'Of those who are not voting in the US Senate runoffs, a disproportionate number are conservative. Of those who identify as "very conservative," 55% say they are not voting in the runoff elections because "the voting process is rigged." This compares to zero percent of liberals and very liberals. Another 7% of "very conservative" voters say they are "intentionally boycotting" the runoffs. This compares to zero percent of liberals and very liberals.'
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.
The trump supporters and the McCain-ites are fighting each other in Georgia like rats in a sack. Trump gives it both barrels to Kemp & Co almost every day, and Purdue and Loeffler are caught in the crossfire.
You can see the massive problem the repubs will have everywhere from now as Trumpists check out of a party they feel has completely stabbed them in the back.
Meanwhile the establishment repubs think they can just put Trump behind them and carry on as if nothing happened, and 75 million voters will show up in 2024 whatever. That is insane and it ain;t gonna happen.
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.
Can't be done with an injection.
Of course it can.
I don't think you understand the logistics of the Pfizer vaccine - or what goes into administering it - whatsoever if you think it can be couriered like an Amazon Parcel.
Wales, leading the world in tidal power Covid stats.....
Well its hardly surprisingly, look at Wales's population density. Oh....er......
But seriously, what the f8ck is going on?
Very lumpy pop density. Lots of Welsh in the Valleys and the northern and southern coastal conurbations, not so many elsewhere in between the mountains and piles of sheep shite.
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.
Can't be done with an injection.
Of course it can.
I don't think you understand the logistics of the Pfizer vaccine - or what goes into administering it - whatsoever if you think it can be couriered like an Amazon Parcel.
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.
Funnily enough those are the EXACT top 3 blunders I'd have listed.
Abolish the HoL and introduce a proper electoral system using PR, fit for the 21st Century.
You don't have to abolish the HOL to do that. Just allocate the choice of new peers according to the respective proportions of the GE vote, rather than at the behest of the Government. Wouldn't even change things that much, but it would be fairer to smaller parties, and be democratic.
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.
“ solidly centre-left politician‘. 🤣
He inherited privatised, deregulated economy from thatcher major, reversed not one bit of that, and privatised even more.
He privatised hospitals.
He took schools out of LEA control.
He sexed up a document to take the country to war on basis of lies, a war that has killed more people globally than covid has managed.
He wasted billions of tax payers money on failed projects like emergency control centres.
He boasted of investment in public services that were in fact silly PFI contracts to be paid for on the never never. £120 for a .69p lightbulb anyone?
He done more than any PM to remove U.K. from EU, by talking up the opportunities of globalisation and doing nothing for the damage globalisation was doing to our country. Tough on take back control, tough on the cause of take back control. Tough on Blair.
Oh of course, ignore all that, what really makes him the lefty and darling of all lefties is he made hunting with hounds illegal. 😂
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.
Abolish the HoL and introduce a proper electoral system using PR, fit for the 21st Century.
You don't have to abolish the HOL to do that. Just allocate the choice of new peers according to the respective proportions of the GE vote, rather than at the behest of the Government. Wouldn't even change things that much, but it would be fairer to smaller parties, and be democratic.
PR is needed and I support abolishing the HoL. Two birds with one stone
'Of those who are not voting in the US Senate runoffs, a disproportionate number are conservative. Of those who identify as "very conservative," 55% say they are not voting in the runoff elections because "the voting process is rigged." This compares to zero percent of liberals and very liberals. Another 7% of "very conservative" voters say they are "intentionally boycotting" the runoffs. This compares to zero percent of liberals and very liberals.'
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
No I didn't. I advocated a unicameral elected chamber to make decisions - with a secondary unelected chamber of retired dignatories and advisors etc that can challenge and advise the elected chamber on improvements to the bills, but not to block them.
There are a fair few unicameral legislatures around the world including for instance New Zealand. So I think this is a reasonable compromise, recognise the Commons as the unicameral elected chamber but allow the Lords to challenge and advise the Commons.
Interesting story on the increase in total number of US deaths in a year for 2020 - to 3.2 million. Not all the increase down to COVID - some due to the record number of drug overdoses.
Abolish the HoL and introduce a proper electoral system using PR, fit for the 21st Century.
You don't have to abolish the HOL to do that. Just allocate the choice of new peers according to the respective proportions of the GE vote, rather than at the behest of the Government. Wouldn't even change things that much, but it would be fairer to smaller parties, and be democratic.
PR is needed and I support abolishing the HoL. Two birds with one stone
I agree. A PR amending chamber. You realise Nigel Farage would be a member though, right?
Abolish the HoL and introduce a proper electoral system using PR, fit for the 21st Century.
You don't have to abolish the HOL to do that. Just allocate the choice of new peers according to the respective proportions of the GE vote, rather than at the behest of the Government. Wouldn't even change things that much, but it would be fairer to smaller parties, and be democratic.
You could even do a constituency and list vote at the GE (List vote goes to the Lords) so that people voting to keep the other lot out can put down their true preference for the Lords.
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.
Can't be done with an injection.
Of course it can.
I don't think you understand the logistics of the Pfizer vaccine - or what goes into administering it - whatsoever if you think it can be couriered like an Amazon Parcel.
I wasn't discussing the logistics of the Pfizer vaccine. You said an injection can't be delivered by post - patently it can.
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.
Lawrence Fox could stand for the London Assembly next May and even win a seat on the List
He has political appeal, but comes across as a maverick. Will his party do the hard yards in terms of organisation, fund raising, knocking on doors, standing in locals etc?
Abolish the HoL and introduce a proper electoral system using PR, fit for the 21st Century.
You don't have to abolish the HOL to do that. Just allocate the choice of new peers according to the respective proportions of the GE vote, rather than at the behest of the Government. Wouldn't even change things that much, but it would be fairer to smaller parties, and be democratic.
PR is needed and I support abolishing the HoL. Two birds with one stone
I agree. A PR amending chamber. You realise Nigel Farage would be a member though, right?
Abolish the HoL and introduce a proper electoral system using PR, fit for the 21st Century.
You don't have to abolish the HOL to do that. Just allocate the choice of new peers according to the respective proportions of the GE vote, rather than at the behest of the Government. Wouldn't even change things that much, but it would be fairer to smaller parties, and be democratic.
PR is needed and I support abolishing the HoL. Two birds with one stone
It would be PR. But it would still involve 'lifetime' membership (until retirement), which I think suits the institution and its role.
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.
Can't be done with an injection.
Of course it can.
I don't think you understand the logistics of the Pfizer vaccine - or what goes into administering it - whatsoever if you think it can be couriered like an Amazon Parcel.
I wasn't discussing the logistics of the Pfizer vaccine. You said an injection can't be delivered by post - patently it can.
Patently it can't, when it is a controlled substance that needs to be administed by a healthcare professional that needs to keep the patient under observation for 15 minutes and also go through a pre-vaccination disclaimer check that they understand it is currently an unlicensed vaccine that is being administered.
Abolish the HoL and introduce a proper electoral system using PR, fit for the 21st Century.
You don't have to abolish the HOL to do that. Just allocate the choice of new peers according to the respective proportions of the GE vote, rather than at the behest of the Government. Wouldn't even change things that much, but it would be fairer to smaller parties, and be democratic.
PR is needed and I support abolishing the HoL. Two birds with one stone
It would be PR. But it would still involve 'lifetime' membership (until retirement), which I think suits the institution and its role.
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".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
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.
Funnily enough those are the EXACT top 3 blunders I'd have listed.
Failing to deliver on his promise of electoral reform, and turning so-called devolution and decentralisation into an exercise of party command and control, should be very high on that list.
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.
Can't be done with an injection.
Of course it can.
I don't think you understand the logistics of the Pfizer vaccine - or what goes into administering it - whatsoever if you think it can be couriered like an Amazon Parcel.
I wasn't discussing the logistics of the Pfizer vaccine. You said an injection can't be delivered by post - patently it can.
Patently it can't, when it is a controlled substance that needs to be administed by a healthcare professional that needs to keep the patient under observation for 15 minutes and also go through a pre-vaccination disclaimer check that they understand it is currently an unlicensed vaccine that is being administered.
On the 'unlicensed' part, it won't be unlicensed forever. That ditches the disclaimer to something like the regular flu jab. I've never had a flu jab so no idea how much you need to sign (If anything) before taking that.
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.
Funnily enough those are the EXACT top 3 blunders I'd have listed.
It is utterly irresponsible the Tories are not already locking us down
Depends where it's concentrated though really. I don't doubt more Tier 4 is coming, possibly nationally after Christmas, but here in Leeds rates are stable and hospitalisations down so it would seem unfair to us.
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.
Can't be done with an injection.
Of course it can.
I don't think you understand the logistics of the Pfizer vaccine - or what goes into administering it - whatsoever if you think it can be couriered like an Amazon Parcel.
I wasn't discussing the logistics of the Pfizer vaccine. You said an injection can't be delivered by post - patently it can.
Patently it can't, when it is a controlled substance that needs to be administed by a healthcare professional that needs to keep the patient under observation for 15 minutes and also go through a pre-vaccination disclaimer check that they understand it is currently an unlicensed vaccine that is being administered.
Need is purely a subjective opinion in this case. Non medical professionals inject themselves all the time. If we needed a healthcare professional, every diabetic in the country would need a full time nurse.
That's the first really quite poor poll I've seen for Keir, disappointing.
Who knew his numbers were so dependent upon Corbynites?
Labour should be 10-15% clear at the moment.
Starmer has continually failed to get out ahead on Covid though. His one big idea of the "circuit-breaker" has been proven to be a disaster in Wales. People having massive piss-ups before it kicked in, then massive piss-ups when it ended.
Starmer is beginning to look ever more like one of those Presidential hopefuls, who thinks a winning smile is enough. And at the start, for getting noticed, it is. Then the questions start getting asked.
Mine has always been "How could you sit in a Shadow Cabinet for three years led by someone so relaxed about the obvious anti-semitism running rife on his watch? Was it just naked ambition for his job that allowed you to turn such a blind eye?"
It is utterly irresponsible the Tories are not already locking us down
I thought you were in London. Are you saying you aren't locking down? 🤔
In the Northwest we've been locked down continually since about September.
Yes absolutely. The sort of lockdown across the country with gyms open, non essential shops, bars, markets, people in stadia watching rugby, horse racing, football. Etc etc. That kind of nettle grasped lockdown.
Abolish the HoL and introduce a proper electoral system using PR, fit for the 21st Century.
You don't have to abolish the HOL to do that. Just allocate the choice of new peers according to the respective proportions of the GE vote, rather than at the behest of the Government. Wouldn't even change things that much, but it would be fairer to smaller parties, and be democratic.
PR is needed and I support abolishing the HoL. Two birds with one stone
It would be PR. But it would still involve 'lifetime' membership (until retirement), which I think suits the institution and its role.
No I don't agree with that at all.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's still a form of proportional representation.
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".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
You could only say devolution was asymmetric because the English didn't want it if an English Parliament had been rejected at a referendum. That did not happen. He created what he thought was his Labour Party fiefdom's in Wales and Scotland but didn't attempt to follow through with an English equivalent. Instead he attempted to partition England into regions and again attempted to do that asymmetrically with a Labour fiefdom for party partisan advantage - but the voters rightly saw the back of that insane idea. Where was the English Parliament to match the Scottish one?
The Tories had no alternative but to cut the spending thanks to the deficit Brown bequeathed but that is the problem - the legacy should be more than "I spent on this" - where was the reforms? Where was the good ideas?
Devolution was disastrously implemented. Besides devolution after a decade in power with landslide majorities of all the ideas as opposed to spending from Labour what good ideas have survived to see the light of day now? The minimum wage, reforming gay rights (not enough but a good start) and independence for the Bank of England and devolution were achieved early on - what else is there?
Blair had some ideas and a big bang in 1997 with a lot of structural reforms in his first year especially in the constitution but then after that its like he just coasted for a decade and besides spending what successful reforms or ideas has he left behind?
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".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't.
I must have missed the English referendum on the subject.
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?
All in jest .. and it has won you this year's Bernard Manning Award. The prize is a Soiled, Sweaty Tuxedo that once Belonged to the Great Man
Of course, the COVID in Wales is where there are no sheep.
But, it looks as though Drakeford -- incredibly for such a cautious politician -- has managed to completely lose control of COVID in the South Wales Valleys.
There is an opportunity here for the Welsh opposition parties ..... if they can take it.
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
They are just pissed this apparent fucked-up disaster zone of a country has already protected 500,000 of its most vulnerable from Covid by vaccination, whilst they - what exactly? How is their obvious superiority manifesting itself?
Abolish the HoL and introduce a proper electoral system using PR, fit for the 21st Century.
You don't have to abolish the HOL to do that. Just allocate the choice of new peers according to the respective proportions of the GE vote, rather than at the behest of the Government. Wouldn't even change things that much, but it would be fairer to smaller parties, and be democratic.
PR is needed and I support abolishing the HoL. Two birds with one stone
It would be PR. But it would still involve 'lifetime' membership (until retirement), which I think suits the institution and its role.
No I don't agree with that at all.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's still a form of proportional representation.
I don't believe in the HoL, I don't know why that's so hard to understand dude
Abolish the HoL and introduce a proper electoral system using PR, fit for the 21st Century.
You don't have to abolish the HOL to do that. Just allocate the choice of new peers according to the respective proportions of the GE vote, rather than at the behest of the Government. Wouldn't even change things that much, but it would be fairer to smaller parties, and be democratic.
PR is needed and I support abolishing the HoL. Two birds with one stone
It would be PR. But it would still involve 'lifetime' membership (until retirement), which I think suits the institution and its role.
No I don't agree with that at all.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's still a form of proportional representation.
I don't believe in the HoL, I don't know why that's so hard to understand dude
It is utterly irresponsible the Tories are not already locking us down
I thought you were in London. Are you saying you aren't locking down? 🤔
In the Northwest we've been locked down continually since about September.
Yes absolutely. The sort of lockdown across the country with gyms open, non essential shops, bars, markets, people in stadia watching rugby, horse racing, football. Etc etc. That kind of nettle grasped lockdown.
I thought it was quite clear I meant the entire country/entirety of England but yes I agree with you
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?
All in jest .. and it has won you this year's Bernard Manning Award. The prize is a Soiled, Sweaty Tuxedo that once Belonged to the Great Man
Of course, the COVID in Wales is where there are no sheep.
But, it looks as though Drakeford -- incredibly for such a cautious politician -- has managed to completely lose control of COVID in the South Wales Valleys.
There is an opportunity here for the Welsh opposition parties ..... if they can take it.
Fair enough. Back to the serious question - since there doesn’t seem to be evidence that S Wales yet has large quantities of the mutant virus, why has it gone so bad there?
Abolish the HoL and introduce a proper electoral system using PR, fit for the 21st Century.
You don't have to abolish the HOL to do that. Just allocate the choice of new peers according to the respective proportions of the GE vote, rather than at the behest of the Government. Wouldn't even change things that much, but it would be fairer to smaller parties, and be democratic.
PR is needed and I support abolishing the HoL. Two birds with one stone
It would be PR. But it would still involve 'lifetime' membership (until retirement), which I think suits the institution and its role.
No I don't agree with that at all.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's still a form of proportional representation.
I don't believe in the HoL, I don't know why that's so hard to understand dude
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?
Of course, the COVID in Wales is where there are no sheep.
You may have stumbled upon something important there.....
It is utterly irresponsible the Tories are not already locking us down
I thought you were in London. Are you saying you aren't locking down? 🤔
In the Northwest we've been locked down continually since about September.
Yes absolutely. The sort of lockdown across the country with gyms open, non essential shops, bars, markets, people in stadia watching rugby, horse racing, football. Etc etc. That kind of nettle grasped lockdown.
If you're spending money it seems to be allowed under the lockdown tier 3. Quiet cup of tea with friends. Banned
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
They are just pissed this apparent fucked-up disaster zone of a country has already protected 500,000 of its most vulnerable from Covid by vaccination, whilst they - what exactly? How is their obvious superiority manifesting itself?
And I don't know what they are gloating about. This strain is already all over Europe.
If there is a deal there will very likely be an implementation period. If there is no deal, extending the transition period won't change the fact there is still not a deal.
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".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
Basic tenet of socialism -- to those that are given, much more is expected.
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
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.
Can't be done with an injection.
Of course it can.
I don't think you understand the logistics of the Pfizer vaccine - or what goes into administering it - whatsoever if you think it can be couriered like an Amazon Parcel.
I wasn't discussing the logistics of the Pfizer vaccine. You said an injection can't be delivered by post - patently it can.
There are 314 districts in England. If there is a "centre" in each one of those, and they can do 650 vaccinations a day, that is 204,000 a day; you need 2 per person staggered over a couple of weeks, so that works out at 640 days total.
I think the goal is to have it done by the end of September next year, which implies the equivalent of 2-3 centres per district. Which sounds not unreasonable to me.
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?!
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?
Abolish the HoL and introduce a proper electoral system using PR, fit for the 21st Century.
You don't have to abolish the HOL to do that. Just allocate the choice of new peers according to the respective proportions of the GE vote, rather than at the behest of the Government. Wouldn't even change things that much, but it would be fairer to smaller parties, and be democratic.
PR is needed and I support abolishing the HoL. Two birds with one stone
It would be PR. But it would still involve 'lifetime' membership (until retirement), which I think suits the institution and its role.
No I don't agree with that at all.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's still a form of proportional representation.
I don't believe in the HoL, I don't know why that's so hard to understand dude
It's not at all difficult to understand, I have not failed to understand your position, I'm disagreeing with it. That said, I'm happy agree to differ.
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".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
You could only say devolution was asymmetric because the English didn't want it if an English Parliament had been rejected at a referendum. That did not happen. He created what he thought was his Labour Party fiefdom's in Wales and Scotland but didn't attempt to follow through with an English equivalent. Instead he attempted to partition England into regions and again attempted to do that asymmetrically with a Labour fiefdom for party partisan advantage - but the voters rightly saw the back of that insane idea. Where was the English Parliament to match the Scottish one?
The Tories had no alternative but to cut the spending thanks to the deficit Brown bequeathed but that is the problem - the legacy should be more than "I spent on this" - where was the reforms? Where was the good ideas?
Devolution was disastrously implemented. Besides devolution after a decade in power with landslide majorities of all the ideas as opposed to spending from Labour what good ideas have survived to see the light of day now? The minimum wage, reforming gay rights (not enough but a good start) and independence for the Bank of England and devolution were achieved early on - what else is there?
Blair had some ideas and a big bang in 1997 with a lot of structural reforms in his first year especially in the constitution but then after that its like he just coasted for a decade and besides spending what successful reforms or ideas has he left behind?
If there were an overwhelming desire for an English parliament I am guessing that the Tories who have been in power for the last decade might have delivered it by now.
Abolish the HoL and introduce a proper electoral system using PR, fit for the 21st Century.
You don't have to abolish the HOL to do that. Just allocate the choice of new peers according to the respective proportions of the GE vote, rather than at the behest of the Government. Wouldn't even change things that much, but it would be fairer to smaller parties, and be democratic.
PR is needed and I support abolishing the HoL. Two birds with one stone
It would be PR. But it would still involve 'lifetime' membership (until retirement), which I think suits the institution and its role.
No I don't agree with that at all.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's still a form of proportional representation.
I don't believe in the HoL, I don't know why that's so hard to understand dude
It's not at all difficult to understand, I have not failed to understand your position, I'm disagreeing with it. That said, I'm happy agree to differ.
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.
“ solidly centre-left politician‘. 🤣
He inherited privatised, deregulated economy from thatcher major, reversed not one bit of that, and privatised even more.
He privatised hospitals.
He took schools out of LEA control.
He sexed up a document to take the country to war on basis of lies, a war that has killed more people globally than covid has managed.
He wasted billions of tax payers money on failed projects like emergency control centres.
He boasted of investment in public services that were in fact silly PFI contracts to be paid for on the never never. £120 for a .69p lightbulb anyone?
He done more than any PM to remove U.K. from EU, by talking up the opportunities of globalisation and doing nothing for the damage globalisation was doing to our country. Tough on take back control, tough on the cause of take back control. Tough on Blair.
Oh of course, ignore all that, what really makes him the lefty and darling of all lefties is he made hunting with hounds illegal. 😂
PFI was a scam, I agree. More Brown than Blair, though, and started under the Tories. But your last sentence (unless sarcastic) is very wrong. Tony most certainly is NOT the darling of all lefties. Many of my political persuasion - although not me as it happens - hate him with a passion. I have him on the right side of the ledger and do not need to go into the ins and outs of his policies in office to explain the reason for that. He gave me what was quite simply the best night of my life on 1st May 1997. Tories out after what seemed like an eternity - was an eternity - and furthermore I won a packet on the spreads backing the landslide (which all the "shrewdies" were not believing until it happened).
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
They are just pissed this apparent fucked-up disaster zone of a country has already protected 500,000 of its most vulnerable from Covid by vaccination, whilst they - what exactly? How is their obvious superiority manifesting itself?
The head of the NY Times is British - and a former (not exactly successful) BBC DG. Their editorial line when it comes to the UK seems a bit - er - deranged.
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".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
You could only say devolution was asymmetric because the English didn't want it if an English Parliament had been rejected at a referendum. That did not happen. He created what he thought was his Labour Party fiefdom's in Wales and Scotland but didn't attempt to follow through with an English equivalent. Instead he attempted to partition England into regions and again attempted to do that asymmetrically with a Labour fiefdom for party partisan advantage - but the voters rightly saw the back of that insane idea. Where was the English Parliament to match the Scottish one?
The Tories had no alternative but to cut the spending thanks to the deficit Brown bequeathed but that is the problem - the legacy should be more than "I spent on this" - where was the reforms? Where was the good ideas?
Devolution was disastrously implemented. Besides devolution after a decade in power with landslide majorities of all the ideas as opposed to spending from Labour what good ideas have survived to see the light of day now? The minimum wage, reforming gay rights (not enough but a good start) and independence for the Bank of England and devolution were achieved early on - what else is there?
Blair had some ideas and a big bang in 1997 with a lot of structural reforms in his first year especially in the constitution but then after that its like he just coasted for a decade and besides spending what successful reforms or ideas has he left behind?
If there were an overwhelming desire for an English parliament I am guessing that the Tories who have been in power for the last decade might have delivered it by now.
The Tories have no reason to do so, they're not the ones who introduced Blair's failed asymmetric devolution, they're just dealing with its toxic aftermath.
Tam Dalyell warned for decades what would happen. Tam Dalyell was ignored. Tam Dalyell was right.
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".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
You could only say devolution was asymmetric because the English didn't want it if an English Parliament had been rejected at a referendum. That did not happen. He created what he thought was his Labour Party fiefdom's in Wales and Scotland but didn't attempt to follow through with an English equivalent. Instead he attempted to partition England into regions and again attempted to do that asymmetrically with a Labour fiefdom for party partisan advantage - but the voters rightly saw the back of that insane idea. Where was the English Parliament to match the Scottish one?
The Tories had no alternative but to cut the spending thanks to the deficit Brown bequeathed but that is the problem - the legacy should be more than "I spent on this" - where was the reforms? Where was the good ideas?
Devolution was disastrously implemented. Besides devolution after a decade in power with landslide majorities of all the ideas as opposed to spending from Labour what good ideas have survived to see the light of day now? The minimum wage, reforming gay rights (not enough but a good start) and independence for the Bank of England and devolution were achieved early on - what else is there?
Blair had some ideas and a big bang in 1997 with a lot of structural reforms in his first year especially in the constitution but then after that its like he just coasted for a decade and besides spending what successful reforms or ideas has he left behind?
If there were an overwhelming desire for an English parliament I am guessing that the Tories who have been in power for the last decade might have delivered it by now.
There is currently no demand for an English Parliament as English voters have got the UK government they voted for ever since devolution began in the late 1990s, with the party that won a majority of seats in England forming the UK government.
On current polls though that will not be the case in 2024, England would vote Tory again but would get a UK Labour led government thanks to SNP MPs.
That may well increase demands for an English Parliament within England
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
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.
“ solidly centre-left politician‘. 🤣
He inherited privatised, deregulated economy from thatcher major, reversed not one bit of that, and privatised even more.
He privatised hospitals.
He took schools out of LEA control.
He sexed up a document to take the country to war on basis of lies, a war that has killed more people globally than covid has managed.
He wasted billions of tax payers money on failed projects like emergency control centres.
He boasted of investment in public services that were in fact silly PFI contracts to be paid for on the never never. £120 for a .69p lightbulb anyone?
He done more than any PM to remove U.K. from EU, by talking up the opportunities of globalisation and doing nothing for the damage globalisation was doing to our country. Tough on take back control, tough on the cause of take back control. Tough on Blair.
Oh of course, ignore all that, what really makes him the lefty and darling of all lefties is he made hunting with hounds illegal. 😂
PFI was a scam, I agree. More Brown than Blair, though, and started under the Tories. But your last sentence (unless sarcastic) is very wrong. Tony most certainly is NOT the darling of all lefties. Many of my political persuasion - although not me as it happens - hate him with a passion. I have him on the right side of the ledger and do not need to go into the ins and outs of his policies in office to explain the reason for that. He gave me what was quite simply the best night of my life on 1st May 1997. Tories out after what seemed like an eternity - was an eternity - and furthermore I won a packet on the spreads backing the landslide (which all the "shrewdies" were not believing until it happened).
I think you hit the nail on the head of what is wrong. Thrown out of office, but the philosophy still in power? And that was good enough for you? Why?
We don’t need politicians like Blair, brown, all new labour, only interested in going up the greasy poll. People should go into politics to stand on values and win on values. Otherwise it will never change.
Capitalism needs to be reset now because of Blair and Brown, not in spite of them.
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.
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
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?!
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?
Not yet:
While we can't be sure that the new strain originated in the UK, the obvious spread out from the Isle of Sheppy or thereabouts must be fairly strong evidence that it did. Either that or it was brought into the UK by one of the very early cases.
If it had become established elsewhere and then spread to the UK, you'd expect to see a much homogeneous distribution of cases, wouldn't you?
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
"The years that followed the 2016 referendum didn’t just reinvigorate our economy, our democracy and our liberty. They improved relations with our neighbours."
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
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?
All in jest .. and it has won you this year's Bernard Manning Award. The prize is a Soiled, Sweaty Tuxedo that once Belonged to the Great Man
Of course, the COVID in Wales is where there are no sheep.
But, it looks as though Drakeford -- incredibly for such a cautious politician -- has managed to completely lose control of COVID in the South Wales Valleys.
There is an opportunity here for the Welsh opposition parties ..... if they can take it.
Fair enough. Back to the serious question - since there doesn’t seem to be evidence that S Wales yet has large quantities of the mutant virus, why has it gone so bad there?
I don't live in South Wales.
I live in the North in an ancient house with beams under which the bards sleep. And the sheep. 😁
My guess -- from reports of relatives in the South -- is that there has been poor compliance, combined with poor messaging from Drakeford.
But MexicanPete is better placed to say.
You don't have to lose control of an exponential by much ... and you are in the shit. If headlines like "Wales has worst COVID stats in the world" stick, then Drakeford is in the shit.
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
How many of his solutions have survived their encounter with reality?
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
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".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
Basic tenet of socialism -- to those that are given, much more is expected.
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
He should be rotting in prison.
He was not given 3 large majorities he earned them. Any PM winning like he did must have done something correct.
Just one example the minimum wage was fought tooth and nail by the conservatives when in government in the 90s . Another was civil partnership. Also his intervention in Sierra Leone and Kosovo were impressive. However on 9 / 11 the world and his focus changed to stand shoulder to shoulder with a Republican USA president. I for one are glad he did.
Guardian, NY Times and Liberation criticise Conservative Britain - shock
They are just pissed this apparent fucked-up disaster zone of a country has already protected 500,000 of its most vulnerable from Covid by vaccination, whilst they - what exactly? How is their obvious superiority manifesting itself?
The head of the NY Times is British - and a former (not exactly successful) BBC DG. Their editorial line when it comes to the UK seems a bit - er - deranged.
It might just have something to do with Brexit.
Partly, but I think it's as much to do with Trump. If you look at when their coverage went from simply ignoring Britain, like most of the US media, to painting it as a horror story, it was when Trump was elected. They thought that Brexit maybe somehow legitimised Trump and contributed to this election. Or something.
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
But for his work on Brexit he's a good person to have in the Lords.
I just wonder if he was a Labour MP whether you'd say the same.
Who are we kidding, you wouldn't.
Of course I would not.
I would expect Labour people to advocate for those they agree with. Why the heck should I advocate for socialists? I'm not a socialist, I don't respect Labour, there are very few Labour people I would advocate for.
But my point I already said is that the Lords is an unelected chamber that exists to advise the elected chamber. It should be defanged further and make it clear the Commons is the unicameral soul elected authority. Within that context Hannan is a good example of someone who suits that, he is an erudite thinker that isn't yet another bland carbon copy of others. But the Commons should be free to ignore him - and all other Lords.
If you want to advocate for Labour people do so yourself. Don't expect Tories to do so.
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
But for his work on Brexit he's a good person to have in the Lords.
I just wonder if he was a Labour MP whether you'd say the same.
Who are we kidding, you wouldn't.
Of course I would not.
I would expect Labour people to advocate for those they agree with. Why the heck should I advocate for socialists? I'm not a socialist, I don't respect Labour, there are very few Labour people I would advocate for.
But my point I already said is that the Lords is an unelected chamber that exists to advise the elected chamber. It should be defanged further and make it clear the Commons is the unicameral soul elected authority.
If you want to advocate for Labour people do so yourself. Don't expect Tories to do so.
Daniel Hannan isn't an inconsequential nobody, he has been a leading thinker and light within the party on what has been one of the most transformational policies in the last half a century.
Daniel Hannan has been wrong on almost everything that he has voiced an opinion on, from climate change to covid and brexit. He's a talker, not a thinker.
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".
Devolution is asymmetric because the Scots wanted it and the English didn't. It really wasn't done for party political purposes, I just don't think you understand the extent to which it was the settled will of Scots for at least a decade before Labour delivered it. Take my word for it or any of the other Scottish posters on this site. You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again. The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening. I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
You could only say devolution was asymmetric because the English didn't want it if an English Parliament had been rejected at a referendum. That did not happen. He created what he thought was his Labour Party fiefdom's in Wales and Scotland but didn't attempt to follow through with an English equivalent. Instead he attempted to partition England into regions and again attempted to do that asymmetrically with a Labour fiefdom for party partisan advantage - but the voters rightly saw the back of that insane idea. Where was the English Parliament to match the Scottish one?
The Tories had no alternative but to cut the spending thanks to the deficit Brown bequeathed but that is the problem - the legacy should be more than "I spent on this" - where was the reforms? Where was the good ideas?
Devolution was disastrously implemented. Besides devolution after a decade in power with landslide majorities of all the ideas as opposed to spending from Labour what good ideas have survived to see the light of day now? The minimum wage, reforming gay rights (not enough but a good start) and independence for the Bank of England and devolution were achieved early on - what else is there?
Blair had some ideas and a big bang in 1997 with a lot of structural reforms in his first year especially in the constitution but then after that its like he just coasted for a decade and besides spending what successful reforms or ideas has he left behind?
If there were an overwhelming desire for an English parliament I am guessing that the Tories who have been in power for the last decade might have delivered it by now.
There is currently no demand for an English Parliament as English voters have got the UK government they voted for ever since devolution began in the late 1990s, with the party that won a majority of seats in England forming the UK government.
On current polls though that will not be the case in 2024, England would vote Tory again but would get a UK Labour led government thanks to SNP MPs.
That may well increase demands for an English Parliament within England
Bingo. Devolution is asymmetric because the UK is asymmetric: its largest constituent part is 10x larger than its second largest. England will almost certainly be governed by people it voted for, Scotland has for most of the last few decades faced a UK government it didn't vote for, ditto Wales. Symmetric devolution requires power to be devolved to English regions in the same was as for Scotland, since an English parliament will generally be just an expensive replication of Westminster. But English regions don't seem to want that kind of devolution (a mystery to me given how poorly Westminster has delivered for them, but I'm not English). Hence asymmetric devolution. The alternative is Scottish independence, which you would send in the tanks to prevent.
Comments
Hence
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1340520653653458949?s=20
https://twitter.com/i/status/1340363490209505281
The trump supporters and the McCain-ites are fighting each other in Georgia like rats in a sack. Trump gives it both barrels to Kemp & Co almost every day, and Purdue and Loeffler are caught in the crossfire.
You can see the massive problem the repubs will have everywhere from now as Trumpists check out of a party they feel has completely stabbed them in the back.
Meanwhile the establishment repubs think they can just put Trump behind them and carry on as if nothing happened, and 75 million voters will show up in 2024 whatever. That is insane and it ain;t gonna happen.
I genuinely do suggest bitcoin.
He inherited privatised, deregulated economy from thatcher major, reversed not one bit of that, and privatised even more.
He privatised hospitals.
He took schools out of LEA control.
He sexed up a document to take the country to war on basis of lies, a war that has killed more people globally than covid has managed.
He wasted billions of tax payers money on failed projects like emergency control centres.
He boasted of investment in public services that were in fact silly PFI contracts to be paid for on the never never. £120 for a .69p lightbulb anyone?
He done more than any PM to remove U.K. from EU, by talking up the opportunities of globalisation and doing nothing for the damage globalisation was doing to our country. Tough on take back control, tough on the cause of take back control. Tough on Blair.
Oh of course, ignore all that, what really makes him the lefty and darling of all lefties is he made hunting with hounds illegal. 😂
It is not going to happen.
And its a problem that is going to haunt the repubs everywhere now.
There are a fair few unicameral legislatures around the world including for instance New Zealand. So I think this is a reasonable compromise, recognise the Commons as the unicameral elected chamber but allow the Lords to challenge and advise the Commons.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1180513/Councilman-forgets-turn-mic-bathroom-break.html
https://www.foxnews.com/health/us-deaths-in-2020-top-3-million-by-far-most-ever-counted
It is utterly irresponsible the Tories are not already locking us down
Doubtful.
You are completely wrong on the economy and public spending but we have had this argument many times before and life is too short to go over it again.
The Iraq war was a bad idea badly executed by bad people. We shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, although I doubt we could have stopped it from happening.
I would point to the minimum wage and devolution as two examples of Blair's legacy. I would say that gay marriage is probably down to him too, because he started the process and Cameron adopted it in order to detoxify the Tories in response to Blair's dominance. I agree with you though that he wasted the 1997-2005 majority and should have done a lot more. He did a lot to improve public services but as you say that hasn't lasted thanks to Tory cuts.
In the Northwest we've been locked down continually since about September.
That is my experience with a relative I have. (He's OK I think).
Keir Starmer: 35% (+2)
Boris Johnson: 30% (+1)
Via
@YouGov
, 15-16 December (changes since 2-3 December)
I am lost, how can you not be a PM in waiting but be the better PM?
Starmer is beginning to look ever more like one of those Presidential hopefuls, who thinks a winning smile is enough. And at the start, for getting noticed, it is. Then the questions start getting asked.
Mine has always been "How could you sit in a Shadow Cabinet for three years led by someone so relaxed about the obvious anti-semitism running rife on his watch? Was it just naked ambition for his job that allowed you to turn such a blind eye?"
Would explain a lot actually.
The Tories had no alternative but to cut the spending thanks to the deficit Brown bequeathed but that is the problem - the legacy should be more than "I spent on this" - where was the reforms? Where was the good ideas?
Devolution was disastrously implemented. Besides devolution after a decade in power with landslide majorities of all the ideas as opposed to spending from Labour what good ideas have survived to see the light of day now? The minimum wage, reforming gay rights (not enough but a good start) and independence for the Bank of England and devolution were achieved early on - what else is there?
Blair had some ideas and a big bang in 1997 with a lot of structural reforms in his first year especially in the constitution but then after that its like he just coasted for a decade and besides spending what successful reforms or ideas has he left behind?
Of course, the COVID in Wales is where there are no sheep.
But, it looks as though Drakeford -- incredibly for such a cautious politician -- has managed to completely lose control of COVID in the South Wales Valleys.
There is an opportunity here for the Welsh opposition parties ..... if they can take it.
lockdowntier 3. Quiet cup of tea with friends. BannedOh look PB Tories are out of step again!
Blair has to be judged against what he was given. He was given three large majorities & enormous political capital & huge amounts of goodwill.
By any stretch, the achievements of the Blair Governments are minuscule compared to what he was given.
He destroyed the faith of a generation in politics.
He should be rotting in prison.
You are HYUFD and I claim £5.
I think the goal is to have it done by the end of September next year, which implies the equivalent of 2-3 centres per district. Which sounds not unreasonable to me.
I also support getting rid of the HoL.
Why do you disagree?
It might just have something to do with Brexit.
Tam Dalyell warned for decades what would happen.
Tam Dalyell was ignored.
Tam Dalyell was right.
Blair's legacy is one of failure.
On current polls though that will not be the case in 2024, England would vote Tory again but would get a UK Labour led government thanks to SNP MPs.
That may well increase demands for an English Parliament within England
Stop stealing my ideas Pierce!
We don’t need politicians like Blair, brown, all new labour, only interested in going up the greasy poll. People should go into politics to stand on values and win on values. Otherwise it will never change.
Capitalism needs to be reset now because of Blair and Brown, not in spite of them.
"Oh, nice. Where?"
"Isle of Wight."
"That's not overseas!"
"Ever tried to walk it?"
https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1263419634092564485
But for his work on Brexit he's a good person to have in the Lords.
If it had become established elsewhere and then spread to the UK, you'd expect to see a much homogeneous distribution of cases, wouldn't you?
https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/
Who are we kidding, you wouldn't.
I live in the North in an ancient house with beams under which the bards sleep. And the sheep. 😁
My guess -- from reports of relatives in the South -- is that there has been poor compliance, combined with poor messaging from Drakeford.
But MexicanPete is better placed to say.
You don't have to lose control of an exponential by much ... and you are in the shit. If headlines like "Wales has worst COVID stats in the world" stick, then Drakeford is in the shit.
Any PM winning like he did must have done something correct.
Just one example the minimum wage was fought tooth and nail by the conservatives when in government in the 90s .
Another was civil partnership.
Also his intervention in Sierra Leone and Kosovo were impressive.
However on 9 / 11 the world and his focus changed to stand shoulder to shoulder with a Republican USA president.
I for one are glad he did.
I would expect Labour people to advocate for those they agree with. Why the heck should I advocate for socialists? I'm not a socialist, I don't respect Labour, there are very few Labour people I would advocate for.
But my point I already said is that the Lords is an unelected chamber that exists to advise the elected chamber. It should be defanged further and make it clear the Commons is the unicameral soul elected authority. Within that context Hannan is a good example of someone who suits that, he is an erudite thinker that isn't yet another bland carbon copy of others. But the Commons should be free to ignore him - and all other Lords.
If you want to advocate for Labour people do so yourself. Don't expect Tories to do so.
The number of cases per day taken as an average over the seven days?
Looking forward to "So you're a paedophile" when someone posts a news item about paedophilia and "So you're a Nazi" when someone mentions the war.