Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
What a vile post.
What is vile about it? It may be incorrect, it may not be based on fact, but it is not vile. You are far too easily upset. Have a cup of tea and a rolo.
For anyone who wants to dig deeper into the way the Russians have been at their business, its worth reading the Atlantic Council reports. Online and free to read.
Simple answer is people like you happened to the labour party and took it from a once great institution to something that has less respect than the monster raving loony party.
Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...
Civ3 is so much better. But it doesn’t work any more ☹️
I'm with you on that one.
I have Civ 5 and Civ 6. I prefer 5 - the extra complication of religion is one too many variables for my brain to handle.
I'm sure it is actually crap now, but my nostalgic mind pines for Alpha Centauri. WIth the Crossfire expansion.
The graphics is not great compared to more modern titles, but the gameplay is still excellent.
They tried to make an up to date version: “Beyond Earth”. Much flashier graphics but not a patch on it as far as playing the game was concerned.
No, I was a bit underwhelmed by Beyond Earth. I think the factions weren't insane enough for a start - who didn't love playing as Chairman of the Human Hive, or Academician of the University of Planet?
I did play some early Command and Conquer recently - much harder than I remembered.
Simple answer is people like you happened to the labour party and took it from a once great institution to something that has less respect than the monster raving loony party.
It's an interesting video and worth watching. Goodwin is a good source on this and I hope Labour is taking note of what he says.
Don't know why you're so angry, did you forget to take your pills this evening?
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
What a vile post.
Oh dear does repeating what the left and right have both said as an excuse for raising pension ages upset you mr battery? hands you a kleenex
What you said is that people that people should eat McDonalds as it will mean they live less long and that's a good thing. You're wishing an early death on people.
Vile.
P.S. Thought you weren't responding anymore?
I never said people should eat mcDonalds I said I avoided it. Show me where I encouraged people to eat mcDonalds? I merely implied if people want to eat it let them
Its funny how at the lowest fast food chain you can eat them as in Eat McDonalds or I am going to eat KFC but go just one rung higher and you cannot eat them as in I am going to eat Aberdeen Steak House or going to eat Frankie and Bennys just doesn't make sense.
USA Dem Veep slot -- Karen Bass continues to shorten. Since this morning, Ladbrokes have cut her from 20/1 and 12/1 and it is much the same on Betfair. (Biden has said his team will complete background checks this week.)
I think Biden has said there are four Black women in there who you would have to think are Harris, Rice, Demmings and Lance Bottoms. But maybe one of them has dropped out. Really not sure why suddenly Bass is in the frame - it feels a bit like the Tammy Duckworth surge
There was a big move against Stacey Abrams a few days ago. It might be that this, and Bass shortening, are fuelled by leaks from the teams conducting the background checks but I suspect it is just position-tidying based on who has been profiled in the American Sunday papers in any given week.
I tend to agree. If I wasn't in the US, I'd follow the principle of selling whoever is flavour of the day. I reckon that it would have produced a nice tasty green book by now.
Stop press: it looks as if the Betfair layers have decided it will not be Michelle Lujan Grisham (Governor of New Mexico). Again, whether this is a reliable signal is unclear.
Simple answer is people like you happened to the labour party and took it from a once great institution to something that has less respect than the monster raving loony party.
It's an interesting video and worth watching. Goodwin is a good source on this and I hope Labour is taking note of what he says.
Don't know why you're so angry, did you forget to take your pills this evening?
Oh my you think that was angry? That was me shaking my head in pity. Pity for a country denied an opposition by those that supported Corbyn, pity for those of honest intent of left wing thought that you and people like you made homeless, pity for all the people labour is meant to represent that were deserted because people like you were more interested in having a pro palestine, pro hamas, anti israel, anti west party than actually arguing to make their lives better.
Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...
Civ3 is so much better. But it doesn’t work any more ☹️
I'm with you on that one.
I have Civ 5 and Civ 6. I prefer 5 - the extra complication of religion is one too many variables for my brain to handle.
I'm sure it is actually crap now, but my nostalgic mind pines for Alpha Centauri. WIth the Crossfire expansion.
The graphics is not great compared to more modern titles, but the gameplay is still excellent.
They tried to make an up to date version: “Beyond Earth”. Much flashier graphics but not a patch on it as far as playing the game was concerned.
No, I was a bit underwhelmed by Beyond Earth. I think the factions weren't insane enough for a start - who didn't love playing as Chairman of the Human Hive, or Academician of the University of Planet?
I did play some early Command and Conquer recently - much harder than I remembered.
Older games often had to rely on gameplay rather than graphics. Some of them were ridiculously hard though: I finally finished Baldur’s Gate I and II during the lock down, but only by massively exploring the multiplayer mode to copy items (aka cheating).
The only reason I posted the NHS figures was because many people are under the impression that British workers only make up a small percentage of the NHS staff(as I was until I looked)
If you ever find yourself in the situation where the surgeon about to operate on a sensitive part of your anatomy greets you with “hello sir” you may find yourself wishing that more were from abroad...
Surgeons and Bond villains are the only people who engage you in civil chat knowing soon they will knock you out cold.
In this case the “hello sir” was because I used to teach him...
Edit: and it’s the anaesthetists who have the best line in chat, trying to distract you as they play hunt the vein.
Surely, ‘as they pursue a vein hunt for the correct blood vessel?’
Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...
Civ3 is so much better. But it doesn’t work any more ☹️
I'm with you on that one.
I have Civ 5 and Civ 6. I prefer 5 - the extra complication of religion is one too many variables for my brain to handle.
Will Civ 7 have a covid-19 handle ?
My preferred method of dealing with public health crises leading to public disorder (usually a result of overcrowding admittedly) was to be slave society and work a whole bunch of people to death on vanity public works projects.
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
What a vile post.
Oh dear does repeating what the left and right have both said as an excuse for raising pension ages upset you mr battery? hands you a kleenex
What you said is that people that people should eat McDonalds as it will mean they live less long and that's a good thing. You're wishing an early death on people.
Vile.
P.S. Thought you weren't responding anymore?
I never said people should eat mcDonalds I said I avoided it. Show me where I encouraged people to eat mcDonalds? I merely implied if people want to eat it let them
Its funny how at the lowest fast food chain you can eat them as in Eat McDonalds or I am going to eat KFC but go just one rung higher and you cannot eat them as in I am going to eat Aberdeen Steak House or going to eat Frankie and Bennys just doesn't make sense.
Shrugs all fast food is bad when eaten to excess, I don't think you can treat them as a hierarchy. It is always better to cook fresh food at home. McDonalds, Mr cod what ever you like as an occasional treat wont hurt
The only reason I posted the NHS figures was because many people are under the impression that British workers only make up a small percentage of the NHS staff(as I was until I looked)
If you ever find yourself in the situation where the surgeon about to operate on a sensitive part of your anatomy greets you with “hello sir” you may find yourself wishing that more were from abroad...
Surgeons and Bond villains are the only people who engage you in civil chat knowing soon they will knock you out cold.
In this case the “hello sir” was because I used to teach him...
Edit: and it’s the anaesthetists who have the best line in chat, trying to distract you as they play hunt the vein.
Surely, ‘as they pursue a vein hunt for the correct blood vessel?’
I think you’ve got the point.
Just seeking to inject a little humour.
It’s needling me that I can’t think of a good reply.
Simple answer is people like you happened to the labour party and took it from a once great institution to something that has less respect than the monster raving loony party.
It's an interesting video and worth watching. Goodwin is a good source on this and I hope Labour is taking note of what he says.
Don't know why you're so angry, did you forget to take your pills this evening?
Oh my you think that was angry? That was me shaking my head in pity. Pity for a country denied an opposition by those that supported Corbyn, pity for those of honest intent of left wing thought that you and people like you made homeless, pity for all the people labour is meant to represent that were deserted because people like you were more interested in having a pro palestine, pro hamas, anti israel, anti west party than actually arguing to make their lives better.
Don't know if you've been around long but whilst I said I supported Corbyn and I did, I accept he failed and the Corbynite lot have made a big mess of the Labour Party. One of the reasons I voted for Starmer was to get that lot out.
You're right on most of those points, Labour is obsessed with issues that don't matter. I'm very supportive of a 2017-lite approach with a focus on law and order and other issues that do matter to voters. That includes putting Brexit to bed for good.
I have said many times I am happy to concede we got it wrong and in my view a Labour Party that can't win isn't good for anyone. So whilst I might be naturally quite liberal I accept that's not where most of the public are and we need to work with that.
You seem to have taken a big disliking to me, nice to have a fan
The only reason I posted the NHS figures was because many people are under the impression that British workers only make up a small percentage of the NHS staff(as I was until I looked)
If you ever find yourself in the situation where the surgeon about to operate on a sensitive part of your anatomy greets you with “hello sir” you may find yourself wishing that more were from abroad...
Surgeons and Bond villains are the only people who engage you in civil chat knowing soon they will knock you out cold.
In this case the “hello sir” was because I used to teach him...
Edit: and it’s the anaesthetists who have the best line in chat, trying to distract you as they play hunt the vein.
Surely, ‘as they pursue a vein hunt for the correct blood vessel?’
I think you’ve got the point.
Just seeking to inject a little humour.
It’s needling me that I can’t think of a good reply.
Just wait and our contest will put everyone to sleep.
If we trade with the EU and we want to export our goods to our - currently - largest trading partner we are going to have to accept their standards, there really is no debate to be had about that.
If the EU wants to send its goods to us we they will need to accept our standards but in a fight about standards who is reasonably going to win, us a tiny island or a massive market. It's obviously the massive market.
Even if the EU didn't win, what an absolute ballache for any small company. Today you trade with the EU at no difficulty, tomorrow it's different standards for your goods to the UK and different standards to the EU. Unless we have the same standards in which case the whole exercise is pointless.
We will set different standards where it makes sense. EU standards are the result of lobbying and horse trading. Sometimes they are rational and sometimes they aren’t. Ours will be set in a similar way,
When we want to send a good to the EU, it will have to fulfil their standards. There's not really a way around that.
As by far our largest single trading partner, I think we would want to send goods to the EU but that's just me.
Of course. But that’s not the same thing at all.
The classic example is a U.K. widget manufacturer. They are currently set up to manufacture to EU standards but can dominate the U.K. market if standards are different. So they may lobby for a change - keeping their existing factory for the EU and putting in a new one for the Uk
So we're going to get rich with non-tariff barriers that create inefficiencies? No doubt government subsidies figure somewhere in this plan.
For example I would have very much liked diesel regulations that were not influence by Volkswagen
The only reason I posted the NHS figures was because many people are under the impression that British workers only make up a small percentage of the NHS staff(as I was until I looked)
If you ever find yourself in the situation where the surgeon about to operate on a sensitive part of your anatomy greets you with “hello sir” you may find yourself wishing that more were from abroad...
Surgeons and Bond villains are the only people who engage you in civil chat knowing soon they will knock you out cold.
In this case the “hello sir” was because I used to teach him...
Edit: and it’s the anaesthetists who have the best line in chat, trying to distract you as they play hunt the vein.
Surely, ‘as they pursue a vein hunt for the correct blood vessel?’
I think you’ve got the point.
Just seeking to inject a little humour.
It’s needling me that I can’t think of a good reply.
Just wait and our contest will put everyone to sleep.
First time I had a general anaesthetic I remember being vaguely disappointed that they don’t do the “count down from ten” thing you see on TV.
Simple answer is people like you happened to the labour party and took it from a once great institution to something that has less respect than the monster raving loony party.
It's an interesting video and worth watching. Goodwin is a good source on this and I hope Labour is taking note of what he says.
Don't know why you're so angry, did you forget to take your pills this evening?
Oh my you think that was angry? That was me shaking my head in pity. Pity for a country denied an opposition by those that supported Corbyn, pity for those of honest intent of left wing thought that you and people like you made homeless, pity for all the people labour is meant to represent that were deserted because people like you were more interested in having a pro palestine, pro hamas, anti israel, anti west party than actually arguing to make their lives better.
Don't know if you've been around long but whilst I said I supported Corbyn and I did, I accept he failed and the Corbynite lot have made a big mess of the Labour Party. One of the reasons I voted for Starmer was to get that lot out.
You're right on most of those points, Labour is obsessed with issues that don't matter. I'm very supportive of a 2017-lite approach with a focus on law and order and other issues that do matter to voters. That includes putting Brexit to bed for good.
I have said many times I am happy to concede we got it wrong and in my view a Labour Party that can't win isn't good for anyone. So whilst I might be naturally quite liberal I accept that's not where most of the public are and we need to work with that.
You seem to have taken a big disliking to me, nice to have a fan
You CorrectHorseBattery....that sort of post is worthy of respect. When you post like that I won't go out of my way to needle you and will try and respond, if indeed I feel I have something to add in a civil manner. Do the sweary stuff though for no real reason or call people vile and racist and we all descend into a maelstrom of vitriol
USA Dem Veep slot -- Karen Bass continues to shorten. Since this morning, Ladbrokes have cut her from 20/1 and 12/1 and it is much the same on Betfair. (Biden has said his team will complete background checks this week.)
I think Biden has said there are four Black women in there who you would have to think are Harris, Rice, Demmings and Lance Bottoms. But maybe one of them has dropped out. Really not sure why suddenly Bass is in the frame - it feels a bit like the Tammy Duckworth surge
There was a big move against Stacey Abrams a few days ago. It might be that this, and Bass shortening, are fuelled by leaks from the teams conducting the background checks but I suspect it is just position-tidying based on who has been profiled in the American Sunday papers in any given week.
I tend to agree. If I wasn't in the US, I'd follow the principle of selling whoever is flavour of the day. I reckon that it would have produced a nice tasty green book by now.
Stop press: it looks as if the Betfair layers have decided it will not be Michelle Lujan Grisham (Governor of New Mexico). Again, whether this is a reliable signal is unclear.
Goodwin makes a lot of very good points in that video I linked.
To be honest though, I'm not sure Labour can ever win on culture, I think it's an unwinnable war from their perspective, with any MP they have I can't think of any MP that can out-culture the Tories.
They can likely win on economic issues and this is why I suspect, Blair has given the strong advice to avoid the culture war altogether.
Goodwin also makes the point on Brexit and how that was a disaster for Labour in terms of backing Remain but in truth I think Labour was doomed whatever position it took, with Corbyn still the leader. In 2017 he points out their fudge worked but in 2019 it clearly did not. I don't think Labour would have done any better if it had tacked to full on Leave and stuck with it, or full on Remain. I think the election was doomed from when Johnson became the leader.
The biggest issues for Labour were: Corbyn remaining the leader and all the problems that has caused and the election being allowed to be called. To be fair to Labour, I believe it was the SNP that eventually allowed it through.
I've said many times that I'm trying my best to educate myself on this topic as clearly in a historic sense I've failed badly to judge the public mood and in response to that what Labour should do. So it's important for me - and I think others of my naturally liberal persuasion - to really learn the difficult lessons.
Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...
Civ3 is so much better. But it doesn’t work any more ☹️
I'm with you on that one.
I have Civ 5 and Civ 6. I prefer 5 - the extra complication of religion is one too many variables for my brain to handle.
Will Civ 7 have a covid-19 handle ?
My preferred method of dealing with public health crises leading to public disorder (usually a result of overcrowding admittedly) was to be slave society and work a whole bunch of people to death on vanity public works projects.
You wouldn’t want that quoted out of context...
He'll be getting his statues pulled down if he's not careful..
If we trade with the EU and we want to export our goods to our - currently - largest trading partner we are going to have to accept their standards, there really is no debate to be had about that.
If the EU wants to send its goods to us we they will need to accept our standards but in a fight about standards who is reasonably going to win, us a tiny island or a massive market. It's obviously the massive market.
Even if the EU didn't win, what an absolute ballache for any small company. Today you trade with the EU at no difficulty, tomorrow it's different standards for your goods to the UK and different standards to the EU. Unless we have the same standards in which case the whole exercise is pointless.
We will set different standards where it makes sense. EU standards are the result of lobbying and horse trading. Sometimes they are rational and sometimes they aren’t. Ours will be set in a similar way,
When we want to send a good to the EU, it will have to fulfil their standards. There's not really a way around that.
As by far our largest single trading partner, I think we would want to send goods to the EU but that's just me.
Of course. But that’s not the same thing at all.
The classic example is a U.K. widget manufacturer. They are currently set up to manufacture to EU standards but can dominate the U.K. market if standards are different. So they may lobby for a change - keeping their existing factory for the EU and putting in a new one for the Uk
I'm not sure this works, Charles. All it does is create a non-tariff barrier for UK consumers leaving people with less choice. Major companies from overseas will love it because it will be a layer of red tape smaller companies that excludes them from the UK market which drives up prices for UK consumers without the government even taking a share via tariffs.
Tbh, I see this just becoming a rubber stamp as it will be a direct copy of CE. Nothing else makes sense.
To be clear I wasn’t saying it was a good idea, just that U.K. companies may lobby for it and be successful!
I’d imagine in 95% of cases we will be identical. There will be cases where regulation should be different
One of the reasons London has become so grotesquely expensive over the last 10 to 15 years is because there are so many of these dodgy kleptocrats throwing their cash around, which causes prices to rise for everyone.
I don't buy he idea that the European nations as part of what we would call the traditional liberal democratic order, the US, Western Europe, the ANZACS etc are a nothing, in fact they could be a hugely powerful bloc. The problem is that they are weak and don't want to take hard decisions nor truly stand on a world stage. In that regard the EU hacks me off no end and the situation in the Balkans back in the early 90's ultimately did it for me when they couldn't get their act together to prevent mass murder on their doorstep.
Russia can be readily dealt with and put on a leash if the will was there. China is many times the problem because its trying to do it via economics backed by military force. They can still be put on the back foot and balance achieved but a key player in this should be the European nations. Will the EU bother? Will they heck. To busy with the cheap goods and outsourcing their emissions out east.
If it sounds like old fashioned global power politics, it is and that is just a fact. I'd much rather than liberal democracies at the top of the tree than the Chinese Communist Party
Thanks again.
The Yugoslav civil war was the immediate military consequence of an otherwise largely peaceful removal of Communism from Eastern Europe. It was more reminiscent of 1918-19 in terms of the break up of a state into its component parts but also resonated back to earlier conflicts between Serbs, Croats ans Bosnians.
I'm left with the question of whether the relationship with Russia is a) that important or b) something about which we ought to be concerned in a new bi-polar world between Washington and Beijing.
Does it need to be adversarial in the way it was? We're seeing a more assertive China (recent skirmishes with India) and that will inevitably bring issues along the Sino-Russian border or in Kazakhstan. I actually think one day British forces and European forces will be with Russian forces will patrolling that long frontier against the Chinese build up.
In addition the post I made above, it is clear to me that Starmer is not making a pitch (currently) for the red wall voters, he is making a pitch for the Lib Dem (which he has mostly picked up) and the Tory anti-Brexit/former LD vote.
He clearly sees his route to victory as being through seats like Kensington, not seats like Blythe Valley. And that seems to tune in with what Goodwin's analysis says, although I think I've understood from posts before that there are not enough of these Kensington-style seats alone to form even a Labour minority Government.
Though, with help from the Lib Dems that challenge is reduced. And I wonder if that is where Starmer will take Labour next.
Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...
Civ3 is so much better. But it doesn’t work any more ☹️
I'm with you on that one.
I have Civ 5 and Civ 6. I prefer 5 - the extra complication of religion is one too many variables for my brain to handle.
Will Civ 7 have a covid-19 handle ?
My preferred method of dealing with public health crises leading to public disorder (usually a result of overcrowding admittedly) was to be slave society and work a whole bunch of people to death on vanity public works projects.
Ah... So that was the rationale behind the Garden Bridge.
I don't buy he idea that the European nations as part of what we would call the traditional liberal democratic order, the US, Western Europe, the ANZACS etc are a nothing, in fact they could be a hugely powerful bloc. The problem is that they are weak and don't want to take hard decisions nor truly stand on a world stage. In that regard the EU hacks me off no end and the situation in the Balkans back in the early 90's ultimately did it for me when they couldn't get their act together to prevent mass murder on their doorstep.
Russia can be readily dealt with and put on a leash if the will was there. China is many times the problem because its trying to do it via economics backed by military force. They can still be put on the back foot and balance achieved but a key player in this should be the European nations. Will the EU bother? Will they heck. To busy with the cheap goods and outsourcing their emissions out east.
If it sounds like old fashioned global power politics, it is and that is just a fact. I'd much rather than liberal democracies at the top of the tree than the Chinese Communist Party
Thanks again.
The Yugoslav civil war was the immediate military consequence of an otherwise largely peaceful removal of Communism from Eastern Europe. It was more reminiscent of 1918-19 in terms of the break up of a state into its component parts but also resonated back to earlier conflicts between Serbs, Croats ans Bosnians.
I'm left with the question of whether the relationship with Russia is a) that important or b) something about which we ought to be concerned in a new bi-polar world between Washington and Beijing.
Does it need to be adversarial in the way it was? We're seeing a more assertive China (recent skirmishes with India) and that will inevitably bring issues along the Sino-Russian border or in Kazakhstan. I actually think one day British forces and European forces will be with Russian forces will patrolling that long frontier against the Chinese build up.
Yes, it is hard to see how either Russia or China is a threat to us. Let's sit this one out as none of our business for a change.
I don't buy he idea that the European nations as part of what we would call the traditional liberal democratic order, the US, Western Europe, the ANZACS etc are a nothing, in fact they could be a hugely powerful bloc. The problem is that they are weak and don't want to take hard decisions nor truly stand on a world stage. In that regard the EU hacks me off no end and the situation in the Balkans back in the early 90's ultimately did it for me when they couldn't get their act together to prevent mass murder on their doorstep.
Russia can be readily dealt with and put on a leash if the will was there. China is many times the problem because its trying to do it via economics backed by military force. They can still be put on the back foot and balance achieved but a key player in this should be the European nations. Will the EU bother? Will they heck. To busy with the cheap goods and outsourcing their emissions out east.
If it sounds like old fashioned global power politics, it is and that is just a fact. I'd much rather than liberal democracies at the top of the tree than the Chinese Communist Party
Thanks again.
The Yugoslav civil war was the immediate military consequence of an otherwise largely peaceful removal of Communism from Eastern Europe. It was more reminiscent of 1918-19 in terms of the break up of a state into its component parts but also resonated back to earlier conflicts between Serbs, Croats ans Bosnians.
I'm left with the question of whether the relationship with Russia is a) that important or b) something about which we ought to be concerned in a new bi-polar world between Washington and Beijing.
Does it need to be adversarial in the way it was? We're seeing a more assertive China (recent skirmishes with India) and that will inevitably bring issues along the Sino-Russian border or in Kazakhstan. I actually think one day British forces and European forces will be with Russian forces will patrolling that long frontier against the Chinese build up.
Arguably the Balkans is how we got here. Russia was unable to protect Serbia from Nato which motivated Putin to massively overhaul the Russian military.
Goodwin makes a lot of very good points in that video I linked.
To be honest though, I'm not sure Labour can ever win on culture, I think it's an unwinnable war from their perspective, with any MP they have I can't think of any MP that can out-culture the Tories.
They can likely win on economic issues and this is why I suspect, Blair has given the strong advice to avoid the culture war altogether.
Goodwin also makes the point on Brexit and how that was a disaster for Labour in terms of backing Remain but in truth I think Labour was doomed whatever position it took, with Corbyn still the leader. In 2017 he points out their fudge worked but in 2019 it clearly did not. I don't think Labour would have done any better if it had tacked to full on Leave and stuck with it, or full on Remain. I think the election was doomed from when Johnson became the leader.
The biggest issues for Labour were: Corbyn remaining the leader and all the problems that has caused and the election being allowed to be called. To be fair to Labour, I believe it was the SNP that eventually allowed it through.
I've said many times that I'm trying my best to educate myself on this topic as clearly in a historic sense I've failed badly to judge the public mood and in response to that what Labour should do. So it's important for me - and I think others of my naturally liberal persuasion - to really learn the difficult lessons.
Corbyn was the reason Boris could get the Tories off the fence on Brexit and Labour couldn’t. Boris could afford to piss off remainer Tories, because they wouldn’t vote Corbyn. The reverse was not true.
In addition the post I made above, it is clear to me that Starmer is not making a pitch (currently) for the red wall voters, he is making a pitch for the Lib Dem (which he has mostly picked up) and the Tory anti-Brexit/former LD vote.
He clearly sees his route to victory as being through seats like Kensington, not seats like Blythe Valley. And that seems to tune in with what Goodwin's analysis says, although I think I've understood from posts before that there are not enough of these Kensington-style seats alone to form even a Labour minority Government.
Though, with help from the Lib Dems that challenge is reduced. And I wonder if that is where Starmer will take Labour next.
Put simply, Starmer has to persuade millions of people and especially those Labour voters who deserted the Party last time that the Party he leads is a credible alternative to Johnson (or Sunak by 2024) and the Conservatives.
The latter will have a record to defend but Starmer can't rely on bad Government - his Party's offering has to be in accord with where the voters are and where they see the country through the second half of the 2020s.
That may mean trying to convince a sceptical electorate his Labour Party is a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. Britain has voted for centre-left Government on a number of occasions so it's a credible platform but it starts for me with asking some hard questions what late 2020s Britain looks like.
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
Sounds good and in addition as the left are always telling us how they would love to pay more taxes perhaps a 100% tax on memberships of left wing parties that will keep them happy
just part of the many ways that Russia felt humiliated in the nineties. A bit more thought then and a much better relationship with Russia was possible.
just part of the many ways that Russia felt humiliated in the nineties. A bit more thought then and a much better relationship with Russia was possible.
Maybe, although that seems to put the greater weight of the responsibility for the relationship on lack of thoughtfulness from those external to Russia than internal responsibility for its own actions and choices.
FPT Philip_Thompson said: 'Can you name one government ever in our postwar history before Browns that took a surplus, turned it into a consistent budget deficit at 2-3% of GDP during a sustained period of growth prior to a recession? Even one ever that had made such what I consider a catastrophic mistake but you consider mainstream? '
Between 1953 and 1967 the Budget deficit averaged 2.5% of GDP despite the absence of a severe recession during that period. It hit 4% in 1967 before a significant tightening of the Fiscal Stance by Chancellor Roy Jenkins produced significant Budget Surpluses in the years 1968/69 and 1969 /70. Under the Heath Government, the deficit returned to 4% in 1973/74 as a result of the expansionary policies followed by Chancellor Anthony Barber.
USA Dem Veep slot -- Karen Bass continues to shorten. Since this morning, Ladbrokes have cut her from 20/1 and 12/1 and it is much the same on Betfair. (Biden has said his team will complete background checks this week.)
I think Biden has said there are four Black women in there who you would have to think are Harris, Rice, Demmings and Lance Bottoms. But maybe one of them has dropped out. Really not sure why suddenly Bass is in the frame - it feels a bit like the Tammy Duckworth surge
There was a big move against Stacey Abrams a few days ago. It might be that this, and Bass shortening, are fuelled by leaks from the teams conducting the background checks but I suspect it is just position-tidying based on who has been profiled in the American Sunday papers in any given week.
I tend to agree. If I wasn't in the US, I'd follow the principle of selling whoever is flavour of the day. I reckon that it would have produced a nice tasty green book by now.
Stop press: it looks as if the Betfair layers have decided it will not be Michelle Lujan Grisham (Governor of New Mexico). Again, whether this is a reliable signal is unclear.
My wallet says 'let it be Rice'.
The PB dog that has not barked in the night time is whoever first tipped Susan Rice. I'm on at a three-figure price and certainly not as the result of my own research. We do seem to be missing a few old friends, and one hopes they are well but fears otherwise. Anyway, thanks, kind soldier.
just part of the many ways that Russia felt humiliated in the nineties. A bit more thought then and a much better relationship with Russia was possible.
The 1990-2003 period was the period of great American over-reach.
Goodwin makes a lot of very good points in that video I linked.
To be honest though, I'm not sure Labour can ever win on culture, I think it's an unwinnable war from their perspective, with any MP they have I can't think of any MP that can out-culture the Tories.
They can likely win on economic issues and this is why I suspect, Blair has given the strong advice to avoid the culture war altogether.
Goodwin also makes the point on Brexit and how that was a disaster for Labour in terms of backing Remain but in truth I think Labour was doomed whatever position it took, with Corbyn still the leader. In 2017 he points out their fudge worked but in 2019 it clearly did not. I don't think Labour would have done any better if it had tacked to full on Leave and stuck with it, or full on Remain. I think the election was doomed from when Johnson became the leader.
The biggest issues for Labour were: Corbyn remaining the leader and all the problems that has caused and the election being allowed to be called. To be fair to Labour, I believe it was the SNP that eventually allowed it through.
I've said many times that I'm trying my best to educate myself on this topic as clearly in a historic sense I've failed badly to judge the public mood and in response to that what Labour should do. So it's important for me - and I think others of my naturally liberal persuasion - to really learn the difficult lessons.
Corbyn was the reason Boris could get the Tories off the fence on Brexit and Labour couldn’t. Boris could afford to piss off remainer Tories, because they wouldn’t vote Corbyn. The reverse was not true.
Corbyn is a father of Brexit.
Don't disagree with that and in my view had Corbyn resigned and anyone else taken over, the 2019 GE would not have happened
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
Sounds good and in addition as the left are always telling us how they would love to pay more taxes perhaps a 100% tax on memberships of left wing parties that will keep them happy
Foreign ownership of housing is not good for anyone. I'd make it straight illegal but I don't think that's possible, the point if it would be to disincentive it.
As somebody who is pro working class and pro the UK, surely you would like housing to go the people that live here? I would.
Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...
Civ3 is so much better. But it doesn’t work any more ☹️
I'm with you on that one.
I have Civ 5 and Civ 6. I prefer 5 - the extra complication of religion is one too many variables for my brain to handle.
Will Civ 7 have a covid-19 handle ?
My preferred method of dealing with public health crises leading to public disorder (usually a result of overcrowding admittedly) was to be slave society and work a whole bunch of people to death on vanity public works projects.
You wouldn’t want that quoted out of context...
On the contrary, I demand that it only be quoted out of context! Gives me a dark, edgy vibe.
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
Sooner or later we will have a (more significant) tax on the ownership of housing, period. Would sort out a whole stack of problems.
You don't care how much that will hurt the least well off then, that is to say renters who will have that tax jammed on their rent just as we do everytime mortgage rates increase
USA Dem Veep slot -- Karen Bass continues to shorten. Since this morning, Ladbrokes have cut her from 20/1 and 12/1 and it is much the same on Betfair. (Biden has said his team will complete background checks this week.)
I think Biden has said there are four Black women in there who you would have to think are Harris, Rice, Demmings and Lance Bottoms. But maybe one of them has dropped out. Really not sure why suddenly Bass is in the frame - it feels a bit like the Tammy Duckworth surge
There was a big move against Stacey Abrams a few days ago. It might be that this, and Bass shortening, are fuelled by leaks from the teams conducting the background checks but I suspect it is just position-tidying based on who has been profiled in the American Sunday papers in any given week.
I tend to agree. If I wasn't in the US, I'd follow the principle of selling whoever is flavour of the day. I reckon that it would have produced a nice tasty green book by now.
Stop press: it looks as if the Betfair layers have decided it will not be Michelle Lujan Grisham (Governor of New Mexico). Again, whether this is a reliable signal is unclear.
My wallet says 'let it be Rice'.
The PB dog that has not barked in the night time is whoever first tipped Susan Rice. I'm on at a three-figure price and certainly not as the result of my own research. We do seem to be missing a few old friends, and one hopes they are well but fears otherwise. Anyway, thanks, kind soldier.
I'm on at 340 taken on 16th March, but can't remember whether there was a specific tip on here.
If there was - let's hope he/she turns out to be right.
Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...
Civ3 is so much better. But it doesn’t work any more ☹️
I'm with you on that one.
I have Civ 5 and Civ 6. I prefer 5 - the extra complication of religion is one too many variables for my brain to handle.
I'm sure it is actually crap now, but my nostalgic mind pines for Alpha Centauri. WIth the Crossfire expansion.
The graphics is not great compared to more modern titles, but the gameplay is still excellent.
They tried to make an up to date version: “Beyond Earth”. Much flashier graphics but not a patch on it as far as playing the game was concerned.
No, I was a bit underwhelmed by Beyond Earth. I think the factions weren't insane enough for a start - who didn't love playing as Chairman of the Human Hive, or Academician of the University of Planet?
I did play some early Command and Conquer recently - much harder than I remembered.
Older games often had to rely on gameplay rather than graphics. Some of them were ridiculously hard though: I finally finished Baldur’s Gate I and II during the lock down, but only by massively exploring the multiplayer mode to copy items (aka cheating).
I got as far as the penultimate stages of Baldur's Gate II before I could get no further and resorted to cheats. No shame when you're in it for the story anyway.
In addition the post I made above, it is clear to me that Starmer is not making a pitch (currently) for the red wall voters, he is making a pitch for the Lib Dem (which he has mostly picked up) and the Tory anti-Brexit/former LD vote.
He clearly sees his route to victory as being through seats like Kensington, not seats like Blythe Valley. And that seems to tune in with what Goodwin's analysis says, although I think I've understood from posts before that there are not enough of these Kensington-style seats alone to form even a Labour minority Government.
Though, with help from the Lib Dems that challenge is reduced. And I wonder if that is where Starmer will take Labour next.
Put simply, Starmer has to persuade millions of people and especially those Labour voters who deserted the Party last time that the Party he leads is a credible alternative to Johnson (or Sunak by 2024) and the Conservatives.
The latter will have a record to defend but Starmer can't rely on bad Government - his Party's offering has to be in accord with where the voters are and where they see the country through the second half of the 2020s.
That may mean trying to convince a sceptical electorate his Labour Party is a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. Britain has voted for centre-left Government on a number of occasions so it's a credible platform but it starts for me with asking some hard questions what late 2020s Britain looks like.
But what does a credible alternative look like? It starts with some kind of economic policy that is more left wing than Labour has been before 2017 but less left wing than 2019. So 2017-lite.
What about culture? Can't win, don't fight.
Law and order? Likely can win on that, Starmer is quite good on defence, crime it seems so far.
Patriotism. He's a Sir and seems pretty pro-Britain.
I think in a lot of ways Labour will do a lot less badly because Starmer isn't Corbyn but that alone - as you say - isn't going to be enough to win. I can't see that becoming pro-austerity is going to win either.
It's genuinely a tough situation to try and decipher - and I suspect Labour doesn't quite know what to do yet, hence the quiet on policies.
Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...
Civ3 is so much better. But it doesn’t work any more ☹️
I'm with you on that one.
I have Civ 5 and Civ 6. I prefer 5 - the extra complication of religion is one too many variables for my brain to handle.
Will Civ 7 have a covid-19 handle ?
My preferred method of dealing with public health crises leading to public disorder (usually a result of overcrowding admittedly) was to be slave society and work a whole bunch of people to death on vanity public works projects.
You wouldn’t want that quoted out of context...
On the contrary, I demand that it only be quoted out of context! Gives me a dark, edgy vibe.
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
Sounds good and in addition as the left are always telling us how they would love to pay more taxes perhaps a 100% tax on memberships of left wing parties that will keep them happy
Foreign ownership of housing is not good for anyone. I'd make it straight illegal but I don't think that's possible, the point if it would be to disincentive it.
As somebody who is pro working class and pro the UK, surely you would like housing to go the people that live here? I would.
The sale of housing, and in particular London property, has been how we have paid for our enormous trade deficit for the last 20 years. If we don’t sell them houses we either (a) stop buying foreign tat, cars, pharmaceuticals etc or (b) accept a much lower standard of living closer to what we actually earn as a country. Which would you choose?
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
Sounds good and in addition as the left are always telling us how they would love to pay more taxes perhaps a 100% tax on memberships of left wing parties that will keep them happy
Foreign ownership of housing is not good for anyone. I'd make it straight illegal but I don't think that's possible, the point if it would be to disincentive it.
As somebody who is pro working class and pro the UK, surely you would like housing to go the people that live here? I would.
Goodwin makes a lot of very good points in that video I linked.
To be honest though, I'm not sure Labour can ever win on culture, I think it's an unwinnable war from their perspective, with any MP they have I can't think of any MP that can out-culture the Tories.
They can likely win on economic issues and this is why I suspect, Blair has given the strong advice to avoid the culture war altogether.
Goodwin also makes the point on Brexit and how that was a disaster for Labour in terms of backing Remain but in truth I think Labour was doomed whatever position it took, with Corbyn still the leader. In 2017 he points out their fudge worked but in 2019 it clearly did not. I don't think Labour would have done any better if it had tacked to full on Leave and stuck with it, or full on Remain. I think the election was doomed from when Johnson became the leader.
The biggest issues for Labour were: Corbyn remaining the leader and all the problems that has caused and the election being allowed to be called. To be fair to Labour, I believe it was the SNP that eventually allowed it through.
I've said many times that I'm trying my best to educate myself on this topic as clearly in a historic sense I've failed badly to judge the public mood and in response to that what Labour should do. So it's important for me - and I think others of my naturally liberal persuasion - to really learn the difficult lessons.
Corbyn was the reason Boris could get the Tories off the fence on Brexit and Labour couldn’t. Boris could afford to piss off remainer Tories, because they wouldn’t vote Corbyn. The reverse was not true.
Corbyn is a father of Brexit.
Don't disagree with that and in my view had Corbyn resigned and anyone else taken over, the 2019 GE would not have happened
More to the point almost any of the other potential leaders of the Labour party in the election of 2015 would have had a much stronger pro Remain campaign in 2016.
Brexit may have killed off Corbyn as a leader, but it was a suicide by the godfather of Brexit.
Goodwin makes a lot of very good points in that video I linked.
To be honest though, I'm not sure Labour can ever win on culture, I think it's an unwinnable war from their perspective, with any MP they have I can't think of any MP that can out-culture the Tories.
They can likely win on economic issues and this is why I suspect, Blair has given the strong advice to avoid the culture war altogether.
Goodwin also makes the point on Brexit and how that was a disaster for Labour in terms of backing Remain but in truth I think Labour was doomed whatever position it took, with Corbyn still the leader. In 2017 he points out their fudge worked but in 2019 it clearly did not. I don't think Labour would have done any better if it had tacked to full on Leave and stuck with it, or full on Remain. I think the election was doomed from when Johnson became the leader.
The biggest issues for Labour were: Corbyn remaining the leader and all the problems that has caused and the election being allowed to be called. To be fair to Labour, I believe it was the SNP that eventually allowed it through.
I've said many times that I'm trying my best to educate myself on this topic as clearly in a historic sense I've failed badly to judge the public mood and in response to that what Labour should do. So it's important for me - and I think others of my naturally liberal persuasion - to really learn the difficult lessons.
Corbyn was the reason Boris could get the Tories off the fence on Brexit and Labour couldn’t. Boris could afford to piss off remainer Tories, because they wouldn’t vote Corbyn. The reverse was not true.
Goodwin makes a lot of very good points in that video I linked.
To be honest though, I'm not sure Labour can ever win on culture, I think it's an unwinnable war from their perspective, with any MP they have I can't think of any MP that can out-culture the Tories.
They can likely win on economic issues and this is why I suspect, Blair has given the strong advice to avoid the culture war altogether.
Goodwin also makes the point on Brexit and how that was a disaster for Labour in terms of backing Remain but in truth I think Labour was doomed whatever position it took, with Corbyn still the leader. In 2017 he points out their fudge worked but in 2019 it clearly did not. I don't think Labour would have done any better if it had tacked to full on Leave and stuck with it, or full on Remain. I think the election was doomed from when Johnson became the leader.
The biggest issues for Labour were: Corbyn remaining the leader and all the problems that has caused and the election being allowed to be called. To be fair to Labour, I believe it was the SNP that eventually allowed it through.
I've said many times that I'm trying my best to educate myself on this topic as clearly in a historic sense I've failed badly to judge the public mood and in response to that what Labour should do. So it's important for me - and I think others of my naturally liberal persuasion - to really learn the difficult lessons.
Corbyn was the reason Boris could get the Tories off the fence on Brexit and Labour couldn’t. Boris could afford to piss off remainer Tories, because they wouldn’t vote Corbyn. The reverse was not true.
Corbyn is a father of Brexit.
Don't disagree with that and in my view had Corbyn resigned and anyone else taken over, the 2019 GE would not have happened
Corbyn was the midwife, Blair was the father of Brexit.
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
Sounds good and in addition as the left are always telling us how they would love to pay more taxes perhaps a 100% tax on memberships of left wing parties that will keep them happy
Foreign ownership of housing is not good for anyone. I'd make it straight illegal but I don't think that's possible, the point if it would be to disincentive it.
As somebody who is pro working class and pro the UK, surely you would like housing to go the people that live here? I would.
Didn't I say sounds good?
Well I thought you were being sarcastic as the rest of your post was about a 100% tax on political parties
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
Sounds good and in addition as the left are always telling us how they would love to pay more taxes perhaps a 100% tax on memberships of left wing parties that will keep them happy
Foreign ownership of housing is not good for anyone. I'd make it straight illegal but I don't think that's possible, the point if it would be to disincentive it.
As somebody who is pro working class and pro the UK, surely you would like housing to go the people that live here? I would.
Hang on, I thought you didn’t like Brexit? Indeed couldn’t think of a single reason for it? Making foreign ownership of UK housing illegal would itself be illegal if we had remained in the EU.
One of the reasons I voted remain in fact: stopping anyone doing something that illiberal.
I’ve just read your second paragraph: Stopping incomers? Really?
Goodwin makes a lot of very good points in that video I linked.
To be honest though, I'm not sure Labour can ever win on culture, I think it's an unwinnable war from their perspective, with any MP they have I can't think of any MP that can out-culture the Tories.
They can likely win on economic issues and this is why I suspect, Blair has given the strong advice to avoid the culture war altogether.
Goodwin also makes the point on Brexit and how that was a disaster for Labour in terms of backing Remain but in truth I think Labour was doomed whatever position it took, with Corbyn still the leader. In 2017 he points out their fudge worked but in 2019 it clearly did not. I don't think Labour would have done any better if it had tacked to full on Leave and stuck with it, or full on Remain. I think the election was doomed from when Johnson became the leader.
The biggest issues for Labour were: Corbyn remaining the leader and all the problems that has caused and the election being allowed to be called. To be fair to Labour, I believe it was the SNP that eventually allowed it through.
I've said many times that I'm trying my best to educate myself on this topic as clearly in a historic sense I've failed badly to judge the public mood and in response to that what Labour should do. So it's important for me - and I think others of my naturally liberal persuasion - to really learn the difficult lessons.
Corbyn was the reason Boris could get the Tories off the fence on Brexit and Labour couldn’t. Boris could afford to piss off remainer Tories, because they wouldn’t vote Corbyn. The reverse was not true.
Corbyn is a father of Brexit.
Don't disagree with that and in my view had Corbyn resigned and anyone else taken over, the 2019 GE would not have happened
More to the point almost any of the other potential leaders of the Labour party in the election of 2015 would have had a much stronger pro Remain campaign in 2016.
Brexit may have killed off Corbyn as a leader, but it was a suicide by the godfather of Brexit.
I'm not sure an identikit Cameron/Clegg style leader would have done much to change the dynamics that led to Brexit. It would have needed someone who rejected the whole premise of the renegotiation and referendum, and no-one was doing that in British politics. (SNP excepted.)
Goodwin makes a lot of very good points in that video I linked.
To be honest though, I'm not sure Labour can ever win on culture, I think it's an unwinnable war from their perspective, with any MP they have I can't think of any MP that can out-culture the Tories.
They can likely win on economic issues and this is why I suspect, Blair has given the strong advice to avoid the culture war altogether.
Goodwin also makes the point on Brexit and how that was a disaster for Labour in terms of backing Remain but in truth I think Labour was doomed whatever position it took, with Corbyn still the leader. In 2017 he points out their fudge worked but in 2019 it clearly did not. I don't think Labour would have done any better if it had tacked to full on Leave and stuck with it, or full on Remain. I think the election was doomed from when Johnson became the leader.
The biggest issues for Labour were: Corbyn remaining the leader and all the problems that has caused and the election being allowed to be called. To be fair to Labour, I believe it was the SNP that eventually allowed it through.
I've said many times that I'm trying my best to educate myself on this topic as clearly in a historic sense I've failed badly to judge the public mood and in response to that what Labour should do. So it's important for me - and I think others of my naturally liberal persuasion - to really learn the difficult lessons.
Corbyn was the reason Boris could get the Tories off the fence on Brexit and Labour couldn’t. Boris could afford to piss off remainer Tories, because they wouldn’t vote Corbyn. The reverse was not true.
Corbyn is a father of Brexit.
And Blair was a father of Corbyn.
Sounds like Star Wars.
Sir James Goldsmith and Alan Sked were the co-habiting fathers of Brexit.
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
What a vile post.
Oh dear does repeating what the left and right have both said as an excuse for raising pension ages upset you mr battery? hands you a kleenex
What you said is that people that people should eat McDonalds as it will mean they live less long and that's a good thing. You're wishing an early death on people.
Vile.
P.S. Thought you weren't responding anymore?
I never said people should eat mcDonalds I said I avoided it. Show me where I encouraged people to eat mcDonalds? I merely implied if people want to eat it let them
Its funny how at the lowest fast food chain you can eat them as in Eat McDonalds or I am going to eat KFC but go just one rung higher and you cannot eat them as in I am going to eat Aberdeen Steak House or going to eat Frankie and Bennys just doesn't make sense.
Isn’t it “eat a MaccyD” or “eat a KFC”
It’s a recognition that they are a synthetic, homogenised product that masquerades as food (in the way Jacob’s Creek pretends to be wine). At least with Aberdeen Steak House or Garfunkel’s you’re getting real food
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
Sounds good and in addition as the left are always telling us how they would love to pay more taxes perhaps a 100% tax on memberships of left wing parties that will keep them happy
Foreign ownership of housing is not good for anyone. I'd make it straight illegal but I don't think that's possible, the point if it would be to disincentive it.
As somebody who is pro working class and pro the UK, surely you would like housing to go the people that live here? I would.
Hang on, I thought you didn’t like Brexit? Indeed couldn’t think of a single reason for it? Making foreign ownership of UK housing illegal would itself be illegal if we had remained in the EU.
One of the reasons I voted remain in fact: stopping anyone doing something that illiberal.
I’ve just read your second paragraph: Stopping incomers? Really?
I don't think the EU is preventing us putting a tax on foreign owned housing, don't other EU countries already do that?
I meant I would make it illegal, not that is what should actually happen. I'd get rid of the Monarchy too ideally but not in any normal scenario.
just part of the many ways that Russia felt humiliated in the nineties. A bit more thought then and a much better relationship with Russia was possible.
The 1990-2003 period was the period of great American over-reach.
The problem was the first thing the post-Communist states wanted was some guarantee Russia wouldn't or couldn't "come back". Memories were long and the Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe and the actions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the near invasion of Poland created understandable concern.
At the time and for differing reasons, conservatives, socialists and liberals all supported EU enlargement and with that came NATO membership.
Could we have held the post-Communist states outside the EU for say 25 years while their economies re-balanced and got closer to the West? Unlikely. Could we have created a neutral "buffer zone" between NATO and Russia? Again, seems implausible and unstable.
We see NATO as a defensive alliance - that's not how it is seen everywhere.
There was, particularly post-Desert Storm, a sense of a Pax Americana emerging and perhaps a unipolar world which was the West. That didn't happen (perhaps inevitably).
In addition the post I made above, it is clear to me that Starmer is not making a pitch (currently) for the red wall voters, he is making a pitch for the Lib Dem (which he has mostly picked up) and the Tory anti-Brexit/former LD vote.
He clearly sees his route to victory as being through seats like Kensington, not seats like Blythe Valley. And that seems to tune in with what Goodwin's analysis says, although I think I've understood from posts before that there are not enough of these Kensington-style seats alone to form even a Labour minority Government.
Though, with help from the Lib Dems that challenge is reduced. And I wonder if that is where Starmer will take Labour next.
Put simply, Starmer has to persuade millions of people and especially those Labour voters who deserted the Party last time that the Party he leads is a credible alternative to Johnson (or Sunak by 2024) and the Conservatives.
The latter will have a record to defend but Starmer can't rely on bad Government - his Party's offering has to be in accord with where the voters are and where they see the country through the second half of the 2020s.
That may mean trying to convince a sceptical electorate his Labour Party is a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. Britain has voted for centre-left Government on a number of occasions so it's a credible platform but it starts for me with asking some hard questions what late 2020s Britain looks like.
But what does a credible alternative look like? It starts with some kind of economic policy that is more left wing than Labour has been before 2017 but less left wing than 2019. So 2017-lite.
What about culture? Can't win, don't fight.
Law and order? Likely can win on that, Starmer is quite good on defence, crime it seems so far.
Patriotism. He's a Sir and seems pretty pro-Britain.
I think in a lot of ways Labour will do a lot less badly because Starmer isn't Corbyn but that alone - as you say - isn't going to be enough to win. I can't see that becoming pro-austerity is going to win either.
It's genuinely a tough situation to try and decipher - and I suspect Labour doesn't quite know what to do yet, hence the quiet on policies.
Bad government might be Starmer's best shot. Boris has shot so many Labour foxes there is scarcely anything left from Labour's almost-successful 2017 platform. On the other hand, whatever you think of the government's policies, its administration has often been shambolic. Are Cummings' decades-old prejudices (against planning restrictions just this week) a better basis for government here than Trump's have been in America?
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
Sounds good and in addition as the left are always telling us how they would love to pay more taxes perhaps a 100% tax on memberships of left wing parties that will keep them happy
Foreign ownership of housing is not good for anyone. I'd make it straight illegal but I don't think that's possible, the point if it would be to disincentive it.
As somebody who is pro working class and pro the UK, surely you would like housing to go the people that live here? I would.
Hang on, I thought you didn’t like Brexit? Indeed couldn’t think of a single reason for it? Making foreign ownership of UK housing illegal would itself be illegal if we had remained in the EU.
One of the reasons I voted remain in fact: stopping anyone doing something that illiberal.
I’ve just read your second paragraph: Stopping incomers? Really?
I don't think the EU is preventing us putting a tax on foreign owned housing, don't other EU countries already do that?
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
How have we paid the trade deficit for 20 plus years do you think?????
Personally, given the alternatives, selling off cubes of the London skyline doesn’t seem the worst option. Of course eliminating the trade deficit would be a better solution in the long run.
Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...
Civ3 is so much better. But it doesn’t work any more ☹️
I'm with you on that one.
I have Civ 5 and Civ 6. I prefer 5 - the extra complication of religion is one too many variables for my brain to handle.
Will Civ 7 have a covid-19 handle ?
My preferred method of dealing with public health crises leading to public disorder (usually a result of overcrowding admittedly) was to be slave society and work a whole bunch of people to death on vanity public works projects.
Ah... So that was the rationale behind the Garden Bridge.
Nah. It was going to be a nice view from my study though 😁
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
Sounds good and in addition as the left are always telling us how they would love to pay more taxes perhaps a 100% tax on memberships of left wing parties that will keep them happy
Foreign ownership of housing is not good for anyone. I'd make it straight illegal but I don't think that's possible, the point if it would be to disincentive it.
As somebody who is pro working class and pro the UK, surely you would like housing to go the people that live here? I would.
Hang on, I thought you didn’t like Brexit? Indeed couldn’t think of a single reason for it? Making foreign ownership of UK housing illegal would itself be illegal if we had remained in the EU.
One of the reasons I voted remain in fact: stopping anyone doing something that illiberal.
I’ve just read your second paragraph: Stopping incomers? Really?
I don't think the EU is preventing us putting a tax on foreign owned housing, don't other EU countries already do that?
I meant I would make it illegal, not that is what should actually happen. I'd get rid of the Monarchy too ideally but not in any normal scenario.
You can't discriminate against other Europeans so yes the EU would prevent that. Unless you don't view 446 million Europeans as foreign and didn't mean them in your comment.
Who here has played Civilisation V? Interfering in elections is a standard game mechanic...
Civ3 is so much better. But it doesn’t work any more ☹️
I'm with you on that one.
I have Civ 5 and Civ 6. I prefer 5 - the extra complication of religion is one too many variables for my brain to handle.
I'm sure it is actually crap now, but my nostalgic mind pines for Alpha Centauri. WIth the Crossfire expansion.
The graphics is not great compared to more modern titles, but the gameplay is still excellent.
They tried to make an up to date version: “Beyond Earth”. Much flashier graphics but not a patch on it as far as playing the game was concerned.
No, I was a bit underwhelmed by Beyond Earth. I think the factions weren't insane enough for a start - who didn't love playing as Chairman of the Human Hive, or Academician of the University of Planet?
I did play some early Command and Conquer recently - much harder than I remembered.
Older games often had to rely on gameplay rather than graphics. Some of them were ridiculously hard though: I finally finished Baldur’s Gate I and II during the lock down, but only by massively exploring the multiplayer mode to copy items (aka cheating).
I got as far as the penultimate stages of Baldur's Gate II before I could get no further and resorted to cheats. No shame when you're in it for the story anyway.
I’m at the Final battle of Throne of Bhaal. Level 9 spells everywhere and my fighters might as well not bother with armour.
It’s going to be cheat codes or I will never get through it.
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
Sounds good and in addition as the left are always telling us how they would love to pay more taxes perhaps a 100% tax on memberships of left wing parties that will keep them happy
Foreign ownership of housing is not good for anyone. I'd make it straight illegal but I don't think that's possible, the point if it would be to disincentive it.
As somebody who is pro working class and pro the UK, surely you would like housing to go the people that live here? I would.
Hang on, I thought you didn’t like Brexit? Indeed couldn’t think of a single reason for it? Making foreign ownership of UK housing illegal would itself be illegal if we had remained in the EU.
One of the reasons I voted remain in fact: stopping anyone doing something that illiberal.
I’ve just read your second paragraph: Stopping incomers? Really?
I don't think the EU is preventing us putting a tax on foreign owned housing, don't other EU countries already do that?
I meant I would make it illegal, not that is what should actually happen. I'd get rid of the Monarchy too ideally but not in any normal scenario.
Goodwin makes a lot of very good points in that video I linked.
To be honest though, I'm not sure Labour can ever win on culture, I think it's an unwinnable war from their perspective, with any MP they have I can't think of any MP that can out-culture the Tories.
They can likely win on economic issues and this is why I suspect, Blair has given the strong advice to avoid the culture war altogether.
Goodwin also makes the point on Brexit and how that was a disaster for Labour in terms of backing Remain but in truth I think Labour was doomed whatever position it took, with Corbyn still the leader. In 2017 he points out their fudge worked but in 2019 it clearly did not. I don't think Labour would have done any better if it had tacked to full on Leave and stuck with it, or full on Remain. I think the election was doomed from when Johnson became the leader.
The biggest issues for Labour were: Corbyn remaining the leader and all the problems that has caused and the election being allowed to be called. To be fair to Labour, I believe it was the SNP that eventually allowed it through.
I've said many times that I'm trying my best to educate myself on this topic as clearly in a historic sense I've failed badly to judge the public mood and in response to that what Labour should do. So it's important for me - and I think others of my naturally liberal persuasion - to really learn the difficult lessons.
Corbyn was the reason Boris could get the Tories off the fence on Brexit and Labour couldn’t. Boris could afford to piss off remainer Tories, because they wouldn’t vote Corbyn. The reverse was not true.
Corbyn is a father of Brexit.
Don't disagree with that and in my view had Corbyn resigned and anyone else taken over, the 2019 GE would not have happened
Corbyn was the midwife, Blair was the father of Brexit.
There’s a long list of folk without whom it wouldn’t have happened.
Corbyn, Johnson, Farage, Merkel, Junker, Brown, Blair, Major, Delors, and probably above all Ted Heath, who took us in without bothering to ask directly if that’s what people wanted, and therefore built the whole construct on sand.
It never “sat well” did it? The niggling feeling of discomfort was never banished, because we were crowbarred in in the first place.
just part of the many ways that Russia felt humiliated in the nineties. A bit more thought then and a much better relationship with Russia was possible.
The 1990-2003 period was the period of great American over-reach.
The problem was the first thing the post-Communist states wanted was some guarantee Russia wouldn't or couldn't "come back". Memories were long and the Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe and the actions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the near invasion of Poland created understandable concern.
At the time and for differing reasons, conservatives, socialists and liberals all supported EU enlargement and with that came NATO membership.
Could we have held the post-Communist states outside the EU for say 25 years while their economies re-balanced and got closer to the West? Unlikely. Could we have created a neutral "buffer zone" between NATO and Russia? Again, seems implausible and unstable.
We see NATO as a defensive alliance - that's not how it is seen everywhere.
There was, particularly post-Desert Storm, a sense of a Pax Americana emerging and perhaps a unipolar world which was the West. That didn't happen (perhaps inevitably).
EU enlargement without NATO enlargement was certainly possible, but as you say, there was a European assumption of Pax Americana. The Pax Americana of the time was also expressed through the World Bank's approach to Russian economic restructuring, which was catastrophic.
For example, only residents can buy real estate in Iceland and Liechtenstein. In Andorra, Hungary, Denmark, Poland and Malta, foreign investors can only buy property after receiving approval from the local authorities.
So it seems like there is scope to limit it based on what some EU member states do.
But what does a credible alternative look like? It starts with some kind of economic policy that is more left wing than Labour has been before 2017 but less left wing than 2019. So 2017-lite.
What about culture? Can't win, don't fight.
Law and order? Likely can win on that, Starmer is quite good on defence, crime it seems so far.
Patriotism. He's a Sir and seems pretty pro-Britain.
I think in a lot of ways Labour will do a lot less badly because Starmer isn't Corbyn but that alone - as you say - isn't going to be enough to win. I can't see that becoming pro-austerity is going to win either.
It's genuinely a tough situation to try and decipher - and I suspect Labour doesn't quite know what to do yet, hence the quiet on policies.
I wouldn't worry yet. The election is the thick end of four years away and there's an ocean of water to go under the bridge.
For now, Starmer has to be about broad themes and "the vision thing" - the detail can come later. Johnson and his band have the power (whether they have control is debatable some of the time) and can get things done or make the mistakes.
As an example, what would Labour say to the new army of home-based workers? There's a huge area of thinking about how we work, how we live, the potential revitalisation of dormitory towns and suburbs, new local business opportunities and the like.
Indeed, I'd start from a "local" perspective - what do these new home worker communities need and want from Government or the local Council?
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
How have we paid the trade deficit for 20 plus years do you think?????
Personally, given the alternatives, selling off cubes of the London skyline doesn’t seem the worst option. Of course eliminating the trade deficit would be a better solution in the long run.
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
What a vile post.
Oh dear does repeating what the left and right have both said as an excuse for raising pension ages upset you mr battery? hands you a kleenex
What you said is that people that people should eat McDonalds as it will mean they live less long and that's a good thing. You're wishing an early death on people.
Vile.
P.S. Thought you weren't responding anymore?
I never said people should eat mcDonalds I said I avoided it. Show me where I encouraged people to eat mcDonalds? I merely implied if people want to eat it let them
Its funny how at the lowest fast food chain you can eat them as in Eat McDonalds or I am going to eat KFC but go just one rung higher and you cannot eat them as in I am going to eat Aberdeen Steak House or going to eat Frankie and Bennys just doesn't make sense.
Isn’t it “eat a MaccyD” or “eat a KFC”
It’s a recognition that they are a synthetic, homogenised product that masquerades as food (in the way Jacob’s Creek pretends to be wine). At least with Aberdeen Steak House or Garfunkel’s you’re getting real food
There's nothing wrong with McDonalds or KFC. Its homogenised yes but its real food, with good food hygiene, served in a clean environment, consistent and you know what you are getting.
People act all snooty and pretentious about being too good for McDonalds etc - I'm not. Nando's is obviously infinitely better but that's a different story.
Good start, although it doesn't seem to be doing enough. More can be done to resolve this problem.
I take the points about trade deficit but if the Government isn't going to start getting a lot more houses built we're going to have an endless short supply.
It's a real scandal that young people cannot afford to buy a house.
Of course the reasons for needing to buy a house in a certain place are important, trying to get people away from London is a good starting point. Perhaps corona might help with that.
CNN: The number of people who have had Covid-19 was much greater than the official case count, according to data and a new analysis released by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But the country is far from a level that would give the population herd immunity.
Depending on the region, the number of people infected was sometimes six to 24 times the number of reported cases, the CDC team said.
Bugger. The one significant improvement of lockdown reversed.
You could just do what I do and don't eat at them
Well, on a personal level that’s acceptable. Indeed, I haven’t set foot in one in 18 years.
But whatever food substitutes they supply are to put it mildly less than optimal for the nation’s health.
Are we not always being told people are living too long? Studies have shown those that live healthily cost more in terms of health care
What a vile post.
Oh dear does repeating what the left and right have both said as an excuse for raising pension ages upset you mr battery? hands you a kleenex
What you said is that people that people should eat McDonalds as it will mean they live less long and that's a good thing. You're wishing an early death on people.
Vile.
P.S. Thought you weren't responding anymore?
I never said people should eat mcDonalds I said I avoided it. Show me where I encouraged people to eat mcDonalds? I merely implied if people want to eat it let them
Its funny how at the lowest fast food chain you can eat them as in Eat McDonalds or I am going to eat KFC but go just one rung higher and you cannot eat them as in I am going to eat Aberdeen Steak House or going to eat Frankie and Bennys just doesn't make sense.
Isn’t it “eat a MaccyD” or “eat a KFC”
It’s a recognition that they are a synthetic, homogenised product that masquerades as food (in the way Jacob’s Creek pretends to be wine). At least with Aberdeen Steak House or Garfunkel’s you’re getting real food
Well, I have long had a soft spot for a McDonald's. The coffee is better than the coffee chains and less than half the price. I am particularly fond of a sausage egg McMuffin for a breakfast treat occasionally.
Last time I had KFC it was horribly greasy, so put me right off, and in any case I am not so keen in ch8cken in any form.
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
Sounds good and in addition as the left are always telling us how they would love to pay more taxes perhaps a 100% tax on memberships of left wing parties that will keep them happy
Foreign ownership of housing is not good for anyone. I'd make it straight illegal but I don't think that's possible, the point if it would be to disincentive it.
As somebody who is pro working class and pro the UK, surely you would like housing to go the people that live here? I would.
Hang on, I thought you didn’t like Brexit? Indeed couldn’t think of a single reason for it? Making foreign ownership of UK housing illegal would itself be illegal if we had remained in the EU.
One of the reasons I voted remain in fact: stopping anyone doing something that illiberal.
I’ve just read your second paragraph: Stopping incomers? Really?
I don't think the EU is preventing us putting a tax on foreign owned housing, don't other EU countries already do that?
I meant I would make it illegal, not that is what should actually happen. I'd get rid of the Monarchy too ideally but not in any normal scenario.
You would make it illegal for foreigners to own housing??
Ok so colossal run on the Pound as all that is disinvested, retaliation on all that land in Gascony or Andalusia we own, or buildings our pension schemes own around the world. For starters.
And as you wish to be in the EU they wouldn’t let you do it?
So as we've left, looks like we can do EEA and still limit housing sales.
Fantastic, a reason to leave. Don't think it outweighs the other reasons to stay but if anyone voted specifically to stop foreign ownership of housing, well seems reasonable to me
I'd put a massive tax on foreign ownership of housing
How lovely for the immigrants from Eastern Europe who have worked their socks off to buy a place here - sounds like a policy UKIP would think a step too far
Simple answer is people like you happened to the labour party and took it from a once great institution to something that has less respect than the monster raving loony party.
It's an interesting video and worth watching. Goodwin is a good source on this and I hope Labour is taking note of what he says.
Don't know why you're so angry, did you forget to take your pills this evening?
Oh my you think that was angry? That was me shaking my head in pity. Pity for a country denied an opposition by those that supported Corbyn, pity for those of honest intent of left wing thought that you and people like you made homeless, pity for all the people labour is meant to represent that were deserted because people like you were more interested in having a pro palestine, pro hamas, anti israel, anti west party than actually arguing to make their lives better.
Don't know if you've been around long but whilst I said I supported Corbyn and I did, I accept he failed and the Corbynite lot have made a big mess of the Labour Party. One of the reasons I voted for Starmer was to get that lot out.
You're right on most of those points, Labour is obsessed with issues that don't matter. I'm very supportive of a 2017-lite approach with a focus on law and order and other issues that do matter to voters. That includes putting Brexit to bed for good.
I have said many times I am happy to concede we got it wrong and in my view a Labour Party that can't win isn't good for anyone. So whilst I might be naturally quite liberal I accept that's not where most of the public are and we need to work with that.
You seem to have taken a big disliking to me, nice to have a fan
You are being sledged and bullied tonight by a few posters. None of my business I know, but if it were me I would take a break and come back when it is calmer.
Comments
There are a thousand worse things we’ll have wasted money on.
I think we’ve done a decent job in helping fund overseas vaccination programs, too. Not everything this government has done is hopeless.
I did play some early Command and Conquer recently - much harder than I remembered.
Don't know why you're so angry, did you forget to take your pills this evening?
You're right on most of those points, Labour is obsessed with issues that don't matter. I'm very supportive of a 2017-lite approach with a focus on law and order and other issues that do matter to voters. That includes putting Brexit to bed for good.
I have said many times I am happy to concede we got it wrong and in my view a Labour Party that can't win isn't good for anyone. So whilst I might be naturally quite liberal I accept that's not where most of the public are and we need to work with that.
You seem to have taken a big disliking to me, nice to have a fan
To be honest though, I'm not sure Labour can ever win on culture, I think it's an unwinnable war from their perspective, with any MP they have I can't think of any MP that can out-culture the Tories.
They can likely win on economic issues and this is why I suspect, Blair has given the strong advice to avoid the culture war altogether.
Goodwin also makes the point on Brexit and how that was a disaster for Labour in terms of backing Remain but in truth I think Labour was doomed whatever position it took, with Corbyn still the leader. In 2017 he points out their fudge worked but in 2019 it clearly did not. I don't think Labour would have done any better if it had tacked to full on Leave and stuck with it, or full on Remain. I think the election was doomed from when Johnson became the leader.
The biggest issues for Labour were: Corbyn remaining the leader and all the problems that has caused and the election being allowed to be called. To be fair to Labour, I believe it was the SNP that eventually allowed it through.
I've said many times that I'm trying my best to educate myself on this topic as clearly in a historic sense I've failed badly to judge the public mood and in response to that what Labour should do. So it's important for me - and I think others of my naturally liberal persuasion - to really learn the difficult lessons.
I’d imagine in 95% of cases we will be identical. There will be cases where regulation should be different
The Yugoslav civil war was the immediate military consequence of an otherwise largely peaceful removal of Communism from Eastern Europe. It was more reminiscent of 1918-19 in terms of the break up of a state into its component parts but also resonated back to earlier conflicts between Serbs, Croats ans Bosnians.
I'm left with the question of whether the relationship with Russia is a) that important or b) something about which we ought to be concerned in a new bi-polar world between Washington and Beijing.
Does it need to be adversarial in the way it was? We're seeing a more assertive China (recent skirmishes with India) and that will inevitably bring issues along the Sino-Russian border or in Kazakhstan. I actually think one day British forces and European forces will be with Russian forces will patrolling that long frontier against the Chinese build up.
He clearly sees his route to victory as being through seats like Kensington, not seats like Blythe Valley. And that seems to tune in with what Goodwin's analysis says, although I think I've understood from posts before that there are not enough of these Kensington-style seats alone to form even a Labour minority Government.
Though, with help from the Lib Dems that challenge is reduced. And I wonder if that is where Starmer will take Labour next.
Corbyn is a father of Brexit.
The latter will have a record to defend but Starmer can't rely on bad Government - his Party's offering has to be in accord with where the voters are and where they see the country through the second half of the 2020s.
That may mean trying to convince a sceptical electorate his Labour Party is a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. Britain has voted for centre-left Government on a number of occasions so it's a credible platform but it starts for me with asking some hard questions what late 2020s Britain looks like.
Philip_Thompson said:
'Can you name one government ever in our postwar history before Browns that took a surplus, turned it into a consistent budget deficit at 2-3% of GDP during a sustained period of growth prior to a recession? Even one ever that had made such what I consider a catastrophic mistake but you consider mainstream? '
Between 1953 and 1967 the Budget deficit averaged 2.5% of GDP despite the absence of a severe recession during that period. It hit 4% in 1967 before a significant tightening of the Fiscal Stance by Chancellor Roy Jenkins produced significant Budget Surpluses in the years 1968/69 and 1969 /70. Under the Heath Government, the deficit returned to 4% in 1973/74 as a result of the expansionary policies followed by Chancellor Anthony Barber.
Indeed.
I think we’re measuring by the year, now.
As somebody who is pro working class and pro the UK, surely you would like housing to go the people that live here? I would.
If there was - let's hope he/she turns out to be right.
What about culture? Can't win, don't fight.
Law and order? Likely can win on that, Starmer is quite good on defence, crime it seems so far.
Patriotism. He's a Sir and seems pretty pro-Britain.
I think in a lot of ways Labour will do a lot less badly because Starmer isn't Corbyn but that alone - as you say - isn't going to be enough to win. I can't see that becoming pro-austerity is going to win either.
It's genuinely a tough situation to try and decipher - and I suspect Labour doesn't quite know what to do yet, hence the quiet on policies.
That’s you cancelled, then.
(The game!)
Brexit may have killed off Corbyn as a leader, but it was a suicide by the godfather of Brexit.
One of the reasons I voted remain in fact: stopping anyone doing something that illiberal.
I’ve just read your second paragraph: Stopping incomers? Really?
Sir James Goldsmith and Alan Sked were the co-habiting fathers of Brexit.
It’s a recognition that they are a synthetic, homogenised product that masquerades as food (in the way Jacob’s Creek pretends to be wine). At least with Aberdeen Steak House or Garfunkel’s you’re getting real food
I meant I would make it illegal, not that is what should actually happen. I'd get rid of the Monarchy too ideally but not in any normal scenario.
At the time and for differing reasons, conservatives, socialists and liberals all supported EU enlargement and with that came NATO membership.
Could we have held the post-Communist states outside the EU for say 25 years while their economies re-balanced and got closer to the West? Unlikely. Could we have created a neutral "buffer zone" between NATO and Russia? Again, seems implausible and unstable.
We see NATO as a defensive alliance - that's not how it is seen everywhere.
There was, particularly post-Desert Storm, a sense of a Pax Americana emerging and perhaps a unipolar world which was the West. That didn't happen (perhaps inevitably).
It’s going to be cheat codes or I will never get through it.
what taxes do you think the UK puts on foreign owned property already?
Corbyn, Johnson, Farage, Merkel, Junker, Brown, Blair, Major, Delors, and probably above all Ted Heath, who took us in without bothering to ask directly if that’s what people wanted, and therefore built the whole construct on sand.
It never “sat well” did it? The niggling feeling of discomfort was never banished, because we were crowbarred in in the first place.
For example, only residents can buy real estate in Iceland and Liechtenstein. In Andorra, Hungary, Denmark, Poland and Malta, foreign investors can only buy property after receiving approval from the local authorities.
So it seems like there is scope to limit it based on what some EU member states do.
For now, Starmer has to be about broad themes and "the vision thing" - the detail can come later. Johnson and his band have the power (whether they have control is debatable some of the time) and can get things done or make the mistakes.
As an example, what would Labour say to the new army of home-based workers? There's a huge area of thinking about how we work, how we live, the potential revitalisation of dormitory towns and suburbs, new local business opportunities and the like.
Indeed, I'd start from a "local" perspective - what do these new home worker communities need and want from Government or the local Council?
People act all snooty and pretentious about being too good for McDonalds etc - I'm not. Nando's is obviously infinitely better but that's a different story.
I take the points about trade deficit but if the Government isn't going to start getting a lot more houses built we're going to have an endless short supply.
It's a real scandal that young people cannot afford to buy a house.
Of course the reasons for needing to buy a house in a certain place are important, trying to get people away from London is a good starting point. Perhaps corona might help with that.
Depending on the region, the number of people infected was sometimes six to 24 times the number of reported cases, the CDC team said.
I always preferred fighting the other Europeans and trading with the natives. Never played Spaniards as a result.
Last time I had KFC it was horribly greasy, so put me right off, and in any case I am not so keen in ch8cken in any form.
Ok so colossal run on the Pound as all that is disinvested, retaliation on all that land in Gascony or Andalusia we own, or buildings our pension schemes own around the world. For starters.
And as you wish to be in the EU they wouldn’t let you do it?
Do you realise how barking this is???
Fantastic, a reason to leave. Don't think it outweighs the other reasons to stay but if anyone voted specifically to stop foreign ownership of housing, well seems reasonable to me