A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
Indeed so. The idea of not supporting gay marriage is probably anathema to vast swathes of politicians, yet many of those same politicians were around and even in power and probably either opposed it once or never cared to do anything about it for most of their careers.
That's not a criticism, things have moved on, but on some issues the 'correct' answer seems so obvious in how it is presented now I wonder how they think about their own positions for so long.
It was the last hurrah for 1950s bigotry. I wonder how many of those people who said they would leave the Tory party if the legislation was carried eventually did a Big G and stayed on.
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!
Are you going to vote for someone else if he does? Marginal voters went Tory last time because Corbyn and friends clearly hated the flag. Starmer needs them back.
Boris Johnson own the Union Flag. Starmer can demonstrate patriotism by promoting domestic consumption, by making difficult calls about taxation, funding healthcare and financing education properly (rather than throwing cash at Mickey Mouse Apprenticeship schemes).
If Starmer tries to outflag Johnson it means throwing xenophobic red meat to Red Wall voters. I want none of that.
Have fun in permanent opposition then. There’s maybe 10 or 15% of people who view the flag negatively, and about 50% who view negative expressions of the flag as a salient reason for voting against a party or candidate.
Starmer doesn’t need to “outflag” Johnson, he just needs to get rid of the Corbynite image of hating it being relevant.
I don't hate the flag at all. Starmer has made a good start with purging Corbynism, including chucking the clown himself out of the party (for the moment).
Thatcher didn't need a parade of flags behind her to prove her patriotism. Neither does Starmer
The reason he does need the flags, is because Corbyn was so set against them. He needs to prove to the wider electorate that the party has changed.
Thatcher didn't need flags behind her, because everyone was well aware of her loyalties already.
Thatcher didn’t need flags behind her because she had so many on her front
Don't know. She was always waving the UJ so much it was surelyt understood by all to be there even when it wasn't. And there is that story of her reaction to the British Airways livery redesign.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
26 years = roughly the time needed for a generation to die out (the 1920s/30s cohort in this case)
The cohort that won the war you mean. The cohort that saved freedom and democracy. That cohort you mean. The cohort that gave every thing, in some cases everything they ever had. The cohort that never gets a good word.
Go away.
The cohort that won the war has probably for the most part already gone away. It is 80 years since 1941 so a 20-year-old then would be receiving a telegram from the Queen (who can't have much else to do besides send telegrams, owing to lockdown). The Duke of Edinburgh is likely one of the few surviving naval captains to have fought in the war.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
Indeed so. The idea of not supporting gay marriage is probably anathema to vast swathes of politicians, yet many of those same politicians were around and even in power and probably either opposed it once or never cared to do anything about it for most of their careers.
That's not a criticism, things have moved on, but on some issues the 'correct' answer seems so obvious in how it is presented now I wonder how they think about their own positions for so long.
One of the issues for modern policies is that of the major economic and social questions fought over the past 30-40 years, the social issues have been largely won by the left, and the economic issues by the right. Both sides are still trying to understand what there is to battle over.
Agreed. Most people agree on what a decent society looks like. The question is how to pay for it. The worry is that the numbers won't add up unless pension ages get pushed into the mid-70's, which is unbearable for many.
The young are not willing to set aside some of their income for their pension until it is too late. Then they complain. They are not willing to set aside the cost of a night out to see a crap lefty comedian to preserve their life in old age. No doubt they hope their hard working parents will leave them their house instead... But watch out, that house might end up paying their parents pension.
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!
Are you going to vote for someone else if he does? Marginal voters went Tory last time because Corbyn and friends clearly hated the flag. Starmer needs them back.
Boris Johnson own the Union Flag. Starmer can demonstrate patriotism by promoting domestic consumption, by making difficult calls about taxation, funding healthcare and financing education properly (rather than throwing cash at Mickey Mouse Apprenticeship schemes).
If Starmer tries to outflag Johnson it means throwing xenophobic red meat to Red Wall voters. I want none of that.
Have fun in permanent opposition then. There’s maybe 10 or 15% of people who view the flag negatively, and about 50% who view negative expressions of the flag as a salient reason for voting against a party or candidate.
Starmer doesn’t need to “outflag” Johnson, he just needs to get rid of the Corbynite image of hating it being relevant.
I don't hate the flag at all. Starmer has made a good start with purging Corbynism, including chucking the clown himself out of the party (for the moment).
Thatcher didn't need a parade of flags behind her to prove her patriotism. Neither does Starmer
The reason he does need the flags, is because Corbyn was so set against them. He needs to prove to the wider electorate that the party has changed.
Thatcher didn't need flags behind her, because everyone was well aware of her loyalties already.
Thatcher didn’t need flags behind her because she had so many on her front
Don't know. She was always waving the UJ so much it was surelyt understood by all to be there even when it wasn't. And there is that story of her reaction to the British Airways livery redesign.
But she did that because she loved the nation, not to cover up her secret loathing of it.
A very simple - indeed obvious - response to this thread. In June 2017 Labour polled 41% across GB under the much derided Jeremy Corbyn. Why is it so unlikely that Starmer will fail to match that - particularly as a few polls have alreadyshown Labour back at that level despite normal party politics being largely in abeyance for the duration of the pandemic?
The Tory Hating left have controlled the British education system for decades and as a result much of British Culture and the Mainstream Media.Endless modern British films and tv series are overt hit jobs on the Tories .Eventually there has to be a tipping point and a landslide Tory defeat of 45 or 97 levels. The Tory govt is trying to diffuse things by going on a far left spending spree but eventually they will run out of money.As long as it is not a figure with Corbyn baggage i doubt it will matter who the Labour leader is when the tipping point comes.In the same way that it did not matter who the Tory leader was in 45 or 97.Both Churchill and Major were more popular with the public than their party.
Many of Britain's largest councils remain tantamount to Labour one-party states, but nationally stuck in the student / pronoun / privilege mire, while bullying out any other perspectives, most people in 330 seats are not going to decide that Labour's priorities are their priorities any time soon. It's easier to imagine the rise of a centre party that copies the populist aspects of Johnson and Corbyn while not being bound to very radical or very rich people's interests. Berlusconi and Macron rose to power within one electoral cycle; this really could come out of nowhere any time.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
Indeed so. The idea of not supporting gay marriage is probably anathema to vast swathes of politicians, yet many of those same politicians were around and even in power and probably either opposed it once or never cared to do anything about it for most of their careers.
That's not a criticism, things have moved on, but on some issues the 'correct' answer seems so obvious in how it is presented now I wonder how they think about their own positions for so long.
One of the issues for modern policies is that of the major economic and social questions fought over the past 30-40 years, the social issues have been largely won by the left, and the economic issues by the right. Both sides are still trying to understand what there is to battle over.
Agreed. Most people agree on what a decent society looks like. The question is how to pay for it. The worry is that the numbers won't add up unless pension ages get pushed into the mid-70's, which is unbearable for many.
The young are not willing to set aside some of their income for their pension until it is too late. Then they complain. They are not willing to set aside the cost of a night out to see a crap lefty comedian to preserve their life in old age. No doubt they hope their hard working parents will leave them their house instead... But watch out, that house might end up paying their parents pension.
This is so irrational that it must be driven by your personal story. I must therefore sympathize rather than chide.
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?
There are annexation movements in Canadian provinces, notably Alberta and to a lesser extent other western provinces, that want to leave Canada and join the US. They're not that big admittedly.
One of the twitter studies has just looked at deposits >.>
This is a fascinating issue and one worthy of much more attention on here.
One aspect is the threat of "affordability checks" which has caused alarm bells to ring throughout the horse racing industry. It's also irritating libertarians who are concerned about Government intrusion into people's financial affairs.
The cost of the checks will be met by the bookies which will mean less for racing and if those determined to avoid the checks go to underground betting the tax is lost as well.
From where I sit, this looks an incredibly bad idea on a number of levels.
And yet...it seems to resonate with a certain new puritanism when it comes to gambling.
There seems to be a cultural backlash against bookmakers and gambling partially based on the strong if not overbearing retail presence on some High Streets and also perhaps a recognition problem gambling doesn't begin and end with the gambler but impacts on all those around the gambler and on wider society.
I do think sometimes bookmakers are their own worst enemy - they are the first to plead adversity (and they have a powerful and well-funded PR machine) but there's a perception they don't care about the problem individuals (not true).
The Tory Hating left have controlled the British education system for decades and as a result much of British Culture and the Mainstream Media.Endless modern British films and tv series are overt hit jobs on the Tories .Eventually there has to be a tipping point and a landslide Tory defeat of 45 or 97 levels. The Tory govt is trying to diffuse things by going on a far left spending spree but eventually they will run out of money.As long as it is not a figure with Corbyn baggage i doubt it will matter who the Labour leader is when the tipping point comes.In the same way that it did not matter who the Tory leader was in 45 or 97.Both Churchill and Major were more popular with the public than their party.
Tory hating Lefty teachers showed their true colours in 2010. By voting for that Marxist err David Cameron.
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!
As a (hopefully thoughtful) Corbynist I'm not really bothered by some flag-waving but the question is what it's trying to imply. There's a risk that it's seen as pure tokenism, which would just irritate everyone including the most fervent patriots. If it symbolises "I'll put Britain first and not spend much time worrying about Palestine", I can live with that and can see it will speak to people who Corbyn put off. If it symbolised "I'm going to adopt the Daily Mail agenda". then of course the left would be alienated, but I don't think it goes that far.
From personal contact and phone canvassing, my impression is that most people in and outside the party are still quite willing to give Starmer a fair wind. There isn't a serious left-wing challenge brewing.
What about the Palestinian flag? I suppose the flag symbolises feeling for something - be it Britain or Palestine - and it might seem absurd for a British politician to need to show it. But that's where the left is now. Corbyn's non-reaction to the Salisbury chemical weapons poisoning was unforgivabe and indicative to me.
Labour are all tokenism. The party withinitself is all about a range of minorities and factions led by anti Jewish and pro Muslim and Palestine groups. Plus rampant anti Americanism. Misogyny not far away as well. Within that I'm guessing there is rampant corruption.
OK, I’ve just tested a link to this post from Twitter & it was immediately hi-jacked by a betting site.
I’m afraid PB.com has clearly been hacked /again/.
It’s possible that someone has worked out how to sneak an html redirect .js snippet through the commenting system. Hard to work out for sure because it’s not happening every time I click on the link.
Good morning. Beast from the East seems, so far, to be cold, wind and sleet rather a white world. So far anyway. In the 50's I don't recall a sense of defeatism around Labour. They were going to win again. However, during the 80's one did get that feeling, especially after 1992. As I recall, it wasn't Blair who made the initial and important difference, it was John Smith; who was a bit like Starmer. Labour's problem seems to be that 'organised labour' is neither organised nor labour; the leadership seems much more political than trade unionist.
Yes, and I remember in the noughties when people were asking "can the Tories win again?". Labour are running at about 38% in the polls, of course they can win again. Obviously losing 40ish safe Scottish seats makes a big difference, but add in 5% for the SNP to that 38% and it looks like a comfortable majority.
Labour needs to appeal across England, though I am unconvinced that flag fetishism will do the trick, but also need serious negotiations with the SNP on what coalition would look like. That would have to be with the new Holyrood parliament later this year. I think a further Sindyref is certain to be part of the price, but if that could be at the end of the Parliament, it might well work for both.
No true Unionist can object to Scottish representation in government. If Unionism just means English hegemony then it means nothing.
There would be no coalition. Confidence & Supply such as we saw from the DUP 2017 - 2019 - or the Lib/Lab Pact 1977 -78 - would be the best precedents.
He [Starmer] has done well to make himself a presence in the public’s mind during the gravest health emergency in a century. It is no mean thing to have achieved the best approval ratings for any opposition leader since Mr Blair was marching towards Number 10.
We will soon have an opportunity to examine his calibre as a campaigner. It has been confirmed that this May’s elections will go ahead. They will be an unusually large mid-parliament electoral event that will test the Labour leader’s talents as a campaign strategist and provide proof or otherwise that he has the capacity to form positive connections with the public. If he possesses another gear, here will be a chance to show it. If he doesn’t, we will find out.
We don’t yet know whether Sir Keir is any good at retail politics.
“We have to show that we are making progress,” says one member of the shadow cabinet. A strong Labour result will ease some of the creeping anxieties about whether the party is losing momentum while increasing the public appetite for listening to what its leader has to say. An unimpressive performance will exacerbate angst about the party’s prospects and leave the public less inclined to think they need to pay it much heed. In politics more than in most activities, success breeds success and failure foments failure. Sir Keir needs these elections to attract the right kind of attention.
On topic, interesting header, and I respect Casino's effort to be objective. In the opposite way, I hope the Republicans sort themselves out as permanent Democrat rule probably wouldn't be healthy.
As one of the people with a largely non-national political identity that Casino discusses, I do disagree that there's no such community, or that it's mostly in Liverpool and other places with a deep Labour tradition. I'd argue that it's actually the norm among young people here and in many Western countries, which is why Labour has huge leads among the young (and a consistent lead overall among everyone of working age). The concept that identity is *primarily* rooted in national pride is natural to many people of an older generation or a more traditional upbringing, but it's not very common in the under-40s. Almost nobody positively dislikes their country, but lots of us feel it's just one of many influences that make us into whole human beings. Not enough for a majority, though, so we need to be able to be genuinely friendly to the kind of amiable nationalism that simply consists of wanting to focus on getting our own country right before worrying about other places.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not, and find it hard to predict whether the Daily Mail national identity politics which makes the Conservative Party unattractive to many young people will still put them off as they get older. I think the jury's still out on that one.
Voters do not move to the right as they get older. The zeitgeist moves to the left. What were the issues of the 60s and 70s? Equal pay for women? Done. Anti-racism? Done. Legal abortions, gay rights, an end to capital punishment? Done.
If voters really do move to the right, why are they not campaigning for women to be paid less for equal work? They might seem more small-c conservative in the sense they do not want any more radical change, but that is not quite the same thing.
People move slowly and not in a straight line. Tories get that and win more often.
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!
Are you going to vote for someone else if he does? Marginal voters went Tory last time because Corbyn and friends clearly hated the flag. Starmer needs them back.
Boris Johnson own the Union Flag. Starmer can demonstrate patriotism by promoting domestic consumption, by making difficult calls about taxation, funding healthcare and financing education properly (rather than throwing cash at Mickey Mouse Apprenticeship schemes).
If Starmer tries to outflag Johnson it means throwing xenophobic red meat to Red Wall voters. I want none of that.
Have fun in permanent opposition then. There’s maybe 10 or 15% of people who view the flag negatively, and about 50% who view negative expressions of the flag as a salient reason for voting against a party or candidate.
Starmer doesn’t need to “outflag” Johnson, he just needs to get rid of the Corbynite image of hating it being relevant.
I don't hate the flag at all. Starmer has made a good start with purging Corbynism, including chucking the clown himself out of the party (for the moment).
Thatcher didn't need a parade of flags behind her to prove her patriotism. Neither does Starmer
The problem is that most of middle England doesn't believe that he or Labour loves the country. I don't think having 24 flags behind him on every video is the answer either though. Starmer needs to speak from the heart about why he loves this country and show some exceptionalism. There are things the UK does better than other countries, saying so might piss off the likes of Kinabalu but it gets Starmer in the room for tens of millions of voters who are suspicious of Labour and Starmer.
The consensus view, on patriotism or love of one's country, is not to the advantage of Starmer. I think the next battle is going to be over the Rhodes statue at Oxford and we know that the government will come out in favour of keeping it and celebrating our history, it's the majority view in the nation. Labour will equivocate, try not to get involved, some lefty MPs will call for Rhodes to fall, Starmer will reluctantly disagree and people will see it as hollow and it will please no one.
Labour needs to decide whether it believes British history is worth celebrating or something that they should be embarrassed by. The public believes Labour is in the latter group and I think Starmer is too, but recognises that this is not the majority view which is why he so awkward when it comes these kinds of arguments. It's why he made that stupid kneeling gesture despite being or of the few people in the country who can actually make a difference and doesn't need to rely on gestures.
Wholeheartedly agree with @Casino_Royale on the main idea. Labour should be 10 points up on the government, Starmer has failed to convince the British people that he loves this country sufficiently to be PM and that shows.
We have got plenty of Labour patriots on PB such as @SouthamObserver and Starmer could stand to take a lesson from them on how to tackle this issue.
It is nonsense to say that Labour should be ten points ahead. The general consensus through anecdota is that Johnson is, after a shaky start having a very good Covid. Starmer is hamstrung to an extent, he is limited to what he can say to critique Johnson without sounding churlish and opening himself up to accusations of trying to benefit from the pandemic (see today's MoS).
It is a long time since I studied economics, but I cannot see that what comes next (post Covid) won't be very bad, and incumbents across the world will suffer.
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?
There are annexation movements in Canadian provinces, notably Alberta and to a lesser extent other western provinces, that want to leave Canada and join the US. They're not that big admittedly.
What TSE’s apparently innocent question highlights is the crucial role that the EU plays in keeping a lid on these regional discontents. For example the South Tirol, which I know well, has minority ‘rejoin Austria’ politicians, but is generally relatively happy with its status as one of Europe’s most prosperous regions (governed for ages by the ‘South Tyrolean People’s Party’) with considerable devolved powers, buying into the ‘Europe of Regions’ model within the EU.
Imagine that QuItaly ever came about. The German speakers (in a narrow majority) of the region would never settle for loss of free movement and frictionless trade with Austria to the North. The Italian speakers would never settle for the sort of barriers with the rest of Italy that our clown of a PM has just put between GB and NI (and about which NI businesspeople are protesting on the radio as I type this).
If QuItaly ever becomes a prospect, either it would have to be so modest that Italy remains within the SM, CU and Schengen, or the South Tirol question immediately becomes a huge political problem.
A very simple - indeed obvious - response to this thread. In June 2017 Labour polled 41% across GB under the much derided Jeremy Corbyn. Why is it so unlikely that Starmer will fail to match that - particularly as a few polls have alreadyshown Labour back at that level despite normal party politics being largely in abeyance for the duration of the pandemic?
I agree level in a pandemic , most people obviously not on here are not thinking about policies or politics in general.They want the government to do a good job , so will give them a lot of slack. SKS has done well to get to that situation. When normal politics starts to return, As in the 90s, the constant eroding of looking after their own friends, starts to grate and the time for a change eventually turns from a trickle to a flood.
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.
Don't underestimate the political fallout if the UK falls apart on the Tories' watch
The great unknown is how much the typical English voter really cares about the end of the Union. IIRC polling evidence suggests that they don't want it to happen, but whether in the event that it does they howl at the sitting Government, or just shrug their shoulders and say 'if they want to go then let them,' is highly debatable. We won't know the answer unless or until it happens.
Part of the issue has to be the Tory propaganda of Scottish financial dependence on handouts/posters of Mr Salmond stealing from the taxpayer's pocket/Mr Miliband/SKS etc in the FM's pocket/handbag (not that Ms Sturgeon is noted for carrying one a la Mrs T). There's something of a conflict there with retaining the Scottish Tory vote.
I think that's inevitable. Place yourself in the position of a Conservative strategist: do you use Scotland as a stick with which to beat Keir Starmer, or do you shut up in the vague, remote hope that you might be able to win back one or two of the seven Scottish seats you lost last time around?
There's precisely no hope of a major Conservative revival in Scotland, absent which rolling the dice on achieving one would be foolish.
I think Ruthie proved the Tories coud come back in Scotland. The nation , like all other western democracies contains at least 35% of voters with right-wing instincts and probably more. Around a third of those currently support the SNP for obvious reasons. Come independence or a workable devolution which saw the SNP disappear the country would revert to a more normal left/right balance. I'm not anticipating that anytime soon .
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
But without the Scots Tory seats May would, at best, only been able to form a minority Government. In fact, wouldn't Corbyn have been in a better position?
I don't think that counts. It only counts if the narrative "unfairly" benefits Labour.
One of the twitter studies has just looked at deposits >.>
This is a fascinating issue and one worthy of much more attention on here.
One aspect is the threat of "affordability checks" which has caused alarm bells to ring throughout the horse racing industry. It's also irritating libertarians who are concerned about Government intrusion into people's financial affairs.
The cost of the checks will be met by the bookies which will mean less for racing and if those determined to avoid the checks go to underground betting the tax is lost as well.
From where I sit, this looks an incredibly bad idea on a number of levels.
And yet...it seems to resonate with a certain new puritanism when it comes to gambling.
There seems to be a cultural backlash against bookmakers and gambling partially based on the strong if not overbearing retail presence on some High Streets and also perhaps a recognition problem gambling doesn't begin and end with the gambler but impacts on all those around the gambler and on wider society.
I do think sometimes bookmakers are their own worst enemy - they are the first to plead adversity (and they have a powerful and well-funded PR machine) but there's a perception they don't care about the problem individuals (not true).
The Tories are very lucky that the pandemic crisis is overshadowing the fiasco that Brexit is turning into for many businesses, within NI and across the UK.
But critics believe the documents should be resisted because they could lead to discrimination against people who have not had a vaccine.
FFSAKE you WANT to be discriminating against refuseniks in a pandemic >.> Being a muppet is not a protected characteristic
Why are you surprised? - if they issue a vaccination passport, then the vaccination passport will rapidly become like your regular passport. When you get a job, they will want to take a photocopy of it for HR.....
No jab, no job.
Which brings us back to the makeup of the refusnik groups.
Part of the reason why politics has come to an impasse is that I don’t think people see the potential for change. I know I’m a broken record on this, but as a Millennial I know that we’ve been screwed by low interest rates and QE. Gen Z faces the same fate. But Labour has nothing to say on this subject. So I’m inclined to support the party that is least threatening to my inheritance.
This is another point of course. The baby boomers who have locked up a great deal of wealth are now, crudely, getting on and many of them will be passing away in the next decade.
So that wealth will cascade down. Or alternatively, will be released to the government in the form of IHT/reversion.
And those people who inherit it will therefore have different priorities.
Of course, that also makes assumptions. It doesn’t include care home costs, for starters. Moreover, those in the north/midlands will leave less than those in London - an ex-council semi in Cannock is worth a tenth of a similar house in Kew.
But that is where generational shift may come in.
This is a very interesting point.
For this to help Labour, rather than the Tories (assuming the latter create an environment more beneficial to inheritors), IMO, the next generation would have to be inheriting less than their parents. Not less than Southerners....
My Mum's family in Wales didn't inherit anything from their parents. My cousins have started inheriting houses and estates worth 10-20x their annual salaries - even if they would be worth more than double that in Dorset. I don't think this will help Labour anytime soon...
If the wealth accumulated by the boomer generation simply passes down by inheritance, then we return to a position that was always the society norm before some date between 1930 and 1950, of relative wealth (and hence to a significant extent status) determined overwhelmingly by birth and only marginally by merit and personal achievement. With the meritocratic years after WW2 - when governments and societies had the incentive of spreading economic benefits more widely to stave off the threat of communism - becoming the aberration.
Aside from IHT (for which the above is a very good argument), the missing bit of the analysis is the growing gap in pension provision, which many people from the younger slices of the boomer generation downwards are looking to bridge by spending the accumulated gains from their property. Of which yd's mention of care costs is only part, if an important one. Paradoxically the world in which the elderly spend down their wealth, rather than passing it on, is probably the better one.
My experience is that the next generation of inheritors will be far less divided by class, and far more divided by a) the property experiences of their parents and b) their number of siblings. My Mum's family grew up in one of the poorest council estates in North Wales.
I have friends who are basically drifting, never been interested in education, or starting a business, or qualifying for a trade, who will inherit £1m+ houses. I have other friends who are highly educated working in the charity/cultural sector who will likely never be able to buy more than a 2 bed flat because they have several siblings.
Yep, a return to the idle rich of the (pre-) 1920s.
Taking a very long view, over time the attitudes and mores of the two groups diverges and turns inexorably into class, surely?
Not really - assuming you don’t need to live in said house (not clear), £1m of capital provides about £35k per year without cutting into the real value of the capital itself. A very nice supplement to income and/or the ability to have a reasonable standard of living without working but hardly “idle rich”
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!
As a (hopefully thoughtful) Corbynist I'm not really bothered by some flag-waving but the question is what it's trying to imply. There's a risk that it's seen as pure tokenism, which would just irritate everyone including the most fervent patriots. If it symbolises "I'll put Britain first and not spend much time worrying about Palestine", I can live with that and can see it will speak to people who Corbyn put off. If it symbolised "I'm going to adopt the Daily Mail agenda". then of course the left would be alienated, but I don't think it goes that far.
From personal contact and phone canvassing, my impression is that most people in and outside the party are still quite willing to give Starmer a fair wind. There isn't a serious left-wing challenge brewing.
What about the Palestinian flag? I suppose the flag symbolises feeling for something - be it Britain or Palestine - and it might seem absurd for a British politician to need to show it. But that's where the left is now. Corbyn's non-reaction to the Salisbury chemical weapons poisoning was unforgivabe and indicative to me.
Yes - Corbyn made public what a lot of us suspected many in Labour really believed. And there are still thousands of members and a large number of MPs who retain those views with passion. Even EXMPNP was very voluble during the Corbyn period with his full and unabashed support for the bulk of the Corbyn programme.
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.
Like it or not, the Miliband and Salmond poster was genius.
The impression given was that every bill passed would need to have something for Scotland, at the expense of the other home nations, and that the guy effectively in charge of the UK would be someone wishing to break it up - after extracting as much as possible from it in the meantime.
The SNP are utterly toxic in England and Wales, in a way that even the worst of Corbyn's Labour couldn't manage.
Presumably Sturgeon having more positive approval ratings than SKS and BJ in England is in spite of the SNP then?
I certainly don’t agree the SNP are toxic in England and Wales.
But at the same time, I wonder how much of that popularity is due to name recognition coupled with knowing nothing about her actual record in government. Bear in mind, to most people who are not political geeks like us Sturgeon is a calm, thoughtful, articulate presence on screen for ten seconds.
I think if anything, her popularity south of the border undermines the self-loathing that so many nats have that leads them to think they are hated by the English.
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Why would that question need to asked of a Prime Minister leading the world out of a pandemic? Especially one enjoying a well-deserved lead in the polls.
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!
Are you going to vote for someone else if he does? Marginal voters went Tory last time because Corbyn and friends clearly hated the flag. Starmer needs them back.
Boris Johnson own the Union Flag. Starmer can demonstrate patriotism by promoting domestic consumption, by making difficult calls about taxation, funding healthcare and financing education properly (rather than throwing cash at Mickey Mouse Apprenticeship schemes).
If Starmer tries to outflag Johnson it means throwing xenophobic red meat to Red Wall voters. I want none of that.
Have fun in permanent opposition then. There’s maybe 10 or 15% of people who view the flag negatively, and about 50% who view negative expressions of the flag as a salient reason for voting against a party or candidate.
Starmer doesn’t need to “outflag” Johnson, he just needs to get rid of the Corbynite image of hating it being relevant.
I don't hate the flag at all. Starmer has made a good start with purging Corbynism, including chucking the clown himself out of the party (for the moment).
Thatcher didn't need a parade of flags behind her to prove her patriotism. Neither does Starmer
The problem is that most of middle England doesn't believe that he or Labour loves the country. I don't think having 24 flags behind him on every video is the answer either though. Starmer needs to speak from the heart about why he loves this country and show some exceptionalism. There are things the UK does better than other countries, saying so might piss off the likes of Kinabalu but it gets Starmer in the room for tens of millions of voters who are suspicious of Labour and Starmer.
The consensus view, on patriotism or love of one's country, is not to the advantage of Starmer. I think the next battle is going to be over the Rhodes statue at Oxford and we know that the government will come out in favour of keeping it and celebrating our history, it's the majority view in the nation. Labour will equivocate, try not to get involved, some lefty MPs will call for Rhodes to fall, Starmer will reluctantly disagree and people will see it as hollow and it will please no one.
Labour needs to decide whether it believes British history is worth celebrating or something that they should be embarrassed by. The public believes Labour is in the latter group and I think Starmer is too, but recognises that this is not the majority view which is why he so awkward when it comes these kinds of arguments. It's why he made that stupid kneeling gesture despite being or of the few people in the country who can actually make a difference and doesn't need to rely on gestures.
Wholeheartedly agree with @Casino_Royale on the main idea. Labour should be 10 points up on the government, Starmer has failed to convince the British people that he loves this country sufficiently to be PM and that shows.
We have got plenty of Labour patriots on PB such as @SouthamObserver and Starmer could stand to take a lesson from them on how to tackle this issue.
It is nonsense to say that Labour should be ten points ahead. The general consensus through anecdota is that Johnson is, after a shaky start having a very good Covid. Starmer is hamstrung to an extent, he is limited to what he can say to critique Johnson without sounding churlish and opening himself up to accusations of trying to benefit from the pandemic (see today's MoS).
It is a long time since I studied economics, but I cannot see that what comes next (post Covid) won't be very bad, and incumbents across the world will suffer.
Yes. I asked some weeks ago for a list of opposition parties ahead in the polls across the Western world. It was a very short list. Italy and Kossovo ISTR. Even Trump almost won, and down ballot the Reps exceeded expectations. "Labour should be x points ahead" (almost always stated by Conservative supporters). My response is why? We're in a pandemic. The entire world is willing their government to succeed. And everywhere they are cutting them a lot of slack.
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 serious question from this startling age chart is this: If you are serious about power do you want to be the party that people turn towards as they grow more experienced about life or the party they turn away from when they grow more experienced about life. The figures for 70+ are amazing, given how many of them vote and how many have working class roots and had solid Labour voting parents.
It is. But, by contrast do you want to be the Party relying on this automatically continuing? As has been pointed out the over 65's voted Labour in 1997. The under 30's Tory in 1983.
Clearly you can read this any way you want: Continuity = Labour gaining ground because the young Labour become older Labour, or Continuity = Tories maintaining the advantage of older people turning Tory. Etc. On the whole I think being the party people turn to as they get older is the better position to be in.
A central issue for Labour is what you might call the hesitation test. When you ask centrists of left and right the question: Is Labour patriotic, Yes or No? a characteristic answer is to hesitate and then say Yes. With the Tories and patriotism it's Yes. That difference is worth a lot of votes.
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Why would that question need to asked of a Prime Minister leading the world out of a pandemic? Especially one enjoying a well-deserved lead in the polls.
Because in the grand scheme of things he hasn't done a very good job, except credit where it is due, vaccine provision, compared to the EU.
'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.'
There remains significant anti-Devolution sentiment in Labour ranks in Wales. Were I still residing there, I would give my constituency vote to Labour - unless the candidate was one of the few advocating Independence - whilst also supporting the Abolish the Welsh Assembly party with my List vote.
'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.'
There remains significant anti-Devolution sentiment in Labour ranks in Wales. Were I still residing there, I would give my constituency vote to Labour - unless the candidate was one of the few advocating Independence - whilst also supporting the Abolish the Welsh Assembly party with my List vote.
HYUFD gets his way then. No Senedd AND more Tory/fewer Labour MPs in Wales.
It appears now that Lord Falconer needs to apologise for his remarks about coivd being a bonanza for lawyers. Are we really in such a puritanical straightjacket that even causing offence to lawyers is deemed unacceptable? Cannot a person now say any "off the cuff " remark without later having to say sorry for it? We do live in a strange society today
"In fact, if you go down the list of potential next Labour leaders amongst the current parliamentary Labour party, their theoretical ability to win a general election is almost precisely inversely proportional to the likelihood of them being nominated by the membership of the party to try and do so."
Nick Tyrone in the Spectator.
As long as Labour members don't want the best leader they have a problem.
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Why would that question need to asked of a Prime Minister leading the world out of a pandemic? Especially one enjoying a well-deserved lead in the polls.
With one of the worst record of deaths , over 100000 in the world is hardly a thing to boast about. Also difficult for any opposition to be fully critical. Credit is fully deserved for how the vaccine programme has been achieved.
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Why would that question need to asked of a Prime Minister leading the world out of a pandemic? Especially one enjoying a well-deserved lead in the polls.
Because in the grand scheme of things he hasn't done a very good job, except credit where it is due, vaccine provision, compared to the EU.
If the end is a triumph, only the people who would never have voted for him anyway are going to obsess about the beginning.
One of the twitter studies has just looked at deposits >.>
This is a fascinating issue and one worthy of much more attention on here.
One aspect is the threat of "affordability checks" which has caused alarm bells to ring throughout the horse racing industry. It's also irritating libertarians who are concerned about Government intrusion into people's financial affairs.
The cost of the checks will be met by the bookies which will mean less for racing and if those determined to avoid the checks go to underground betting the tax is lost as well.
From where I sit, this looks an incredibly bad idea on a number of levels.
And yet...it seems to resonate with a certain new puritanism when it comes to gambling.
There seems to be a cultural backlash against bookmakers and gambling partially based on the strong if not overbearing retail presence on some High Streets and also perhaps a recognition problem gambling doesn't begin and end with the gambler but impacts on all those around the gambler and on wider society.
I do think sometimes bookmakers are their own worst enemy - they are the first to plead adversity (and they have a powerful and well-funded PR machine) but there's a perception they don't care about the problem individuals (not true).
I think a problem here is that the current generation of Tory leaderships (and I would probably include back to Carmeron) Govt are not proving very good with the detail of reform.
Perhaps the better current example is the "unhealthy food" proposed advertising ban.
Lots and lots of kerfuffle and people to be offended, but when you get down to it the proposed saving for children amount to under 3 calories per day ie around 0.1%.
That is not a viable political capital /benefit balance.
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Johnson has face unremitting criticism for years. Whole industries have been created to attack Boris. And the weapons in their armoury are immense. But he won't be beaten by a leader or party less able and less convincing.
Part of the reason why politics has come to an impasse is that I don’t think people see the potential for change. I know I’m a broken record on this, but as a Millennial I know that we’ve been screwed by low interest rates and QE. Gen Z faces the same fate. But Labour has nothing to say on this subject. So I’m inclined to support the party that is least threatening to my inheritance.
This is another point of course. The baby boomers who have locked up a great deal of wealth are now, crudely, getting on and many of them will be passing away in the next decade.
So that wealth will cascade down. Or alternatively, will be released to the government in the form of IHT/reversion.
And those people who inherit it will therefore have different priorities.
Of course, that also makes assumptions. It doesn’t include care home costs, for starters. Moreover, those in the north/midlands will leave less than those in London - an ex-council semi in Cannock is worth a tenth of a similar house in Kew.
But that is where generational shift may come in.
This is a very interesting point.
For this to help Labour, rather than the Tories (assuming the latter create an environment more beneficial to inheritors), IMO, the next generation would have to be inheriting less than their parents. Not less than Southerners....
My Mum's family in Wales didn't inherit anything from their parents. My cousins have started inheriting houses and estates worth 10-20x their annual salaries - even if they would be worth more than double that in Dorset. I don't think this will help Labour anytime soon...
If the wealth accumulated by the boomer generation simply passes down by inheritance, then we return to a position that was always the society norm before some date between 1930 and 1950, of relative wealth (and hence to a significant extent status) determined overwhelmingly by birth and only marginally by merit and personal achievement. With the meritocratic years after WW2 - when governments and societies had the incentive of spreading economic benefits more widely to stave off the threat of communism - becoming the aberration.
Aside from IHT (for which the above is a very good argument), the missing bit of the analysis is the growing gap in pension provision, which many people from the younger slices of the boomer generation downwards are looking to bridge by spending the accumulated gains from their property. Of which yd's mention of care costs is only part, if an important one. Paradoxically the world in which the elderly spend down their wealth, rather than passing it on, is probably the better one.
My experience is that the next generation of inheritors will be far less divided by class, and far more divided by a) the property experiences of their parents and b) their number of siblings. My Mum's family grew up in one of the poorest council estates in North Wales.
I have friends who are basically drifting, never been interested in education, or starting a business, or qualifying for a trade, who will inherit £1m+ houses. I have other friends who are highly educated working in the charity/cultural sector who will likely never be able to buy more than a 2 bed flat because they have several siblings.
Yep, a return to the idle rich of the (pre-) 1920s.
Taking a very long view, over time the attitudes and mores of the two groups diverges and turns inexorably into class, surely?
Not really - assuming you don’t need to live in said house (not clear), £1m of capital provides about £35k per year without cutting into the real value of the capital itself. A very nice supplement to income and/or the ability to have a reasonable standard of living without working but hardly “idle rich”
‘Reasonable?!!!!’
That’s the salary of a fairly experienced teacher!
It’s more than bloody reasonable for somebody who’s not working. It’s distinctly comfortable. Of course, it depends on where you live. But if I didn’t have to work I could easily find a nice place in say Yorkshire where that would be a veritable fortune.
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Why would that question need to asked of a Prime Minister leading the world out of a pandemic? Especially one enjoying a well-deserved lead in the polls.
Because in the grand scheme of things he hasn't done a very good job, except credit where it is due, vaccine provision, compared to the EU.
If the end is a triumph, only the people who would never have voted for him anyway are going to obsess about the beginning.
Don't be ridiculous. 110,000 fatalities is not a triumph. If people died unnecessarily due to incompetence it must be called out.
But critics believe the documents should be resisted because they could lead to discrimination against people who have not had a vaccine.
FFSAKE you WANT to be discriminating against refuseniks in a pandemic >.> Being a muppet is not a protected characteristic
Why are you surprised? - if they issue a vaccination passport, then the vaccination passport will rapidly become like your regular passport. When you get a job, they will want to take a photocopy of it for HR.....
No jab, no job.
Which brings us back to the makeup of the refusnik groups.
Not really because there's a really easy way out. Go and get the vaccine.
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!
Are you going to vote for someone else if he does? Marginal voters went Tory last time because Corbyn and friends clearly hated the flag. Starmer needs them back.
Boris Johnson own the Union Flag. Starmer can demonstrate patriotism by promoting domestic consumption, by making difficult calls about taxation, funding healthcare and financing education properly (rather than throwing cash at Mickey Mouse Apprenticeship schemes).
If Starmer tries to outflag Johnson it means throwing xenophobic red meat to Red Wall voters. I want none of that.
Have fun in permanent opposition then. There’s maybe 10 or 15% of people who view the flag negatively, and about 50% who view negative expressions of the flag as a salient reason for voting against a party or candidate.
Starmer doesn’t need to “outflag” Johnson, he just needs to get rid of the Corbynite image of hating it being relevant.
I don't hate the flag at all. Starmer has made a good start with purging Corbynism, including chucking the clown himself out of the party (for the moment).
Thatcher didn't need a parade of flags behind her to prove her patriotism. Neither does Starmer
The problem is that most of middle England doesn't believe that he or Labour loves the country. I don't think having 24 flags behind him on every video is the answer either though. Starmer needs to speak from the heart about why he loves this country and show some exceptionalism. There are things the UK does better than other countries, saying so might piss off the likes of Kinabalu but it gets Starmer in the room for tens of millions of voters who are suspicious of Labour and Starmer.
The consensus view, on patriotism or love of one's country, is not to the advantage of Starmer. I think the next battle is going to be over the Rhodes statue at Oxford and we know that the government will come out in favour of keeping it and celebrating our history, it's the majority view in the nation. Labour will equivocate, try not to get involved, some lefty MPs will call for Rhodes to fall, Starmer will reluctantly disagree and people will see it as hollow and it will please no one.
Labour needs to decide whether it believes British history is worth celebrating or something that they should be embarrassed by. The public believes Labour is in the latter group and I think Starmer is too, but recognises that this is not the majority view which is why he so awkward when it comes these kinds of arguments. It's why he made that stupid kneeling gesture despite being or of the few people in the country who can actually make a difference and doesn't need to rely on gestures.
Wholeheartedly agree with @Casino_Royale on the main idea. Labour should be 10 points up on the government, Starmer has failed to convince the British people that he loves this country sufficiently to be PM and that shows.
We have got plenty of Labour patriots on PB such as @SouthamObserver and Starmer could stand to take a lesson from them on how to tackle this issue.
It is nonsense to say that Labour should be ten points ahead. The general consensus through anecdota is that Johnson is, after a shaky start having a very good Covid
Wouldn’t necessarily say ‘very good,’ but recently everything about the government has distinctly improved. They’ve even made some intelligent moves on education although they had to overrule the DfE to do it.
Strangely this improvement seems to date fairly precisely to the moment Dominic Cummings was sacked.
To win an overall majority in the UK there is still a lot more for Labour to do and certainly to win England, which elected Tory majorities even in 2010 and 2017 and which no Labour leader has made serious inroads in since Blair.
However on some current polls Labour could get into power with confidence and supply from the SNP and support from the LDs as well as its Welsh MPs even if the Tories win a majority in England if they win back about 50 seats in England.
If they then won back their Scottish seats they could start to look towards a UK overall majority again, so a Labour government is probably not as far off as the article suggests, even if a Labour majority likely relies on Labour winning back its Scottish seats.
Despite losing the popular vote in England , Labour did win most seats there in 2005. Morover, Labour's GB lead that year was just 3%. When allowance is made for the 2015 Labour collapse in Scotland which has knocked circa 2% off its GB vote share , that equates to a lead of less than 1.5% in terms of current polling!
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Johnson has face unremitting criticism for years. Whole industries have been created to attack Boris. And the weapons in their armoury are immense. But he won't be beaten by a leader or party less able and less convincing.
The criticism bounces off Johnson.
Kinnock fell into the sea and his credibility was shot. Johnson gets caught, stranded on a zip wire waving two plastic Union Flags and his stock goes through the roof.
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Why would that question need to asked of a Prime Minister leading the world out of a pandemic? Especially one enjoying a well-deserved lead in the polls.
Because in the grand scheme of things he hasn't done a very good job, except credit where it is due, vaccine provision, compared to the EU.
If the end is a triumph, only the people who would never have voted for him anyway are going to obsess about the beginning.
Don't be ridiculous. 110,000 fatalities is not a triumph. If people died unnecessarily due to incompetence it must be called out.
Feel free to hold Boris' show trial alongside those of Conte, Macron, Sánchez, and Merkel then, since by your criteria their incompetence is responsible for the deaths of over 300,000 of their own citizens by not immediately and magically making them immune to a novel pandemic.
'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.'
There remains significant anti-Devolution sentiment in Labour ranks in Wales. Were I still residing there, I would give my constituency vote to Labour - unless the candidate was one of the few advocating Independence - whilst also supporting the Abolish the Welsh Assembly party with my List vote.
HYUFD gets his way then. No Senedd AND more Tory/fewer Labour MPs in Wales.
If the Assembly were removed, the former justification for a degree of overrepresentation at Westminster would be restored.
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Why would that question need to asked of a Prime Minister leading the world out of a pandemic? Especially one enjoying a well-deserved lead in the polls.
Because in the grand scheme of things he hasn't done a very good job, except credit where it is due, vaccine provision, compared to the EU.
If the end is a triumph, only the people who would never have voted for him anyway are going to obsess about the beginning.
Don't be ridiculous. 110,000 fatalities is not a triumph. If people died unnecessarily due to incompetence it must be called out.
Feel free to hold Boris' show trial alongside those of Conte, Macron, Sánchez, and Merkel then, since by your criteria their incompetence is responsible for the deaths of over 300,000 of their own citizens by not immediately making them immune to a novel pandemic.
They should all share the same prison block as far as I am concerned.
Credit where it is due, Johnson has done well on vaccines. His earlier performance, PPE, test, track and trace, locking down late, opening up early was very poor.
Best not to waste my time arguing the point with you, as the vaccination issue washes away the earlier woeful incompetence for you.
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.
Lol, the calm, reasoned debating style to which I’ve become accustomed.
Quiet English nationalism is turning up the volume and it will mostly be bellowing STFU and buy English sparkling wine.
Would love to know what you think you contribute here.
'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.'
There remains significant anti-Devolution sentiment in Labour ranks in Wales. Were I still residing there, I would give my constituency vote to Labour - unless the candidate was one of the few advocating Independence - whilst also supporting the Abolish the Welsh Assembly party with my List vote.
HYUFD gets his way then. No Senedd AND more Tory/fewer Labour MPs in Wales.
If the Assembly were removed, the former justification for a degree of overrepresentation at Westminster would be restored.
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Why would that question need to asked of a Prime Minister leading the world out of a pandemic? Especially one enjoying a well-deserved lead in the polls.
Because in the grand scheme of things he hasn't done a very good job, except credit where it is due, vaccine provision, compared to the EU.
If the end is a triumph, only the people who would never have voted for him anyway are going to obsess about the beginning.
Don't be ridiculous. 110,000 fatalities is not a triumph. If people died unnecessarily due to incompetence it must be called out.
Feel free to hold Boris' show trial alongside those of Conte, Macron, Sánchez, and Merkel then, since by your criteria their incompetence is responsible for the deaths of over 300,000 of their own citizens by not immediately making them immune to a novel pandemic.
They should all share the same prison block as far as I am concerned.
Credit where it is due, Johnson has done well on vaccines. His earlier performance, PPE, test, track and trace, locking down late, opening up early was very poor.
Best not to waste my time arguing the point with you, as the vaccination issue washes away the earlier woeful incompetence for you.
As it will for most of the rest of the country. Labour will spend the next few years desperately shroud-waving, and then be utterly dumbstruck at being left out of power once again.
Part of the reason why politics has come to an impasse is that I don’t think people see the potential for change. I know I’m a broken record on this, but as a Millennial I know that we’ve been screwed by low interest rates and QE. Gen Z faces the same fate. But Labour has nothing to say on this subject. So I’m inclined to support the party that is least threatening to my inheritance.
This is another point of course. The baby boomers who have locked up a great deal of wealth are now, crudely, getting on and many of them will be passing away in the next decade.
So that wealth will cascade down. Or alternatively, will be released to the government in the form of IHT/reversion.
And those people who inherit it will therefore have different priorities.
Of course, that also makes assumptions. It doesn’t include care home costs, for starters. Moreover, those in the north/midlands will leave less than those in London - an ex-council semi in Cannock is worth a tenth of a similar house in Kew.
But that is where generational shift may come in.
This is a very interesting point.
For this to help Labour, rather than the Tories (assuming the latter create an environment more beneficial to inheritors), IMO, the next generation would have to be inheriting less than their parents. Not less than Southerners....
My Mum's family in Wales didn't inherit anything from their parents. My cousins have started inheriting houses and estates worth 10-20x their annual salaries - even if they would be worth more than double that in Dorset. I don't think this will help Labour anytime soon...
If the wealth accumulated by the boomer generation simply passes down by inheritance, then we return to a position that was always the society norm before some date between 1930 and 1950, of relative wealth (and hence to a significant extent status) determined overwhelmingly by birth and only marginally by merit and personal achievement. With the meritocratic years after WW2 - when governments and societies had the incentive of spreading economic benefits more widely to stave off the threat of communism - becoming the aberration.
Aside from IHT (for which the above is a very good argument), the missing bit of the analysis is the growing gap in pension provision, which many people from the younger slices of the boomer generation downwards are looking to bridge by spending the accumulated gains from their property. Of which yd's mention of care costs is only part, if an important one. Paradoxically the world in which the elderly spend down their wealth, rather than passing it on, is probably the better one.
My experience is that the next generation of inheritors will be far less divided by class, and far more divided by a) the property experiences of their parents and b) their number of siblings. My Mum's family grew up in one of the poorest council estates in North Wales.
I have friends who are basically drifting, never been interested in education, or starting a business, or qualifying for a trade, who will inherit £1m+ houses. I have other friends who are highly educated working in the charity/cultural sector who will likely never be able to buy more than a 2 bed flat because they have several siblings.
Yep, a return to the idle rich of the (pre-) 1920s.
Taking a very long view, over time the attitudes and mores of the two groups diverges and turns inexorably into class, surely?
Not really - assuming you don’t need to live in said house (not clear), £1m of capital provides about £35k per year without cutting into the real value of the capital itself. A very nice supplement to income and/or the ability to have a reasonable standard of living without working but hardly “idle rich”
‘Reasonable?!!!!’
That’s the salary of a fairly experienced teacher!
It’s more than bloody reasonable for somebody who’s not working. It’s distinctly comfortable. Of course, it depends on where you live. But if I didn’t have to work I could easily find a nice place in say Yorkshire where that would be a veritable fortune.
I think Charles perhaps inhabits a slightly different plane than most here. And not just in a financial sense.
But critics believe the documents should be resisted because they could lead to discrimination against people who have not had a vaccine.
FFSAKE you WANT to be discriminating against refuseniks in a pandemic >.> Being a muppet is not a protected characteristic
Why are you surprised? - if they issue a vaccination passport, then the vaccination passport will rapidly become like your regular passport. When you get a job, they will want to take a photocopy of it for HR.....
No jab, no job.
Which brings us back to the makeup of the refusnik groups.
Not really because there's a really easy way out. Go and get the vaccine.
The problem you meet, then, is belief and ideology.
There is talk of post-truth and alt-right-facts etc.
The truth is that fake news is generally another persons beliefs.
Consider the Cameron story about the pigs head. Despite it being exposed as horse manure, and classic fakery - "No, I haven't seen the video or spoken to someone who was there. But I know someone (can't name them) who knows someone (can't name them either)..." ... it still gets repeated. By people who *want* it to be true.
Back in the heyday of USENET, on the urban legend newsgroups, there was a term for the "Upsetting people by pointing out their urban legend/fake news is bullshit and appearing anti-social."... I forget the term. But it is a common situation.
The question then becomes - are you allowed to challenge those beliefs? Do they have a *right* to those beliefs. Is "attacking: such beliefs socially acceptable? Is "punishing" people for such beliefs acceptable.
We live in a world where it is considered and implemented social policy to protect certain beliefs, in some groups. An outcome negative to those groups is not an acceptable outcome, according to this framework.
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Why would that question need to asked of a Prime Minister leading the world out of a pandemic? Especially one enjoying a well-deserved lead in the polls.
Because in the grand scheme of things he hasn't done a very good job, except credit where it is due, vaccine provision, compared to the EU.
If the end is a triumph, only the people who would never have voted for him anyway are going to obsess about the beginning.
Don't be ridiculous. 110,000 fatalities is not a triumph. If people died unnecessarily due to incompetence it must be called out.
Feel free to hold Boris' show trial alongside those of Conte, Macron, Sánchez, and Merkel then, since by your criteria their incompetence is responsible for the deaths of over 300,000 of their own citizens by not immediately making them immune to a novel pandemic.
They should all share the same prison block as far as I am concerned.
Credit where it is due, Johnson has done well on vaccines. His earlier performance, PPE, test, track and trace, locking down late, opening up early was very poor.
Best not to waste my time arguing the point with you, as the vaccination issue washes away the earlier woeful incompetence for you.
As it will for most of the rest of the country. Labour will spend the next few years desperately shroud-waving, and then be utterly dumbstruck at being left out of power once again.
Follow the money.
Please explain how Johnson gets us out of the post Covid financial implications unscathed.
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Why would that question need to asked of a Prime Minister leading the world out of a pandemic? Especially one enjoying a well-deserved lead in the polls.
Because in the grand scheme of things he hasn't done a very good job, except credit where it is due, vaccine provision, compared to the EU.
If the end is a triumph, only the people who would never have voted for him anyway are going to obsess about the beginning.
Don't be ridiculous. 110,000 fatalities is not a triumph. If people died unnecessarily due to incompetence it must be called out.
112,000 now, but a couple of thou extra is probably just a statistic rather than a tragedy in Covid nationalist speak.
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Why would that question need to asked of a Prime Minister leading the world out of a pandemic? Especially one enjoying a well-deserved lead in the polls.
Because in the grand scheme of things he hasn't done a very good job, except credit where it is due, vaccine provision, compared to the EU.
If the end is a triumph, only the people who would never have voted for him anyway are going to obsess about the beginning.
Don't be ridiculous. 110,000 fatalities is not a triumph. If people died unnecessarily due to incompetence it must be called out.
I'm reading Obama's new interesting, introspective autobiography (A Promised Land). He reflects at one point that although he dislikes the intense partisanship which the Republicans showed on every Bill, he had to admit that, looking at recent years, both Democrats and Republicans had done best when they relentlessly attacked the President from the other side, rather than attempt bipartisanship - partly because it validated whatever grievances individuals came to feel, and partly because it was media-friendly - "X condemns Y" is much more interesting for clickbait than "X in discussions on Y".
Which is depressing but rings true. A former (centrist) colleague who was an MP in Yorkshire confirms my own experience from phone canvassing, that most people are currently only interested in vaccinations and when they can have a holiday, and are largely unaware of or forgiving of Government failings, while the minority who she meets when helping out at the food bank are getting more and more desperate, but also largely unaware of Opposition criticism.
But critics believe the documents should be resisted because they could lead to discrimination against people who have not had a vaccine.
FFSAKE you WANT to be discriminating against refuseniks in a pandemic >.> Being a muppet is not a protected characteristic
Why are you surprised? - if they issue a vaccination passport, then the vaccination passport will rapidly become like your regular passport. When you get a job, they will want to take a photocopy of it for HR.....
No jab, no job.
Which brings us back to the makeup of the refusnik groups.
Not really because there's a really easy way out. Go and get the vaccine.
The problem you meet, then, is belief and ideology.
There is talk of post-truth and alt-right-facts etc.
The truth is that fake news is generally another persons beliefs.
Consider the Cameron story about the pigs head. Despite it being exposed as horse manure, and classic fakery - "No, I haven't seen the video or spoken to someone who was there. But I know someone (can't name them) who knows someone (can't name them either)..." ... it still gets repeated. By people who *want* it to be true.
Back in the heyday of USENET, on the urban legend newsgroups, there was a term for the "Upsetting people by pointing out their urban legend/fake news is bullshit and appearing anti-social."... I forget the term. But it is a common situation.
The question then becomes - are you allowed to challenge those beliefs? Do they have a *right* to those beliefs. Is "attacking: such beliefs socially acceptable? Is "punishing" people for such beliefs acceptable.
We live in a world where it is considered and implemented social policy to protect certain beliefs, in some groups. An outcome negative to those groups is not an acceptable outcome, according to this framework.
I think we're dancing around the real issue. Is anti-vaxxing a protected belief under the equalities act because non-white people are more susceptible to such beliefs. The legal answer may be yes, though if it is I expect the act to be amended to remove that quirk because businesses which require no social distancing to operate will need vaccine passports to help punters feel safe indoors.
Simply, anti-vaxxing isn't a protected belief, it's a stupid person's choice and stupidity is also not a protected characteristic. The law may be adding up 2 and 2 and getting 5 right now but the government has the means to correct that.
It's worth pointing out for all those in the "Labour should be 10 points ahead" brigade that almost all incumbent Governments of whatever political stripe have done well out of Covid and their individual responses.
The CDU/CSU are miles ahead in Germany as are the Socialists in Portugal and the Social Democrats in Denmark. Jacinda Ardern won a landslide victory and one or two other local contests have favoured incumbents such as Queensland.
The one example of an opposition being well ahead is Kosovo.
It's worth pointing out for all those in the "Labour should be 10 points ahead" brigade that almost all incumbent Governments of whatever political stripe have done well out of Covid and their individual responses.
The CDU/CSU are miles ahead in Germany as are the Socialists in Portugal and the Social Democrats in Denmark. Jacinda Ardern won a landslide victory and one or two other local contests have favoured incumbents such as Queensland.
The one example of an opposition being well ahead is Kosovo.
Wasn't there some recent trivial contest in an unimportant former colony of ours where the incumbent was defeated?
Yes - Corbyn made public what a lot of us suspected many in Labour really believed. And there are still thousands of members and a large number of MPs who retain those views with passion. Even EXMPNP was very voluble during the Corbyn period with his full and unabashed support for the bulk of the Corbyn programme.
Sure, and I haven't gone away or pretended otherwise. But there's left-wing and there's daft, not *always* the same thing. Abolishing the benefits cap and nationalising the railways are arguable things which some not on the left also support. Waving Palestinian flags is daft, unless you're attending a "Solidarity with Palestine" rally. The left has always been divided into idealists (Corbyn), realists (McDonnell) and posturers (Galloway). Just as the right is divided into zealous patriots, practical businessmen and knee-jerk libertarians.
But critics believe the documents should be resisted because they could lead to discrimination against people who have not had a vaccine.
FFSAKE you WANT to be discriminating against refuseniks in a pandemic >.> Being a muppet is not a protected characteristic
Why are you surprised? - if they issue a vaccination passport, then the vaccination passport will rapidly become like your regular passport. When you get a job, they will want to take a photocopy of it for HR.....
No jab, no job.
Which brings us back to the makeup of the refusnik groups.
Not really because there's a really easy way out. Go and get the vaccine.
The problem you meet, then, is belief and ideology.
There is talk of post-truth and alt-right-facts etc.
The truth is that fake news is generally another persons beliefs.
Consider the Cameron story about the pigs head. Despite it being exposed as horse manure, and classic fakery - "No, I haven't seen the video or spoken to someone who was there. But I know someone (can't name them) who knows someone (can't name them either)..." ... it still gets repeated. By people who *want* it to be true.
Back in the heyday of USENET, on the urban legend newsgroups, there was a term for the "Upsetting people by pointing out their urban legend/fake news is bullshit and appearing anti-social."... I forget the term. But it is a common situation.
The question then becomes - are you allowed to challenge those beliefs? Do they have a *right* to those beliefs. Is "attacking: such beliefs socially acceptable? Is "punishing" people for such beliefs acceptable.
We live in a world where it is considered and implemented social policy to protect certain beliefs, in some groups. An outcome negative to those groups is not an acceptable outcome, according to this framework.
I think we're dancing around the real issue. Is anti-vaxxing a protected belief under the equalities act because non-white people are more susceptible to such beliefs. The legal answer may be yes, though if it is I expect the act to be amended to remove that quirk because businesses which require no social distancing to operate will need vaccine passports to help punters feel safe indoors.
Simply, anti-vaxxing isn't a protected belief, it's a stupid person's choice and stupidity is also not a protected characteristic. The law may be adding up 2 and 2 and getting 5 right now but the government has the means to correct that.
I think it's been pointed out that, in terms of the Equalities Act, making vaccination compulsory for certain jobs (for example) would be at most *indirect* discrimination. Indirect discrimination is legal if it is a proportional means to attain a legitimate goal. (Hence retirement ages in some professions.) I think that bar would easily be met and the law, or at least that law, is no impediment.
Of course many have other ethical reasons to be against compulsory vaccination, but the Equalities Act isn't a good one.
The truth is that fake news is generally another persons beliefs.
Consider the Cameron story about the pigs head. Despite it being exposed as horse manure, and classic fakery - "No, I haven't seen the video or spoken to someone who was there. But I know someone (can't name them) who knows someone (can't name them either)..." ... it still gets repeated. By people who *want* it to be true.
Just on the Cameron story, the Call Me Dave biography credits it to an MP who named another person as the possessor of a photograph, but that person did not respond to approaches.
Tbh I doubt the electorate would have given a damn about Cameron's student high jinks, any more than they worry about Boris's.
It's a narrative, promoted by the Tory press and their friends on PB, that is working and will resonate with voters.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
Johnson has face unremitting criticism for years. Whole industries have been created to attack Boris. And the weapons in their armoury are immense. But he won't be beaten by a leader or party less able and less convincing.
The criticism bounces off Johnson.
Kinnock fell into the sea and his credibility was shot. Johnson gets caught, stranded on a zip wire waving two plastic Union Flags and his stock goes through the roof.
In what way was it Boris's fault that the zip wire broke? He just took it in good part, didn't get stroppy and throw a Diana Ross, just waved his flegs and waited for normality to resume.
It makes me wonder for whom she was voting, givcen the last decade or so of tweets.
I think she's now George Galloway comedy vehicle due to the SCons appeasing of the vile Nats.
Had a quick look at the website. Seems to be Tory constituency and GGCV for the List. Not sure that is entirely rational unless fairly certain the Tory will win anyway.
Comments
https://twitter.com/rossmccaff/status/1358352227086323712?s=21
The Tory govt is trying to diffuse things by going on a far left spending spree but eventually they will run out of money.As long as it is not a figure with Corbyn baggage i doubt it will matter who the Labour leader is when the tipping point comes.In the same way that it did not matter who the Tory leader was in 45 or 97.Both Churchill and Major were more popular with the public than their party.
Perhaps he knows more about parties heading for complete obscurity than us.
TBF I am not an SKS fan though i still want him to win in 2024 if he is still leader by then.
I also think 2024 will be perfect in 2 ways
Economic pain/ time for a change
One aspect is the threat of "affordability checks" which has caused alarm bells to ring throughout the horse racing industry. It's also irritating libertarians who are concerned about Government intrusion into people's financial affairs.
The cost of the checks will be met by the bookies which will mean less for racing and if those determined to avoid the checks go to underground betting the tax is lost as well.
From where I sit, this looks an incredibly bad idea on a number of levels.
And yet...it seems to resonate with a certain new puritanism when it comes to gambling.
There seems to be a cultural backlash against bookmakers and gambling partially based on the strong if not overbearing retail presence on some High Streets and also perhaps a recognition problem gambling doesn't begin and end with the gambler but impacts on all those around the gambler and on wider society.
I do think sometimes bookmakers are their own worst enemy - they are the first to plead adversity (and they have a powerful and well-funded PR machine) but there's a perception they don't care about the problem individuals (not true).
Within that I'm guessing there is rampant corruption.
I'm possibly being charitable.
I’m afraid PB.com has clearly been hacked /again/.
It’s possible that someone has worked out how to sneak an html redirect .js snippet through the commenting system. Hard to work out for sure because it’s not happening every time I click on the link.
He [Starmer] has done well to make himself a presence in the public’s mind during the gravest health emergency in a century. It is no mean thing to have achieved the best approval ratings for any opposition leader since Mr Blair was marching towards Number 10.
We will soon have an opportunity to examine his calibre as a campaigner. It has been confirmed that this May’s elections will go ahead. They will be an unusually large mid-parliament electoral event that will test the Labour leader’s talents as a campaign strategist and provide proof or otherwise that he has the capacity to form positive connections with the public. If he possesses another gear, here will be a chance to show it. If he doesn’t, we will find out.
We don’t yet know whether Sir Keir is any good at retail politics.
“We have to show that we are making progress,” says one member of the shadow cabinet. A strong Labour result will ease some of the creeping anxieties about whether the party is losing momentum while increasing the public appetite for listening to what its leader has to say. An unimpressive performance will exacerbate angst about the party’s prospects and leave the public less inclined to think they need to pay it much heed. In politics more than in most activities, success breeds success and failure foments failure. Sir Keir needs these elections to attract the right kind of attention.
Looking forward to her why Scotland winning at the rugby is a very bad thing take.
https://twitter.com/mathie_dan/status/1358384092929261575?s=21
It is a long time since I studied economics, but I cannot see that what comes next (post Covid) won't be very bad, and incumbents across the world will suffer.
Imagine that QuItaly ever came about. The German speakers (in a narrow majority) of the region would never settle for loss of free movement and frictionless trade with Austria to the North. The Italian speakers would never settle for the sort of barriers with the rest of Italy that our clown of a PM has just put between GB and NI (and about which NI businesspeople are protesting on the radio as I type this).
If QuItaly ever becomes a prospect, either it would have to be so modest that Italy remains within the SM, CU and Schengen, or the South Tirol question immediately becomes a huge political problem.
SKS has done well to get to that situation.
When normal politics starts to return,
As in the 90s, the constant eroding of looking after their own friends, starts to grate and the time for a change eventually turns from a trickle to a flood.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-18/u-k-s-richest-woman-hits-jackpot-again-with-422-million-pay
Starmer only became an MP in 2015.
Few have pushed this question so hard; "is Johnson up to it?"
No jab, no job.
Which brings us back to the makeup of the refusnik groups.
It was a very short list. Italy and Kossovo ISTR. Even Trump almost won, and down ballot the Reps exceeded expectations.
"Labour should be x points ahead" (almost always stated by Conservative supporters).
My response is why?
We're in a pandemic. The entire world is willing their government to succeed. And everywhere they are cutting them a lot of slack.
because the young Labour become older Labour, or Continuity = Tories maintaining the advantage of older people turning Tory. Etc. On the whole I think being the party people turn to as they get older is the better position to be in.
A central issue for Labour is what you might call the hesitation test. When you ask centrists of left and right the question: Is Labour patriotic, Yes or No? a characteristic answer is to hesitate and then say Yes. With the Tories and patriotism it's Yes. That difference is worth a lot of votes.
'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.'
There remains significant anti-Devolution sentiment in Labour ranks in Wales. Were I still residing there, I would give my constituency vote to Labour - unless the candidate was one of the few advocating Independence - whilst also supporting the Abolish the Welsh Assembly party with my List vote.
HYUFD gets his way then. No Senedd AND more Tory/fewer Labour MPs in Wales.
Nick Tyrone in the Spectator.
As long as Labour members don't want the best leader they have a problem.
Also difficult for any opposition to be fully critical.
Credit is fully deserved for how the vaccine programme has been achieved.
Perhaps the better current example is the "unhealthy food" proposed advertising ban.
Lots and lots of kerfuffle and people to be offended, but when you get down to it the proposed saving for children amount to under 3 calories per day ie around 0.1%.
That is not a viable political capital /benefit balance.
That’s the salary of a fairly experienced teacher!
It’s more than bloody reasonable for somebody who’s not working. It’s distinctly comfortable. Of course, it depends on where you live. But if I didn’t have to work I could easily find a nice place in say Yorkshire where that would be a veritable fortune.
Strangely this improvement seems to date fairly precisely to the moment Dominic Cummings was sacked.
Funny that.
Kinnock fell into the sea and his credibility was shot. Johnson gets caught, stranded on a zip wire waving two plastic Union Flags and his stock goes through the roof.
If the Assembly were removed, the former justification for a degree of overrepresentation at Westminster would be restored.
Credit where it is due, Johnson has done well on vaccines. His earlier performance, PPE, test, track and trace, locking down late, opening up early was very poor.
Best not to waste my time arguing the point with you, as the vaccination issue washes away the earlier woeful incompetence for you.
Do you think it would be?
And not just in a financial sense.
There is talk of post-truth and alt-right-facts etc.
The truth is that fake news is generally another persons beliefs.
Consider the Cameron story about the pigs head. Despite it being exposed as horse manure, and classic fakery - "No, I haven't seen the video or spoken to someone who was there. But I know someone (can't name them) who knows someone (can't name them either)..." ... it still gets repeated. By people who *want* it to be true.
Back in the heyday of USENET, on the urban legend newsgroups, there was a term for the "Upsetting people by pointing out their urban legend/fake news is bullshit and appearing anti-social."... I forget the term. But it is a common situation.
The question then becomes - are you allowed to challenge those beliefs? Do they have a *right* to those beliefs. Is "attacking: such beliefs socially acceptable? Is "punishing" people for such beliefs acceptable.
We live in a world where it is considered and implemented social policy to protect certain beliefs, in some groups. An outcome negative to those groups is not an acceptable outcome, according to this framework.
I provide some necessary contrast to the pervasive PB inclination to
If some of you lot could do it to yourself, you would.
Please explain how Johnson gets us out of the post Covid financial implications unscathed.
Never forget
Which is depressing but rings true. A former (centrist) colleague who was an MP in Yorkshire confirms my own experience from phone canvassing, that most people are currently only interested in vaccinations and when they can have a holiday, and are largely unaware of or forgiving of Government failings, while the minority who she meets when helping out at the food bank are getting more and more desperate, but also largely unaware of Opposition criticism.
Simply, anti-vaxxing isn't a protected belief, it's a stupid person's choice and stupidity is also not a protected characteristic. The law may be adding up 2 and 2 and getting 5 right now but the government has the means to correct that.
It's worth pointing out for all those in the "Labour should be 10 points ahead" brigade that almost all incumbent Governments of whatever political stripe have done well out of Covid and their individual responses.
The CDU/CSU are miles ahead in Germany as are the Socialists in Portugal and the Social Democrats in Denmark. Jacinda Ardern won a landslide victory and one or two other local contests have favoured incumbents such as Queensland.
The one example of an opposition being well ahead is Kosovo.
Shame you never share any of that creativity....
--AS
Start of November iirc.
Of course many have other ethical reasons to be against compulsory vaccination, but the Equalities Act isn't a good one.
--AS
Tbh I doubt the electorate would have given a damn about Cameron's student high jinks, any more than they worry about Boris's.
Kinnock on the hand was just a clumsy clown.