assuming the Lib Dem’s will do well just because centrists like the new Labour leader doesn’t seem well thought through. The Lib Dem’s did well when THEY had a plausible leader like Ashdown, Kennedy or Clegg. Who have they got now?
It’s not ALL about Labour
We're getting lots of threads about how well Labour are doing, considering they are going nowhere in the polls.
Fewer are the thread headers about how f*cked the LibDems appear to be. 6-7% is utter irrelelvance territory, nationally. Locally they still have a role, but that requires them to bin the EU as a way to reach out to voters.
Am I missing something but why do they think the rope helps!?
For passing coronavirus on from person to person?
Looks like they're carrying the rope with them, not going along it like a handrail. In which case I'm guessing the rope serves the purpose of keeping them connected but 2 metres apart.
More traffic (foot and road) here recently but, interestingly, the local shop seemed to be operating a one-in, one-out policy with a lower number of permitted customers. And I saw my first face mask today.
Tourist (apparently) in our town recently. Was asked directions to the local National Trust property. It is, of course, closed.
NHS has intensified talks with Apple over its contact tracing app as its Isle of Wight trial is beset by problems, raising fears a back-up version may be needed
Well given we probably have a big spike incoming in 2 weeks after all the twats forgot there was a killer virus still infecting 20k a day yesterday, plenty for more time to finally get the correct version of the app finished...
I was told of a pub being open yesterday here in Essex.
Also in last week
Son' girlfriend went around her mums and got drunk with her family and parted ways with lots of hugs.... she is a nurse ffs and my son is at risk
Nursing auxiliary tried to have 5 friends around to house she shares with son and his girlfriend.... he lost the plot and gathering was off - said woman can't see why he made a fuss.....
On the other hand the street party which was talked about on our local face book group came to nothing
It's really annoying to see this sort of thing when all sorts of other petty restrictions are still in place.
eg. If I were playing golf, for much of the time my playing partner would be little closer than the far end of that street as we managed to pull off consistently our usual trick of hitting our balls in completely different directions to where we were aiming. And even on the greens and tees we wouldn't need to be within 5 yards from each other. That's what we were doing up to 23rd March yet it's still judged beyond the pale.
Comments
Some other units had pretty dismal survival too. I had a patient who flew Seafires. From his training squadron of 36, only a handful survived the war, between accidents and combat. His carrier was heading out East to support the planned British invasion of Malaya when VJ day came.
He then settled down as an insurance broker in suburban Leicester. Must have been a remarkable change of lifestyle. Much as another old patient of mine who after finishing the war as Sergeant Major of the RTR, settled to work in a knitting machine factory.
We (Labour) look far too much like we hate Britain. We need to make the patriotic and positive case for left wing policies, of which there are a great deal of ideas.
But one can pointlessly debate the past forever. Where David is right is that we established a consensus that democracy and mutually supportive development were good things, and then, for no obvious reason, we let it fall apart. It was possible 10 years ago to think that the longest period of European peace for many centuries would continue indefinitely. Now...well, with luck...
I've been on U-2540 at Wilhelmshaven and it was fucking grim like a floating steampunk mausoleum. I've never been on an RN sub but I've been on a US Los Angeles class and that didn't seem that bad. For 45 minutes anyway. I might change my tune at the end of a 70 day patrol.
Labour win around 300 seats in 1992, enough to take power backed by the Liberal Democrats, the Nats and the SDLP.
They are then in power on Black Wednesday.
Because John Smith and Gordon Brown are even more committed to the ERM than Major and Lamont, and Kinnock is inexperienced and indecisive, they leave withdrawal even later and do more damage to the British economy.
The following year, their unpopularity is breaking all records and Ashdown withdraws support. Another election is called, which Major wins with a huge majority.
Would Labour ever have recovered to lead another government?
I think there’s a reasonable chance they would not have done.
I mean, you wouldn’t compare a Model T to a Ranger Wildtrak, would you?
Labour hasn't done that since 2005 or 2001. Every election campaign since then has been a variation on keep or get the Tories out. 2017 probably came closest to talking about what Labour would do for voters, and it showed in the result, 12.7m people voted for a campaign that was led by Jezza.
Like I said, Labour needs to give people a reason to vote Labour.
And of course there are all the Stolperstein which are de facto miniature gravestones.
His success in the "red wall" seats was as much down to Corbyn being anathema to regular Labour voters in those areas as it was to love of Boris.
Charisma is an asset but if there proves to be little substance behind it can soon look vacuous. By 2024 Boris is going to need a bit more than a breezy optimistic personna.
Wonder if we can work out who it (they?) probably is (are?) by a process of elimination.
They're probably also on the blower to Tom Newton Dunn and the rest of the red tops judging by the headlines a few days ago.
I wonder if it's Cummings himself, not because he's against the lockdown but because he wants to make the press look like chumps.
Lockdown breakdown. Another set of neighbours who have a visitor around this morning, drinking coffee in garden and chatting.
1) we can go back to what we had for the last sixty years and it will be all right
2) we can be even more internationalist and it will be all right
3) we can hang on the USA and it will be all right
Each of those answers are too optimistic, and based on wishful thinking rather than the reality.
The next 20-30 years are going to be nationalistic and competitive. Global institutions will have less power than they have done. There will be clashes between US, EU and China in each combination. Whatever happens with Trump, the US and EU will no longer be strong allies - one is a religious conservative poorly educated country that thinks it can go it alone, the other is a social democratic led organisation that can only exist with the sort of co-operation and compromise the US sees as weak.
Within that context the UK post Brexit has two choices, it can be a supplicant to any of the three global blocs, or it can go it alone.
Either way it becomes critical to relinquish our self identity as a global power, we cannot influence global foreign policy through anything other than soft power. Attempting to do so will result in consistent failure and wasted resources.
Post Brexit UK has to focus on soft power to spread its values, understand that as a country we are not in control of the world, and that attempting to shape the world is no longer our responsibility - simply because it is so far beyond our power and capability that it will be pointless.
Practical examples of this would be we cant pick and choose our trade partners based on human rights or governmental styles, we cant decide to referee wars in foreign countries, we will have to be nimble and adept when trade wars in the big blocks take place, our military power should become more focused on self defence rather than capability to project force globally.
No-one expects South Korea for example to be responsible for sorting out problems in the Middle East, or to maintain its historic cold shoulder to China in a futile attempt to change the Chinese govt. There is no reason why it needs to be the UKs responsibility either.
They are going to get another kicking in 2021 and will only have seats due to the List seats for total useless losers.
It does not spread the disease at all, yes if you get fifty people in a field you might have to move them on to stop it reaching a hundred people and getting crowded, but show some British common sense when enforcing please.
©PB Tories
Insofar as people feel this matters at all, it's how it should be phrased in the future - not in terms of males bad, females good, but of reasonable balance. I'd guess that it's evolved to that in Denmark because the initial situation of male dominance everywhere has eroded already.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/08/nhs-intensifies-talks-apple-isle-wight-trial-contact-tracing/
As predicted by a few of us on here. Read PB to keep ahead of the news!!
Boris Johnson should still be off work. He looks terrible and he should recover properly.
Boris won more than enough working class Labour Leave voters to make up for middle class Remainers lost to the LDs (with Labour losing a few to the Brexit Party too).
Working class Leave voters will still prefer Boris to Starmer, where Starmer might appeal is middle class Remain voters who hated Corbyn
Apparently.
So if a policeman sees someone alone on a beach. Ignore it. Only when crowds appear enforce it.
In Southwold residents regularly go for a swim, by themselves, early in the morning. They walk to the beach, swim and leave. They are being stopped. How does this differ from cycling or walking? In fact you are more isolated.
I think it is a British trait that hates rules because when we have them we enforce them regardless, whereas in say France they implement them and ignore them and a blind eye is turned, unless they need enforcing..
https://twitter.com/RobbieGibb/status/1259027342455967745
I think you're right to a large extent when it comes to international trade.
Security of supply has traditionally been associated with energy but may come to encompass many other goods, from food to medicine.
With the lockdown emotions are high, protocols are new and I think that has resulted in a minority of police over-reacting, but overall they have got the balance about right despite my whinging.
https://twitter.com/sintaygaleska/status/1259056340598743044?s=20
https://twitter.com/lapetitepie/status/1259041877506117632?s=20
2) Who gave that advice, and what happened to them? And
3) If he thinks the current UK arrangement is an "authoritarian nightmare" then I doubt he's ever been to one.
That is why we have an assumption of innocence in law, so people don’t have to prove they didn’t do it, the state has to prove that they did. If the evidence against you is not strong enough to convict then you are not guilty of that offence.
Obviously, this will be affected by the situation in other European countries. Decisions made by the governments in the British Isles other than England will also play a part, and any new scientific results on vaccines and antibody tests.
The hard left ultras are now running our constituency on a highly factional and divisive basis, with all the communications coming our reading as though they've been drafted by Momentum Central. What annoys me most about them is that they clearly think that if you didn't sign up to the Corbyn project lock stock and barrel then you must be a closet fan Blairite fan of the likes of Liz Kendall. It's straight out of the George Bush playbook, defining everyone as either with them or against them, and it's going to be even more divisive as they take do everything they can to undermine Starmer, as they will.
It’s not ALL about Labour
That’s even worse than Ferguson’s fiddling with Staatz...
https://twitter.com/MerseyHack/status/1258758842680254465
Yep. That's it.
On that topic..
https://twitter.com/spectator/status/1258403913419587585?s=21
But Cameron got understandably spooked and — proving himself years ahead of the game — announced plans to socially distance himself from the Dalai Lama. Indeed soon he was declaring that he saw no need ever to meet him again. The British government issued an apology to the Chinese authorities for all the offence caused and normal trade relations were eventually restored.
It was the account of the first meeting between British and Chinese officials after this affair that was so memorable. I was told that before the meeting could get under way, the CCP officials attended to a bit of old business. A copy of the British apology was pushed across the table towards the British officials, who were then asked to stand up and read it out loud, which they duly did. Sitting down afterwards, the lead Chinese official apparently smiled and said: ‘We just wanted to know you meant it.’
But the point still stands, it’s not about who the labour leader is as much as it is who the Lib Dem leader is. The arrogance of labour supporters to think it’s all about them is predictablely short sighted given their obsesssion with internal wrangling.
The Lib Dem’s chose Cameron over Brown after all
Possibly the best single comment I've read on the subject, from a tech blog:
The whole thing is poorly thought out. There seem to be two competing goals here. The first is to allow those who might have been infected to take precautions to prevent the spread. The second seems to be the desire for researchers to be able to model how the infection is spreading through the community. The first of these can be done using the Apple/Google API. The second cannot.
I get why researchers would love to have real time data on virus propagation. It will certainly help immensely with calibrating models and understanding a lot of questions we have. But in trying to push for this they will undermine the effectiveness of the app in meeting the first requirement. In the end it will likely fail at both goals.
They should just make what they want to do clear and have two apps. If you want to partake in the modelling research (to help the NHS if you will), then you can install the second app. If you just want to stay safe you install the first (and this could be an apple/google service with little to do with the govt). One benefit of this is that if you feel the tracking app is being abused by govt, you can stop using it in protest. By rolling it all together many will feel the compulsion to keep using it, but unless they eventually put police on the streets to check you have your phone and app, the data will just get progressively worse as trust in the govt is lost (and it is already being lost).
https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16330468&cid=60035546
Fewer are the thread headers about how f*cked the LibDems appear to be. 6-7% is utter irrelelvance territory, nationally. Locally they still have a role, but that requires them to bin the EU as a way to reach out to voters.
Also in last week
Son' girlfriend went around her mums and got drunk with her family and parted ways with lots of hugs.... she is a nurse ffs and my son is at risk
Nursing auxiliary tried to have 5 friends around to house she shares with son and his girlfriend.... he lost the plot and gathering was off - said woman can't see why he made a fuss.....
On the other hand the street party which was talked about on our local face book group came to nothing
eg. If I were playing golf, for much of the time my playing partner would be little closer than the far end of that street as we managed to pull off consistently our usual trick of hitting our balls in completely different directions to where we were aiming. And even on the greens and tees we wouldn't need to be within 5 yards from each other. That's what we were doing up to 23rd March yet it's still judged beyond the pale.