Frost has pushed our (Definitely not a pair of aces) hand to the absolute limit with regards to an EU deal. If it pays off, then I'll have to say well done. If we fail to reach a deal then it'll be all for naught.
Fingers crossed.
Bad take, Pulp. The Deal is certain and it will be pretty much as could have been agreed ages ago. The "pay off" for the "to the wire" theatrics and the No Deal hyping will not be the Deal itself, it will be that many people's response will be what you indicate yours will be. A great big "phew" and "well done Boris". That is the game here.
Several things can be true at once.
1. There will be a deal, because the Johnson and Gove haven't really prepared for No Deal. 2. The big picture of that deal will be one outlined by Barnier back in... 2017? No tarrifs/no quotas/lots of paperwork/some fish/more alignment than Canada. 3. Frostie has probably done as well as can be done. Some of the wins are the striking out of the obviously outrageous things in the initial EU plan. (Everyone who does serious negotiation starts out absurd, don't they? It's part of the game, which is why I try to avoid it.) But there does seem to have been a genuine move, even if the UK has moved more. That's OK. 4. Looking at the gains (real control of immigration, the ability to do trade deals with remote nations, sense of national vim, however much it actually is a week) and losses (border faff hurting trade, a loss of input into EU deliberations), the gains look small but visible, the losses look less visible but potentially larger. That came from BoJo's choice; we can only see what happens. 5. It's quite possible that the cost of all this faffing around over the last six months (because everyone knows that the first few months of our Brave New Future will be a mess, because nobody has been able to plan) will exceed the value of the gains by comparing what we settle for now with what we could have settled for in the summer. 6. The gap between the actual deal done and what some in the media and ERG have been expecting will be interesting to watch over the years to come.
1. I don't think No Deal could have been prepared for. It's a mirage. 2. Yep. We get end of FOM and more Fish. They protect their SM. That's the deal. 3. No complaints from me about Frost. He's done the job he was asked to do. 4. Agreed. The gains look less tangible than the costs. 5. Any marginal gains from going to the wire will not justify the fear and chaos caused. 6, Yes. I'm looking forward to how Johnson sells the deal to Redwood & Co.
In the short term, it's pretty clear that the selling approach will be the same one used by Dodgy Timeshare Salesman. Trap them in a room and give them no time to read or think. So the Deal can't be finalised until December 29, and then voted on December 30 and 31. (I seriously wonder if that's what's holding things up now.)
It's a terrible idea by most standards, but it's probably Johnson's best bet. And if Redwood and co don't like it, what are they going to do?
Hopefully here's where Johnson gets the value of his landslide majority. Quite right too. What's the point of it otherwise.
And, yes, a good point you make about the timing. A deal announced months ago would have allowed for a lot of critical scrutiny. Johnson would not have welcomed this. It's not how he rolls.
Trump does not welcome having to hand over the president, it's not how he rolls. Both are terrible models for being leader.
They certainly are. We have been deblessed to have the both simultaneously for 18 months. One down, one to go.
Uzbekistan bans entry of British nationals travelling from UK
Damn and here was me thinking I might take a last minute trip there...
Not sure about those making their decisions...
The government's special commission on anti-coronavirus efforts said on December 22 that citizens of Australia, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, South Africa, and the United Kingdom will not be able to enter Central Asia's most populous nation of 32 million until January 10
Australians banned...the place with basically no covid.
First Saudi Arabia, then Sudan, now Uzbekistan...leaving so many Brits’ holiday plans in ruins.
If I was in charge of the Labour Party (either in Wales or Scotland or England), I would simply ban all males from entering future leadership contests.
OK, there have been female leaders of the Scottish Labour Party, but it is just plain embarrassing for the English and Wales parties never to have had a female leader. It looks like what it is -- systematic gender bias. It just make Labour look like a bunch of hypocrites, lecturing everyone else while their own party is a bastion of grey males.
I would encourage bumbling Mark Drakeford to take up a very dangerous sport like sky-diving without a parachute before the 2021 Senedd elections, and only permit female AMs to enter the resulting leadership election -- victory for Eluned Morgan ?
I would then let the incompetent Richard Leonard fall down an open pit mind, and allow only females to enter the resulting leadership election -- victory for Jenny Marra ?
I would let grey old SKS do the hard graft for a few more years, and then force him to fall on his sword in 2023 -- Lisa Nandy wins the resulting all-female leadership election.
Now that looks like a Jacinda party --- Nandy, Marra & Morgan. That looks a combo that could win really big.
Remember Jacinda Ardern only got a crack at the leadership because the existing NZ Labour leader Andrew Little voluntarily fell on his sword
Ardern did not win the 2017 election, Labour only came second to English's Nationals, she only got in with other parties support as current polls show Starmer would.
Nandy would be overpromoted leading Wigan council
As a slavish follower of the current incompetents in power, your comment may be taken for what it is worth.
If we'd voted to remain, so no negotiations going on, but the exact same Covid events had happened, would the border to France be open? Or has this border closure got absolutely nothing to do with Brexit?
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
For our GE24, probably yes, but longer term I'm optimistic for the Left.
The top 5 global priorities -
Climate change. The emancipation of women. Racial equality. Sustainable growth. Fairer distribution of wealth.
These are all better tackled from a Left perspective imo. Indeed some of them can only be tackled from there.
Sure, they are priorities, and the left have some of the answers, as does the right. But if the left dont learn to count, the only solutions that will be tried here will be those of the right. UK politics is not an even battle of ideas, it is uphill and difficult for the left to win, especially to win and hold on to significant power. It is no surprise only Blair has done this for them.
I sort of agree with you but my sense is that Labour can win from the Left given the right leader and messaging and policies. The platform and the person have to be contemporary not a 70s rehash.
I don't think they can. Mind you I am not sure Labour can win at all. Johnson can preside over absolute and total chaos, yet he still retains the support of 40% of the voting public.
A part of me feels that too. But I am not ready to succumb. If it is the case, Lab and LD and Green need to merge into a UK Dems. A straight binary and polarized "values" election (vs the Cons + Farage vehicle = Reps) would imo be winnable.
Incidentally both Nandy and Rayner are a steal for next PM on current BFX odds at over 300/1. If Starmer does go, it would be one of other of these 2 IMO. Rayner is the more gutsy and won the Deputy Leadership without breaking a sweat.
I personally wouldn't bet in a market where they can be beaten by Tories.
I like the odds on Nandy there. Might have a flutter.
Frost has pushed our (Definitely not a pair of aces) hand to the absolute limit with regards to an EU deal. If it pays off, then I'll have to say well done. If we fail to reach a deal then it'll be all for naught.
Fingers crossed.
Bad take, Pulp. The Deal is certain and it will be pretty much as could have been agreed ages ago. The "pay off" for the "to the wire" theatrics and the No Deal hyping will not be the Deal itself, it will be that many people's response will be what you indicate yours will be. A great big "phew" and "well done Boris". That is the game here.
Several things can be true at once.
1. There will be a deal, because the Johnson and Gove haven't really prepared for No Deal. 2. The big picture of that deal will be one outlined by Barnier back in... 2017? No tarrifs/no quotas/lots of paperwork/some fish/more alignment than Canada. 3. Frostie has probably done as well as can be done. Some of the wins are the striking out of the obviously outrageous things in the initial EU plan. (Everyone who does serious negotiation starts out absurd, don't they? It's part of the game, which is why I try to avoid it.) But there does seem to have been a genuine move, even if the UK has moved more. That's OK. 4. Looking at the gains (real control of immigration, the ability to do trade deals with remote nations, sense of national vim, however much it actually is a week) and losses (border faff hurting trade, a loss of input into EU deliberations), the gains look small but visible, the losses look less visible but potentially larger. That came from BoJo's choice; we can only see what happens. 5. It's quite possible that the cost of all this faffing around over the last six months (because everyone knows that the first few months of our Brave New Future will be a mess, because nobody has been able to plan) will exceed the value of the gains by comparing what we settle for now with what we could have settled for in the summer. 6. The gap between the actual deal done and what some in the media and ERG have been expecting will be interesting to watch over the years to come.
1. I don't think No Deal could have been prepared for. It's a mirage. 2. Yep. We get end of FOM and more Fish. They protect their SM. That's the deal. 3. No complaints from me about Frost. He's done the job he was asked to do. 4. Agreed. The gains look less tangible than the costs. 5. Any marginal gains from going to the wire will not justify the fear and chaos caused. 6, Yes. I'm looking forward to how Johnson sells the deal to Redwood & Co.
In the short term, it's pretty clear that the selling approach will be the same one used by Dodgy Timeshare Salesman. Trap them in a room and give them no time to read or think. So the Deal can't be finalised until December 29, and then voted on December 30 and 31. (I seriously wonder if that's what's holding things up now.)
It's a terrible idea by most standards, but it's probably Johnson's best bet. And if Redwood and co don't like it, what are they going to do?
Hopefully here's where Johnson gets the value of his landslide majority. Quite right too. What's the point of it otherwise.
And, yes, a good point you make about the timing. A deal announced months ago would have allowed for a lot of critical scrutiny. Johnson would not have welcomed this. It's not how he rolls.
Trump does not welcome having to hand over the president, it's not how he rolls. Both are terrible models for being leader.
They certainly are. We have been deblessed to have the both simultaneously for 18 months. One down, one to go.
Must be tough for the media that hates Trump though.
Fact is, Newzzzzz like 'Joe stumbles over politically correct gesture speech' and 'Kamala scolds white people again' don;t bring in the ratings.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
Blair was what we'd today call a liberal-left Remainer.
The reason he won, then, was because there wasn't a values split between the English WWC in 1997 (he even challenged them better than anyone else over Princess Diana's death) and everyone wanted public services investment, but it soured in the early noughties as he pursued asymmetric devolution and let rip with immigration. Labour have struggled ever since.
The current Labour leadership seem to think another 1997 will just happen automatically if the Tories are in power long enough.
It won't. The only question is how long it takes them to understand and engage with this.
And it might be never.
At the moment Labour don't need another 1997, Starmer will get into No 10 thanks to support from SNP MPs even if the Tories win most seats.
If however Scotland went then Labour would have no choice but to shift back to Blairism and New Labour and go even further than Starmer's Brownite social democracy to have a chance of winning. In 2010 and 2017 for example the Tories won a comfortable majority of seats in England alone despite the hung parliaments in the UK overall
Starmer needs at least 290 seats, IMHO, to do that - an effective majority in E&W - so he needs about 90 gains on the new boundaries.
At present, I'd say he's on course to get about 20-40 gains. Those extra 50 are really really hard for Labour.
And, yes, I know what the current opinion polls say - but we're not at GE time yet, so you need to project forward with the values, leadership ratings, broader trends and anticipate the lie of the land & electorate.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
For our GE24, probably yes, but longer term I'm optimistic for the Left.
The top 5 global priorities -
Climate change. The emancipation of women. Racial equality. Sustainable growth. Fairer distribution of wealth.
These are all better tackled from a Left perspective imo. Indeed some of them can only be tackled from there.
Sure, they are priorities, and the left have some of the answers, as does the right. But if the left dont learn to count, the only solutions that will be tried here will be those of the right. UK politics is not an even battle of ideas, it is uphill and difficult for the left to win, especially to win and hold on to significant power. It is no surprise only Blair has done this for them.
I sort of agree with you but my sense is that Labour can win from the Left given the right leader and messaging and policies. The platform and the person have to be contemporary not a 70s rehash.
SKS is just too boring to win, and that comes from someone who likes boring politicians and used to be in the party. He can make the party electable, but not elected.
I am with @Dura_Ace. Rayner is the one who could win. She has the necessary passion, and can appeal to both the Red Wall and the Corbynites.
I like her but does she have the intellectual clout, do you think?
I'm not getting distracted by the "WC" sound of her - that's great - but I mean the substance. Like, Corbyn imo was lacking in this area. Is Rayner a lot brighter than him?
Yes, it is a frequent error to mistake a lack of formal education for lack of intelligence. I think intelligence is probably overestimated in its importance, relative to values and instincts. Rayner is strong on these. I like her, and her drive for self improvement, without forgetting where she came from shows great strength of character.
It also works the other way as well - people who are well educated often believe and give the impression of intelligence when all they are sometimes, are idiots who know some facts.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
For our GE24, probably yes, but longer term I'm optimistic for the Left.
The top 5 global priorities -
Climate change. The emancipation of women. Racial equality. Sustainable growth. Fairer distribution of wealth.
These are all better tackled from a Left perspective imo. Indeed some of them can only be tackled from there.
Sure, they are priorities, and the left have some of the answers, as does the right. But if the left dont learn to count, the only solutions that will be tried here will be those of the right. UK politics is not an even battle of ideas, it is uphill and difficult for the left to win, especially to win and hold on to significant power. It is no surprise only Blair has done this for them.
I sort of agree with you but my sense is that Labour can win from the Left given the right leader and messaging and policies. The platform and the person have to be contemporary not a 70s rehash.
SKS is just too boring to win, and that comes from someone who likes boring politicians and used to be in the party. He can make the party electable, but not elected.
I am with @Dura_Ace. Rayner is the one who could win. She has the necessary passion, and can appeal to both the Red Wall and the Corbynites.
I like her but does she have the intellectual clout, do you think?
I'm not getting distracted by the "WC" sound of her - that's great - but I mean the substance. Like, Corbyn imo was lacking in this area. Is Rayner a lot brighter than him?
No, they are both mince. Rayner as potential PM?? I`m sure the Tories would be delighted. Starmer is a nightmare for the Tories - I don`t know why some are dissing him.
These days labour and the tories are starting look like analogue parties in a digital age.
I don't see labour ever winning the working class back, and they will be under pressure in the cities and uni towns from BLM and Green going forward. Scotland? forget about it.
Meanwhile The tories have a similar problem with BXPReform/Reclaim in their constituencies. And low turnout when the bill for corona comes in and their core gets hit for six(ty billion).
BXPReform/Reclaim are a 1-2% party, who will have a series of utterly forgettable leaders and a disporportinate number of its leading lights with chronic PR issues....
They might lose the Tories a handful of seats without troubling Westminster themselves. If they make it as far as the next election.
Interesting - I know Vernon and Gilly well. Vernon is a serious loyalist - probably centrist if you pressed him but really mainly loyal - and a really hard workers. Gilly is a loyalist too, more fun than most (ex-(MPs, and I think universally liked.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
For our GE24, probably yes, but longer term I'm optimistic for the Left.
The top 5 global priorities -
Climate change. The emancipation of women. Racial equality. Sustainable growth. Fairer distribution of wealth.
These are all better tackled from a Left perspective imo. Indeed some of them can only be tackled from there.
Sure, they are priorities, and the left have some of the answers, as does the right. But if the left dont learn to count, the only solutions that will be tried here will be those of the right. UK politics is not an even battle of ideas, it is uphill and difficult for the left to win, especially to win and hold on to significant power. It is no surprise only Blair has done this for them.
I sort of agree with you but my sense is that Labour can win from the Left given the right leader and messaging and policies. The platform and the person have to be contemporary not a 70s rehash.
Can as in backable at 10/1? Sure, Corbyn showed that. A soft centre left alternative could be backable 6/4.
So you might get 5 years in 50 Corbynite rule, and allow the hard right to take over the Tory party for much of the other 45 years.
Or we could have 20 years of soft centre left, with most of the other 30 a Tory party fighting on the centre ground as Cameron did.
I know what I would prefer.
"Corbynism". If this means the policy platform of Labour under him I'm happy to consign it to history. But Labour have to be about making our society significantly more egalitarian. If this is what you are calling "soft left", we're on the same page.
Something many published commentaries on vaccination progress seem to be missing, is that after three to four weeks we will be entirely dependent upon ramped up capacity for any further progress, for the following three to four weeks. Because existing capacity will be entirely tied up with the second doses for those already vaccinated. Which will probably be more time consuming given that some of those will have gone walkabout in the meantime.
Without growing capacity, progress - in terms of people vaccinated - will grind to a halt for most of January.
Just catching up on the economic stats from this morning. From what it looks like the economy is now 6.7% smaller than it was in February but with November and December highly likely to be negative we'll end the year around 8-9% down vs Feb.
Lots of households and businesses sitting on walls of cash too waiting to be spent.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
Blair was what we'd today call a liberal-left Remainer.
The reason he won, then, was because there wasn't a values split between the English WWC in 1997 (he even challenged them better than anyone else over Princess Diana's death) and everyone wanted public services investment, but it soured in the early noughties as he pursued asymmetric devolution and let rip with immigration. Labour have struggled ever since.
The current Labour leadership seem to think another 1997 will just happen automatically if the Tories are in power long enough.
It won't. The only question is how long it takes them to understand and engage with this.
And it might be never.
At the moment Labour don't need another 1997, Starmer will get into No 10 thanks to support from SNP MPs even if the Tories win most seats.
If however Scotland went then Labour would have no choice but to shift back to Blairism and New Labour and go even further than Starmer's Brownite social democracy to have a chance of winning. In 2010 and 2017 for example the Tories won a comfortable majority of seats in England alone despite the hung parliaments in the UK overall
Starmer needs at least 290 seats, IMHO, to do that - an effective majority in E&W - so he needs about 90 gains on the new boundaries.
At present, I'd say he's on course to get about 20-40 gains. Those extra 50 are really really hard for Labour.
And, yes, I know what the current opinion polls say - but we're not at GE time yet, so you need to project forward with the values, leadership ratings, broader trends and anticipate the lie of the land & electorate.
Starmer does not even need 290 seats.
250 Labour seats would do with the Tories down to 310-315 or so after 50 odd Labour gains and once you add onto that 250 Labour MPs 50 odd SNP MPs, the current 11 LD MPs, 1 Green, 4 Plaid and 2 SDLP and 1 Alliance MP you get to 319 MPs combined which would probably be enough, especially as the DUP are unlikely to support the Tories again.
If SF took their seats and you added on the 7 SF MPs you get to 326 and an overall majority combined
I am utterly shocked we're not already locking down, what is Johnson waiting for???
Christmas, presumably.
BTW, what happened to queuing in order to maintain social distancing in supermarkets? Sainsbury's was heaving today, with people almost having to squeeze past one another, but no queue to get it.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
Tories call Blair a Tory because it makes them feel more comfortable about having voted for a solidly centre-left politician. It is a load of nonsense of course.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
Tories call Blair a Tory because it makes them feel more comfortable about having voted for a solidly centre-left politician. It is a load of nonsense of course.
It’s suits the right and the fat left mythology to call Blair a Tory. He wasn’t and isn’t a Tory.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
For our GE24, probably yes, but longer term I'm optimistic for the Left.
The top 5 global priorities -
Climate change. The emancipation of women. Racial equality. Sustainable growth. Fairer distribution of wealth.
These are all better tackled from a Left perspective imo. Indeed some of them can only be tackled from there.
Sure, they are priorities, and the left have some of the answers, as does the right. But if the left dont learn to count, the only solutions that will be tried here will be those of the right. UK politics is not an even battle of ideas, it is uphill and difficult for the left to win, especially to win and hold on to significant power. It is no surprise only Blair has done this for them.
I sort of agree with you but my sense is that Labour can win from the Left given the right leader and messaging and policies. The platform and the person have to be contemporary not a 70s rehash.
SKS is just too boring to win, and that comes from someone who likes boring politicians and used to be in the party. He can make the party electable, but not elected.
I am with @Dura_Ace. Rayner is the one who could win. She has the necessary passion, and can appeal to both the Red Wall and the Corbynites.
I like her but does she have the intellectual clout, do you think?
I'm not getting distracted by the "WC" sound of her - that's great - but I mean the substance. Like, Corbyn imo was lacking in this area. Is Rayner a lot brighter than him?
Yes, it is a frequent error to mistake a lack of formal education for lack of intelligence. I think intelligence is probably overestimated in its importance, relative to values and instincts. Rayner is strong on these. I like her, and her drive for self improvement, without forgetting where she came from shows great strength of character.
It's a MASSIVELY frequent error. Individuals who have an authoritative or winning way of speaking platitudes can go a long way in life.
If we'd voted to remain, so no negotiations going on, but the exact same Covid events had happened, would the border to France be open? Or has this border closure got absolutely nothing to do with Brexit?
Absolutely nothing. As I mentioned a couple of times yesterday France has history of closing its borders in times of security or health emergency as do other countries. And quite right to. I see nothing to criticise the French over from the last 24-36 hours.
I have a collection from M and S tomorrow. If I have dodged the virus by then, I am home and hosed until the New Year. Cowbridge was packed at 9.00 this morning, no one is listening to Drakeford.
I am utterly shocked we're not already locking down, what is Johnson waiting for???
Christmas, presumably.
BTW, what happened to queuing in order to maintain social distancing in supermarkets? Sainsbury's was heaving today, with people almost having to squeeze past one another, but no queue to get it.
Waitrose is the only local supermarket that has consistently been controlling entrance numbers. Some were hit quite badly at the beginning of term when everyone seems to have gone back to shopping on Saturday morning.
If I was in charge of the Labour Party (either in Wales or Scotland or England), I would simply ban all males from entering future leadership contests.
OK, there have been female leaders of the Scottish Labour Party, but it is just plain embarrassing for the English and Wales parties never to have had a female leader. It looks like what it is -- systematic gender bias. It just make Labour look like a bunch of hypocrites, lecturing everyone else while their own party is a bastion of grey males.
I would encourage bumbling Mark Drakeford to take up a very dangerous sport like sky-diving without a parachute before the 2021 Senedd elections, and only permit female AMs to enter the resulting leadership election -- victory for Eluned Morgan ?
I would then let the incompetent Richard Leonard fall down an open pit mind, and allow only females to enter the resulting leadership election -- victory for Jenny Marra ?
I would let grey old SKS do the hard graft for a few more years, and then force him to fall on his sword in 2023 -- Lisa Nandy wins the resulting all-female leadership election.
Now that looks like a Jacinda party --- Nandy, Marra & Morgan. That looks a combo that could win really big.
Remember Jacinda Ardern only got a crack at the leadership because the existing NZ Labour leader Andrew Little voluntarily fell on his sword
Ardern did not win the 2017 election, Labour only came second to English's Nationals, she only got in with other parties support as current polls show Starmer would.
She did not get most votes in 2017.
But, of course, she bloody won in 2017 ... because she ended up as PM.
Just like Trump won in 2016 (he ended up as President) or Trudeau won in 2019 (he ended up as PM).
They both lost the popular vote ... but they ended up with their feet under the desk.
Trump won most EC votes in 2016, Trudeau won most seats in 2019, Ardern not only lost the popular vote she did not even win most seats in 2017.
On current polls Labour would lose the popular vote and the Tories would win most seats but Starmer like Ardern could still end up PM as the SNP and LDs would prop him up
But not for English matters, the SNP wouldn't. They don't have your attitude of imposing their policies with gay abandon on a neighbouring nation.
Of course this would lead to deadlock. But at least some people believe in democracy.
HYUFD is the only Tory who seems genuinely concerned (?) that the Tories might lose in 2024, kind of interesting
Too much complacency on here from other PB Tories just because the Tories are still likely to win most seats certainly.
For that does not mean the Tories can stay in power automatically especially as virtually every other party would back Starmer in a hung parliament and the DUP are less likely to back the Tories than they were in 2017.
Just catching up on the economic stats from this morning. From what it looks like the economy is now 6.7% smaller than it was in February but with November and December highly likely to be negative we'll end the year around 8-9% down vs Feb.
Lots of households and businesses sitting on walls of cash too waiting to be spent.
Mine's going in the holiday fund so unlikely to benefit the UK.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
They'd be better off with Burnham or Dan Jarvis, but they've both opted out, due to the binfire of the Corbyn era.
My only hope for SKS is that he is a Neil Kinnock figure i.e. gets rid of the idiots and steers them back to a place of viability in England. They're all over in Scotland, but they haven't faced up to that yet.
In Johnson the nation has the Prime Minister it desires and deserves.
Johnson is going nowhere. Even after the economic fallout from bad deal Bexit and Covid, the Conservatives will retain handsome majorities for another decade.
I thought they would be out by 2024, but one can feel the love for the man on the pages of PB and also in the council estates of Britain. He can do no wrong for 40% of the population. Equally, the continued disdain for post-Corbyn Labour remains palpable.
I disagree - to an extent. The polling seems to indicate that now people have clocked Corbyn has gone Labour has essentially reassembled its 2017 voting coalition. I do not envisage the polls moving much beyond an MoE difference between the parties for the foreseeable future. There may be around 40% of the population that believes the Tories represent their values, but there is a similar number that believes the complete opposite. Unless the Labour leader is a complete turn-off, like the last one but unlike the current one, it will all come down to differential turnouts and similar at the next election, which is almost certainly going to be much, much closer than the last one. Because of the boundary review and the in-built advantage they now have from FPTP, I would expect the Tories to win most seats, but that does not mean they will end up forming the government.
On HYUFD'S extrapolation of seats from equal polling at 37% apiece (last weekend) the Conservatives with the new "fairer" boundaries will be tantalising close on a uniform basis, to a majority.
I am concluding there is no appetite for anyone other than a music hall comedian to be Prime Minister.
The Tories would still be short and even on the best scenario need the DUP again who may well prefer a softer Brexit under Starmer with closer alignment to the EU to reduce any border in the Irish Sea
The DUP will weigh up who will deliver the greatest amount of pork. And as Labour screamed blue murder in 2017 at the terrible wrongness when the Tories bought them for a billion quid, we can be sure they won't be in the market. Can't we?
If I was in charge of the Labour Party (either in Wales or Scotland or England), I would simply ban all males from entering future leadership contests.
OK, there have been female leaders of the Scottish Labour Party, but it is just plain embarrassing for the English and Wales parties never to have had a female leader. It looks like what it is -- systematic gender bias. It just make Labour look like a bunch of hypocrites, lecturing everyone else while their own party is a bastion of grey males.
I would encourage bumbling Mark Drakeford to take up a very dangerous sport like sky-diving without a parachute before the 2021 Senedd elections, and only permit female AMs to enter the resulting leadership election -- victory for Eluned Morgan ?
I would then let the incompetent Richard Leonard fall down an open pit mind, and allow only females to enter the resulting leadership election -- victory for Jenny Marra ?
I would let grey old SKS do the hard graft for a few more years, and then force him to fall on his sword in 2023 -- Lisa Nandy wins the resulting all-female leadership election.
Now that looks like a Jacinda party --- Nandy, Marra & Morgan. That looks a combo that could win really big.
Remember Jacinda Ardern only got a crack at the leadership because the existing NZ Labour leader Andrew Little voluntarily fell on his sword
Ardern did not win the 2017 election, Labour only came second to English's Nationals, she only got in with other parties support as current polls show Starmer would.
She did not get most votes in 2017.
But, of course, she bloody won in 2017 ... because she ended up as PM.
Just like Trump won in 2016 (he ended up as President) or Trudeau won in 2019 (he ended up as PM).
They both lost the popular vote ... but they ended up with their feet under the desk.
Trump won most EC votes in 2016, Trudeau won most seats in 2019, Ardern not only lost the popular vote she did not even win most seats in 2017.
On current polls Labour would lose the popular vote and the Tories would win most seats but Starmer like Ardern could still end up PM as the SNP and LDs would prop him up
But not for English matters, the SNP wouldn't. They don't have your attitude of imposing their policies with gay abandon on a neighbouring nation.
Of course this would lead to deadlock. But at least some people believe in democracy.
Hopefully not, if they did it would be bound to lead to an increase in English nationalism and demands for an English Parliament would grow
I have a collection from M and S tomorrow. If I have dodged the virus by then, I am home and hosed until the New Year. Cowbridge was packed at 9.00 this morning, no one is listening to Drakeford.
Incidentally both Nandy and Rayner are a steal for next PM on current BFX odds at over 300/1. If Starmer does go, it would be one of other of these 2 IMO. Rayner is the more gutsy and won the Deputy Leadership without breaking a sweat.
Middle class Tory Remain voters would fear Rayner as they feared Corbyn and stick with the Tories in a way they do not fear Starmer.
As a Tory Rayner would be a great vote getter for us
I don't think that is the cohort we need to prioritise. Not too many of them in Stoke on Trent or Consett.
You might have thought, post a certain celebrity, that "raised a lot of money for charity" ceased to have the cachet it once did. Not that the comparison extends any further of course.
Sheep must be superspreaders. What other explanation is there?
What are the sharny white fluffy things going 'baah' on the hill out the back here in Scotland, then?!
Trying very hard to remain polite, has there been any research into the differences in patterns of interaction between Welsh and Scottish people, with their respective sheep?
All in jest, of course. The serious point is that case numbers seem to be exploding in Wales without - as far as I have seen - testing suggesting they yet have large amounts of the new strain of virus?
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
For our GE24, probably yes, but longer term I'm optimistic for the Left.
The top 5 global priorities -
Climate change. The emancipation of women. Racial equality. Sustainable growth. Fairer distribution of wealth.
These are all better tackled from a Left perspective imo. Indeed some of them can only be tackled from there.
Sure, they are priorities, and the left have some of the answers, as does the right. But if the left dont learn to count, the only solutions that will be tried here will be those of the right. UK politics is not an even battle of ideas, it is uphill and difficult for the left to win, especially to win and hold on to significant power. It is no surprise only Blair has done this for them.
I sort of agree with you but my sense is that Labour can win from the Left given the right leader and messaging and policies. The platform and the person have to be contemporary not a 70s rehash.
SKS is just too boring to win, and that comes from someone who likes boring politicians and used to be in the party. He can make the party electable, but not elected.
I am with @Dura_Ace. Rayner is the one who could win. She has the necessary passion, and can appeal to both the Red Wall and the Corbynites.
I like her but does she have the intellectual clout, do you think?
I'm not getting distracted by the "WC" sound of her - that's great - but I mean the substance. Like, Corbyn imo was lacking in this area. Is Rayner a lot brighter than him?
No, they are both mince. Rayner as potential PM?? I`m sure the Tories would be delighted. Starmer is a nightmare for the Tories - I don`t know why some are dissing him.
These days labour and the tories are starting look like analogue parties in a digital age.
I don't see labour ever winning the working class back, and they will be under pressure in the cities and uni towns from BLM and Green going forward. Scotland? forget about it.
Meanwhile The tories have a similar problem with BXPReform/Reclaim in their constituencies. And low turnout when the bill for corona comes in and their core gets hit for six(ty billion).
BXPReform/Reclaim are a 1-2% party, who will have a series of utterly forgettable leaders and a disporportinate number of its leading lights with chronic PR issues....
They might lose the Tories a handful of seats without troubling Westminster themselves. If they make it as far as the next election.
Indeed but I think these parties might make inroads lower down the pyramid, BXP/Reform is fielding thousands of candidates in May, I understand.
Just catching up on the economic stats from this morning. From what it looks like the economy is now 6.7% smaller than it was in February but with November and December highly likely to be negative we'll end the year around 8-9% down vs Feb.
Lots of households and businesses sitting on walls of cash too waiting to be spent.
Mine's going in the holiday fund so unlikely to benefit the UK.
HYUFD is the only Tory who seems genuinely concerned (?) that the Tories might lose in 2024, kind of interesting
Too much complacency on here from other PB Tories just because the Tories are still likely to win most seats certainly.
For that does not mean the Tories can stay in power automatically especially as virtually every other party would back Starmer in a hung parliament and the DUP are less likely to back the Tories than they were in 2017.
I think some people who should be on your side are pretty dismissive of a lot of your posts but I think you post a lot of interesting stuff even if I disagree with a lot of it.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
For our GE24, probably yes, but longer term I'm optimistic for the Left.
The top 5 global priorities -
Climate change. The emancipation of women. Racial equality. Sustainable growth. Fairer distribution of wealth.
These are all better tackled from a Left perspective imo. Indeed some of them can only be tackled from there.
Sure, they are priorities, and the left have some of the answers, as does the right. But if the left dont learn to count, the only solutions that will be tried here will be those of the right. UK politics is not an even battle of ideas, it is uphill and difficult for the left to win, especially to win and hold on to significant power. It is no surprise only Blair has done this for them.
I sort of agree with you but my sense is that Labour can win from the Left given the right leader and messaging and policies. The platform and the person have to be contemporary not a 70s rehash.
SKS is just too boring to win, and that comes from someone who likes boring politicians and used to be in the party. He can make the party electable, but not elected.
I am with @Dura_Ace. Rayner is the one who could win. She has the necessary passion, and can appeal to both the Red Wall and the Corbynites.
I like her but does she have the intellectual clout, do you think?
I'm not getting distracted by the "WC" sound of her - that's great - but I mean the substance. Like, Corbyn imo was lacking in this area. Is Rayner a lot brighter than him?
No, they are both mince. Rayner as potential PM?? I`m sure the Tories would be delighted. Starmer is a nightmare for the Tories - I don`t know why some are dissing him.
These days labour and the tories are starting look like analogue parties in a digital age.
I don't see labour ever winning the working class back, and they will be under pressure in the cities and uni towns from BLM and Green going forward. Scotland? forget about it.
Meanwhile The tories have a similar problem with BXPReform/Reclaim in their constituencies. And low turnout when the bill for corona comes in and their core gets hit for six(ty billion).
You're predicting BLM will be standing at the election?
If I was the only U.K. resident left I wouldn’t go out there catching fish, I’d get the Europeans to catch it for me.
It’s good we got UK people queuing up for that business and lifestyle, as the foreign trawlers gradually over coming years banned from our waters so they we have to ramp up ourselves.
Remind me again why we want to do the dangerous crappy business ourselves, not get someone else to do that for us whilst we cozily transform into post industrial society?
The clown always promises the same appointment to multiple people. The problem, in respect of the Lords, is that there is no defined total maximum number of appointments.
If I was in charge of the Labour Party (either in Wales or Scotland or England), I would simply ban all males from entering future leadership contests.
OK, there have been female leaders of the Scottish Labour Party, but it is just plain embarrassing for the English and Wales parties never to have had a female leader. It looks like what it is -- systematic gender bias. It just make Labour look like a bunch of hypocrites, lecturing everyone else while their own party is a bastion of grey males.
I would encourage bumbling Mark Drakeford to take up a very dangerous sport like sky-diving without a parachute before the 2021 Senedd elections, and only permit female AMs to enter the resulting leadership election -- victory for Eluned Morgan ?
I would then let the incompetent Richard Leonard fall down an open pit mind, and allow only females to enter the resulting leadership election -- victory for Jenny Marra ?
I would let grey old SKS do the hard graft for a few more years, and then force him to fall on his sword in 2023 -- Lisa Nandy wins the resulting all-female leadership election.
Now that looks like a Jacinda party --- Nandy, Marra & Morgan. That looks a combo that could win really big.
Remember Jacinda Ardern only got a crack at the leadership because the existing NZ Labour leader Andrew Little voluntarily fell on his sword
Ardern did not win the 2017 election, Labour only came second to English's Nationals, she only got in with other parties support as current polls show Starmer would.
She did not get most votes in 2017.
But, of course, she bloody won in 2017 ... because she ended up as PM.
Just like Trump won in 2016 (he ended up as President) or Trudeau won in 2019 (he ended up as PM).
They both lost the popular vote ... but they ended up with their feet under the desk.
Trump won most EC votes in 2016, Trudeau won most seats in 2019, Ardern not only lost the popular vote she did not even win most seats in 2017.
On current polls Labour would lose the popular vote and the Tories would win most seats but Starmer like Ardern could still end up PM as the SNP and LDs would prop him up
But not for English matters, the SNP wouldn't. They don't have your attitude of imposing their policies with gay abandon on a neighbouring nation.
Of course this would lead to deadlock. But at least some people believe in democracy.
Hopefully not, if they did it would be bound to lead to an increase in English nationalism and demands for an English Parliament would grow
There would hgave to be exceptions o n moral grounds, e.g. when the Tories get round to passing a law to legitimise baby-eating or mass fraud, or similar. Which would be interesting.
If the House of Lords didn't try and frustrate the democratically elected Chamber and respected its primacy, then presumably there'd be less pressure on a PM of any party to stuff the Lords with those they think will vote the 'right' way.
The House of Lords should lose its ability to block Bills from the Commons. I would support a third Parliament Act reducing further the time the Lords can stymie the Commons down to one month. If after a month of ping pong the Lords still doesn't agree with the elected chamber then let the elected chamber pull rank automatically.
Just catching up on the economic stats from this morning. From what it looks like the economy is now 6.7% smaller than it was in February but with November and December highly likely to be negative we'll end the year around 8-9% down vs Feb.
Lots of households and businesses sitting on walls of cash too waiting to be spent.
Mine's going in the holiday fund so unlikely to benefit the UK.
If the House of Lords didn't try and frustrate the democratically elected Chamber and respected its primacy, then presumably there'd be less pressure on a PM of any party to stuff the Lords with those they think will vote the 'right' way.
The House of Lords should lose its ability to block Bills from the Commons. I would support a third Parliament Act reducing further the time the Lords can stymie the Commons down to one month. If after a month of ping pong the Lords still doesn't agree with the elected chamber then let the elected chamber pull rank automatically.
So hold on you literally just advocated a dictatorship
If the House of Lords didn't try and frustrate the democratically elected Chamber and respected its primacy, then presumably there'd be less pressure on a PM of any party to stuff the Lords with those they think will vote the 'right' way.
The House of Lords should lose its ability to block Bills from the Commons. I would support a third Parliament Act reducing further the time the Lords can stymie the Commons down to one month. If after a month of ping pong the Lords still doesn't agree with the elected chamber then let the elected chamber pull rank automatically.
So hold on you literally just advocated a dictatorship
Frost has pushed our (Definitely not a pair of aces) hand to the absolute limit with regards to an EU deal. If it pays off, then I'll have to say well done. If we fail to reach a deal then it'll be all for naught.
Fingers crossed.
Bad take, Pulp. The Deal is certain and it will be pretty much as could have been agreed ages ago. The "pay off" for the "to the wire" theatrics and the No Deal hyping will not be the Deal itself, it will be that many people's response will be what you indicate yours will be. A great big "phew" and "well done Boris". That is the game here.
Several things can be true at once.
1. There will be a deal, because the Johnson and Gove haven't really prepared for No Deal. 2. The big picture of that deal will be one outlined by Barnier back in... 2017? No tarrifs/no quotas/lots of paperwork/some fish/more alignment than Canada. 3. Frostie has probably done as well as can be done. Some of the wins are the striking out of the obviously outrageous things in the initial EU plan. (Everyone who does serious negotiation starts out absurd, don't they? It's part of the game, which is why I try to avoid it.) But there does seem to have been a genuine move, even if the UK has moved more. That's OK. 4. Looking at the gains (real control of immigration, the ability to do trade deals with remote nations, sense of national vim, however much it actually is a week) and losses (border faff hurting trade, a loss of input into EU deliberations), the gains look small but visible, the losses look less visible but potentially larger. That came from BoJo's choice; we can only see what happens. 5. It's quite possible that the cost of all this faffing around over the last six months (because everyone knows that the first few months of our Brave New Future will be a mess, because nobody has been able to plan) will exceed the value of the gains by comparing what we settle for now with what we could have settled for in the summer. 6. The gap between the actual deal done and what some in the media and ERG have been expecting will be interesting to watch over the years to come.
1. I don't think No Deal could have been prepared for. It's a mirage. 2. Yep. We get end of FOM and more Fish. They protect their SM. That's the deal. 3. No complaints from me about Frost. He's done the job he was asked to do. 4. Agreed. The gains look less tangible than the costs. 5. Any marginal gains from going to the wire will not justify the fear and chaos caused. 6, Yes. I'm looking forward to how Johnson sells the deal to Redwood & Co.
In the short term, it's pretty clear that the selling approach will be the same one used by Dodgy Timeshare Salesman. Trap them in a room and give them no time to read or think. So the Deal can't be finalised until December 29, and then voted on December 30 and 31. (I seriously wonder if that's what's holding things up now.)
It's a terrible idea by most standards, but it's probably Johnson's best bet. And if Redwood and co don't like it, what are they going to do?
Hopefully here's where Johnson gets the value of his landslide majority. Quite right too. What's the point of it otherwise.
And, yes, a good point you make about the timing. A deal announced months ago would have allowed for a lot of critical scrutiny. Johnson would not have welcomed this. It's not how he rolls.
Trump does not welcome having to hand over the president, it's not how he rolls. Both are terrible models for being leader.
They certainly are. We have been deblessed to have the both simultaneously for 18 months. One down, one to go.
Must be tough for the media that hates Trump though.
Fact is, Newzzzzz like 'Joe stumbles over politically correct gesture speech' and 'Kamala scolds white people again' don;t bring in the ratings.
Trump's overness could be the final curtain.
The US President shouldn't be in the news all day every day. It's one of the biggest boons of him going for me, the end of that. As for the Networks, I'm sure they will survive. Maybe put some wrestling on.
Sheep must be superspreaders. What other explanation is there?
What are the sharny white fluffy things going 'baah' on the hill out the back here in Scotland, then?!
Trying very hard to remain polite, has there been any research into the differences in patterns of interaction between Welsh and Scottish people, with their respective sheep?
All in jest, of course. The serious point is that case numbers seem to be exploding in Wales without - as far as I have seen - testing suggesting they yet have large amounts of the new strain of virus?
I popped into Asda in Llandudno yesterday at 9.30am and nobody on the door either safeguarding or security and the aisles were getting quite scary
I quickly left but believe bedlam broke out later in the day
To be fair to them their home delivery order was excellent with everything delivered including the turkey
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
For our GE24, probably yes, but longer term I'm optimistic for the Left.
The top 5 global priorities -
Climate change. The emancipation of women. Racial equality. Sustainable growth. Fairer distribution of wealth.
These are all better tackled from a Left perspective imo. Indeed some of them can only be tackled from there.
Sure, they are priorities, and the left have some of the answers, as does the right. But if the left dont learn to count, the only solutions that will be tried here will be those of the right. UK politics is not an even battle of ideas, it is uphill and difficult for the left to win, especially to win and hold on to significant power. It is no surprise only Blair has done this for them.
I sort of agree with you but my sense is that Labour can win from the Left given the right leader and messaging and policies. The platform and the person have to be contemporary not a 70s rehash.
SKS is just too boring to win, and that comes from someone who likes boring politicians and used to be in the party. He can make the party electable, but not elected.
I am with @Dura_Ace. Rayner is the one who could win. She has the necessary passion, and can appeal to both the Red Wall and the Corbynites.
I like her but does she have the intellectual clout, do you think?
I'm not getting distracted by the "WC" sound of her - that's great - but I mean the substance. Like, Corbyn imo was lacking in this area. Is Rayner a lot brighter than him?
No, they are both mince. Rayner as potential PM?? I`m sure the Tories would be delighted. Starmer is a nightmare for the Tories - I don`t know why some are dissing him.
These days labour and the tories are starting look like analogue parties in a digital age.
I don't see labour ever winning the working class back, and they will be under pressure in the cities and uni towns from BLM and Green going forward. Scotland? forget about it.
Meanwhile The tories have a similar problem with BXPReform/Reclaim in their constituencies. And low turnout when the bill for corona comes in and their core gets hit for six(ty billion).
You're predicting BLM will be standing at the election?
I understood they had formed a political party in the UK? if so you could see them building a base in cities/university towns if they ran local candidates. Labour might not be able to match their radicalism now that Corbyn has gone, and Lab also have to keep the North happy.
Its so difficult for whoever leads labour to bridge the gap between those two demographics, for me. In that sense, Starmer really does have my sympathy. Its tough for him, or for whoever.
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
Why not?
My wife is a nurse she can easily inject 500 people a day, just multiply it up, they have already recruited loads of retired nurses to do it, plus the armed forces, plus pharmacists. The Oxford jab is so easy to administer.
For the the flu jab - which is the easiest of jabs to administer and is done every year - the minimum time allotted for each patient at the surgery is 2 minutes. And this is if they are healthy and have no recorded medical issues. This is because the patient has to come in, run through a checklist to ensure they are safe to receive the jab and then get out again before the next person comes in so they don't mix with them.
500 jabs a day at 2 minutes a jab is 16 hours and 40 minutes. Without a break.
And that is for patients who are healthy. If they are not healthy then it takes longer as they have to be observed after the jab.
For the Covid jabs the instructions are that all patients are supposed to be observed for 15 minutes after injection, during which time they have to remain isolated from other patients. And prior to the injection the questionnaire on medical history and current health is much longer. You also have to have somewhere for all these people to sit or stand during this time whilst maintaining social distancing.
The idea that a single surgery can do 500 Covid jabs a day - even before you take into account all the non covid patients - is for the fairies. They have neither the staff nor the room.
My surgery in Barnes, Essex House, is a hub for the area. It did 2,000 vaccinations over three days. My son-in-law's mother was one of them. She is in her eighties.
As I keep saying we can test 500000+ per day. Vaccinating is so much easier.
Somewhat an apples and oranges comparison though. We can post a test to someone's home with an Amazon/Royal Mail driver and get it picked up with them too.
If the House of Lords didn't try and frustrate the democratically elected Chamber and respected its primacy, then presumably there'd be less pressure on a PM of any party to stuff the Lords with those they think will vote the 'right' way.
The House of Lords should lose its ability to block Bills from the Commons. I would support a third Parliament Act reducing further the time the Lords can stymie the Commons down to one month. If after a month of ping pong the Lords still doesn't agree with the elected chamber then let the elected chamber pull rank automatically.
They're a legislature. They should do what they have the power to do. I would go for an elected second chamber with 1910 HoL powers (which I think is what the Aussie senate has)
On vaccination, I don't wish to be a killjoy, but wouldn't it be best to wait six months (or even a year) before boasting about the UK's performance? By then, we should know whether our rate of vaccination is world-beating, average or poor. In other words, it's too soon to judge right now.
It reminds me of back in May when many people were rushing to judgements about comparative death rates between countries when, as we now know, it was far too early to tell.
I think plenty of concern over delivery...but on procurement, credit where credit is due, the UK government have done well on the vaccine front.
This Country can test 500,000+ per day. The delivery of the vaccine is much simpler, Its just a jab. 2 million a day will not be a problem
I am no expert on logistics but vaccinating 2 million a day would see the whole UK vaccinated in a month
That is not anything near possible
Why not?
My wife is a nurse she can easily inject 500 people a day, just multiply it up, they have already recruited loads of retired nurses to do it, plus the armed forces, plus pharmacists. The Oxford jab is so easy to administer.
For the the flu jab - which is the easiest of jabs to administer and is done every year - the minimum time allotted for each patient at the surgery is 2 minutes. And this is if they are healthy and have no recorded medical issues. This is because the patient has to come in, run through a checklist to ensure they are safe to receive the jab and then get out again before the next person comes in so they don't mix with them.
500 jabs a day at 2 minutes a jab is 16 hours and 40 minutes. Without a break.
And that is for patients who are healthy. If they are not healthy then it takes longer as they have to be observed after the jab.
For the Covid jabs the instructions are that all patients are supposed to be observed for 15 minutes after injection, during which time they have to remain isolated from other patients. And prior to the injection the questionnaire on medical history and current health is much longer. You also have to have somewhere for all these people to sit or stand during this time whilst maintaining social distancing.
The idea that a single surgery can do 500 Covid jabs a day - even before you take into account all the non covid patients - is for the fairies. They have neither the staff nor the room.
My surgery in Barnes, Essex House, is a hub for the area. It did 2,000 vaccinations over three days. My son-in-law's mother was one of them. She is in her eighties.
So no one else got to see a doctor or nurse?
Don't know. There is no reason why a doctor couldn't have been available in the surgery for other things. There were a lot of medics from other surgeries helping with the jabs.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
You would have thought people on the left could realise that this is not a naturally left wing country, not even centre left. Counting is the first rule of politics and the most forgotten. Especially having lost Scotland, the choice for the left is an updated form of Blairite politics or Tory govts.
For our GE24, probably yes, but longer term I'm optimistic for the Left.
The top 5 global priorities -
Climate change. The emancipation of women. Racial equality. Sustainable growth. Fairer distribution of wealth.
These are all better tackled from a Left perspective imo. Indeed some of them can only be tackled from there.
Sure, they are priorities, and the left have some of the answers, as does the right. But if the left dont learn to count, the only solutions that will be tried here will be those of the right. UK politics is not an even battle of ideas, it is uphill and difficult for the left to win, especially to win and hold on to significant power. It is no surprise only Blair has done this for them.
I sort of agree with you but my sense is that Labour can win from the Left given the right leader and messaging and policies. The platform and the person have to be contemporary not a 70s rehash.
SKS is just too boring to win, and that comes from someone who likes boring politicians and used to be in the party. He can make the party electable, but not elected.
I am with @Dura_Ace. Rayner is the one who could win. She has the necessary passion, and can appeal to both the Red Wall and the Corbynites.
I like her but does she have the intellectual clout, do you think?
I'm not getting distracted by the "WC" sound of her - that's great - but I mean the substance. Like, Corbyn imo was lacking in this area. Is Rayner a lot brighter than him?
Yes, it is a frequent error to mistake a lack of formal education for lack of intelligence. I think intelligence is probably overestimated in its importance, relative to values and instincts. Rayner is strong on these. I like her, and her drive for self improvement, without forgetting where she came from shows great strength of character.
It also works the other way as well - people who are well educated often believe and give the impression of intelligence when all they are sometimes, are idiots who know some facts.
Or you can be really clever but in a dumb way. John Redwood is one of the most intelligent people in the country.
Sheep must be superspreaders. What other explanation is there?
What are the sharny white fluffy things going 'baah' on the hill out the back here in Scotland, then?!
Trying very hard to remain polite, has there been any research into the differences in patterns of interaction between Welsh and Scottish people, with their respective sheep?
All in jest, of course. The serious point is that case numbers seem to be exploding in Wales without - as far as I have seen - testing suggesting they yet have large amounts of the new strain of virus?
(Now this does remind me of the rag mags I used to read as a student. I wonder what they are like now in the new PC era. Probably better not to inquire: they'd only disappoint. But I digress.)
It has been suggested AIUI that the cases of new Boris Pox in Scotland are actually to do with the Home Office sending assorted asylum seekers up and dumping them in local hotels in trhe Glasgow area. No idea if that is the case, and I'd be slightly surprised, simply because Glasgow being the biggest centre of population anyway is the best place to find the new pox (excellent rail links to London). But one does wonder when one reads about the prisons in Kent. I can't think there are many seaside hotels in the Valleys, though?
Given the levels in Wales I'd have thought that routine testing and sequencing would have picked up the new bug by now.
If Labour leave SKS in place for the nect election they deserve the loss that is coming their way. He has insufficient hate in his heart for tories. Theyd be better off with Rayner.
Apart possibly from Harold Wilson, every Labour leader who ‘hated the Tories’ have in common that they have never won or come close to winning an election.
Yep - to win elections Labour has to avoid scaring people regardless of what their membership really wants.
That was why Blair was so good for Labour there was nothing there that scared a (Tory) voter.
Blair was to all extents and purposes a Tory by the time he came to power. He occupied the Wet Tory space that Thatcher foolishly abandoned,
After Thatcher and Boris and Cameron, Blair is arguably our most rightwing postwar PM, certainly on economic grounds
What!? 😲
Preposterous. Absolutely preposterous to suggest that Blair with Brown as Chancellor was more rightwing than Major with Clarke.
From 1997 to 2001 Blair spent less than the final years of the Major government and kept the top income tax rate the same
Which in part is why I voted for him in 2001.
Blair was not simply in power until 2001 though was he? Why ignore 2001+? 🙄
Even including the full Blair years from 1997 to 2001 the top rate of income tax under Blair was lower than under any postwar UK PMs bar Thatcher and Major and as I said he also spent less than Major in his early years in power.
Although a social liberal in purely economic terms Blair was arguably our most Thatcherite PM since WW2 after Thatcher herself, Thatcher even famously said 'Tony will not let us down.' He was also closely tied to the US and had a close relationship with a Republican President as she did
Early years is a legacy of what he inherited from Major, not what he chose to do himself. 🤦🏻♂️
All you've demonstrated is he inherited a sound right wing economy from Major whom you then reckon for some bizarre reason that Blair was to the right of?
If Blair was to the right of Major then did you vote Blair in 1997?
What an insane suggestion.
On social issues and the Union and the minimum wage Major was to the right of Blair however Blair spent less than Major in his early years that is undeniable while keeping the tax rate the same
It doesn't matter what he did in the early years, you need to judge over the term of office. Are you that pigheaded you want to judge him on what he inherited not what he left behind?
The idea that Blair was essentially a Tory is one of those things that gets repeated so often that it becomes a kind of folk wisdom, but it's really demonstrably false. On any number of issues - from devolution and the EU to the minimum wage and spending on public services - Blair took positions that were diametrically opposed to the Tories. His politics are solidly of the Left, albeit of the Social Democratic rather than the Socialist variety. He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
He was probably the least-worst Labour PM and better than some Tory PMs (miles better than May) but almost everything he touched turned to ash eventually.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".
Comments
Other areas where they can be directly applied for good
- bacteriophages - viruses that attack bacteria.
- gene therapy
- targeted drug delivery
Fact is, Newzzzzz like 'Joe stumbles over politically correct gesture speech' and 'Kamala scolds white people again' don;t bring in the ratings.
Trump's overness could be the final curtain.
Corruption.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169409X20300703
At present, I'd say he's on course to get about 20-40 gains. Those extra 50 are really really hard for Labour.
And, yes, I know what the current opinion polls say - but we're not at GE time yet, so you need to project forward with the values, leadership ratings, broader trends and anticipate the lie of the land & electorate.
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1341385512544776197?s=20
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1341379934934196231?s=20
They might lose the Tories a handful of seats without troubling Westminster themselves. If they make it as far as the next election.
Without growing capacity, progress - in terms of people vaccinated - will grind to a halt for most of January.
Lots of households and businesses sitting on walls of cash too waiting to be spent.
250 Labour seats would do with the Tories down to 310-315 or so after 50 odd Labour gains and once you add onto that 250 Labour MPs 50 odd SNP MPs, the current 11 LD MPs, 1 Green, 4 Plaid and 2 SDLP and 1 Alliance MP you get to 319 MPs combined which would probably be enough, especially as the DUP are unlikely to support the Tories again.
If SF took their seats and you added on the 7 SF MPs you get to 326 and an overall majority combined
BTW, what happened to queuing in order to maintain social distancing in supermarkets? Sainsbury's was heaving today, with people almost having to squeeze past one another, but no queue to get it.
He made three big mistakes: he should have raised taxes to pay for higher public spending in 1997; he should have stayed out of Bush's Iraq misadventure; and he should have fired Brown for briefing against him. But overall he was one of our best postwar PMs.
tidal powerCovid stats.....Of course this would lead to deadlock. But at least some people believe in democracy.
For that does not mean the Tories can stay in power automatically especially as virtually every other party would back Starmer in a hung parliament and the DUP are less likely to back the Tories than they were in 2017.
https://twitter.com/LordSpeaker/status/1341391884644704262
/ironymode
But seriously, what the f8ck is going on?
Not that the comparison extends any further of course.
All in jest, of course. The serious point is that case numbers seem to be exploding in Wales without - as far as I have seen - testing suggesting they yet have large amounts of the new strain of virus?
You're a very nice person too, which always helps
I think we need to abolish it.
If I was the only U.K. resident left I wouldn’t go out there catching fish, I’d get the Europeans to catch it for me.
It’s good we got UK people queuing up for that business and lifestyle, as the foreign trawlers gradually over coming years banned from our waters so they we have to ramp up ourselves.
Remind me again why we want to do the dangerous crappy business ourselves, not get someone else to do that for us whilst we cozily transform into post industrial society?
The House of Lords should lose its ability to block Bills from the Commons. I would support a third Parliament Act reducing further the time the Lords can stymie the Commons down to one month. If after a month of ping pong the Lords still doesn't agree with the elected chamber then let the elected chamber pull rank automatically.
So how exactly do they locate where this new strain began, and prove U.K. actually imported it not mutated here? They confident they will
Ossoff (D) 51 .. Perdue (R) 46
Warnock (D) 52 .. Loeffler (R) 46
https://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=bbb4e7fb-04c1-4b0f-b0b4-dbdb743cae4e
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1341392142774788097?s=20
I quickly left but believe bedlam broke out later in the day
To be fair to them their home delivery order was excellent with everything delivered including the turkey
Its so difficult for whoever leads labour to bridge the gap between those two demographics, for me. In that sense, Starmer really does have my sympathy. Its tough for him, or for whoever.
It has been suggested AIUI that the cases of new Boris Pox in Scotland are actually to do with the Home Office sending assorted asylum seekers up and dumping them in local hotels in trhe Glasgow area. No idea if that is the case, and I'd be slightly surprised, simply because Glasgow being the biggest centre of population anyway is the best place to find the new pox (excellent rail links to London). But one does wonder when one reads about the prisons in Kent. I can't think there are many seaside hotels in the Valleys, though?
Given the levels in Wales I'd have thought that routine testing and sequencing would have picked up the new bug by now.
Asymmetric Devolution was a terrible idea that was pushed through for party-partisan reasons and has destroyed Labour in Scotland and probably doomed the Union. Stupid, stupid idea. All could have been avoided had he listed to Tam Dalyell.
He allowed Brown to tank the economy by progressively turning on the spending taps until he lost control leading to requiring austerity.
He had some good ideas actually in reforming public services but didn't have the courage to follow through.
His backing Frank Field in thinking the unthinkable - then sacking him for doing so was a less famous but rather egregious mistake.
He half-heartedly seemed to realise the war on drugs was lost - then did nothing whatsoever about it.
He did an OK job on gay rights but it required Cameron to properly legalise gay marriage, he should have gone further there but to give him credit he was undeniably better than the Tories before then and set the path for Cameron to finish the job.
He was way too authoritarian on too many ideas - detention without trial especially.
The War in Iraq was justified. Its bungling and no plan for peace was not. Nor was cutting spending in the military while sending them off to war.
All in all, whether left or right, the story of Blair is one of what could have been. He had an overwhelming majority and was master of all he surveyed - but a quarter of a century later there is remarkably little to point at and say "see that reform, that is thanks to Blair".