Populations everywhere are urbanizing, and old people die a lot. Some of them will become more conservative as they get older, but not all of them, especially as house buying is less accessible to younger people. Con has gone very hard on the themes of the declining demographics in a way that will be hard to reverse.
Parties can always reorient themselves so this of course doesn't mean that Con are doomed to long-term irrelevance, but the same fact means that Lab will ultimately find a winning coalition. I'm not sure whether they've got one now or not, and I don't have a strong opinion about where they should get it from, but I don't see a *structural* reason for the UK (or whatever is left of it) to be a long-term one-party state.
Mainly simply a reflection of the fact the average age more people own a property than not is now 39, so Labour will continue to receive a majority of votes of renters under 40 but as long as most people over 40 own a property they have to reassure those voters as Blair did their assets are secure
The header says : "It may shortly lose (or be forced to share) power in Wales."
Labour are already sharing power in Wales with the the Lib Dem (Kirtsy) + Loose Cannon (Dafydd Ellis Tomos).
I think some Labour losses are baked in at the Senedd, as Mark Drakeford is not as Smooth as Carwyn. Right at the moment, though, I'd say the Tories were in more trouble in Wales than Labour.
I have long though the Tories' best performer in the Senedd was Suzy Davies, who looks almost human and has a good campaigning instinct. In a normal, meritocratic party, she should actually be the leader.
She has been effectively deselected from the South Wales West list, presumably replaced by some Tory pachyderm with a tail and tusks.
Jonathan Morgan also failed to make a high position on the South Wales Central list, being judged insufficiently anti-devolution.
The Tories are gradually hardening into an anti-devolution party in Wales, which is a very niche interest indeed. This will probably help stem Labour losses come the Senedd elections.
If the Welsh Tories don't take the institution seriously, no good candidates will stand, and they will end up being represented by a bunch of freaks, lunaticks and nut-jobs in the Senedd.
They look well on the way to achieving that.
Over a quarter to a third of Welsh voters want to scrap the Senedd, given the Welsh Conservatives only got 21% in 2016 they could make gains in May on that platform
1. Most voters who want to scrap the Senedd won't actually vote in the Senedd elections. This is a classic non-voter position. "They are all charlatans and rogues, Get rid of all' em, shut the Senedd."
2. If the Tories scrap the Senedd, then back come all the small Welsh (mainly Labour) constituencies at Westminster.
You are getting most of the extra 10 seats in Westminster in the boundary changes BECAUSE Welsh matters are devolved.
Unless I've missed something I thought it was principally just based on population. Had a quick look on web and does seem that way.
No, that is incorrect.
Before devolution, the Welsh and Scottish seats were always smaller than English ones.
The Welsh seats were smaller by construction, not just because of population loss.
The Scottish Westminster seats got re-drawn after devolution, but the Welsh seats never did. (And Scotland lost seats at Westminster).
The Welsh seats did not get redrawn after 1999 -- probably because at the beginning it was not in Labour's interests to do so, and latterly because the Tories have not been in a position to do so.
You’d be surprised how much many of us on the right want to see those on the bottom rung of society pulled up, and understand the dangers of Uber-capitalism (with a deliberate capitalisation), to both a functioning society and the chances of being re-elected.
The problem is that message isn't getting through. Johnson' talk of "levelling up" is up there with "the big society" as a meaningless platitude. We'd all like to earn more and live better and of course overall economic growth achieves that but we still seem locked in this universe of "trickle down" which means the very wealthy do much better while those at the bottom only do a little better.
Laffer dictates that trying to punitively pull the wealthy down is counter productive in terms of overall wealth generation so you rely on the largesse of the very rich to help the poorest which they can do either for motivated self interest or out of genuine philanthropy (as some do).
Unfortunately, the undercurrent I pick up is some on the LEAVE side wanted Brexit to usher in a period of de-regulation including making a bonfire of protection for workers and the environment. I've no desire to live in an off shore Singapore where my existence is solely to provide goods and services for the planet's billionaires and where the London property market is distorted by the bolt holes of the extremely wealthy.
That's what I hear from some on the conservative side - it's masked by words like "sovereignty" and "taking back control" but all I get from that is wages and conditions reduced and hours increased and we should be so much better than that in the 21st Century and we should call time on that kind of thinking.
The corollary, I suppose, is if the Right won't protect workers' rights and conditions, the Left will - except of course they won't either.
My circle of Welsh Tory-leaning xenophobes are heartened by RT's elevation, coupled with Johnson's overall Covid performance.
N.B. Spellchecker changed RT's to Rat's?
You have the advantage on me on attitudes to the RaT.
I don't think I actually know any Welsh Tories personally (except of course BigG, remotely). So, I am not sure whether it is a plus or a minus for the Tories.
All my circle of family, friends are either Don't Vote, Plaid or Labour.
( But, one of my long-dead uncles was a Welsh Tory, & he was rather gentlemanly. Another of my long-dead uncles was a Labour MP for a Valleys mining constituency, he was more of a ruffian, actually ).
The other side of the anecdotal coin, is my Conservative minded wife (a benevolent Lady Bountiful, old-school feudal Tory) detested Paul Davies, and considers RT to be considerably worse. For reference, she can't bear Johnson or any of his cabinet either.
Over a quarter to a third of Welsh voters want to scrap the Senedd, given the Welsh Conservatives only got 21% in 2016 they could make gains in May on that platform
There is a Party, Abolish, already on that ground. An interesting group with some ex-Conservatives and ex-UKIP people. Abolish has two seats in the Senedd now and could be the kingmakers (I suppose).
They do not stand for the Constituencies though so the Conservatives could win Abolish votes on the constituency vote even if not the List
"Labour has not comfortably won 40%+ of the vote since 1970"
When they also lost.
Very good assessment. However, I would throw something else into the mix. Labour continually tries to implement a broken business model. It invariably tries to pump up a public sector to levels that the private sector cannot afford. It loads up taxes and borrowing that the private sector suffers to pay. The result? Invariably, every Labour Govt. leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited.
And post-Covid, that private sector will have been suffering the loss of businesses and the furloughing of workers that the public sector has sailed through. Worse, sailed through demanding pay rises, which Labour have said they will accede to. Not to diminsh the huge effort put in to fighting Covid, but structurally, it's the private sector that bears the scars of Covid. And will continue to do so, as it again has to bear the taxation and borrowing associated with propping up the economy. Those who would implement Corbynism jump about saying "Look! We can find the money when we have to!" - blithely ignoring the once-in-a-century nature of the reason and its immense burden that will have to be lifted.
We have also been fortunate to share a global problem with the outcome of low and reducing interest rates. The UK going on a spending binge in isolation would leave the rest of the world looking on askance - and demanding unusually higher interests from us. Just in case.
Labour won big in 1997 because a) Blair who b) didn't scare the innately small-C conservative British electorate. People believed him when he said he would follow big-C Conservative spending. As a result, he had the "scars on his back" from the public sector. If Labour wants power, Starmer will need to play that card again.
And endure to the howls from his own side.
Yes to those last two paragraphs, and rcs1000, below, says "The most likely group to be that opposition is the Labour Party."
What you are both saying is the the LP only wins if it successfully conceals what it is.
It only wins, if it changes what it is.
In which case it becomes unhinged from its ideology; it becomes nothing.
I`m an old-fashioned sort. I want parties to be ideological.
But times change, and parties need to change with them.
Tony Blair got a huge amount of internal pushback over ‘Clause 4’, but the wider electorate understood the change and supported it.
Unions are now almost exclusively a public sector, middle class thing - but there’s millions of people now working casual jobs ‘self-employed’ for large companies, who can barely make rent, let alone think of owning property. What’s the Labour Party proposing, for those who actually labour?
Completely agree with that. Our society is becoming more divided, not less, and there is an ever larger number of people doing casual work on minimum wage with minimal rights, supposedly self employed. Who speaks for them? What chance have they got of getting a decent home, secure family life, a half decent retirement? Instead they face huge job insecurity, poverty and alienation.
They are not a majority but does even 40% of us not care? Who can make us care? That is surely the challenge.
Absolutely right - I hadn't realised you were a man of the left. Those divisions have flourished over the last 10 years. Labour's challenge is to represent the people you mention, to restore their dignity and improve their life chances in all the ways you mention. But at the same time to do so with a tranche of policies that appeal to, or at least do not threaten the interests of, those who have more secure presents and futures.
Trouble is, that group voted for Boris last time. @DavidL asks who speaks for them? and the answer is Dominic Cummings. Next time it might be Nigel Farage's aptly-named RefUK.
Cummings co-opted left-behind voters in left-behind towns to vote, probably against their own interests, first for Brexit and then for Boris. Collapse of stout red wall. Hence the levelling up agenda.
But now Cummings is no more. Or is he? Shades of #ClassicDom in the Kahneman pop psychology book giving succour to CCHQ as we discussed recently?
The Tories (more strictly, Brexiters, but they are now the Tories) stoked up nationalism in order to win on the European question, and now see the opportunities it might offer to win the party political contest.
They thought it should be safe to do so, within the British political system where no party of the further right can ever establish a foothold.
The problem they have is that there are parts of our country where nationalism leads toward other consequences.
/Meanwhile on comes BBC Politics South, leading on the outrage with Brexit among the fishing and shellfishing community....
The header says : "It may shortly lose (or be forced to share) power in Wales."
Labour are already sharing power in Wales with the the Lib Dem (Kirtsy) + Loose Cannon (Dafydd Ellis Tomos).
I think some Labour losses are baked in at the Senedd, as Mark Drakeford is not as Smooth as Carwyn. Right at the moment, though, I'd say the Tories were in more trouble in Wales than Labour.
I have long though the Tories' best performer in the Senedd was Suzy Davies, who looks almost human and has a good campaigning instinct. In a normal, meritocratic party, she should actually be the leader.
She has been effectively deselected from the South Wales West list, presumably replaced by some Tory pachyderm with a tail and tusks.
Jonathan Morgan also failed to make a high position on the South Wales Central list, being judged insufficiently anti-devolution.
The Tories are gradually hardening into an anti-devolution party in Wales, which is a very niche interest indeed. This will probably help stem Labour losses come the Senedd elections.
If the Welsh Tories don't take the institution seriously, no good candidates will stand, and they will end up being represented by a bunch of freaks, lunaticks and nut-jobs in the Senedd.
They look well on the way to achieving that.
Over a quarter to a third of Welsh voters want to scrap the Senedd, given the Welsh Conservatives only got 21% in 2016 they could make gains in May on that platform
1. Most voters who want to scrap the Senedd won't actually vote in the Senedd elections. This is a classic non-voter position. "They are all charlatans and rogues, Get rid of all' em, shut the Senedd."
2. If the Tories scrap the Senedd, then back come all the small Welsh (mainly Labour) constituencies at Westminster.
You are getting most of the extra 10 seats in Westminster in the boundary changes BECAUSE Welsh matters are devolved.
Unless I've missed something I thought it was principally just based on population. Had a quick look on web and does seem that way.
No, that is incorrect.
Before devolution, the Welsh and Scottish seats were always smaller than English ones.
The Welsh seats were smaller by construction, not just because of population loss.
The Scottish Westminster seats got re-drawn after devolution, but the Welsh seats never did.
Probably because at the beginning it was not in Labour's interests to do so, and latterly because the Tories have not been in a position to do so.
Ok I see - so it used to be disproportionate. In the event that the Senedd was abolished there would presumably be no guarantee that matters would revert though would there?
If you want astonishing cricket, West Indies are about to chase down 394 to beat Bangladesh and one Kyle Mayers is writing his won piece of cricket history.
We all know of secessionist movements across the world like Scotland and Catalonia who want independence from one country.
But apart from Northern Ireland, are there any examples of one part of a country wanting to leave one country and join another?
Yes, Flanders wants to join the Netherlands.
There must be loads more examples of such parties in Eastern Europe.
The Hungarians in Romania want to join Romania, the Kosovans want to join Albania, the Moldovans join Romania, and the Serb and Croat parties in Bosnia want to dismember their country, etc.
The South Tyrolese Independence movement wants to rejoin Austria.
The header says : "It may shortly lose (or be forced to share) power in Wales."
Labour are already sharing power in Wales with the the Lib Dem (Kirtsy) + Loose Cannon (Dafydd Ellis Tomos).
I think some Labour losses are baked in at the Senedd, as Mark Drakeford is not as Smooth as Carwyn. Right at the moment, though, I'd say the Tories were in more trouble in Wales than Labour.
I have long though the Tories' best performer in the Senedd was Suzy Davies, who looks almost human and has a good campaigning instinct. In a normal, meritocratic party, she should actually be the leader.
She has been effectively deselected from the South Wales West list, presumably replaced by some Tory pachyderm with a tail and tusks.
Jonathan Morgan also failed to make a high position on the South Wales Central list, being judged insufficiently anti-devolution.
The Tories are gradually hardening into an anti-devolution party in Wales, which is a very niche interest indeed. This will probably help stem Labour losses come the Senedd elections.
If the Welsh Tories don't take the institution seriously, no good candidates will stand, and they will end up being represented by a bunch of freaks, lunaticks and nut-jobs in the Senedd.
They look well on the way to achieving that.
Over a quarter to a third of Welsh voters want to scrap the Senedd, given the Welsh Conservatives only got 21% in 2016 they could make gains in May on that platform
1. Most voters who want to scrap the Senedd won't actually vote in the Senedd elections. This is a classic non-voter position. "They are all charlatans and rogues, Get rid of all' em, shut the Senedd."
2. If the Tories scrap the Senedd, then back come all the small Welsh (mainly Labour) constituencies at Westminster.
You are getting most of the extra 10 seats in Westminster in the boundary changes BECAUSE Welsh matters are devolved.
Can't you just let HYUFD have his extra seats AND let him scrap the Senedd?
The purpose of CureVac is to bring mRNA manufacturing onshore. So one of the manufacturing plants that we bought last year was a veterinary vaccine plant, which we’ve now converted into manufacturing human vaccines. And so that is now a bulk manufacturing plant that can make mRNA vaccines in the UK. We also funded work to improve the lipid nanoparticles process and scale up. Basically, mRNA genetic sequences are encased in a lipid, fatty envelope to make the vaccine
We were able to to develop that lipid nanoparticle technology to support mRNA vaccine manufacturing. So the idea of CureVac is to be able to develop next generation sequences for the new variants. So these could be ready for boosting the UK population for next winter, i.e. October or the beginning of next winter for 2021 to specifically address the variants. The plant is in Essex.
"Labour has not comfortably won 40%+ of the vote since 1970"
When they also lost.
Very good assessment. However, I would throw something else into the mix. Labour continually tries to implement a broken business model. It invariably tries to pump up a public sector to levels that the private sector cannot afford. It loads up taxes and borrowing that the private sector suffers to pay. The result? Invariably, every Labour Govt. leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited.
And post-Covid, that private sector will have been suffering the loss of businesses and the furloughing of workers that the public sector has sailed through. Worse, sailed through demanding pay rises, which Labour have said they will accede to. Not to diminsh the huge effort put in to fighting Covid, but structurally, it's the private sector that bears the scars of Covid. And will continue to do so, as it again has to bear the taxation and borrowing associated with propping up the economy. Those who would implement Corbynism jump about saying "Look! We can find the money when we have to!" - blithely ignoring the once-in-a-century nature of the reason and its immense burden that will have to be lifted.
We have also been fortunate to share a global problem with the outcome of low and reducing interest rates. The UK going on a spending binge in isolation would leave the rest of the world looking on askance - and demanding unusually higher interests from us. Just in case.
Labour won big in 1997 because a) Blair who b) didn't scare the innately small-C conservative British electorate. People believed him when he said he would follow big-C Conservative spending. As a result, he had the "scars on his back" from the public sector. If Labour wants power, Starmer will need to play that card again.
And endure to the howls from his own side.
Yes to those last two paragraphs, and rcs1000, below, says "The most likely group to be that opposition is the Labour Party."
What you are both saying is the the LP only wins if it successfully conceals what it is.
It only wins, if it changes what it is.
In which case it becomes unhinged from its ideology; it becomes nothing.
I`m an old-fashioned sort. I want parties to be ideological.
But times change, and parties need to change with them.
Tony Blair got a huge amount of internal pushback over ‘Clause 4’, but the wider electorate understood the change and supported it.
Unions are now almost exclusively a public sector, middle class thing - but there’s millions of people now working casual jobs ‘self-employed’ for large companies, who can barely make rent, let alone think of owning property. What’s the Labour Party proposing, for those who actually labour?
Completely agree with that. Our society is becoming more divided, not less, and there is an ever larger number of people doing casual work on minimum wage with minimal rights, supposedly self employed. Who speaks for them? What chance have they got of getting a decent home, secure family life, a half decent retirement? Instead they face huge job insecurity, poverty and alienation.
They are not a majority but does even 40% of us not care? Who can make us care? That is surely the challenge.
Absolutely right - I hadn't realised you were a man of the left. Those divisions have flourished over the last 10 years. Labour's challenge is to represent the people you mention, to restore their dignity and improve their life chances in all the ways you mention. But at the same time to do so with a tranche of policies that appeal to, or at least do not threaten the interests of, those who have more secure presents and futures.
You’d be surprised how much many of us on the right want to see those on the bottom rung of society pulled up, and understand the dangers of Uber-capitalism (with a deliberate capitalisation), to both a functioning society and the chances of being re-elected.
I totally agree.
Though for me the problems lie more in the dominance of consumerism than the growth of zero hours contracts (which are popular with many and contribute a degree of flexibility to employers that may be fundamental to our swift economic recovery).
I am flabbergasted by those who earn less than half I do but have a £80 a month satelite contract, spend £60 a month on a phone and have accumulated credit card debt. Getting in to debt is far too easy, IMO, and far to little attention is given to those who profit from it - the companies offering goods/services to those who cannot afford them.
The consumerist issues are massive, and now driven by social media - where showing off and projecting a facade of a certain image are all-important to one's online social group.
There's a fine line to draw though - I'm in favour of the payday lenders, as they are better than the unregulated alternative, but agree that sub-prime lending of consumer electronics needs to be better regulated. But again, what's a poor family to do when their fridge breaks and they've no cash in the bank? Do we tell retailers that they're allowed to sell crappy finance deals on fridges but not on TVs?
The header says : "It may shortly lose (or be forced to share) power in Wales."
Labour are already sharing power in Wales with the the Lib Dem (Kirtsy) + Loose Cannon (Dafydd Ellis Tomos).
I think some Labour losses are baked in at the Senedd, as Mark Drakeford is not as Smooth as Carwyn. Right at the moment, though, I'd say the Tories were in more trouble in Wales than Labour.
I have long though the Tories' best performer in the Senedd was Suzy Davies, who looks almost human and has a good campaigning instinct. In a normal, meritocratic party, she should actually be the leader.
She has been effectively deselected from the South Wales West list, presumably replaced by some Tory pachyderm with a tail and tusks.
Jonathan Morgan also failed to make a high position on the South Wales Central list, being judged insufficiently anti-devolution.
The Tories are gradually hardening into an anti-devolution party in Wales, which is a very niche interest indeed. This will probably help stem Labour losses come the Senedd elections.
If the Welsh Tories don't take the institution seriously, no good candidates will stand, and they will end up being represented by a bunch of freaks, lunaticks and nut-jobs in the Senedd.
They look well on the way to achieving that.
Over a quarter to a third of Welsh voters want to scrap the Senedd, given the Welsh Conservatives only got 21% in 2016 they could make gains in May on that platform
1. Most voters who want to scrap the Senedd won't actually vote in the Senedd elections. This is a classic non-voter position. "They are all charlatans and rogues, Get rid of all' em, shut the Senedd."
2. If the Tories scrap the Senedd, then back come all the small Welsh (mainly Labour) constituencies at Westminster.
You are getting most of the extra 10 seats in Westminster in the boundary changes BECAUSE Welsh matters are devolved.
Unless I've missed something I thought it was principally just based on population. Had a quick look on web and does seem that way.
No, that is incorrect.
Before devolution, the Welsh and Scottish seats were always smaller than English ones.
The Welsh seats were smaller by construction, not just because of population loss.
The Scottish Westminster seats got re-drawn after devolution, but the Welsh seats never did.
Probably because at the beginning it was not in Labour's interests to do so, and latterly because the Tories have not been in a position to do so.
Ok I see - so it used to be disproportionate. In the event that the Senedd was abolished there would presumably be no guarantee that matters would revert though would there?
There are no guarantees about anything. Even the "United Kingdom".
But my suggestion to people who want to keep a "United Kingdom" is to try a little harder & think why the Welsh and Scottish might want to leave.
A healthy society requires a competitive democracy where everyone knows they have a fair chance to win. Perpetual Tory Government risks becoming stale, complacent, arrogant, and self-interested, failing to respond to the needs of all parts of our society with the necessary reforms,
Replace “Tory” with SNP and see Scotland.....the worrying thing there is the complacency, arrogance and self interest also appears to be infecting the Civil Service, Crown Office and Quangocracy.
Good thread - we have several Labour posters who illustrate the problem - one recently voters were not worthy of voting Labour...
You only need to look at the Tories to see how corrupt a country becomes with hegemony. We now have the SNP aping the Tories.
"Labour has not comfortably won 40%+ of the vote since 1970"
When they also lost.
Very good assessment. However, I would throw something else into the mix. Labour continually tries to implement a broken business model. It invariably tries to pump up a public sector to levels that the private sector cannot afford. It loads up taxes and borrowing that the private sector suffers to pay. The result? Invariably, every Labour Govt. leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited.
And post-Covid, that private sector will have been suffering the loss of businesses and the furloughing of workers that the public sector has sailed through. Worse, sailed through demanding pay rises, which Labour have said they will accede to. Not to diminsh the huge effort put in to fighting Covid, but structurally, it's the private sector that bears the scars of Covid. And will continue to do so, as it again has to bear the taxation and borrowing associated with propping up the economy. Those who would implement Corbynism jump about saying "Look! We can find the money when we have to!" - blithely ignoring the once-in-a-century nature of the reason and its immense burden that will have to be lifted.
We have also been fortunate to share a global problem with the outcome of low and reducing interest rates. The UK going on a spending binge in isolation would leave the rest of the world looking on askance - and demanding unusually higher interests from us. Just in case.
Labour won big in 1997 because a) Blair who b) didn't scare the innately small-C conservative British electorate. People believed him when he said he would follow big-C Conservative spending. As a result, he had the "scars on his back" from the public sector. If Labour wants power, Starmer will need to play that card again.
And endure to the howls from his own side.
Yes to those last two paragraphs, and rcs1000, below, says "The most likely group to be that opposition is the Labour Party."
What you are both saying is the the LP only wins if it successfully conceals what it is.
It only wins, if it changes what it is.
In which case it becomes unhinged from its ideology; it becomes nothing.
I`m an old-fashioned sort. I want parties to be ideological.
But times change, and parties need to change with them.
Tony Blair got a huge amount of internal pushback over ‘Clause 4’, but the wider electorate understood the change and supported it.
Unions are now almost exclusively a public sector, middle class thing - but there’s millions of people now working casual jobs ‘self-employed’ for large companies, who can barely make rent, let alone think of owning property. What’s the Labour Party proposing, for those who actually labour?
Completely agree with that. Our society is becoming more divided, not less, and there is an ever larger number of people doing casual work on minimum wage with minimal rights, supposedly self employed. Who speaks for them? What chance have they got of getting a decent home, secure family life, a half decent retirement? Instead they face huge job insecurity, poverty and alienation.
They are not a majority but does even 40% of us not care? Who can make us care? That is surely the challenge.
Absolutely right - I hadn't realised you were a man of the left. Those divisions have flourished over the last 10 years. Labour's challenge is to represent the people you mention, to restore their dignity and improve their life chances in all the ways you mention. But at the same time to do so with a tranche of policies that appeal to, or at least do not threaten the interests of, those who have more secure presents and futures.
I started life as a founder member of the SDP and I have never changed much. I want an economy that works but I want one that works for everyone. I think zero hour contracts, for example are an abomination putting all the risks of variable demand on those least able to bear it. I want decent housing for everyone. I think those that gain the most from society need to pay back into the society that sustains them, particularly companies like Amazon. I don't think that this makes me a man of the left but it just might under the right leadership.
What has happened to Labour is that it has turned in on itself. It is more interested in those who do the supposed "caring" in public sector comfort than those being inadequately cared for. They need to regain a moral purpose without scaring the horses. Its a difficult challenge and I am not yet convinced that SKS can do this although I don't doubt that he means well.
I guess what I find interesting is that those things you mention in your first paragraph (ending zero hours contracts, decent housing for everyone, getting Amazon etc. to pay their fair share) were very much part of Corbyn's agenda in 2017, and partly explained his appeal to the young. Pity about all the other baggage. But the Tories really have done very little to 'level up' in respect of employment, housing and taxation. So there is an opportunity for Labour to fill that ground with a broad-based appeal to fairness and decency - a moral purpose, to use your fine words.
Excellent piece but I found myself asking would a government in waiting have the likes of Margaret Hodge, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper on the front bench?
They are all very effective politicians but they are also politicians whose government experience is at least 11 years in the past. Would they look to voters like a government in waiting to take them into the future? Or would they look more like Disraeli's spent volcanoes?
I wholeheartedly agree that the Labour front bench is lackluster but I think that is more because the leadership is awful about recognising who it's new talent is. I have spent a lot of time in Westminster looking at MPs like Wes Streeting, Alison McGovern, Catherine McKinnel and wondering why they aren't being given meaty portfolios.
True some of these aren't that new anymore but they're certainly fresher than Liam Byrne and better operators than Kate Green.
I think Starmers biggest flaw is his lacklustre front bench. Attlee was as dull as ditchwater, but he was astute at recognising and promoting talent, and more importantly still at effectively chairing meetings of such people. New faces are not a problem as such. Voters don't want retreads from the New Labour period, but they do want a bit of passion and bite. It would do a lot to keep the Corbynistas onside too.
That was then though, in the social media age I think you need the leader to have a certain amount of spikiness, and the rest of the team doesn't matter so much. This is why I voted for Nandy, Starmer's doing as good a job as can be expected but I don't think I was wrong.
I think Nandy and Jess would be in the same media narrative boat as Starmer. Incompetent lightweights when compared to Johnson and his titanic, likely successors, Gove, Raab, Sunak or Patel.
Don't forget six months ago we were all critical of the terrible candidate that was Biden. A man who could never overhaul the mighty Donald Trump.
I wasn't particularly talking about the current media narrative, those will come and go. Starmer has done the basic things necessary to be acceptable if the Tories are determined to lose the election, and the point at which the voters judge that a government is bad can be quite weird and not happen for the reasons we'd expect. But it would really help if he had that little extra something.
PS. We were definitely all critical of Biden but I if you'd asked me at the time I wouldn't have said he'd lose to Trump, I'd have said the problem was how he was going to defeat the mighty KLOBUCHAR.
The Mighty KLOBUCHAR does seem to be making her mark already, in government.
"Labour has not comfortably won 40%+ of the vote since 1970"
When they also lost.
Very good assessment. However, I would throw something else into the mix. Labour continually tries to implement a broken business model. It invariably tries to pump up a public sector to levels that the private sector cannot afford. It loads up taxes and borrowing that the private sector suffers to pay. The result? Invariably, every Labour Govt. leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited.
And post-Covid, that private sector will have been suffering the loss of businesses and the furloughing of workers that the public sector has sailed through. Worse, sailed through demanding pay rises, which Labour have said they will accede to. Not to diminsh the huge effort put in to fighting Covid, but structurally, it's the private sector that bears the scars of Covid. And will continue to do so, as it again has to bear the taxation and borrowing associated with propping up the economy. Those who would implement Corbynism jump about saying "Look! We can find the money when we have to!" - blithely ignoring the once-in-a-century nature of the reason and its immense burden that will have to be lifted.
We have also been fortunate to share a global problem with the outcome of low and reducing interest rates. The UK going on a spending binge in isolation would leave the rest of the world looking on askance - and demanding unusually higher interests from us. Just in case.
Labour won big in 1997 because a) Blair who b) didn't scare the innately small-C conservative British electorate. People believed him when he said he would follow big-C Conservative spending. As a result, he had the "scars on his back" from the public sector. If Labour wants power, Starmer will need to play that card again.
And endure to the howls from his own side.
Yes to those last two paragraphs, and rcs1000, below, says "The most likely group to be that opposition is the Labour Party."
What you are both saying is the the LP only wins if it successfully conceals what it is.
It only wins, if it changes what it is.
In which case it becomes unhinged from its ideology; it becomes nothing.
I`m an old-fashioned sort. I want parties to be ideological.
But times change, and parties need to change with them.
Tony Blair got a huge amount of internal pushback over ‘Clause 4’, but the wider electorate understood the change and supported it.
Unions are now almost exclusively a public sector, middle class thing - but there’s millions of people now working casual jobs ‘self-employed’ for large companies, who can barely make rent, let alone think of owning property. What’s the Labour Party proposing, for those who actually labour?
Completely agree with that. Our society is becoming more divided, not less, and there is an ever larger number of people doing casual work on minimum wage with minimal rights, supposedly self employed. Who speaks for them? What chance have they got of getting a decent home, secure family life, a half decent retirement? Instead they face huge job insecurity, poverty and alienation.
They are not a majority but does even 40% of us not care? Who can make us care? That is surely the challenge.
Absolutely right - I hadn't realised you were a man of the left. Those divisions have flourished over the last 10 years. Labour's challenge is to represent the people you mention, to restore their dignity and improve their life chances in all the ways you mention. But at the same time to do so with a tranche of policies that appeal to, or at least do not threaten the interests of, those who have more secure presents and futures.
You’d be surprised how much many of us on the right want to see those on the bottom rung of society pulled up, and understand the dangers of Uber-capitalism (with a deliberate capitalisation), to both a functioning society and the chances of being re-elected.
I totally agree.
Though for me the problems lie more in the dominance of consumerism than the growth of zero hours contracts (which are popular with many and contribute a degree of flexibility to employers that may be fundamental to our swift economic recovery).
I am flabbergasted by those who earn less than half I do but have a £80 a month satelite contract, spend £60 a month on a phone and have accumulated credit card debt. Getting in to debt is far too easy, IMO, and far to little attention is given to those who profit from it - the companies offering goods/services to those who cannot afford them.
The consumerist issues are massive, and now driven by social media - where showing off and projecting a facade of a certain image are all-important to one's online social group.
There's a fine line to draw though - I'm in favour of the payday lenders, as they are better than the unregulated alternative, but agree that sub-prime lending of consumer electronics needs to be better regulated. But again, what's a poor family to do when their fridge breaks and they've no cash in the bank? Do we tell retailers that they're allowed to sell crappy finance deals on fridges but not on TVs?
Agreed. The market solution is to make debt forgiveness easier. Companies act quickest when they're looking after the bottom line. After thinking about it for a few seconds, you could make debt forgiveness on luxuries more painful for lenders than on essentials.
My circle of Welsh Tory-leaning xenophobes are heartened by RT's elevation, coupled with Johnson's overall Covid performance.
N.B. Spellchecker changed RT's to Rat's?
You have the advantage on me on attitudes to the RaT.
I don't think I actually know any Welsh Tories personally (except of course BigG, remotely). So, I am not sure whether it is a plus or a minus for the Tories.
All my circle of family, friends are either Don't Vote, Plaid or Labour.
( But, one of my long-dead uncles was a Welsh Tory, & he was rather gentlemanly. Another of my long-dead uncles was a Labour MP for a Valleys mining constituency, he was more of a ruffian, actually ).
The other side of the anecdotal coin, is my Conservative minded wife (a benevolent Lady Bountiful, old-school feudal Tory) detested Paul Davies, and considers RT to be considerably worse. For reference, she can't bear Johnson or any of his cabinet either.
I don't quite see how it is even possible to "detest" Paul Davies.
Online sales tax, windfall taxes, is there anything Jeremy Corbyn Her Majesty's Conservative Government won't resort to? Well, I don't know because the Sunday Times is paywalled.
Amazon and online giants face tax raid on booming sales Plan for digital levy as high street collapses
"Labour has not comfortably won 40%+ of the vote since 1970"
When they also lost.
Very good assessment. However, I would throw something else into the mix. Labour continually tries to implement a broken business model. It invariably tries to pump up a public sector to levels that the private sector cannot afford. It loads up taxes and borrowing that the private sector suffers to pay. The result? Invariably, every Labour Govt. leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited.
And post-Covid, that private sector will have been suffering the loss of businesses and the furloughing of workers that the public sector has sailed through. Worse, sailed through demanding pay rises, which Labour have said they will accede to. Not to diminsh the huge effort put in to fighting Covid, but structurally, it's the private sector that bears the scars of Covid. And will continue to do so, as it again has to bear the taxation and borrowing associated with propping up the economy. Those who would implement Corbynism jump about saying "Look! We can find the money when we have to!" - blithely ignoring the once-in-a-century nature of the reason and its immense burden that will have to be lifted.
We have also been fortunate to share a global problem with the outcome of low and reducing interest rates. The UK going on a spending binge in isolation would leave the rest of the world looking on askance - and demanding unusually higher interests from us. Just in case.
Labour won big in 1997 because a) Blair who b) didn't scare the innately small-C conservative British electorate. People believed him when he said he would follow big-C Conservative spending. As a result, he had the "scars on his back" from the public sector. If Labour wants power, Starmer will need to play that card again.
And endure to the howls from his own side.
Yes to those last two paragraphs, and rcs1000, below, says "The most likely group to be that opposition is the Labour Party."
What you are both saying is the the LP only wins if it successfully conceals what it is.
It only wins, if it changes what it is.
In which case it becomes unhinged from its ideology; it becomes nothing.
I`m an old-fashioned sort. I want parties to be ideological.
But times change, and parties need to change with them.
Tony Blair got a huge amount of internal pushback over ‘Clause 4’, but the wider electorate understood the change and supported it.
Unions are now almost exclusively a public sector, middle class thing - but there’s millions of people now working casual jobs ‘self-employed’ for large companies, who can barely make rent, let alone think of owning property. What’s the Labour Party proposing, for those who actually labour?
Completely agree with that. Our society is becoming more divided, not less, and there is an ever larger number of people doing casual work on minimum wage with minimal rights, supposedly self employed. Who speaks for them? What chance have they got of getting a decent home, secure family life, a half decent retirement? Instead they face huge job insecurity, poverty and alienation.
They are not a majority but does even 40% of us not care? Who can make us care? That is surely the challenge.
Absolutely right - I hadn't realised you were a man of the left. Those divisions have flourished over the last 10 years. Labour's challenge is to represent the people you mention, to restore their dignity and improve their life chances in all the ways you mention. But at the same time to do so with a tranche of policies that appeal to, or at least do not threaten the interests of, those who have more secure presents and futures.
I started life as a founder member of the SDP and I have never changed much. I want an economy that works but I want one that works for everyone. I think zero hour contracts, for example are an abomination putting all the risks of variable demand on those least able to bear it. I want decent housing for everyone. I think those that gain the most from society need to pay back into the society that sustains them, particularly companies like Amazon. I don't think that this makes me a man of the left but it just might under the right leadership.
What has happened to Labour is that it has turned in on itself. It is more interested in those who do the supposed "caring" in public sector comfort than those being inadequately cared for. They need to regain a moral purpose without scaring the horses. Its a difficult challenge and I am not yet convinced that SKS can do this although I don't doubt that he means well.
I guess what I find interesting is that those things you mention in your first paragraph (ending zero hours contracts, decent housing for everyone, getting Amazon etc. to pay their fair share) were very much part of Corbyn's agenda in 2017, and partly explained his appeal to the young. Pity about all the other baggage. But the Tories really have done very little to 'level up' in respect of employment, housing and taxation. So there is an opportunity for Labour to fill that ground with a broad-based appeal to fairness and decency - a moral purpose, to use your fine words.
Help to buy has been a boost to the younger generation that the chatterati seem to have been utterly oblivious to.
Excellent piece but I found myself asking would a government in waiting have the likes of Margaret Hodge, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper on the front bench?
They are all very effective politicians but they are also politicians whose government experience is at least 11 years in the past. Would they look to voters like a government in waiting to take them into the future? Or would they look more like Disraeli's spent volcanoes?
I wholeheartedly agree that the Labour front bench is lackluster but I think that is more because the leadership is awful about recognising who it's new talent is. I have spent a lot of time in Westminster looking at MPs like Wes Streeting, Alison McGovern, Catherine McKinnel and wondering why they aren't being given meaty portfolios.
True some of these aren't that new anymore but they're certainly fresher than Liam Byrne and better operators than Kate Green.
I think Starmers biggest flaw is his lacklustre front bench. Attlee was as dull as ditchwater, but he was astute at recognising and promoting talent, and more importantly still at effectively chairing meetings of such people. New faces are not a problem as such. Voters don't want retreads from the New Labour period, but they do want a bit of passion and bite. It would do a lot to keep the Corbynistas onside too.
That was then though, in the social media age I think you need the leader to have a certain amount of spikiness, and the rest of the team doesn't matter so much. This is why I voted for Nandy, Starmer's doing as good a job as can be expected but I don't think I was wrong.
I think Nandy and Jess would be in the same media narrative boat as Starmer. Incompetent lightweights when compared to Johnson and his titanic, likely successors, Gove, Raab, Sunak or Patel.
Don't forget six months ago we were all critical of the terrible candidate that was Biden. A man who could never overhaul the mighty Donald Trump.
I wasn't particularly talking about the current media narrative, those will come and go. Starmer has done the basic things necessary to be acceptable if the Tories are determined to lose the election, and the point at which the voters judge that a government is bad can be quite weird and not happen for the reasons we'd expect. But it would really help if he had that little extra something.
PS. We were definitely all critical of Biden but I if you'd asked me at the time I wouldn't have said he'd lose to Trump, I'd have said the problem was how he was going to defeat the mighty KLOBUCHAR.
The Mighty KLOBUCHAR does seem to be making her mark already, in government.
You’d be surprised how much many of us on the right want to see those on the bottom rung of society pulled up, and understand the dangers of Uber-capitalism (with a deliberate capitalisation), to both a functioning society and the chances of being re-elected.
The problem is that message isn't getting through. Johnson' talk of "levelling up" is up there with "the big society" as a meaningless platitude. We'd all like to earn more and live better and of course overall economic growth achieves that but we still seem locked in this universe of "trickle down" which means the very wealthy do much better while those at the bottom only do a little better.
Laffer dictates that trying to punitively pull the wealthy down is counter productive in terms of overall wealth generation so you rely on the largesse of the very rich to help the poorest which they can do either for motivated self interest or out of genuine philanthropy (as some do).
Unfortunately, the undercurrent I pick up is some on the LEAVE side wanted Brexit to usher in a period of de-regulation including making a bonfire of protection for workers and the environment. I've no desire to live in an off shore Singapore where my existence is solely to provide goods and services for the planet's billionaires and where the London property market is distorted by the bolt holes of the extremely wealthy.
That's what I hear from some on the conservative side - it's masked by words like "sovereignty" and "taking back control" but all I get from that is wages and conditions reduced and hours increased and we should be so much better than that in the 21st Century and we should call time on that kind of thinking.
The corollary, I suppose, is if the Right won't protect workers' rights and conditions, the Left will - except of course they won't either.
You're probably safe; people aren't up for less government and less regulation, a trend that the pandemic will reenforce.
Brexit has already turned into mainly an avalanche of new paperwork and new rules.
Indeed, if you're a Tory activist looking for victories on a vision of a small state, deregulation, privatisation/marketisation, prudent economics, balanced budgets and the flag, despite all the electoral victories, all but the last are slipping away from you; hence the emerging pre-occupation with the flag.
And even that may have fewer colours going forward.
Online sales tax, windfall taxes, is there anything Jeremy Corbyn Her Majesty's Conservative Government won't resort to? Well, I don't know because the Sunday Times is paywalled.
Amazon and online giants face tax raid on booming sales Plan for digital levy as high street collapses
TL:DR - no changes in this budget, but consultation about online sales tax. I don't see it happening, myself. Its like fighting gravity. The high street will bounce back naturally when rents plummet (they're already starting too) and rates fall with them. And those bits that won't can be repurposed for housing.
My circle of Welsh Tory-leaning xenophobes are heartened by RT's elevation, coupled with Johnson's overall Covid performance.
N.B. Spellchecker changed RT's to Rat's?
You have the advantage on me on attitudes to the RaT.
I don't think I actually know any Welsh Tories personally (except of course BigG, remotely). So, I am not sure whether it is a plus or a minus for the Tories.
All my circle of family, friends are either Don't Vote, Plaid or Labour.
( But, one of my long-dead uncles was a Welsh Tory, & he was rather gentlemanly. Another of my long-dead uncles was a Labour MP for a Valleys mining constituency, he was more of a ruffian, actually ).
The other side of the anecdotal coin, is my Conservative minded wife (a benevolent Lady Bountiful, old-school feudal Tory) detested Paul Davies, and considers RT to be considerably worse. For reference, she can't bear Johnson or any of his cabinet either.
I don't quite see how it is even possible to "detest" Paul Davies.
It is like detesting gelatin.
Interesting that you reference a pork product, because she does refer both of the Dangerous Davies Brothers by the "G" word.
"Labour has not comfortably won 40%+ of the vote since 1970"
When they also lost.
Very good assessment. However, I would throw something else into the mix. Labour continually tries to implement a broken business model. It invariably tries to pump up a public sector to levels that the private sector cannot afford. It loads up taxes and borrowing that the private sector suffers to pay. The result? Invariably, every Labour Govt. leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited.
And post-Covid, that private sector will have been suffering the loss of businesses and the furloughing of workers that the public sector has sailed through. Worse, sailed through demanding pay rises, which Labour have said they will accede to. Not to diminsh the huge effort put in to fighting Covid, but structurally, it's the private sector that bears the scars of Covid. And will continue to do so, as it again has to bear the taxation and borrowing associated with propping up the economy. Those who would implement Corbynism jump about saying "Look! We can find the money when we have to!" - blithely ignoring the once-in-a-century nature of the reason and its immense burden that will have to be lifted.
We have also been fortunate to share a global problem with the outcome of low and reducing interest rates. The UK going on a spending binge in isolation would leave the rest of the world looking on askance - and demanding unusually higher interests from us. Just in case.
Labour won big in 1997 because a) Blair who b) didn't scare the innately small-C conservative British electorate. People believed him when he said he would follow big-C Conservative spending. As a result, he had the "scars on his back" from the public sector. If Labour wants power, Starmer will need to play that card again.
And endure to the howls from his own side.
Yes to those last two paragraphs, and rcs1000, below, says "The most likely group to be that opposition is the Labour Party."
What you are both saying is the the LP only wins if it successfully conceals what it is.
It only wins, if it changes what it is.
In which case it becomes unhinged from its ideology; it becomes nothing.
I`m an old-fashioned sort. I want parties to be ideological.
But times change, and parties need to change with them.
Tony Blair got a huge amount of internal pushback over ‘Clause 4’, but the wider electorate understood the change and supported it.
Unions are now almost exclusively a public sector, middle class thing - but there’s millions of people now working casual jobs ‘self-employed’ for large companies, who can barely make rent, let alone think of owning property. What’s the Labour Party proposing, for those who actually labour?
Completely agree with that. Our society is becoming more divided, not less, and there is an ever larger number of people doing casual work on minimum wage with minimal rights, supposedly self employed. Who speaks for them? What chance have they got of getting a decent home, secure family life, a half decent retirement? Instead they face huge job insecurity, poverty and alienation.
They are not a majority but does even 40% of us not care? Who can make us care? That is surely the challenge.
Absolutely right - I hadn't realised you were a man of the left. Those divisions have flourished over the last 10 years. Labour's challenge is to represent the people you mention, to restore their dignity and improve their life chances in all the ways you mention. But at the same time to do so with a tranche of policies that appeal to, or at least do not threaten the interests of, those who have more secure presents and futures.
I started life as a founder member of the SDP and I have never changed much. I want an economy that works but I want one that works for everyone. I think zero hour contracts, for example are an abomination putting all the risks of variable demand on those least able to bear it. I want decent housing for everyone. I think those that gain the most from society need to pay back into the society that sustains them, particularly companies like Amazon. I don't think that this makes me a man of the left but it just might under the right leadership.
What has happened to Labour is that it has turned in on itself. It is more interested in those who do the supposed "caring" in public sector comfort than those being inadequately cared for. They need to regain a moral purpose without scaring the horses. Its a difficult challenge and I am not yet convinced that SKS can do this although I don't doubt that he means well.
I guess what I find interesting is that those things you mention in your first paragraph (ending zero hours contracts, decent housing for everyone, getting Amazon etc. to pay their fair share) were very much part of Corbyn's agenda in 2017, and partly explained his appeal to the young. Pity about all the other baggage. But the Tories really have done very little to 'level up' in respect of employment, housing and taxation. So there is an opportunity for Labour to fill that ground with a broad-based appeal to fairness and decency - a moral purpose, to use your fine words.
I think Boris might well have done a fair bit of that had it not been for Covid which has blown all other economic plans out of the water for the foreseeable. But hopefully build back better will include some recognition of the problems.
"Labour has not comfortably won 40%+ of the vote since 1970"
When they also lost.
Very good assessment. However, I would throw something else into the mix. Labour continually tries to implement a broken business model. It invariably tries to pump up a public sector to levels that the private sector cannot afford. It loads up taxes and borrowing that the private sector suffers to pay. The result? Invariably, every Labour Govt. leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited.
And post-Covid, that private sector will have been suffering the loss of businesses and the furloughing of workers that the public sector has sailed through. Worse, sailed through demanding pay rises, which Labour have said they will accede to. Not to diminsh the huge effort put in to fighting Covid, but structurally, it's the private sector that bears the scars of Covid. And will continue to do so, as it again has to bear the taxation and borrowing associated with propping up the economy. Those who would implement Corbynism jump about saying "Look! We can find the money when we have to!" - blithely ignoring the once-in-a-century nature of the reason and its immense burden that will have to be lifted.
We have also been fortunate to share a global problem with the outcome of low and reducing interest rates. The UK going on a spending binge in isolation would leave the rest of the world looking on askance - and demanding unusually higher interests from us. Just in case.
Labour won big in 1997 because a) Blair who b) didn't scare the innately small-C conservative British electorate. People believed him when he said he would follow big-C Conservative spending. As a result, he had the "scars on his back" from the public sector. If Labour wants power, Starmer will need to play that card again.
And endure to the howls from his own side.
Yes to those last two paragraphs, and rcs1000, below, says "The most likely group to be that opposition is the Labour Party."
What you are both saying is the the LP only wins if it successfully conceals what it is.
It only wins, if it changes what it is.
In which case it becomes unhinged from its ideology; it becomes nothing.
I`m an old-fashioned sort. I want parties to be ideological.
But times change, and parties need to change with them.
Tony Blair got a huge amount of internal pushback over ‘Clause 4’, but the wider electorate understood the change and supported it.
Unions are now almost exclusively a public sector, middle class thing - but there’s millions of people now working casual jobs ‘self-employed’ for large companies, who can barely make rent, let alone think of owning property. What’s the Labour Party proposing, for those who actually labour?
Completely agree with that. Our society is becoming more divided, not less, and there is an ever larger number of people doing casual work on minimum wage with minimal rights, supposedly self employed. Who speaks for them? What chance have they got of getting a decent home, secure family life, a half decent retirement? Instead they face huge job insecurity, poverty and alienation.
They are not a majority but does even 40% of us not care? Who can make us care? That is surely the challenge.
Absolutely right - I hadn't realised you were a man of the left. Those divisions have flourished over the last 10 years. Labour's challenge is to represent the people you mention, to restore their dignity and improve their life chances in all the ways you mention. But at the same time to do so with a tranche of policies that appeal to, or at least do not threaten the interests of, those who have more secure presents and futures.
You’d be surprised how much many of us on the right want to see those on the bottom rung of society pulled up, and understand the dangers of Uber-capitalism (with a deliberate capitalisation), to both a functioning society and the chances of being re-elected.
I totally agree.
Though for me the problems lie more in the dominance of consumerism than the growth of zero hours contracts (which are popular with many and contribute a degree of flexibility to employers that may be fundamental to our swift economic recovery).
I am flabbergasted by those who earn less than half I do but have a £80 a month satelite contract, spend £60 a month on a phone and have accumulated credit card debt. Getting in to debt is far too easy, IMO, and far to little attention is given to those who profit from it - the companies offering goods/services to those who cannot afford them.
The consumerist issues are massive, and now driven by social media - where showing off and projecting a facade of a certain image are all-important to one's online social group.
There's a fine line to draw though - I'm in favour of the payday lenders, as they are better than the unregulated alternative, but agree that sub-prime lending of consumer electronics needs to be better regulated. But again, what's a poor family to do when their fridge breaks and they've no cash in the bank? Do we tell retailers that they're allowed to sell crappy finance deals on fridges but not on TVs?
Agreed. The market solution is to make debt forgiveness easier. Companies act quickest when they're looking after the bottom line. After thinking about it for a few seconds, you could make debt forgiveness on luxuries more painful for lenders than on essentials.
That's a really interesting way of looking at it. Let the lender argue their case in a small claims court, as to why they thought someone on minimum wage was good for a £2k loan for a 65" TV, with the burden of proof on the lender?
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Labour not winning the popular vote in England in 20 years, such as popular vote matters, is one of those things that seems both surprising and not surprising at the same time, given how results have gone. What happened?
Online sales tax, windfall taxes, is there anything Jeremy Corbyn Her Majesty's Conservative Government won't resort to? Well, I don't know because the Sunday Times is paywalled.
Amazon and online giants face tax raid on booming sales Plan for digital levy as high street collapses
"Labour has not comfortably won 40%+ of the vote since 1970"
When they also lost.
Very good assessment. However, I would throw something else into the mix. Labour continually tries to implement a broken business model. It invariably tries to pump up a public sector to levels that the private sector cannot afford. It loads up taxes and borrowing that the private sector suffers to pay. The result? Invariably, every Labour Govt. leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited.
And post-Covid, that private sector will have been suffering the loss of businesses and the furloughing of workers that the public sector has sailed through. Worse, sailed through demanding pay rises, which Labour have said they will accede to. Not to diminsh the huge effort put in to fighting Covid, but structurally, it's the private sector that bears the scars of Covid. And will continue to do so, as it again has to bear the taxation and borrowing associated with propping up the economy. Those who would implement Corbynism jump about saying "Look! We can find the money when we have to!" - blithely ignoring the once-in-a-century nature of the reason and its immense burden that will have to be lifted.
We have also been fortunate to share a global problem with the outcome of low and reducing interest rates. The UK going on a spending binge in isolation would leave the rest of the world looking on askance - and demanding unusually higher interests from us. Just in case.
Labour won big in 1997 because a) Blair who b) didn't scare the innately small-C conservative British electorate. People believed him when he said he would follow big-C Conservative spending. As a result, he had the "scars on his back" from the public sector. If Labour wants power, Starmer will need to play that card again.
And endure to the howls from his own side.
Yes to those last two paragraphs, and rcs1000, below, says "The most likely group to be that opposition is the Labour Party."
What you are both saying is the the LP only wins if it successfully conceals what it is.
It only wins, if it changes what it is.
In which case it becomes unhinged from its ideology; it becomes nothing.
I`m an old-fashioned sort. I want parties to be ideological.
But times change, and parties need to change with them.
Tony Blair got a huge amount of internal pushback over ‘Clause 4’, but the wider electorate understood the change and supported it.
Unions are now almost exclusively a public sector, middle class thing - but there’s millions of people now working casual jobs ‘self-employed’ for large companies, who can barely make rent, let alone think of owning property. What’s the Labour Party proposing, for those who actually labour?
Completely agree with that. Our society is becoming more divided, not less, and there is an ever larger number of people doing casual work on minimum wage with minimal rights, supposedly self employed. Who speaks for them? What chance have they got of getting a decent home, secure family life, a half decent retirement? Instead they face huge job insecurity, poverty and alienation.
They are not a majority but does even 40% of us not care? Who can make us care? That is surely the challenge.
Absolutely right - I hadn't realised you were a man of the left. Those divisions have flourished over the last 10 years. Labour's challenge is to represent the people you mention, to restore their dignity and improve their life chances in all the ways you mention. But at the same time to do so with a tranche of policies that appeal to, or at least do not threaten the interests of, those who have more secure presents and futures.
You’d be surprised how much many of us on the right want to see those on the bottom rung of society pulled up, and understand the dangers of Uber-capitalism (with a deliberate capitalisation), to both a functioning society and the chances of being re-elected.
I totally agree.
Though for me the problems lie more in the dominance of consumerism than the growth of zero hours contracts (which are popular with many and contribute a degree of flexibility to employers that may be fundamental to our swift economic recovery).
I am flabbergasted by those who earn less than half I do but have a £80 a month satelite contract, spend £60 a month on a phone and have accumulated credit card debt. Getting in to debt is far too easy, IMO, and far to little attention is given to those who profit from it - the companies offering goods/services to those who cannot afford them.
The consumerist issues are massive, and now driven by social media - where showing off and projecting a facade of a certain image are all-important to one's online social group.
There's a fine line to draw though - I'm in favour of the payday lenders, as they are better than the unregulated alternative, but agree that sub-prime lending of consumer electronics needs to be better regulated. But again, what's a poor family to do when their fridge breaks and they've no cash in the bank? Do we tell retailers that they're allowed to sell crappy finance deals on fridges but not on TVs?
Agreed. The market solution is to make debt forgiveness easier. Companies act quickest when they're looking after the bottom line. After thinking about it for a few seconds, you could make debt forgiveness on luxuries more painful for lenders than on essentials.
That's a really interesting way of looking at it. Let the lender argue their case in a small claims court, as to why they thought someone on minimum wage was good for a £2k loan for a 65" TV, with the burden of proof on the lender?
Indeed. We already have the concept of debt prioritisation (e.g. to Taxman), so it wouldn't be especially legally controversial AFAICS.
The stories I hear from a CAB acquaintance are tremendously sad and often centre on people being given too much credit.
Labour not winning the popular vote in England in 20 years, such as popular vote matters, is one of those things that seems both surprising and not surprising at the same time, given how results have gone. What happened?
If you want astonishing cricket, West Indies are about to chase down 394 to beat Bangladesh and one Kyle Mayers is writing his won piece of cricket history.
Yes, absolutely stunning. 210 not out in the fourth innings of your first test on a turning pitch. Mayers's previous highest score was 140. His first class average is 28.93. He's 28, so no spring chicken.
We all know of secessionist movements across the world like Scotland and Catalonia who want independence from one country.
But apart from Northern Ireland, are there any examples of one part of a country wanting to leave one country and join another?
Yes, Flanders wants to join the Netherlands.
Joining the Netherlands and France is only a small current of thought among Belgian linguistic nationalists. While the languages are similar they are different cultures. I think rattachement is slightly more popular among Walloon politicians than joining the Netherlands is among Fleming.
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Online sales tax, windfall taxes, is there anything Jeremy Corbyn Her Majesty's Conservative Government won't resort to? Well, I don't know because the Sunday Times is paywalled.
Amazon and online giants face tax raid on booming sales Plan for digital levy as high street collapses
Re-reading Casino's list of would-be Labour Grandees, the fact that he has had to include those names after Benn and Cooper demonstrates how shallow the gene-pool is at the moment.
Just an observation. Isn't it calm and quiet on here before Thommo's mum lets him out to play.
We all know of secessionist movements across the world like Scotland and Catalonia who want independence from one country.
But apart from Northern Ireland, are there any examples of one part of a country wanting to leave one country and join another?
Yes, Flanders wants to join the Netherlands.
No, they don't. The current strands of Flemish nationalism are the Seperatists (independent state in the EU) vs the Federalists (Brussels moves into Flanders and the resultant region gets Devo-Max+++).
There is political movement in Wallonie to leave the Belgian federation and join France - Rassemblement Wallonie France.
Don't chat shit about Belgian politics on here. You'll get found out.
Not unless they sort themselves out in Scotland, and make it quite clear to a UK audience that they will never do a deal in Parliament with the SNP.
You think that Labour's problem's in England are to do with English voters worrying about some non specific deal with the SNP in an indistinct future? Polling is at best mixed on this and I'd suggest Labour should do some more assiduous burrowing for England's g spot and be as vague on Scotland as they're able (which SKS was doing until he thought Union flags was a great wheeze, or some marketing company convinced him that was the case).
I assume your Labour sorting themselves out in Scotland doesn't include winning 'their' voters back and a UK majority winning chunk of seats? That would be naively optimistic in the extreme.
Whatever the Guardian thought at the time, this was the single most effective piece of party political literature since "Labour Isn't Working" (with a nod to Labour's Tax Bombshell too). The idea of a Labour leader utterly beholden on the economy to the SNP was toxic. I suggest that message retains its relevence in England (and Wales) going into the next election. If only because nobody puts Boris in that top pocket.
What's your conclusive evidence that the poster was effective in winning votes apart from you recalling a stirring in your loins 6 years ago?
Several thousand Torbay doorsteps. It was raised without prompting, numerous times.
There's no data more convincing than on the doorstep anecdata.
It's better than your constant smug assertions...
Fair enough, PB definitely hasn't had enough of your Torbay canvassing yarns, the sine qua non of hard psephological info.
You were the ones saying, er what is the basis for your assertion that the SNP is toxic in England?
I appreciate that reality-based politics may be an unknown for you.
The term i used was 'conclusive evidence'. I know we live in debased times, but hearsay from an anonymous rando on the internet doesn't usually count as such.
I could get a million folk to sign a petition saying Miliband in the SNP pocket changed their vote and you'd still say it was a million anonymous randos.
Point is, you have got nothing to back up your assertions that folk weren't swayed. I, on the other hand, reported back here in 2015 on the impact it was having on ENGLISH doorsteps - something you self-evidently know fuck-all about. So on this issue, just STFU. You are out of your depth, little man.
I recall you doing so. Clearly. I kept hoping, too, that you were wrong about the effect on the LD's of the Coalition.
One I reported on early in the 2019 election campaign was the vehemence with which folk had taken against Jo Swinson. Wasn't sure if it was just a SW thing, but I maybe should have piled in on my instinct that if it was more widespread, she might lose her seat.
Not unless they sort themselves out in Scotland, and make it quite clear to a UK audience that they will never do a deal in Parliament with the SNP.
You think that Labour's problem's in England are to do with English voters worrying about some non specific deal with the SNP in an indistinct future? Polling is at best mixed on this and I'd suggest Labour should do some more assiduous burrowing for England's g spot and be as vague on Scotland as they're able (which SKS was doing until he thought Union flags was a great wheeze, or some marketing company convinced him that was the case).
I assume your Labour sorting themselves out in Scotland doesn't include winning 'their' voters back and a UK majority winning chunk of seats? That would be naively optimistic in the extreme.
Whatever the Guardian thought at the time, this was the single most effective piece of party political literature since "Labour Isn't Working" (with a nod to Labour's Tax Bombshell too). The idea of a Labour leader utterly beholden on the economy to the SNP was toxic. I suggest that message retains its relevence in England (and Wales) going into the next election. If only because nobody puts Boris in that top pocket.
What's your conclusive evidence that the poster was effective in winning votes apart from you recalling a stirring in your loins 6 years ago?
Several thousand Torbay doorsteps. It was raised without prompting, numerous times.
There's no data more convincing than on the doorstep anecdata.
It's better than your constant smug assertions...
Fair enough, PB definitely hasn't had enough of your Torbay canvassing yarns, the sine qua non of hard psephological info.
You were the ones saying, er what is the basis for your assertion that the SNP is toxic in England?
I appreciate that reality-based politics may be an unknown for you.
The term i used was 'conclusive evidence'. I know we live in debased times, but hearsay from an anonymous rando on the internet doesn't usually count as such.
I could get a million folk to sign a petition saying Miliband in the SNP pocket changed their vote and you'd still say it was a million anonymous randos.
Point is, you have got nothing to back up your assertions that folk weren't swayed. I, on the other hand, reported back here in 2015 on the impact it was having on ENGLISH doorsteps - something you self-evidently know fuck-all about. So on this issue, just STFU. You are out of your depth, little man.
I recall you doing so. Clearly. I kept hoping, too, that you were wrong about the effect on the LD's of the Coalition.
One I reported on early in the 2019 election campaign was the vehemence with which folk had taken against Jo Swinson. Wasn't sure if it was just a SW thing, but I maybe should have piled in on my instinct that if it was more widespread, she might lose her seat.
I had similar concerns after being burned in 2017 based on SW experiences.
"Labour has not comfortably won 40%+ of the vote since 1970"
When they also lost.
Very good assessment. However, I would throw something else into the mix. Labour continually tries to implement a broken business model. It invariably tries to pump up a public sector to levels that the private sector cannot afford. It loads up taxes and borrowing that the private sector suffers to pay. The result? Invariably, every Labour Govt. leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited.
And post-Covid, that private sector will have been suffering the loss of businesses and the furloughing of workers that the public sector has sailed through. Worse, sailed through demanding pay rises, which Labour have said they will accede to. Not to diminsh the huge effort put in to fighting Covid, but structurally, it's the private sector that bears the scars of Covid. And will continue to do so, as it again has to bear the taxation and borrowing associated with propping up the economy. Those who would implement Corbynism jump about saying "Look! We can find the money when we have to!" - blithely ignoring the once-in-a-century nature of the reason and its immense burden that will have to be lifted.
We have also been fortunate to share a global problem with the outcome of low and reducing interest rates. The UK going on a spending binge in isolation would leave the rest of the world looking on askance - and demanding unusually higher interests from us. Just in case.
Labour won big in 1997 because a) Blair who b) didn't scare the innately small-C conservative British electorate. People believed him when he said he would follow big-C Conservative spending. As a result, he had the "scars on his back" from the public sector. If Labour wants power, Starmer will need to play that card again.
And endure to the howls from his own side.
Yes to those last two paragraphs, and rcs1000, below, says "The most likely group to be that opposition is the Labour Party."
What you are both saying is the the LP only wins if it successfully conceals what it is.
It only wins, if it changes what it is.
In which case it becomes unhinged from its ideology; it becomes nothing.
I`m an old-fashioned sort. I want parties to be ideological.
But times change, and parties need to change with them.
Tony Blair got a huge amount of internal pushback over ‘Clause 4’, but the wider electorate understood the change and supported it.
Unions are now almost exclusively a public sector, middle class thing - but there’s millions of people now working casual jobs ‘self-employed’ for large companies, who can barely make rent, let alone think of owning property. What’s the Labour Party proposing, for those who actually labour?
Completely agree with that. Our society is becoming more divided, not less, and there is an ever larger number of people doing casual work on minimum wage with minimal rights, supposedly self employed. Who speaks for them? What chance have they got of getting a decent home, secure family life, a half decent retirement? Instead they face huge job insecurity, poverty and alienation.
They are not a majority but does even 40% of us not care? Who can make us care? That is surely the challenge.
Absolutely right - I hadn't realised you were a man of the left. Those divisions have flourished over the last 10 years. Labour's challenge is to represent the people you mention, to restore their dignity and improve their life chances in all the ways you mention. But at the same time to do so with a tranche of policies that appeal to, or at least do not threaten the interests of, those who have more secure presents and futures.
You’d be surprised how much many of us on the right want to see those on the bottom rung of society pulled up, and understand the dangers of Uber-capitalism (with a deliberate capitalisation), to both a functioning society and the chances of being re-elected.
I totally agree.
Though for me the problems lie more in the dominance of consumerism than the growth of zero hours contracts (which are popular with many and contribute a degree of flexibility to employers that may be fundamental to our swift economic recovery).
I am flabbergasted by those who earn less than half I do but have a £80 a month satelite contract, spend £60 a month on a phone and have accumulated credit card debt. Getting in to debt is far too easy, IMO, and far to little attention is given to those who profit from it - the companies offering goods/services to those who cannot afford them.
The consumerist issues are massive, and now driven by social media - where showing off and projecting a facade of a certain image are all-important to one's online social group.
There's a fine line to draw though - I'm in favour of the payday lenders, as they are better than the unregulated alternative, but agree that sub-prime lending of consumer electronics needs to be better regulated. But again, what's a poor family to do when their fridge breaks and they've no cash in the bank? Do we tell retailers that they're allowed to sell crappy finance deals on fridges but not on TVs?
Agreed. The market solution is to make debt forgiveness easier. Companies act quickest when they're looking after the bottom line. After thinking about it for a few seconds, you could make debt forgiveness on luxuries more painful for lenders than on essentials.
That's a really interesting way of looking at it. Let the lender argue their case in a small claims court, as to why they thought someone on minimum wage was good for a £2k loan for a 65" TV, with the burden of proof on the lender?
Indeed. We already have the concept of debt prioritisation (e.g. to Taxman), so it wouldn't be especially legally controversial AFAICS.
The stories I hear from a CAB acquaintance are tremendously sad and often centre on people being given too much credit.
The solution lies in persuading people that material items don't really matter - which is increasing becoming impossible in a social media age where everyone shares (a very filtered version of) their whole life online.
I think Social Democracy and for that matter one nation conservatism is struggling.
Voters are fed up with their lot in life as Capitalism eats itself with the greadies getting fatter at the expense of those at the bottom starving, literally.
Will this lead to Socialism? No, that chance was lost, narrowly, in 2017, much more likely to be an extreme right wing regime IMO
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Is it Labour that needs Scotland though? In 2017 Theresa May was saved by Ruth Davidson's ScotCon revival.
Online sales tax, windfall taxes, is there anything Jeremy Corbyn Her Majesty's Conservative Government won't resort to? Well, I don't know because the Sunday Times is paywalled.
Amazon and online giants face tax raid on booming sales Plan for digital levy as high street collapses
TL:DR - no changes in this budget, but consultation about online sales tax. I don't see it happening, myself. Its like fighting gravity. The high street will bounce back naturally when rents plummet (they're already starting too) and rates fall with them. And those bits that won't can be repurposed for housing.
There's a great opportunity for micropubs in retail units, with no pubco or brewery tie. In parts of the South East, commercial rents have been too high for the model to work.
Online sales tax, windfall taxes, is there anything Jeremy Corbyn Her Majesty's Conservative Government won't resort to? Well, I don't know because the Sunday Times is paywalled.
Amazon and online giants face tax raid on booming sales Plan for digital levy as high street collapses
TL:DR - no changes in this budget, but consultation about online sales tax. I don't see it happening, myself. Its like fighting gravity. The high street will bounce back naturally when rents plummet (they're already starting too) and rates fall with them. And those bits that won't can be repurposed for housing.
There's a great opportunity for micropubs in retail units, with no pubco or brewery tie. In parts of the South East, commercial rents have been too high for the model to work.
Absolutely. This has started to happen in Dorset. Very pleasing!
Online sales tax, windfall taxes, is there anything Jeremy Corbyn Her Majesty's Conservative Government won't resort to? Well, I don't know because the Sunday Times is paywalled.
Amazon and online giants face tax raid on booming sales Plan for digital levy as high street collapses
One of the reasons I am conflicted. Should I vote Labour for very diluted Marxist fiscal policy or opt for the full monty and vote Conservative?
Full-fat Conservative Marxism does need you to be locked in your house 9 months of the year though....
It may have taken a pandemic for Johnson to demonstrate his true ideology ( perhaps he secretly wrote two letters to himself) but it is here, in all its Soviet glory for us to see. Hats off to you comrade Boris.
This can't be right? Surely only the Toreeees use private contractors in the NHS?
A private healthcare firm contracted to distribute Covid jabs has been sidelined by Scotland’s largest health board as efforts are stepped up to turn around the lowest vaccination rates in the UK.
The SNP are Tories. That's why they get business funding. The SNP is also everything else in Scotland. And wouldn't the point be clearer if said private company had cut the SNP-yellow mustard?
Eh?? It gets very little business funding. Much more individuals.
Mainly its own members, it seems. Looks like I was out of date in remembering large donations from individuals who just happened to own bus companies and the like.
Indeed, but that was a long time ago and under very different management.
We all know of secessionist movements across the world like Scotland and Catalonia who want independence from one country.
But apart from Northern Ireland, are there any examples of one part of a country wanting to leave one country and join another?
A bit old. But the Sudetenland Germans would qualify, no?
Not the only ones in Eastern Europe IIRC. Various bits of various post-1919 countries. Saarland was never officially part of France IIRC but Tirol might qualify?
Edit - nobody’s mentioned North Cyprus yet either.
Gibraltar either.
There were some people who voted for Spain to have (joint) sovereignty over the rock.
I think it would be a good idea for Scotland to become part of Belgium, and for Flanders to join the UK in its place. I think Scotland and Wallonia would go well together. Does that count?
We all know of secessionist movements across the world like Scotland and Catalonia who want independence from one country.
But apart from Northern Ireland, are there any examples of one part of a country wanting to leave one country and join another?
A bit old. But the Sudetenland Germans would qualify, no?
More recently, Crimea. Few really dispute that the majority there prefer being Russian to Ukrainian (the issue is that Russia took it back by force). Kashmir is another example, of sorts, although anti-Indian Kashmitis are I believe divided over whether they'd rather join Pakistan or be independent.
I think Social Democracy and for that matter one nation conservatism is struggling.
Voters are fed up with their lot in life as Capitalism eats itself with the greadies getting fatter at the expense of those at the bottom starving, literally.
Will this lead to Socialism? No, that chance was lost, narrowly, in 2017, much more likely to be an extreme right wing regime IMO
These things are subjective. Some people (very hard leftists and diehard Europhiles) seem to think that we have an extreme right wing regime already.
The Tories are good at shape-shifting, it's how come they've survived so long. They're probably going to turn into the SDP with flag-waving at the end of all of this.
It's what current socio-economic circumstances and good politics would seem to dictate. The Conservatives face no threat from the right (Brexit has neutralised Farage,) so they can afford to park their tanks on Labour's lawn and allow the left to do what it does best: rip itself to pieces in ideological warfare that turns off everyone but the nerds that take part in it.
Labour can be a rump party for young urbanites and ethnic minorities that spends its time shouting at itself over refugees and transsexuals. The Tories can get on with the business of governing.
Not unless they sort themselves out in Scotland, and make it quite clear to a UK audience that they will never do a deal in Parliament with the SNP.
You think that Labour's problem's in England are to do with English voters worrying about some non specific deal with the SNP in an indistinct future? Polling is at best mixed on this and I'd suggest Labour should do some more assiduous burrowing for England's g spot and be as vague on Scotland as they're able (which SKS was doing until he thought Union flags was a great wheeze, or some marketing company convinced him that was the case).
I assume your Labour sorting themselves out in Scotland doesn't include winning 'their' voters back and a UK majority winning chunk of seats? That would be naively optimistic in the extreme.
Whatever the Guardian thought at the time, this was the single most effective piece of party political literature since "Labour Isn't Working" (with a nod to Labour's Tax Bombshell too). The idea of a Labour leader utterly beholden on the economy to the SNP was toxic. I suggest that message retains its relevence in England (and Wales) going into the next election. If only because nobody puts Boris in that top pocket.
What's your conclusive evidence that the poster was effective in winning votes apart from you recalling a stirring in your loins 6 years ago?
Several thousand Torbay doorsteps. It was raised without prompting, numerous times.
There's no data more convincing than on the doorstep anecdata.
It's better than your constant smug assertions...
Fair enough, PB definitely hasn't had enough of your Torbay canvassing yarns, the sine qua non of hard psephological info.
You were the ones saying, er what is the basis for your assertion that the SNP is toxic in England?
I appreciate that reality-based politics may be an unknown for you.
The term i used was 'conclusive evidence'. I know we live in debased times, but hearsay from an anonymous rando on the internet doesn't usually count as such.
I could get a million folk to sign a petition saying Miliband in the SNP pocket changed their vote and you'd still say it was a million anonymous randos.
Point is, you have got nothing to back up your assertions that folk weren't swayed. I, on the other hand, reported back here in 2015 on the impact it was having on ENGLISH doorsteps - something you self-evidently know fuck-all about. So on this issue, just STFU. You are out of your depth, little man.
I recall you doing so. Clearly. I kept hoping, too, that you were wrong about the effect on the LD's of the Coalition.
One I reported on early in the 2019 election campaign was the vehemence with which folk had taken against Jo Swinson. Wasn't sure if it was just a SW thing, but I maybe should have piled in on my instinct that if it was more widespread, she might lose her seat.
I had similar concerns after being burned in 2017 based on SW experiences.
Agree about 2017. I was working Torbay and we were clearly doing so much better than 2015. We stuck 11,000 onto the Torbay majority over 2015 - and it was clear on the ground we were doing so much better. But a swing which did not carry uniformly across the nation!
Guys, really enjoying all the chat and (excellent) points made in this thread.
I'm also a little bit pleased John Rentoul has retweeted it too - in part to sledge the headline, and now I see just why clickbait works so well in getting more shares and views. Thanks to the Eds for publishing too - they are very generous in allowing others to share their platform. And, from upthread, I did pick the header picture actually; sometimes the Eds have to switch or modify it due to copyright or licencing issues, but not on this occasion - thankfully.
I have to jump on the Roast Pork, roast potatoes, celeriac and white cabbage now (with apple sauce) with sticky toffee pudding for dessert, so will have to duck out again.
This debate isn't going away though. There is a way Labour can win by still being true to its values of unity, collaboration, solidarity and international cooperation through a sovereign Britain - which I touched on with some ideas in the header - but it needs to be a very British and inclusive and non-threatening vision, and it means and looks something very different to what lots of its core activists think.
I hope they do a bit more reflecting on it in private.
@TSE Belgium is interesting, which is effectively a contrived country.
I wonder if the French bits would rather join France and Flanders become a distinct devolved region of the Netherlands?
Otherwise Puerto Rico is quasi autonomous but wants to join the USA in full.
Belgium isn't quite contrived. It's the Catholic part of the Netherlands and remained under Spanish (and later Austrian) control for over 200 years after the Dutch had won their independence. Having visited both countries I'd say Belgium has a distinct culture and, apart from language, the Walloons and Flemings have a lot in common.
You're probably safe; people aren't up for less government and less regulation, a trend that the pandemic will reenforce.
Brexit has already turned into mainly an avalanche of new paperwork and new rules.
Indeed, if you're a Tory activist looking for victories on a vision of a small state, deregulation, privatisation/marketisation, prudent economics, balanced budgets and the flag, despite all the electoral victories, all but the last are slipping away from you; hence the emerging pre-occupation with the flag.
And even that may have fewer colours going forward.
That of course reveals the truth about the Conservative Party - all they are about (with some exceptions) is being in power, in office, in Government.
The fact a) they don't have a clue what to do with that and b) when in Opposition they are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard are both equally obvious.
Guys, really enjoying all the chat and (excellent) points made in this thread.
I'm also a little bit pleased John Rentoul has retweeted it too - in part to sledge the headline, and now I see just why clickbait works so well in getting more shares and views. Thanks to the Eds for publishing too - they are very generous in allowing others to share their platform. And, from upthread, I did pick the header picture actually; sometimes the Eds have to switch or modify it due to copyright or licencing issues, but not on this occasion - thankfully.
I have to jump on the Roast Pork, roast potatoes, celeriac and white cabbage now (with apple sauce) with sticky toffee pudding for dessert, so will have to duck out again.
This debate isn't going away though. There is a way Labour can win by still being true to its values of unity, collaboration, solidarity and international cooperation through a sovereign Britain - which I touched on with some ideas in the header - but it needs to be a very British and inclusive and non-threatening vision, and it means and looks something very different to what lots of its core activists think.
I hope they do a bit more reflecting on it in private.
So long as Starmer doesn't decide the way to win is to wrap himself in the flag. If that notion is confirmed all hope dies!
A healthy society requires a competitive democracy where everyone knows they have a fair chance to win. Perpetual Tory Government risks becoming stale, complacent, arrogant, and self-interested, failing to respond to the needs of all parts of our society with the necessary reforms,
Replace “Tory” with SNP and see Scotland.....the worrying thing there is the complacency, arrogance and self interest also appears to be infecting the Civil Service, Crown Office and Quangocracy.
Good thread - we have several Labour posters who illustrate the problem - one recently voters were not worthy of voting Labour...
Or replace ‘Tory’ with ‘Labour’ and see Wales.
Or of course, keep ‘Tory’ and see Northern Ireland from 1921 to 1972.
You're probably safe; people aren't up for less government and less regulation, a trend that the pandemic will reenforce.
Brexit has already turned into mainly an avalanche of new paperwork and new rules.
Indeed, if you're a Tory activist looking for victories on a vision of a small state, deregulation, privatisation/marketisation, prudent economics, balanced budgets and the flag, despite all the electoral victories, all but the last are slipping away from you; hence the emerging pre-occupation with the flag.
And even that may have fewer colours going forward.
That of course reveals the truth about the Conservative Party - all they are about (with some exceptions) is being in power, in office, in Government.
The fact a) they don't have a clue what to do with that and b) when in Opposition they are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard are both equally obvious.
The raison d'etre of the Conservative Party is to keep the likes of Corbyn out of power. Hence the fact that the 2017 election must be counted as their most catastrophic failure in modern times - far worse than 1997. They nearly let the nutters in.
Fortunately normal service would appear to have been restored.
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Is it Labour that needs Scotland though? In 2017 Theresa May was saved by Ruth Davidson's ScotCon revival.
Even in 2017 the Tories won a majority in England but not in Scotland nor Wales
Although recently mostly quiet there is a largeish group of Corbynite MPs and members still active in the party - whenever they pipe up historically they do far more damage to the brand than the equivalent on the right. They remain there dormant but always ready to spoilt the party. There some rumblings today I gather - with the suspicion they are waiting for poor locals to strike. Very difficult to know how seriously to take these stories.
Comments
Before devolution, the Welsh and Scottish seats were always smaller than English ones.
The Welsh seats were smaller by construction, not just because of population loss.
The Scottish Westminster seats got re-drawn after devolution, but the Welsh seats never did. (And Scotland lost seats at Westminster).
The Welsh seats did not get redrawn after 1999 -- probably because at the beginning it was not in Labour's interests to do so, and latterly because the Tories have not been in a position to do so.
Laffer dictates that trying to punitively pull the wealthy down is counter productive in terms of overall wealth generation so you rely on the largesse of the very rich to help the poorest which they can do either for motivated self interest or out of genuine philanthropy (as some do).
Unfortunately, the undercurrent I pick up is some on the LEAVE side wanted Brexit to usher in a period of de-regulation including making a bonfire of protection for workers and the environment. I've no desire to live in an off shore Singapore where my existence is solely to provide goods and services for the planet's billionaires and where the London property market is distorted by the bolt holes of the extremely wealthy.
That's what I hear from some on the conservative side - it's masked by words like "sovereignty" and "taking back control" but all I get from that is wages and conditions reduced and hours increased and we should be so much better than that in the 21st Century and we should call time on that kind of thinking.
The corollary, I suppose, is if the Right won't protect workers' rights and conditions, the Left will - except of course they won't either.
https://twitter.com/sammy5456/status/1358343035898245120
They thought it should be safe to do so, within the British political system where no party of the further right can ever establish a foothold.
The problem they have is that there are parts of our country where nationalism leads toward other consequences.
/Meanwhile on comes BBC Politics South, leading on the outrage with Brexit among the fishing and shellfishing community....
https://twitter.com/JohnBoy2412/status/1358326010924720130
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1145346335274622978
The Hungarians in Romania want to join Romania, the Kosovans want to join Albania, the Moldovans join Romania, and the Serb and Croat parties in Bosnia want to dismember their country, etc.
The South Tyrolese Independence movement wants to rejoin Austria.
Edit - in the EU you have the South Tyrol, of course.
The purpose of CureVac is to bring mRNA manufacturing onshore. So one of the manufacturing plants that we bought last year was a veterinary vaccine plant, which we’ve now converted into manufacturing human vaccines. And so that is now a bulk manufacturing plant that can make mRNA vaccines in the UK. We also funded work to improve the lipid nanoparticles process and scale up. Basically, mRNA genetic sequences are encased in a lipid, fatty envelope to make the vaccine
We were able to to develop that lipid nanoparticle technology to support mRNA vaccine manufacturing. So the idea of CureVac is to be able to develop next generation sequences for the new variants. So these could be ready for boosting the UK population for next winter, i.e. October or the beginning of next winter for 2021 to specifically address the variants. The plant is in Essex.
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article225865185/Kate-Bingham-Former-UK-vaccines-chief-says-yes-to-Russian-jab-if-data-is-good.html
And looks like WI are closing in on a famous win.
There's a fine line to draw though - I'm in favour of the payday lenders, as they are better than the unregulated alternative, but agree that sub-prime lending of consumer electronics needs to be better regulated. But again, what's a poor family to do when their fridge breaks and they've no cash in the bank? Do we tell retailers that they're allowed to sell crappy finance deals on fridges but not on TVs?
He should be replaced be Moeen Ali for the rest of the series.
But my suggestion to people who want to keep a "United Kingdom" is to try a little harder & think why the Welsh and Scottish might want to leave.
Hopefully not.
South Tirol and Transylvannia are two that come immediately to mind.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/21/02/05/2253243/amy-klobuchars-big-antitrust-bill-wants-to-end-the-age-of-megamergers
It is like detesting gelatin.
Amazon and online giants face tax raid on booming sales
Plan for digital levy as high street collapses
Amazon and other companies who have cashed in on the coronavirus crisis are facing a double tax raid under plans being drawn up by the government to plug the black hole in Britain’s finances.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amazon-and-online-giants-face-tax-raid-on-booming-sales-ljq9lg2gt (£££)
Brexit has already turned into mainly an avalanche of new paperwork and new rules.
Indeed, if you're a Tory activist looking for victories on a vision of a small state, deregulation, privatisation/marketisation, prudent economics, balanced budgets and the flag, despite all the electoral victories, all but the last are slipping away from you; hence the emerging pre-occupation with the flag.
And even that may have fewer colours going forward.
TL:DR - no changes in this budget, but consultation about online sales tax. I don't see it happening, myself. Its like fighting gravity. The high street will bounce back naturally when rents plummet (they're already starting too) and rates fall with them. And those bits that won't can be repurposed for housing.
AB De Villiers holds the world record for that, 31 balls to score a ODI century
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
The stories I hear from a CAB acquaintance are tremendously sad and often centre on people being given too much credit.
Just an observation. Isn't it calm and quiet on here before Thommo's mum lets him out to play.
There is political movement in Wallonie to leave the Belgian federation and join France - Rassemblement Wallonie France.
Don't chat shit about Belgian politics on here. You'll get found out.
I think Social Democracy and for that matter one nation conservatism is struggling.
Voters are fed up with their lot in life as Capitalism eats itself with the greadies getting fatter at the expense of those at the bottom starving, literally.
Will this lead to Socialism? No, that chance was lost, narrowly, in 2017, much more likely to be an extreme right wing regime IMO
Edit - nobody’s mentioned North Cyprus yet either.
I don’t know why captains review speculatively. They should only review if the situate is (a) desperate or (b) the umpire’s made a clear mistake.
At 340 ahead with six down, the situation is not desperate, and the umpire has clearly given that not out on height.
Just time wasting.
There were some people who voted for Spain to have (joint) sovereignty over the rock.
I wonder if the French bits would rather join France and Flanders become a distinct devolved region of the Netherlands?
Otherwise Puerto Rico is quasi autonomous but wants to join the USA in full.
The Tories are good at shape-shifting, it's how come they've survived so long. They're probably going to turn into the SDP with flag-waving at the end of all of this.
It's what current socio-economic circumstances and good politics would seem to dictate. The Conservatives face no threat from the right (Brexit has neutralised Farage,) so they can afford to park their tanks on Labour's lawn and allow the left to do what it does best: rip itself to pieces in ideological warfare that turns off everyone but the nerds that take part in it.
Labour can be a rump party for young urbanites and ethnic minorities that spends its time shouting at itself over refugees and transsexuals. The Tories can get on with the business of governing.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1358360973887889408
I'm also a little bit pleased John Rentoul has retweeted it too - in part to sledge the headline, and now I see just why clickbait works so well in getting more shares and views. Thanks to the Eds for publishing too - they are very generous in allowing others to share their platform. And, from upthread, I did pick the header picture actually; sometimes the Eds have to switch or modify it due to copyright or licencing issues, but not on this occasion - thankfully.
I have to jump on the Roast Pork, roast potatoes, celeriac and white cabbage now (with apple sauce) with sticky toffee pudding for dessert, so will have to duck out again.
This debate isn't going away though. There is a way Labour can win by still being true to its values of unity, collaboration, solidarity and international cooperation through a sovereign Britain - which I touched on with some ideas in the header - but it needs to be a very British and inclusive and non-threatening vision, and it means and looks something very different to what lots of its core activists think.
I hope they do a bit more reflecting on it in private.
The fact a) they don't have a clue what to do with that and b) when in Opposition they are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard are both equally obvious.
Fortunately normal service would appear to have been restored.