My theory is that even if the Tories aren’t doing a good job for these people whether it be on UC or Covid, they have very little faith that a Labour led government would make their lives better.
Isn't the swing in the Red Wall higher than the rest of the country though? Some people certainly are being convinced, not enough. But it's not like Labour isn't making any progress.
Quite possibly, I was addressing the question of “why aren’t Labour 20 points clear?”
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
I am not calling for Labour to “out socially conservative” the Tories. Just to attack them on issues which are currently seen as “right”.
Remember tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime?
That, for starters.
Yes that was good. However new Labour in government had some bad habits . Such as announcing half baked plans every week, like the police marching people down to cash points for instant justice on minor breaches of the law. I am sure SkS is more considered in his views.
Yeh, well that’s why I vote LD. However, I want to see this government defeated and it is essential that Labour is seen as electable again.
I think electing SKS is one large step in making that happen. He has a lot more goodwill with the public at large than Corbyn or Ed Milliband in that people can see him as a PM. I always regret Blair not bringing in PR for GE, it would have been seen by many as magnanimous after such a landslide win in 1997. I live in a safe conservative seat, York outer so as many experience my lib dem or Labour vote is wasted. Fptp is an affront to democracy and this country definitely needs to change to a modern democratic state.
My theory is that even if the Tories aren’t doing a good job for these people whether it be on UC or Covid, they have very little faith that a Labour led government would make their lives better.
Isn't the swing in the Red Wall higher than the rest of the country though? Some people certainly are being convinced, not enough. But it's not like Labour isn't making any progress.
Quite possibly, I was addressing the question of “why aren’t Labour 20 points clear?”
They aren't going to be 20 points clear from their current position, they're basically at the ceiling.
The only way they get 20 points clear IMHO is the Tory base fracturing and them going to 1997 levels. That isn't going to happen.
I think next election will possibly be narrow Tory majority or minority Government, I think a Labour majority is probably impossible.
I think a Lib Dem revival is certainly possible, though
Because they wanted to wait until xmas eve to announce the next set of lockdowns?
To quote Benjamin Franklin:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
This government - to their credit - is reluctant to lock people into their houses as it is a substantial diminution of personal liberty.
There becomes a point at which it is unavoidable.
When that is becomes a matter of judgement.
That is "why" they haven't expanded Tier 4 beyond the current areas, but keep it under review.
Their judgement has been wrong from day 1. Always too late to impose restrictions. Always too quick to relax them.
National lockdown from Boxing Day is needed.
Well, really it is needed now, but that is too much to hope for.
Nope - they just put a higher value on Liberty than you do.
I’m not sure there is a “right” or “wrong” here. There is a spectrum and where on the spectrum you think is right is a value judgement
Yes there is a valid debate around values. But many - I'd say most - of those loudest on the "liberty" side repeatedly fail to grasp basic and incontrovertible truths about the nature of the virus.
To be fair most of them are idiots and controversialists rather than making a coherent argument in favour of Liberty
Oh sure. In fact I think this applies to many in the Toby Young and Lozza Fox space. Even in the more unsavoury Katie Hopkins wing of it much of the time. The motive is profile and money. If anything this makes it worse imo.
*cough* Owen Jones *cough* Laurie Penny *cough* Ash whatshername
No clue who Penny is. But Jones and Sarkar are not guilty of talking crap about the virus.
My theory is that even if the Tories aren’t doing a good job for these people whether it be on UC or Covid, they have very little faith that a Labour led government would make their lives better.
Isn't the swing in the Red Wall higher than the rest of the country though? Some people certainly are being convinced, not enough. But it's not like Labour isn't making any progress.
Airlines must hand over passenger lists and hotels confine guests to their rooms.
Meanwhile prisoners (not actually guilty of anything) kept in inhumane conditions at Dover start to riot.
😟
It’s a misfortune for us to be best in the world at tracking mutations insisted the Daily Mail. (Though I suspect many other country’s around the world aren’t too far behind and they can all help one another) But did the daily rag explain why the government announced it seemingly unprepared for the reaction?
Was there actually a better way of handling disclosure of the information they were only aware of late last week?
Airlines must hand over passenger lists and hotels confine guests to their rooms.
Meanwhile prisoners (not actually guilty of anything) kept in inhumane conditions at Dover start to riot.
😟
It’s a misfortune for us to be best in the world at tracking mutations insisted the Daily Mail. (Though I suspect many other country’s around the world aren’t too far behind and they can all help one another) But did the daily rag explain why the government announced it seemingly unprepared for the reaction?
Was there actually a better way of handling disclosure of the information they were only aware of late last week?
Neil Ferguson
“… the fact that they have picked up ten cases with sequencing of this new variant in a country as small as Denmark with a relatively low infection rate would suggest, I’m almost certain in my view, that this virus has been introduced into the great majority if not all of European countries at the present time.“
My theory is that even if the Tories aren’t doing a good job for these people whether it be on UC or Covid, they have very little faith that a Labour led government would make their lives better.
Isn't the swing in the Red Wall higher than the rest of the country though? Some people certainly are being convinced, not enough. But it's not like Labour isn't making any progress.
Quite possibly, I was addressing the question of “why aren’t Labour 20 points clear?”
They aren't going to be 20 points clear from their current position, they're basically at the ceiling.
The only way they get 20 points clear IMHO is the Tory base fracturing and them going to 1997 levels. That isn't going to happen.
I think next election will possibly be narrow Tory majority or minority Government, I think a Labour majority is probably impossible.
I think a Lib Dem revival is certainly possible, though
Not if the Lib dems ever try to revoke a referendum again . For a so called democratic party following Swinson on that policy. Every lib dem should hold their head in shame. As bad as promising students to end tuition fees then doing the opposite once they got their ministerial cars.
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
I am not calling for Labour to “out socially conservative” the Tories. Just to attack them on issues which are currently seen as “right”.
Remember tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime?
That, for starters.
Yes that was good. However new Labour in government had some bad habits . Such as announcing half baked plans every week, like the police marching people down to cash points for instant justice on minor breaches of the law. I am sure SkS is more considered in his views.
Yeh, well that’s why I vote LD. However, I want to see this government defeated and it is essential that Labour is seen as electable again.
It's an interesting discussion and I'm not blind to the points that you, Sean Fear, Casino and others are making. I won a seat that had had a Tory majority of 17,000 (29%) just 10 years earlier and held it for 13 years by paying unrelenting attention to constituents as people, never giving up on a single one of them and always trying to understand where they were coming from and looking for common ground. I've never deliberately and seriously insulted anyone in my life - not fascists, not anti-vaxxers, not climate change deniers. We all get our ideas from somewhere and it doesn't make us monsters.
I have two reservations, though:
1. One has to consider where one draws the line without abandoning the reason why one took up politics. I'm ready to listen sympathetically to people who dislike the speed of change and are afraid of it, including change caused by large-scale immigration. But if someone says to me that "Immigrants are dirty" or something like that (as I've occasionally experienced), I won't pretend to agree. I'll politely say that I think that's too generalised, and people in every group vary in how they look after themselves. If that puts the voter off, it can't be helped. Writ large, the party needs to show understanding and sympathy and address practical fears without mock-pandering.
2. How far are people actually winnable? I get that you'd like Labour to be electable. I get that Casino is sincere in wanting an opposition that he respects. But would either of you actually vote Labour? The risk that Starmer takes if he focuses on patriotism and traditional values is being generally accepted as a perfectly decent opposition leader, without actually winning, because people who put those valuues first feel (even) more at home with the Conservatives. They're pleased if other parties are a bit similar, without wanting to vote for them.
I think Starmer is absolutely right to work hard to reassure people about patriotism and respect. But when that's been reasonably broadly accepted, he needs to use that as a basis to move on to wider practical issues that change people's lives. Many people are willing to accept quite a left-wing programme if they feel OK about the general values.
Airlines must hand over passenger lists and hotels confine guests to their rooms.
Meanwhile prisoners (not actually guilty of anything) kept in inhumane conditions at Dover start to riot.
😟
It’s a misfortune for us to be best in the world at tracking mutations insisted the Daily Mail. (Though I suspect many other country’s around the world aren’t too far behind and they can all help one another) But did the daily rag explain why the government announced it seemingly unprepared for the reaction?
Was there actually a better way of handling disclosure of the information they were only aware of late last week?
Neil Ferguson
“… the fact that they have picked up ten cases with sequencing of this new variant in a country as small as Denmark with a relatively low infection rate would suggest, I’m almost certain in my view, that this virus has been introduced into the great majority if not all of European countries at the present time.“
Grim, but certainly correct. The next couple of months in Europe are going to be ... the worst of all.
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
I am not calling for Labour to “out socially conservative” the Tories. Just to attack them on issues which are currently seen as “right”.
Remember tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime?
That, for starters.
Yes that was good. However new Labour in government had some bad habits . Such as announcing half baked plans every week, like the police marching people down to cash points for instant justice on minor breaches of the law. I am sure SkS is more considered in his views.
Yeh, well that’s why I vote LD. However, I want to see this government defeated and it is essential that Labour is seen as electable again.
It's an interesting discussion and I'm not blind to the points that you, Sean Fear, Casino and others are making. I won a seat that had had a Tory majority of 17,000 (29%) just 10 years earlier and held it for 13 years by paying unrelenting attention to constituents as people, never giving up on a single one of them and always trying to understand where they were coming from and looking for common ground. I've never deliberately and seriously insulted anyone in my life - not fascists, not anti-vaxxers, not climate change deniers. We all get our ideas from somewhere and it doesn't make us monsters.
I have two reservations, though:
1. One has to consider where one draws the line without abandoning the reason why one took up politics. I'm ready to listen sympathetically to people who dislike the speed of change and are afraid of it, including change caused by large-scale immigration. But if someone says to me that "Immigrants are dirty" or something like that (as I've occasionally experienced), I won't pretend to agree. I'll politely say that I think that's too generalised, and people in every group vary in how they look after themselves. If that puts the voter off, it can't be helped. Writ large, the party needs to show understanding and sympathy and address practical fears without mock-pandering.
2. How far are people actually winnable? I get that you'd like Labour to be electable. I get that Casino is sincere in wanting an opposition that he respects. But would either of you actually vote Labour? The risk that Starmer takes if he focuses on patriotism and traditional values is being generally accepted as a perfectly decent opposition leader, without actually winning, because people who put those valuues first feel (even) more at home with the Conservatives. They're pleased if other parties are a bit similar, without wanting to vote for them.
I think Starmer is absolutely right to work hard to reassure people about patriotism and respect. But when that's been reasonably broadly accepted, he needs to use that as a basis to move on to wider practical issues that change people's lives. Many people are willing to accept quite a left-wing programme if they feel OK about the general values.
Excellent post, I know you're not my biggest fan but this was excellent.
My theory is that even if the Tories aren’t doing a good job for these people whether it be on UC or Covid, they have very little faith that a Labour led government would make their lives better.
Isn't the swing in the Red Wall higher than the rest of the country though? Some people certainly are being convinced, not enough. But it's not like Labour isn't making any progress.
Quite possibly, I was addressing the question of “why aren’t Labour 20 points clear?”
They aren't going to be 20 points clear from their current position, they're basically at the ceiling.
The only way they get 20 points clear IMHO is the Tory base fracturing and them going to 1997 levels. That isn't going to happen.
I think next election will possibly be narrow Tory majority or minority Government, I think a Labour majority is probably impossible.
I think a Lib Dem revival is certainly possible, though
Not if the Lib dems ever try to revoke a referendum again . For a so called democratic party following Swinson on that policy. Every lib dem should hold their head in shame. As bad as promising students to end tuition fees then doing the opposite once they got their ministerial cars.
Not forgetting how a party which had opposed Middle Eastern warmongering changed to supporting Middle Eastern warmongering when in government.
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
You can reform the country in the direction you want to take it BUT the electorate *must* be convinced you love it first - and that means its history, its people (all of them), its mission and the potential for its future.
Yes but that doesn't mean becoming more socially conservative than the Tories.
You're right in general about Labour's patriotism problem but that doesn't mean just accepting the culture wars and fighting on the other side. Don't have the wars, that's the point I am making. Labour steps into them constantly, that's the issue.
On the patriotism thing - it feels frankly like Labour should have a lot of fertile ground here, particularly if they are willing to throw some muck.
I mean it shouldn't be impossible to make the case that people who give their mates valuable govt contracts are not actually patriots but are instead stealing from the state?
EXACTLY. See also, damaging effect of Boris on Scottish nationalist sentiment.
Damaging?
Yes, damaging to Unionists.
You think "look at nasty Boris driving the Scots away" would be a winning message in England?
Could be "Boris driving the nasty Scots away" has a different feel. It's pretty much in the vein of Tory Party propaganda in recent elections, e.g. the horror of legally elected SNP MPs being seem to have any influence whatsoever on UK policy.
And now suddenly it is over. No more railing about the Hundred (well, almost). I’ll be spared having to attend it which is just as well since I have to travel to another country to watch my local team. Like Brexit, the Hundred has been smouldering and mouldering for about four years; like Brexit most people recognise it’s a crap idea, but no one has the balls to stop it.
I can't fault any of that - and it's why the Tories focus so much on "cancel" culture as it's the only bit of conservativism they have left.
I think that depends on Sir Keir getting a convincing grip on his party and meeting the EHRC require. eg Are the new independent disciplinary processes in place and working yet?
When we come out of all the COVID stuff in a few months, someone will be going back with a checklist to see.
Think it's in place by 2021 Conference, might have got that wrong
Yes, parts are being iomplemented with immediate effect, parts require a rules change and therefore a confernece. The EHRC say they're happy with that process.
That's very interestng and sounds about right. Labour's dilemma then is how to attract the racist homophobic vote without actively supporting racism and homophobia. Michelle Obama answers that well in her book. You don't. You just hope that education and example will move the next generation to see the world more generously.
Kind of how I see it too. Bit more than just hope though. You stay out of bleeding edge social issues - where you're too far ahead of the curve - and you make a big appeal to the economic self interest of those "socially conservative" (to use the PC phrase) working class voters who have gone blue. This is what I'm hoping to see from Starmer. He isn't Corbyn - who genuinely had a "patriotism" problem due to being steeped in anti-West protest politics - and just that fact goes most of the way he needs to on this. He does NOT need to start wearing cross of St George underpants outside his trousers. Or indeed inside them. The advice that he do so from well meaning Conservative posters (and I do accept the sincerity in Casino's case, albeit less so in others) should be politely declined.
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
You can reform the country in the direction you want to take it BUT the electorate *must* be convinced you love it first - and that means its history, its people (all of them), its mission and the potential for its future.
Yes but that doesn't mean becoming more socially conservative than the Tories.
You're right in general about Labour's patriotism problem but that doesn't mean just accepting the culture wars and fighting on the other side. Don't have the wars, that's the point I am making. Labour steps into them constantly, that's the issue.
On the patriotism thing - it feels frankly like Labour should have a lot of fertile ground here, particularly if they are willing to throw some muck.
I mean it shouldn't be impossible to make the case that people who give their mates valuable govt contracts are not actually patriots but are instead stealing from the state?
EXACTLY. See also, damaging effect of Boris on Scottish nationalist sentiment.
Damaging?
Yes, damaging to Unionists.
You think "look at nasty Boris driving the Scots away" would be a winning message in England?
Yes, although I wouldn’t phrase it quite like that.
Scotland is also strategically vital for Labour from an electoral perspective.
What Labour says about Scotland and Sturgeon is utterly critical for them.
Scotland is an opportunity for Labour to make a bit of a comeback, they can surely beat the Tories for second.
Doubt it now Mr Starmer has come out all over HYUFD. That will piss off a fair proportion of his existing supporters, will it not? Labour is IIRC more split on Yes/No to Indy than any other mainstream party, even the littluns like the LDs.
That's very interestng and sounds about right. Labour's dilemma then is how to attract the racist homophobic vote without actively supporting racism and homophobia. Michelle Obama answers that well in her book. You don't. You just hope that education and example will move the next generation to see the world more generously.
Kind of how I see it too. Bit more than just hope though. You stay out of bleeding edge social issues - where you're too far ahead of the curve - and you make a big appeal to the economic self interest of those "socially conservative" (to use the PC phrase) working class voters who have gone blue. This is what I'm hoping to see from Starmer. He isn't Corbyn - who genuinely had a "patriotism" problem due to being steeped in anti-West protest politics - and just that fact goes most of the way he needs to on this. He does NOT need to start wearing cross of St George underpants outside his trousers. Or indeed inside them. The advice that he do so from well meaning Conservative posters (and I do accept the sincerity in Casino's case, albeit less so in others) should be politely declined.
To be fair, Ed M held the Red Wall. I think this idea that Starmer can't win it back is probably incorrect, I guess in time we will see how much was Corbyn + Brexit, I am going to guess it was a lot of it.
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
You can reform the country in the direction you want to take it BUT the electorate *must* be convinced you love it first - and that means its history, its people (all of them), its mission and the potential for its future.
Yes but that doesn't mean becoming more socially conservative than the Tories.
You're right in general about Labour's patriotism problem but that doesn't mean just accepting the culture wars and fighting on the other side. Don't have the wars, that's the point I am making. Labour steps into them constantly, that's the issue.
On the patriotism thing - it feels frankly like Labour should have a lot of fertile ground here, particularly if they are willing to throw some muck.
I mean it shouldn't be impossible to make the case that people who give their mates valuable govt contracts are not actually patriots but are instead stealing from the state?
EXACTLY. See also, damaging effect of Boris on Scottish nationalist sentiment.
Damaging?
Yes, damaging to Unionists.
You think "look at nasty Boris driving the Scots away" would be a winning message in England?
Yes, although I wouldn’t phrase it quite like that.
Scotland is also strategically vital for Labour from an electoral perspective.
What Labour says about Scotland and Sturgeon is utterly critical for them.
This is why Labour needs to neutralise Independence - which Starmer has sort of done - and attack on policy.
Corbyn won seven seats in Scotland, a few seats are surely in play.
It’s a misfortune for us to be best in the world at tracking mutations insisted the Daily Mail. (Though I suspect many other country’s around the world aren’t too far behind and they can all help one another)
The UK has contributed 47% of the global total of genomic maps - no other country comes remotely close is absolute terms and only the Danes do better in per-capita terms.
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
You can reform the country in the direction you want to take it BUT the electorate *must* be convinced you love it first - and that means its history, its people (all of them), its mission and the potential for its future.
Yes but that doesn't mean becoming more socially conservative than the Tories.
You're right in general about Labour's patriotism problem but that doesn't mean just accepting the culture wars and fighting on the other side. Don't have the wars, that's the point I am making. Labour steps into them constantly, that's the issue.
On the patriotism thing - it feels frankly like Labour should have a lot of fertile ground here, particularly if they are willing to throw some muck.
I mean it shouldn't be impossible to make the case that people who give their mates valuable govt contracts are not actually patriots but are instead stealing from the state?
EXACTLY. See also, damaging effect of Boris on Scottish nationalist sentiment.
Damaging?
Yes, damaging to Unionists.
You think "look at nasty Boris driving the Scots away" would be a winning message in England?
Yes, although I wouldn’t phrase it quite like that.
Scotland is also strategically vital for Labour from an electoral perspective.
What Labour says about Scotland and Sturgeon is utterly critical for them.
You underestimate how many people's opinion is somewhere on the scale between "good luck to them" and "stuff 'em".
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
I am not calling for Labour to “out socially conservative” the Tories. Just to attack them on issues which are currently seen as “right”.
Remember tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime?
That, for starters.
Yes that was good. However new Labour in government had some bad habits . Such as announcing half baked plans every week, like the police marching people down to cash points for instant justice on minor breaches of the law. I am sure SkS is more considered in his views.
Yeh, well that’s why I vote LD. However, I want to see this government defeated and it is essential that Labour is seen as electable again.
It's an interesting discussion and I'm not blind to the points that you, Sean Fear, Casino and others are making. I won a seat that had had a Tory majority of 17,000 (29%) just 10 years earlier and held it for 13 years by paying unrelenting attention to constituents as people, never giving up on a single one of them and always trying to understand where they were coming from and looking for common ground. I've never deliberately and seriously insulted anyone in my life - not fascists, not anti-vaxxers, not climate change deniers. We all get our ideas from somewhere and it doesn't make us monsters.
I have two reservations, though:
1. One has to consider where one draws the line without abandoning the reason why one took up politics. I'm ready to listen sympathetically to people who dislike the speed of change and are afraid of it, including change caused by large-scale immigration. But if someone says to me that "Immigrants are dirty" or something like that (as I've occasionally experienced), I won't pretend to agree. I'll politely say that I think that's too generalised, and people in every group vary in how they look after themselves. If that puts the voter off, it can't be helped. Writ large, the party needs to show understanding and sympathy and address practical fears without mock-pandering.
2. How far are people actually winnable? I get that you'd like Labour to be electable. I get that Casino is sincere in wanting an opposition that he respects. But would either of you actually vote Labour? The risk that Starmer takes if he focuses on patriotism and traditional values is being generally accepted as a perfectly decent opposition leader, without actually winning, because people who put those valuues first feel (even) more at home with the Conservatives. They're pleased if other parties are a bit similar, without wanting to vote for them.
I think Starmer is absolutely right to work hard to reassure people about patriotism and respect. But when that's been reasonably broadly accepted, he needs to use that as a basis to move on to wider practical issues that change people's lives. Many people are willing to accept quite a left-wing programme if they feel OK about the general values.
It’s that late 5% Labour needs.
They don’t need to ignore or pander to racism to win them, they need to appeal to the values and issues important to this group (who tend to be white working class).
Would I vote Labour? Under the right circumstances, yes. It was not possible under Corbyn, and frankly under Miliband either. Starmer is more palatable than both of them.
It’s a misfortune for us to be best in the world at tracking mutations insisted the Daily Mail. (Though I suspect many other country’s around the world aren’t too far behind and they can all help one another)
The UK has contributed 47% of the global total of genomic maps - no other country comes remotely close is absolute terms and only the Danes do better in per-capita terms.
That is good isn’t it? 🙂. A clear world leader in genomic mapping.
Ireland way ahead of Germany looks good for them too.
And it’s something else Australia are good at, other than cricket.
The fundamental point about these figures (and others that have shown the same, for years), is that Labour wins among people of working age, and loses, big time, when they retire (though obviously many do continue to work after 65). The act of retiring does seem to produce a change in values - and that applies to many of my generation who grew up as thoroughly left-wing. I don't fully understand it - I get that things like child benefit and employment rights cease to feel personally important if you're 70, but that can't be the whole story. Nor do people of my age generally become socially illiberal - all my contemporaries that I know are fine with gay marriage, women priests, etc. But they start to become...uneasy about change.
The fundamental point about these figures (and others that have shown the same, for years), is that Labour wins among people of working age, and loses, big time, when they retire (though obviously many do continue to work after 65). The act of retiring does seem to produce a change in values - and that applies to many of my generation who grew up as thoroughly left-wing. I don't fully understand it - I get that things like child benefit and employment rights cease to feel personally important if you're 70, but that can't be the whole story. Nor do people of my age generally become socially illiberal - all my contemporaries that I know are fine with gay marriage, women priests, etc. But they start to become...uneasy about change.
Why would they vote Conservative if they are uneasy about change?
That's very interestng and sounds about right. Labour's dilemma then is how to attract the racist homophobic vote without actively supporting racism and homophobia. Michelle Obama answers that well in her book. You don't. You just hope that education and example will move the next generation to see the world more generously.
Kind of how I see it too. Bit more than just hope though. You stay out of bleeding edge social issues - where you're too far ahead of the curve - and you make a big appeal to the economic self interest of those "socially conservative" (to use the PC phrase) working class voters who have gone blue. This is what I'm hoping to see from Starmer. He isn't Corbyn - who genuinely had a "patriotism" problem due to being steeped in anti-West protest politics - and just that fact goes most of the way he needs to on this. He does NOT need to start wearing cross of St George underpants outside his trousers. Or indeed inside them. The advice that he do so from well meaning Conservative posters (and I do accept the sincerity in Casino's case, albeit less so in others) should be politely declined.
Sneering Brexiteers accuse PLU of being horribly patronising for posts like this. They say that we never understood why the country voted Brexit and that our condescension shows we never will. In fact I successfully bet on the Brexit vote outcome, despite being a remainer.
Anyway, you're undoubtedly right: Brexiteers are generally less educated and therefore more racist than Remainers. I don't care if that brings vast flak. It's simply true. On the other hand, the metropolitan London-centric pro-Europeans did little to help their cause. And neither did the EU bureaucracy. There was plenty of ammo for Vote Leave to work with.
But Labour's problem is not just north but far north. In 2005 they won 41 Scottish seats to Westminster. Last year they won a single seat. That's 40 seats down. I am far from convinced that a pro-unionist Labour party has much meaningful to offer a post-Brexit Scotland.
That's very interestng and sounds about right. Labour's dilemma then is how to attract the racist homophobic vote without actively supporting racism and homophobia. Michelle Obama answers that well in her book. You don't. You just hope that education and example will move the next generation to see the world more generously.
Kind of how I see it too. Bit more than just hope though. You stay out of bleeding edge social issues - where you're too far ahead of the curve - and you make a big appeal to the economic self interest of those "socially conservative" (to use the PC phrase) working class voters who have gone blue. This is what I'm hoping to see from Starmer. He isn't Corbyn - who genuinely had a "patriotism" problem due to being steeped in anti-West protest politics - and just that fact goes most of the way he needs to on this. He does NOT need to start wearing cross of St George underpants outside his trousers. Or indeed inside them. The advice that he do so from well meaning Conservative posters (and I do accept the sincerity in Casino's case, albeit less so in others) should be politely declined.
To be fair, Ed M held the Red Wall. I think this idea that Starmer can't win it back is probably incorrect, I guess in time we will see how much was Corbyn + Brexit, I am going to guess it was a lot of it.
That was before 23 June 2016. Brexit has (sadly) changed the political landscape. I'm not writing off the Red Wall either - you can't do that - but what I'm saying is if winning it back requires the adoption of conservative social values in place of progressive ones, I don't want to go that route, and I also think it would be electorally very risky, given Labour's voting base these days is not that way inclined.
My theory is that even if the Tories aren’t doing a good job for these people whether it be on UC or Covid, they have very little faith that a Labour led government would make their lives better.
Isn't the swing in the Red Wall higher than the rest of the country though? Some people certainly are being convinced, not enough. But it's not like Labour isn't making any progress.
Quite possibly, I was addressing the question of “why aren’t Labour 20 points clear?”
They aren't going to be 20 points clear from their current position, they're basically at the ceiling.
The only way they get 20 points clear IMHO is the Tory base fracturing and them going to 1997 levels. That isn't going to happen.
I think next election will possibly be narrow Tory majority or minority Government, I think a Labour majority is probably impossible.
I think a Lib Dem revival is certainly possible, though
Not if the Lib dems ever try to revoke a referendum again . For a so called democratic party following Swinson on that policy. Every lib dem should hold their head in shame. As bad as promising students to end tuition fees then doing the opposite once they got their ministerial cars.
Not forgetting how a party which had opposed Middle Eastern warmongering changed to supporting Middle Eastern warmongering when in government.
Very true , the Lib dems following Cameron over Libya and Syria whilst in government. Certainly changed from the days of Charles Kennedy. I find it hard to know what they are about. A protest vote in an election , which I have done but beyond that hard to say. I know it is hard for them to get coverage as a third or fourth party. However Labour would need them to do well in Conservative seats , to have a chance of government. Not happening at the moment.
It’s a misfortune for us to be best in the world at tracking mutations insisted the Daily Mail. (Though I suspect many other country’s around the world aren’t too far behind and they can all help one another)
The UK has contributed 47% of the global total of genomic maps - no other country comes remotely close is absolute terms and only the Danes do better in per-capita terms.
My point was though, once you hold knowledge, how do you release it so rest of world appreciate you are helping them, not a pariah state?
It’s not necessarily a knocking a government post, it could be the it’s rest of the world who have reacted wrongly, hunting Brits in ski resorts when it’s already in Ski resorts.
Didn't we at one time show several photos of the Labour leader to indicate Labour's lead? I think we should go back to that. I must say I can't believe Johnson is still polling around 37%. Even people with zero interest in politics would love nothing better than to see him hanging on Westminster Bridge.
LOL! I see I got BJO nine 'likes' saying how disgusting this comment of mine was! 'Twas but a figure of speech. I'm wading my way through Wolf Hall where such hyperbole is commonplace. Perhaps BJO can find a Hillary Mantel site and get another 9 'Felix' likes!
I hate Johnson and I thought the comment you made was appalling.
felix.....FELIX!!!
Already liked. I'm concerned that you seem to be obsessed with me to the point where you keep referencing my name to deflect from your appaling bad taste commentary on here. Really odd as I'd be surprised if a dozen posters have a clue who I am and those that do would care even less. I actually would like you to stop though as I find it both disturbing and creepy.
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
I am not calling for Labour to “out socially conservative” the Tories. Just to attack them on issues which are currently seen as “right”.
Remember tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime?
That, for starters.
Yes that was good. However new Labour in government had some bad habits . Such as announcing half baked plans every week, like the police marching people down to cash points for instant justice on minor breaches of the law. I am sure SkS is more considered in his views.
Yeh, well that’s why I vote LD. However, I want to see this government defeated and it is essential that Labour is seen as electable again.
It's an interesting discussion and I'm not blind to the points that you, Sean Fear, Casino and others are making. I won a seat that had had a Tory majority of 17,000 (29%) just 10 years earlier and held it for 13 years by paying unrelenting attention to constituents as people, never giving up on a single one of them and always trying to understand where they were coming from and looking for common ground. I've never deliberately and seriously insulted anyone in my life - not fascists, not anti-vaxxers, not climate change deniers. We all get our ideas from somewhere and it doesn't make us monsters.
I have two reservations, though:
1. One has to consider where one draws the line without abandoning the reason why one took up politics. I'm ready to listen sympathetically to people who dislike the speed of change and are afraid of it, including change caused by large-scale immigration. But if someone says to me that "Immigrants are dirty" or something like that (as I've occasionally experienced), I won't pretend to agree. I'll politely say that I think that's too generalised, and people in every group vary in how they look after themselves. If that puts the voter off, it can't be helped. Writ large, the party needs to show understanding and sympathy and address practical fears without mock-pandering.
2. How far are people actually winnable? I get that you'd like Labour to be electable. I get that Casino is sincere in wanting an opposition that he respects. But would either of you actually vote Labour? The risk that Starmer takes if he focuses on patriotism and traditional values is being generally accepted as a perfectly decent opposition leader, without actually winning, because people who put those valuues first feel (even) more at home with the Conservatives. They're pleased if other parties are a bit similar, without wanting to vote for them.
I think Starmer is absolutely right to work hard to reassure people about patriotism and respect. But when that's been reasonably broadly accepted, he needs to use that as a basis to move on to wider practical issues that change people's lives. Many people are willing to accept quite a left-wing programme if they feel OK about the general values.
It’s that late 5% Labour needs.
They don’t need to ignore or pander to racism to win them, they need to appeal to the values and issues important to this group (who tend to be white working class).
Would I vote Labour? Under the right circumstances, yes. It was not possible under Corbyn, and frankly under Miliband either. Starmer is more palatable than both of them.
It’s not necessarily a knocking a government post, it could be the it’s rest of the world who have reacted wrongly, hunting Brits in ski resorts when it’s already in Ski resorts.
Hunting Brits in ski resorts is definitely my kind of policy
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
You can reform the country in the direction you want to take it BUT the electorate *must* be convinced you love it first - and that means its history, its people (all of them), its mission and the potential for its future.
Yes but that doesn't mean becoming more socially conservative than the Tories.
You're right in general about Labour's patriotism problem but that doesn't mean just accepting the culture wars and fighting on the other side. Don't have the wars, that's the point I am making. Labour steps into them constantly, that's the issue.
On the patriotism thing - it feels frankly like Labour should have a lot of fertile ground here, particularly if they are willing to throw some muck.
I mean it shouldn't be impossible to make the case that people who give their mates valuable govt contracts are not actually patriots but are instead stealing from the state?
EXACTLY. See also, damaging effect of Boris on Scottish nationalist sentiment.
Damaging?
Yes, damaging to Unionists.
You think "look at nasty Boris driving the Scots away" would be a winning message in England?
Yes, although I wouldn’t phrase it quite like that.
Scotland is also strategically vital for Labour from an electoral perspective.
What Labour says about Scotland and Sturgeon is utterly critical for them.
You underestimate how many people's opinion is somewhere on the scale between "good luck to them" and "stuff 'em".
SLAB doing its best to back SKS and win elections: lending £13m of cooncil dosh to Labour Croydon council which is, errm, supposedly technically not backrupt, just "issued two section 114 notices declaring it cannot pay its debts", so that is all right.
To put in some context, Midlothian population is 91.340 on the latest data.
That's very interestng and sounds about right. Labour's dilemma then is how to attract the racist homophobic vote without actively supporting racism and homophobia. Michelle Obama answers that well in her book. You don't. You just hope that education and example will move the next generation to see the world more generously.
Kind of how I see it too. Bit more than just hope though. You stay out of bleeding edge social issues - where you're too far ahead of the curve - and you make a big appeal to the economic self interest of those "socially conservative" (to use the PC phrase) working class voters who have gone blue. This is what I'm hoping to see from Starmer. He isn't Corbyn - who genuinely had a "patriotism" problem due to being steeped in anti-West protest politics - and just that fact goes most of the way he needs to on this. He does NOT need to start wearing cross of St George underpants outside his trousers. Or indeed inside them. The advice that he do so from well meaning Conservative posters (and I do accept the sincerity in Casino's case, albeit less so in others) should be politely declined.
To be fair, Ed M held the Red Wall. I think this idea that Starmer can't win it back is probably incorrect, I guess in time we will see how much was Corbyn + Brexit, I am going to guess it was a lot of it.
That was before 23 June 2016. Brexit has (sadly) changed the political landscape. I'm not writing off the Red Wall either - you can't do that - but what I'm saying is if winning it back requires the adoption of conservative social values in place of progressive ones, I don't want to go that route, and I also think it would be electorally very risky, given Labour's voting base these days is not that way inclined.
Okay but then how do you pick up seats to replace the Red Wall? There aren't enough of them. A clean sweep of London (which is basically impossible but Labour will pick up more seats there) doesn't get you close.
Labour needs to re-build its coalition. I am sorry to say this but frankly the socially liberal Corbyn base makes sod all difference to electability.
You see that in 2019, where despite more votes and a higher percentage than Brown in 2010, Labour did a lot worse. If all we do is stack up votes in already held seats, it's a waste of time.
The route to a Government is through the Red Wall, always has been. We need to do a Biden.
Now regarding Scotland, what is toxic in the rest of England is the idea the SNP will be in Government. We need to make it clear they won't be in Government with Labour, even if that means Labour goes backwards in Scotland. Perception matters. In some sense we need to attack the SNP more than the Tories.
Excellent post, I know you're not my biggest fan but this was excellent.
Thank you! And hey, I'm not one of your critics! I think you're always interesting, regardless of whether I agree with a post - you're more centrist than me and maybe sometimes react more emotionally (that really IS my age talking), but that just makes you closer to most voters...
It’s a misfortune for us to be best in the world at tracking mutations insisted the Daily Mail. (Though I suspect many other country’s around the world aren’t too far behind and they can all help one another)
The UK has contributed 47% of the global total of genomic maps - no other country comes remotely close is absolute terms and only the Danes do better in per-capita terms.
Nevertheless, the distribution of this new strain indicates that it probably did arise in the UK rather than being imported. See, for example:
Scientists say the new strain does appear to have begun in Kent, although other European countries have reported low numbers of cases.
Professor Wendy Barclay from Imperial College London said the genetic fingerprint of the new Covid-19 variant was “unique to the UK” although South Africa has reported a similar strain that appears to have evolved independently.
Dr Susan Hopkins from Public Health England said: “This very much looks like a point source in England that then emerged and spread, so I think that it is very likely it emerged here.”
It is, of course, testament to the our capabilities in this area that we have been able to identify it relatively quickly and provide warning to other countries. In a way, it is a stoke of good fortune that this particularly nasty strain has apparently arisen in a country that was so well equipped to detect it!
Excellent post, I know you're not my biggest fan but this was excellent.
Thank you! And hey, I'm not one of your critics! I think you're always interesting, regardless of whether I agree with a post - you're more centrist than me and maybe sometimes react more emotionally (that really IS my age talking), but that just makes you closer to most voters...
The fundamental point about these figures (and others that have shown the same, for years), is that Labour wins among people of working age, and loses, big time, when they retire (though obviously many do continue to work after 65). The act of retiring does seem to produce a change in values - and that applies to many of my generation who grew up as thoroughly left-wing. I don't fully understand it - I get that things like child benefit and employment rights cease to feel personally important if you're 70, but that can't be the whole story. Nor do people of my age generally become socially illiberal - all my contemporaries that I know are fine with gay marriage, women priests, etc. But they start to become...uneasy about change.
Yes. All macro "divides" are suspect but the age one does seem to be the starkest for Labour. Got to horse whisper to those oldies!
The fundamental point about these figures (and others that have shown the same, for years), is that Labour wins among people of working age, and loses, big time, when they retire (though obviously many do continue to work after 65). The act of retiring does seem to produce a change in values - and that applies to many of my generation who grew up as thoroughly left-wing. I don't fully understand it - I get that things like child benefit and employment rights cease to feel personally important if you're 70, but that can't be the whole story. Nor do people of my age generally become socially illiberal - all my contemporaries that I know are fine with gay marriage, women priests, etc. But they start to become...uneasy about change.
Yes. All macro "divides" are suspect but the age one does seem to be the starkest for Labour. Got to horse whisper to those oldies!
From BBC live feed. Think there might be an error here.. "Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed a further 1,190 people have tested positive for Covid-19 in the past 24 hours, taking the total number of deaths in Scotland to 115,566"
It’s a misfortune for us to be best in the world at tracking mutations insisted the Daily Mail. (Though I suspect many other country’s around the world aren’t too far behind and they can all help one another)
The UK has contributed 47% of the global total of genomic maps - no other country comes remotely close is absolute terms and only the Danes do better in per-capita terms.
Nevertheless, the distribution of this new strain indicates that it probably did arise in the UK rather than being imported. See, for example:
Scientists say the new strain does appear to have begun in Kent, although other European countries have reported low numbers of cases.
Professor Wendy Barclay from Imperial College London said the genetic fingerprint of the new Covid-19 variant was “unique to the UK” although South Africa has reported a similar strain that appears to have evolved independently.
Dr Susan Hopkins from Public Health England said: “This very much looks like a point source in England that then emerged and spread, so I think that it is very likely it emerged here.”
It is, of course, testament to the our capabilities in this area that we have been able to identify it relatively quickly and provide warning to other countries. In a way, it is a stoke of good fortune that this particularly nasty strain has apparently arisen in a country that was so well equipped to detect it!
Unless you have corrected for the selection effects in genomic testing, it is not possible to say that it is "unique to the UK".
However, Neil Ferguson is right to say it is VERY significant that countries like Denmark have detected the strain despite have low infection rates and doing very little genomic mapping.
The fundamental point about these figures (and others that have shown the same, for years), is that Labour wins among people of working age, and loses, big time, when they retire (though obviously many do continue to work after 65). The act of retiring does seem to produce a change in values - and that applies to many of my generation who grew up as thoroughly left-wing. I don't fully understand it - I get that things like child benefit and employment rights cease to feel personally important if you're 70, but that can't be the whole story. Nor do people of my age generally become socially illiberal - all my contemporaries that I know are fine with gay marriage, women priests, etc. But they start to become...uneasy about change.
Labour's stance is fascinating. Fighting tooth and nail to eke out the lives of the Tory faithful, piling debt and a multitude of other woes onto their core vote.
That's very interestng and sounds about right. Labour's dilemma then is how to attract the racist homophobic vote without actively supporting racism and homophobia. Michelle Obama answers that well in her book. You don't. You just hope that education and example will move the next generation to see the world more generously.
Kind of how I see it too. Bit more than just hope though. You stay out of bleeding edge social issues - where you're too far ahead of the curve - and you make a big appeal to the economic self interest of those "socially conservative" (to use the PC phrase) working class voters who have gone blue. This is what I'm hoping to see from Starmer. He isn't Corbyn - who genuinely had a "patriotism" problem due to being steeped in anti-West protest politics - and just that fact goes most of the way he needs to on this. He does NOT need to start wearing cross of St George underpants outside his trousers. Or indeed inside them. The advice that he do so from well meaning Conservative posters (and I do accept the sincerity in Casino's case, albeit less so in others) should be politely declined.
To be fair, Ed M held the Red Wall. I think this idea that Starmer can't win it back is probably incorrect, I guess in time we will see how much was Corbyn + Brexit, I am going to guess it was a lot of it.
That was before 23 June 2016. Brexit has (sadly) changed the political landscape. I'm not writing off the Red Wall either - you can't do that - but what I'm saying is if winning it back requires the adoption of conservative social values in place of progressive ones, I don't want to go that route, and I also think it would be electorally very risky, given Labour's voting base these days is not that way inclined.
Okay but then how do you pick up seats to replace the Red Wall? There aren't enough of them. A clean sweep of London (which is basically impossible but Labour will pick up more seats there) doesn't get you close.
Labour needs to re-build its coalition. I am sorry to say this but frankly the socially liberal Corbyn base makes sod all difference to electability.
You see that in 2019, where despite more votes and a higher percentage than Brown in 2010, Labour did a lot worse. If all we do is stack up votes in already held seats, it's a waste of time.
The route to a Government is through the Red Wall, always has been. We need to do a Biden.
Now regarding Scotland, what is toxic in the rest of England is the idea the SNP will be in Government. We need to make it clear they won't be in Government with Labour, even if that means Labour goes backwards in Scotland. Perception matters. In some sense we need to attack the SNP more than the Tories.
Hmm. You do realise there is something called EVEL.
And what do you do when the Tories issue posters of SKS in Ms Sturgeon's pocket, handbag, whatever?
Seems like a small swing to Labour, MoE though so in reality both parties remain tied?
From Greens and LDs - Tory vote is stable. Quite remarkable in the sense that for the umpteenth time it shows how out of touch are both the media and indeed many PB commenters. The dissonance they must feel may be what contributes to some of their outlandish commentary we see on here and elsewhere.
From BBC live feed. Think there might be an error here.. "Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed a further 1,190 people have tested positive for Covid-19 in the past 24 hours, taking the total number of deaths in Scotland to 115,566"
From BBC live feed. Think there might be an error here.. "Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed a further 1,190 people have tested positive for Covid-19 in the past 24 hours, taking the total number of deaths in Scotland to 115,566"
UK Gmt total is below 5K so I'd say yes. Who produced it, the same folk as did the Salmond special?!
Seems like a small swing to Labour, MoE though so in reality both parties remain tied?
From Greens and LDs - Tory vote is stable. Quite remarkable in the sense that for the umpteenth time it shows how out of touch are both the media and indeed many PB commenters. The dissonance they must feel may be what contributes to some of their outlandish commentary we see on here and elsewhere.
We're not that out of touch, we represent seemingly roughly 40% of the voting population, the Tories represent the other 40%.
I think going from 25 points to 40 points is quite extraordinary. Despite all the messages of doom and gloom, Labour is doing well in polling terms.
It’s a misfortune for us to be best in the world at tracking mutations insisted the Daily Mail. (Though I suspect many other country’s around the world aren’t too far behind and they can all help one another)
The UK has contributed 47% of the global total of genomic maps - no other country comes remotely close is absolute terms and only the Danes do better in per-capita terms.
Nevertheless, the distribution of this new strain indicates that it probably did arise in the UK rather than being imported. See, for example:
Scientists say the new strain does appear to have begun in Kent, although other European countries have reported low numbers of cases.
Professor Wendy Barclay from Imperial College London said the genetic fingerprint of the new Covid-19 variant was “unique to the UK” although South Africa has reported a similar strain that appears to have evolved independently.
Dr Susan Hopkins from Public Health England said: “This very much looks like a point source in England that then emerged and spread, so I think that it is very likely it emerged here.”
It is, of course, testament to the our capabilities in this area that we have been able to identify it relatively quickly and provide warning to other countries. In a way, it is a stoke of good fortune that this particularly nasty strain has apparently arisen in a country that was so well equipped to detect it!
Unless you have corrected for the selection effects in genomic testing, it is not possible to say that it is "unique to the UK".
However, Neil Ferguson is right to say it is VERY significant that countries like Denmark have detected the strain despite have low infection rates and doing very little genomic mapping.
No offence, but I'd rather take the Professor Barclay's word on this than yours. And yes, it is indeed significant that countries like Denmark have detected the strain. It shows that strain probably spread to Denmark very shortly after it arose in the UK.
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
I am not calling for Labour to “out socially conservative” the Tories. Just to attack them on issues which are currently seen as “right”.
Remember tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime?
That, for starters.
Yes that was good. However new Labour in government had some bad habits . Such as announcing half baked plans every week, like the police marching people down to cash points for instant justice on minor breaches of the law. I am sure SkS is more considered in his views.
Yeh, well that’s why I vote LD. However, I want to see this government defeated and it is essential that Labour is seen as electable again.
It's an interesting discussion and I'm not blind to the points that you, Sean Fear, Casino and others are making. I won a seat that had had a Tory majority of 17,000 (29%) just 10 years earlier and held it for 13 years by paying unrelenting attention to constituents as people, never giving up on a single one of them and always trying to understand where they were coming from and looking for common ground. I've never deliberately and seriously insulted anyone in my life - not fascists, not anti-vaxxers, not climate change deniers. We all get our ideas from somewhere and it doesn't make us monsters.
I have two reservations, though:
1. One has to consider where one draws the line without abandoning the reason why one took up politics. I'm ready to listen sympathetically to people who dislike the speed of change and are afraid of it, including change caused by large-scale immigration. But if someone says to me that "Immigrants are dirty" or something like that (as I've occasionally experienced), I won't pretend to agree. I'll politely say that I think that's too generalised, and people in every group vary in how they look after themselves. If that puts the voter off, it can't be helped. Writ large, the party needs to show understanding and sympathy and address practical fears without mock-pandering.
2. How far are people actually winnable? I get that you'd like Labour to be electable. I get that Casino is sincere in wanting an opposition that he respects. But would either of you actually vote Labour? The risk that Starmer takes if he focuses on patriotism and traditional values is being generally accepted as a perfectly decent opposition leader, without actually winning, because people who put those valuues first feel (even) more at home with the Conservatives. They're pleased if other parties are a bit similar, without wanting to vote for them.
I think Starmer is absolutely right to work hard to reassure people about patriotism and respect. But when that's been reasonably broadly accepted, he needs to use that as a basis to move on to wider practical issues that change people's lives. Many people are willing to accept quite a left-wing programme if they feel OK about the general values.
It’s that late 5% Labour needs.
They don’t need to ignore or pander to racism to win them, they need to appeal to the values and issues important to this group (who tend to be white working class).
Would I vote Labour? Under the right circumstances, yes. It was not possible under Corbyn, and frankly under Miliband either. Starmer is more palatable than both of them.
Why not under Miliband?
Too wonky, lacked gravitas (at the time), made some stupid policy calls, too “beta”, stabbed his brother in the back etc.
That's very interestng and sounds about right. Labour's dilemma then is how to attract the racist homophobic vote without actively supporting racism and homophobia. Michelle Obama answers that well in her book. You don't. You just hope that education and example will move the next generation to see the world more generously.
Kind of how I see it too. Bit more than just hope though. You stay out of bleeding edge social issues - where you're too far ahead of the curve - and you make a big appeal to the economic self interest of those "socially conservative" (to use the PC phrase) working class voters who have gone blue. This is what I'm hoping to see from Starmer. He isn't Corbyn - who genuinely had a "patriotism" problem due to being steeped in anti-West protest politics - and just that fact goes most of the way he needs to on this. He does NOT need to start wearing cross of St George underpants outside his trousers. Or indeed inside them. The advice that he do so from well meaning Conservative posters (and I do accept the sincerity in Casino's case, albeit less so in others) should be politely declined.
Sneering Brexiteers accuse PLU of being horribly patronising for posts like this. They say that we never understood why the country voted Brexit and that our condescension shows we never will. In fact I successfully bet on the Brexit vote outcome, despite being a remainer.
Anyway, you're undoubtedly right: Brexiteers are generally less educated and therefore more racist than Remainers. I don't care if that brings vast flak. It's simply true. On the other hand, the metropolitan London-centric pro-Europeans did little to help their cause. And neither did the EU bureaucracy. There was plenty of ammo for Vote Leave to work with.
But Labour's problem is not just north but far north. In 2005 they won 41 Scottish seats to Westminster. Last year they won a single seat. That's 40 seats down. I am far from convinced that a pro-unionist Labour party has much meaningful to offer a post-Brexit Scotland.
IMO it's patronizing to pander to notions you find ignorant or to values you find objectionable. You should say, "You are wrong and here's why." That's honest and treating people with respect.
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
I am not calling for Labour to “out socially conservative” the Tories. Just to attack them on issues which are currently seen as “right”.
Remember tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime?
That, for starters.
Yes that was good. However new Labour in government had some bad habits . Such as announcing half baked plans every week, like the police marching people down to cash points for instant justice on minor breaches of the law. I am sure SkS is more considered in his views.
Yeh, well that’s why I vote LD. However, I want to see this government defeated and it is essential that Labour is seen as electable again.
It's an interesting discussion and I'm not blind to the points that you, Sean Fear, Casino and others are making. I won a seat that had had a Tory majority of 17,000 (29%) just 10 years earlier and held it for 13 years by paying unrelenting attention to constituents as people, never giving up on a single one of them and always trying to understand where they were coming from and looking for common ground. I've never deliberately and seriously insulted anyone in my life - not fascists, not anti-vaxxers, not climate change deniers. We all get our ideas from somewhere and it doesn't make us monsters.
I have two reservations, though:
1. One has to consider where one draws the line without abandoning the reason why one took up politics. I'm ready to listen sympathetically to people who dislike the speed of change and are afraid of it, including change caused by large-scale immigration. But if someone says to me that "Immigrants are dirty" or something like that (as I've occasionally experienced), I won't pretend to agree. I'll politely say that I think that's too generalised, and people in every group vary in how they look after themselves. If that puts the voter off, it can't be helped. Writ large, the party needs to show understanding and sympathy and address practical fears without mock-pandering.
2. How far are people actually winnable? I get that you'd like Labour to be electable. I get that Casino is sincere in wanting an opposition that he respects. But would either of you actually vote Labour? The risk that Starmer takes if he focuses on patriotism and traditional values is being generally accepted as a perfectly decent opposition leader, without actually winning, because people who put those valuues first feel (even) more at home with the Conservatives. They're pleased if other parties are a bit similar, without wanting to vote for them.
I think Starmer is absolutely right to work hard to reassure people about patriotism and respect. But when that's been reasonably broadly accepted, he needs to use that as a basis to move on to wider practical issues that change people's lives. Many people are willing to accept quite a left-wing programme if they feel OK about the general values.
It’s that late 5% Labour needs.
They don’t need to ignore or pander to racism to win them, they need to appeal to the values and issues important to this group (who tend to be white working class).
Would I vote Labour? Under the right circumstances, yes. It was not possible under Corbyn, and frankly under Miliband either. Starmer is more palatable than both of them.
Why not under Miliband?
Too wonky, lacked gravitas (at the time), made some stupid policy calls, too “beta”, stabbed his brother in the back etc.
I think he chose bad advisors, who seemed to be there despite having lost an election just a few years earlier.
He's so much better now he's allowed to be a human.
Seems like a small swing to Labour, MoE though so in reality both parties remain tied?
From Greens and LDs - Tory vote is stable. Quite remarkable in the sense that for the umpteenth time it shows how out of touch are both the media and indeed many PB commenters. The dissonance they must feel may be what contributes to some of their outlandish commentary we see on here and elsewhere.
The person who lives in Spain lectures people in the UK about being “out of touch”. Right.
There’s nothing “out of touch” about not agreeing with Conservatives when only 40% of the population even supports them.
It’s a misfortune for us to be best in the world at tracking mutations insisted the Daily Mail. (Though I suspect many other country’s around the world aren’t too far behind and they can all help one another)
The UK has contributed 47% of the global total of genomic maps - no other country comes remotely close is absolute terms and only the Danes do better in per-capita terms.
Nevertheless, the distribution of this new strain indicates that it probably did arise in the UK rather than being imported. See, for example:
Scientists say the new strain does appear to have begun in Kent, although other European countries have reported low numbers of cases.
Professor Wendy Barclay from Imperial College London said the genetic fingerprint of the new Covid-19 variant was “unique to the UK” although South Africa has reported a similar strain that appears to have evolved independently.
Dr Susan Hopkins from Public Health England said: “This very much looks like a point source in England that then emerged and spread, so I think that it is very likely it emerged here.”
It is, of course, testament to the our capabilities in this area that we have been able to identify it relatively quickly and provide warning to other countries. In a way, it is a stoke of good fortune that this particularly nasty strain has apparently arisen in a country that was so well equipped to detect it!
Unless you have corrected for the selection effects in genomic testing, it is not possible to say that it is "unique to the UK".
However, Neil Ferguson is right to say it is VERY significant that countries like Denmark have detected the strain despite have low infection rates and doing very little genomic mapping.
No offence, but I'd rather take the Professor Barclay's word on this than yours. And yes, it is indeed significant that countries like Denmark have detected the strain. It shows that strain probably spread to Denmark very shortly after it arose in the UK.
The fundamental point about these figures (and others that have shown the same, for years), is that Labour wins among people of working age, and loses, big time, when they retire (though obviously many do continue to work after 65). The act of retiring does seem to produce a change in values - and that applies to many of my generation who grew up as thoroughly left-wing. I don't fully understand it - I get that things like child benefit and employment rights cease to feel personally important if you're 70, but that can't be the whole story. Nor do people of my age generally become socially illiberal - all my contemporaries that I know are fine with gay marriage, women priests, etc. But they start to become...uneasy about change.
In relation to your last couple of sentences, I agree entirely. I think dubbing them all as out of touch racists as that Twitter thread from earlier tried to do is wrong and misses the point. There will be a hardcore minority of racists and homophobes but I think the vast majority will just be uneasy with societal change generally and will see high profile examples on the news with unease that the world is changing too fast around them. Doesn't validate the behaviour, but to understand where it comes from makes it easier to counter.
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
I am not calling for Labour to “out socially conservative” the Tories. Just to attack them on issues which are currently seen as “right”.
Remember tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime?
That, for starters.
Yes that was good. However new Labour in government had some bad habits . Such as announcing half baked plans every week, like the police marching people down to cash points for instant justice on minor breaches of the law. I am sure SkS is more considered in his views.
Yeh, well that’s why I vote LD. However, I want to see this government defeated and it is essential that Labour is seen as electable again.
It's an interesting discussion and I'm not blind to the points that you, Sean Fear, Casino and others are making. I won a seat that had had a Tory majority of 17,000 (29%) just 10 years earlier and held it for 13 years by paying unrelenting attention to constituents as people, never giving up on a single one of them and always trying to understand where they were coming from and looking for common ground. I've never deliberately and seriously insulted anyone in my life - not fascists, not anti-vaxxers, not climate change deniers. We all get our ideas from somewhere and it doesn't make us monsters.
I have two reservations, though:
1. One has to consider where one draws the line without abandoning the reason why one took up politics. I'm ready to listen sympathetically to people who dislike the speed of change and are afraid of it, including change caused by large-scale immigration. But if someone says to me that "Immigrants are dirty" or something like that (as I've occasionally experienced), I won't pretend to agree. I'll politely say that I think that's too generalised, and people in every group vary in how they look after themselves. If that puts the voter off, it can't be helped. Writ large, the party needs to show understanding and sympathy and address practical fears without mock-pandering.
2. How far are people actually winnable? I get that you'd like Labour to be electable. I get that Casino is sincere in wanting an opposition that he respects. But would either of you actually vote Labour? The risk that Starmer takes if he focuses on patriotism and traditional values is being generally accepted as a perfectly decent opposition leader, without actually winning, because people who put those valuues first feel (even) more at home with the Conservatives. They're pleased if other parties are a bit similar, without wanting to vote for them.
I think Starmer is absolutely right to work hard to reassure people about patriotism and respect. But when that's been reasonably broadly accepted, he needs to use that as a basis to move on to wider practical issues that change people's lives. Many people are willing to accept quite a left-wing programme if they feel OK about the general values.
Agree with most of that Nick and want to build on it a little. From my experience small p patriotism is alive and well in traditional Labour voting communities. Labour's problem is that the yoghurt-knitting tendency consider any expressions of small p patriotism as being large P may as well admit you're a nazi comments.
Who does he think would have developed the vaccines without "Big Pharma"?
Jezza's views would find plenty of support on the radical right, interestingly enough. Bill Gates is the devil incarnate there !!
"Imagine if the drive of the pharmaceutical corporations for ever greater profit was removed from the equation. Imagine if we could replace cutthroat competition and secrecy with collaboration and openness. Imagine if our research was driven solely by the desire to rid the world of disease and suffering, starting with the most serious and deadly conditions. When combined with our technological knowhow, the dedication of our brilliant researchers and the trust which such a model could inspire in the population at large, imagine what we could achieve. "
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
I am not calling for Labour to “out socially conservative” the Tories. Just to attack them on issues which are currently seen as “right”.
Remember tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime?
That, for starters.
Yes that was good. However new Labour in government had some bad habits . Such as announcing half baked plans every week, like the police marching people down to cash points for instant justice on minor breaches of the law. I am sure SkS is more considered in his views.
Yeh, well that’s why I vote LD. However, I want to see this government defeated and it is essential that Labour is seen as electable again.
It's an interesting discussion and I'm not blind to the points that you, Sean Fear, Casino and others are making. I won a seat that had had a Tory majority of 17,000 (29%) just 10 years earlier and held it for 13 years by paying unrelenting attention to constituents as people, never giving up on a single one of them and always trying to understand where they were coming from and looking for common ground. I've never deliberately and seriously insulted anyone in my life - not fascists, not anti-vaxxers, not climate change deniers. We all get our ideas from somewhere and it doesn't make us monsters.
I have two reservations, though:
1. One has to consider where one draws the line without abandoning the reason why one took up politics. I'm ready to listen sympathetically to people who dislike the speed of change and are afraid of it, including change caused by large-scale immigration. But if someone says to me that "Immigrants are dirty" or something like that (as I've occasionally experienced), I won't pretend to agree. I'll politely say that I think that's too generalised, and people in every group vary in how they look after themselves. If that puts the voter off, it can't be helped. Writ large, the party needs to show understanding and sympathy and address practical fears without mock-pandering.
2. How far are people actually winnable? I get that you'd like Labour to be electable. I get that Casino is sincere in wanting an opposition that he respects. But would either of you actually vote Labour? The risk that Starmer takes if he focuses on patriotism and traditional values is being generally accepted as a perfectly decent opposition leader, without actually winning, because people who put those valuues first feel (even) more at home with the Conservatives. They're pleased if other parties are a bit similar, without wanting to vote for them.
I think Starmer is absolutely right to work hard to reassure people about patriotism and respect. But when that's been reasonably broadly accepted, he needs to use that as a basis to move on to wider practical issues that change people's lives. Many people are willing to accept quite a left-wing programme if they feel OK about the general values.
It’s that late 5% Labour needs.
They don’t need to ignore or pander to racism to win them, they need to appeal to the values and issues important to this group (who tend to be white working class).
Would I vote Labour? Under the right circumstances, yes. It was not possible under Corbyn, and frankly under Miliband either. Starmer is more palatable than both of them.
Why not under Miliband?
Too wonky, lacked gravitas (at the time), made some stupid policy calls, too “beta”, stabbed his brother in the back etc.
I think he chose bad advisors, who seemed to be there despite having lost an election just a few years earlier.
He's so much better now he's allowed to be a human.
Some politicians become more human, more worthwhile and more fit for office after they've suffered defeat and humiliation.
This especially applies to those politicians, such as EdM, who had their career given to them too easily - safe seat, fast-tracking etc.
The irony is that many flounce from politics after that defeat and humiliation.
Seems like a small swing to Labour, MoE though so in reality both parties remain tied?
From Greens and LDs - Tory vote is stable. Quite remarkable in the sense that for the umpteenth time it shows how out of touch are both the media and indeed many PB commenters. The dissonance they must feel may be what contributes to some of their outlandish commentary we see on here and elsewhere.
The person who lives in Spain lectures people in the UK about being “out of touch”. Right.
There’s nothing “out of touch” about not agreeing with Conservatives when only 40% of the population even supports them.
Lol - it's very instructive to view the UK from a distance. Gives another perspective. I'm sorry that the polling upsets you but if you are satisfied with Labour's polling in the midst of both the pandemic and the Brexit shambles more power to your elbow though - could keep Labour out of power for another 20 years with luck.
The fundamental point about these figures (and others that have shown the same, for years), is that Labour wins among people of working age, and loses, big time, when they retire (though obviously many do continue to work after 65). The act of retiring does seem to produce a change in values - and that applies to many of my generation who grew up as thoroughly left-wing. I don't fully understand it - I get that things like child benefit and employment rights cease to feel personally important if you're 70, but that can't be the whole story. Nor do people of my age generally become socially illiberal - all my contemporaries that I know are fine with gay marriage, women priests, etc. But they start to become...uneasy about change.
The fundamental point about these figures (and others that have shown the same, for years), is that Labour wins among people of working age, and loses, big time, when they retire (though obviously many do continue to work after 65). The act of retiring does seem to produce a change in values - and that applies to many of my generation who grew up as thoroughly left-wing. I don't fully understand it - I get that things like child benefit and employment rights cease to feel personally important if you're 70, but that can't be the whole story. Nor do people of my age generally become socially illiberal - all my contemporaries that I know are fine with gay marriage, women priests, etc. But they start to become...uneasy about change.
I think the tipping point is more mid 40’s than upon retirement. It was age 47 in 2017, when the two parties ran close.
Seems like a small swing to Labour, MoE though so in reality both parties remain tied?
From Greens and LDs - Tory vote is stable. Quite remarkable in the sense that for the umpteenth time it shows how out of touch are both the media and indeed many PB commenters. The dissonance they must feel may be what contributes to some of their outlandish commentary we see on here and elsewhere.
The person who lives in Spain lectures people in the UK about being “out of touch”. Right.
There’s nothing “out of touch” about not agreeing with Conservatives when only 40% of the population even supports them.
Lol - it's very instructive to view the UK from a distance. Gives another perspective. I'm sorry that the polling upsets you but if you are satisfied with Labour's polling in the midst of both the pandemic and the Brexit shambles more power to your elbow though - could keep Labour out of power for another 20 years with luck.
So are you saying Labour should be polling higher? Maybe three points higher but then any higher and they're beating Blair.
Now I am wanting Labour to win a super majority as much as the next guy but I think that's extremely likely. Labour's polling is probably as good as it could be, no?
Who does he think would have developed the vaccines without "Big Pharma"?
Jezza's views would find plenty of support on the radical right, interestingly enough. Bill Gates is the devil incarnate there !!
"Imagine if the drive of the pharmaceutical corporations for ever greater profit was removed from the equation. Imagine if we could replace cutthroat competition and secrecy with collaboration and openness. Imagine if our research was driven solely by the desire to rid the world of disease and suffering, starting with the most serious and deadly conditions. When combined with our technological knowhow, the dedication of our brilliant researchers and the trust which such a model could inspire in the population at large, imagine what we could achieve. "
Imagine if everything was free..
''........long lost third verse of John Lennon song sensationally discovered......'
Who does he think would have developed the vaccines without "Big Pharma"?
Jezza's views would find plenty of support on the radical right, interestingly enough. Bill Gates is the devil incarnate there !!
"Imagine if the drive of the pharmaceutical corporations for ever greater profit was removed from the equation. Imagine if we could replace cutthroat competition and secrecy with collaboration and openness. Imagine if our research was driven solely by the desire to rid the world of disease and suffering, starting with the most serious and deadly conditions. When combined with our technological knowhow, the dedication of our brilliant researchers and the trust which such a model could inspire in the population at large, imagine what we could achieve. "
Imagine if everything was free..
Remember it was a Jezza policy to just ignore international patent laws and make knock-off versions of drugs.
Seems like a small swing to Labour, MoE though so in reality both parties remain tied?
From Greens and LDs - Tory vote is stable. Quite remarkable in the sense that for the umpteenth time it shows how out of touch are both the media and indeed many PB commenters. The dissonance they must feel may be what contributes to some of their outlandish commentary we see on here and elsewhere.
The person who lives in Spain lectures people in the UK about being “out of touch”. Right.
There’s nothing “out of touch” about not agreeing with Conservatives when only 40% of the population even supports them.
Lol - it's very instructive to view the UK from a distance. Gives another perspective. I'm sorry that the polling upsets you but if you are satisfied with Labour's polling in the midst of both the pandemic and the Brexit shambles more power to your elbow though - could keep Labour out of power for another 20 years with luck.
So are you saying Labour should be polling higher? Maybe three points higher but then any higher and they're beating Blair.
Now I am wanting Labour to win a super majority as much as the next guy but I think that's extremely likely. Labour's polling is probably as good as it could be, no?
It isn't so much how much higher Labour gan go, but how far the Conservatives can plummet.
Who does he think would have developed the vaccines without "Big Pharma"?
Jezza's views would find plenty of support on the radical right, interestingly enough. Bill Gates is the devil incarnate there !!
"Imagine if the drive of the pharmaceutical corporations for ever greater profit was removed from the equation. Imagine if we could replace cutthroat competition and secrecy with collaboration and openness. Imagine if our research was driven solely by the desire to rid the world of disease and suffering, starting with the most serious and deadly conditions. When combined with our technological knowhow, the dedication of our brilliant researchers and the trust which such a model could inspire in the population at large, imagine what we could achieve. "
Imagine if everything was free..
Remember it was a Jezza policy to just ignore international patent laws and make knock-off versions of drugs.
As for the crux of Casino_Royale's point, I've often spoken about that myself. I don't agree that the solution is to out social conservative Labour (which Labour can't ever do anyway), the solution is to not get involved in culture wars.
Blair was very good on this topic.
I am not calling for Labour to “out socially conservative” the Tories. Just to attack them on issues which are currently seen as “right”.
Remember tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime?
That, for starters.
Yes that was good. However new Labour in government had some bad habits . Such as announcing half baked plans every week, like the police marching people down to cash points for instant justice on minor breaches of the law. I am sure SkS is more considered in his views.
Yeh, well that’s why I vote LD. However, I want to see this government defeated and it is essential that Labour is seen as electable again.
It's an interesting discussion and I'm not blind to the points that you, Sean Fear, Casino and others are making. I won a seat that had had a Tory majority of 17,000 (29%) just 10 years earlier and held it for 13 years by paying unrelenting attention to constituents as people, never giving up on a single one of them and always trying to understand where they were coming from and looking for common ground. I've never deliberately and seriously insulted anyone in my life - not fascists, not anti-vaxxers, not climate change deniers. We all get our ideas from somewhere and it doesn't make us monsters.
I have two reservations, though:
1. One has to consider where one draws the line without abandoning the reason why one took up politics. I'm ready to listen sympathetically to people who dislike the speed of change and are afraid of it, including change caused by large-scale immigration. But if someone says to me that "Immigrants are dirty" or something like that (as I've occasionally experienced), I won't pretend to agree. I'll politely say that I think that's too generalised, and people in every group vary in how they look after themselves. If that puts the voter off, it can't be helped. Writ large, the party needs to show understanding and sympathy and address practical fears without mock-pandering.
2. How far are people actually winnable? I get that you'd like Labour to be electable. I get that Casino is sincere in wanting an opposition that he respects. But would either of you actually vote Labour? The risk that Starmer takes if he focuses on patriotism and traditional values is being generally accepted as a perfectly decent opposition leader, without actually winning, because people who put those valuues first feel (even) more at home with the Conservatives. They're pleased if other parties are a bit similar, without wanting to vote for them.
I think Starmer is absolutely right to work hard to reassure people about patriotism and respect. But when that's been reasonably broadly accepted, he needs to use that as a basis to move on to wider practical issues that change people's lives. Many people are willing to accept quite a left-wing programme if they feel OK about the general values.
It’s that late 5% Labour needs.
They don’t need to ignore or pander to racism to win them, they need to appeal to the values and issues important to this group (who tend to be white working class).
Would I vote Labour? Under the right circumstances, yes. It was not possible under Corbyn, and frankly under Miliband either. Starmer is more palatable than both of them.
Why not under Miliband?
Too wonky, lacked gravitas (at the time), made some stupid policy calls, too “beta”, stabbed his brother in the back etc.
I think he chose bad advisors, who seemed to be there despite having lost an election just a few years earlier.
He's so much better now he's allowed to be a human.
Some politicians become more human, more worthwhile and more fit for office after they've suffered defeat and humiliation.
This especially applies to those politicians, such as EdM, who had their career given to them too easily - safe seat, fast-tracking etc.
The irony is that many flounce from politics after that defeat and humiliation.
True - thank heavens Miliband kept away from SCD - his toes would not twinkle!
Comments
He has a lot more goodwill with the public at large than Corbyn or Ed Milliband in that people can see him as a PM.
I always regret Blair not bringing in PR for GE, it would have been seen by many as magnanimous after such a landslide win in 1997.
I live in a safe conservative seat, York outer so as many experience my lib dem or Labour vote is wasted.
Fptp is an affront to democracy and this country definitely needs to change to a modern democratic state.
The only way they get 20 points clear IMHO is the Tory base fracturing and them going to 1997 levels. That isn't going to happen.
I think next election will possibly be narrow Tory majority or minority Government, I think a Labour majority is probably impossible.
I think a Lib Dem revival is certainly possible, though
Hunt for British tourists in ski resorts
Airlines must hand over passenger lists and hotels confine guests to their rooms.
Meanwhile prisoners (not actually guilty of anything) kept in inhumane conditions at Dover start to riot.
😟
It’s a misfortune for us to be best in the world at tracking mutations insisted the Daily Mail. (Though I suspect many other country’s around the world aren’t too far behind and they can all help one another) But did the daily rag explain why the government announced it seemingly unprepared for the reaction?
Was there actually a better way of handling disclosure of the information they were only aware of late last week?
Seems like a small swing to Labour, MoE though so in reality both parties remain tied?
“… the fact that they have picked up ten cases with sequencing of this new variant in a country as small as Denmark with a relatively low infection rate would suggest, I’m almost certain in my view, that this virus has been introduced into the great majority if not all of European countries at the present time.“
For a so called democratic party following Swinson on that policy.
Every lib dem should hold their head in shame.
As bad as promising students to end tuition fees then doing the opposite once they got their ministerial cars.
Toss a coin.
Heads - get fish.
Tails - get £1m.
£1m to be provided by anyone who wants the matter over (should be plenty of businesses willing to contribute).
I have two reservations, though:
1. One has to consider where one draws the line without abandoning the reason why one took up politics. I'm ready to listen sympathetically to people who dislike the speed of change and are afraid of it, including change caused by large-scale immigration. But if someone says to me that "Immigrants are dirty" or something like that (as I've occasionally experienced), I won't pretend to agree. I'll politely say that I think that's too generalised, and people in every group vary in how they look after themselves. If that puts the voter off, it can't be helped. Writ large, the party needs to show understanding and sympathy and address practical fears without mock-pandering.
2. How far are people actually winnable? I get that you'd like Labour to be electable. I get that Casino is sincere in wanting an opposition that he respects. But would either of you actually vote Labour? The risk that Starmer takes if he focuses on patriotism and traditional values is being generally accepted as a perfectly decent opposition leader, without actually winning, because people who put those valuues first feel (even) more at home with the Conservatives. They're pleased if other parties are a bit similar, without wanting to vote for them.
I think Starmer is absolutely right to work hard to reassure people about patriotism and respect. But when that's been reasonably broadly accepted, he needs to use that as a basis to move on to wider practical issues that change people's lives. Many people are willing to accept quite a left-wing programme if they feel OK about the general values.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwCYIfm6eA
If it was just a matter of money, this would have been sorted weeks ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2020/dec/23/last-post-after-31-years-farewell-vic-marks-cricket
And now suddenly it is over. No more railing about the Hundred (well, almost). I’ll be spared having to attend it which is just as well since I have to travel to another country to watch my local team. Like Brexit, the Hundred has been smouldering and mouldering for about four years; like Brexit most people recognise it’s a crap idea, but no one has the balls to stop it.
Scotland is also strategically vital for Labour from an electoral perspective.
What Labour says about Scotland and Sturgeon is utterly critical for them.
Corbyn won seven seats in Scotland, a few seats are surely in play.
Oh ffs, this bollocks again
They don’t need to ignore or pander to racism to win them, they need to appeal to the values and issues important to this group (who tend to be white working class).
Would I vote Labour?
Under the right circumstances, yes.
It was not possible under Corbyn, and frankly under Miliband either. Starmer is more palatable than both of them.
Ireland way ahead of Germany looks good for them too.
And it’s something else Australia are good at, other than cricket.
🤔. Hmmmmmm
Anyway, you're undoubtedly right: Brexiteers are generally less educated and therefore more racist than Remainers. I don't care if that brings vast flak. It's simply true. On the other hand, the metropolitan London-centric pro-Europeans did little to help their cause. And neither did the EU bureaucracy. There was plenty of ammo for Vote Leave to work with.
But Labour's problem is not just north but far north. In 2005 they won 41 Scottish seats to Westminster. Last year they won a single seat. That's 40 seats down. I am far from convinced that a pro-unionist Labour party has much meaningful to offer a post-Brexit Scotland.
Certainly changed from the days of Charles Kennedy.
I find it hard to know what they are about.
A protest vote in an election , which I have done but beyond that hard to say.
I know it is hard for them to get coverage as a third or fourth party.
However Labour would need them to do well in Conservative seats , to have a chance of government.
Not happening at the moment.
It’s not necessarily a knocking a government post, it could be the it’s rest of the world who have reacted wrongly, hunting Brits in ski resorts when it’s already in Ski resorts.
Members of the cabinet are self-isolating while awaiting a Covid test and result, the government said.
To put in some context, Midlothian population is 91.340 on the latest data.
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/lifestyle/auditors-investigate-midlothian-councils-ps13-million-loan-bankrupt-london-authority-3070176
Labour needs to re-build its coalition. I am sorry to say this but frankly the socially liberal Corbyn base makes sod all difference to electability.
You see that in 2019, where despite more votes and a higher percentage than Brown in 2010, Labour did a lot worse. If all we do is stack up votes in already held seats, it's a waste of time.
The route to a Government is through the Red Wall, always has been. We need to do a Biden.
Now regarding Scotland, what is toxic in the rest of England is the idea the SNP will be in Government. We need to make it clear they won't be in Government with Labour, even if that means Labour goes backwards in Scotland. Perception matters. In some sense we need to attack the SNP more than the Tories.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-the-new-coronavirus-variant
Scientists say the new strain does appear to have begun in Kent, although other European countries have reported low numbers of cases.
Professor Wendy Barclay from Imperial College London said the genetic fingerprint of the new Covid-19 variant was “unique to the UK” although South Africa has reported a similar strain that appears to have evolved independently.
Dr Susan Hopkins from Public Health England said: “This very much looks like a point source in England that then emerged and spread, so I think that it is very likely it emerged here.”
It is, of course, testament to the our capabilities in this area that we have been able to identify it relatively quickly and provide warning to other countries. In a way, it is a stoke of good fortune that this particularly nasty strain has apparently arisen in a country that was so well equipped to detect it!
Happy Christmas to you Sir.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1341721714670100486
"Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed a further 1,190 people have tested positive for Covid-19 in the past 24 hours, taking the total number of deaths in Scotland to 115,566"
However, Neil Ferguson is right to say it is VERY significant that countries like Denmark have detected the strain despite have low infection rates and doing very little genomic mapping.
You can;t accuse them of cynicism.
And what do you do when the Tories issue posters of SKS in Ms Sturgeon's pocket, handbag, whatever?
I think going from 25 points to 40 points is quite extraordinary. Despite all the messages of doom and gloom, Labour is doing well in polling terms.
JUST GO AWAY JEREMY
He's so much better now he's allowed to be a human.
There’s nothing “out of touch” about not agreeing with Conservatives when only 40% of the population even supports them.
We know where this ends, a lockdown. What are we waiting for, lockdown England now.
Is there are any other hard, low paid and dangerous economic sector which is also a hobby to large numbers of people ?
Is there some sort of prehistoric obsession about fishing which means it is far more symbolic than economic ?
Well that's the uni vote maintained, sadly they don't vote and/or vote in the wrong places
Imagine if everything was free..
This especially applies to those politicians, such as EdM, who had their career given to them too easily - safe seat, fast-tracking etc.
The irony is that many flounce from politics after that defeat and humiliation.
Now I am wanting Labour to win a super majority as much as the next guy but I think that's extremely likely. Labour's polling is probably as good as it could be, no?