The negatives far outweigh the positives. I can't think of anyone who enjoys not being able to meet friends, or go on holiday, or visit cultural attractions, or go to pubs and restaurants, or do sports in groups.
Those are aspects of life - important aspects - but just aspects. I picked other important aspects - how we work, how we interact with our home environment and with our families.
Everything you say is part of life - it doesn't wholly define life.
The liberal left and centre do seem to have vacated the free speech debate at the moment and left it to those who simultaneously think cancel culture is terrible but want to close the bbc down because a presenter commented on the size of a flag.
We should definitely do more to support teachers in this situation and stand up to over zealous parents, whatever the short term consequences of doing so.
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
You may be looking for qualities he doesn't have. All the talk of bringing back Cooper et al seriously shows up the dearth of talent and ideas in the party. They haven't recovered yet from the Corbyn lurch to the left - itself a sadly recurring them in Labour history. In short the members live in a country largely unsuited to their beliefs. Not a problem for the Tories in the same way as they've always been more flexible on the ideological issues - despite what you sometimes read on here from the Chingford tendency. They will come back at some point - but it will probably need a Blair type leader to do it.
Circa 2003 it seemed like the Tories were clueless and would never be in power again. But in retrospect, compared to Labour since 2010, they regenerated in record time. And they was against Blair.
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
My goodness, and I thought I was negative about Labour's prospects. If you're left relying on Sir Keith to develop passion and a sense of humour any time soon, then the wait for Godot is truly on. Still, at least this journalist from the FT is sympathetic to his plight...
Plans to get sports fans back in stadiums and music fans back at festivals this summer will fail because the government is insisting they go to NHS testing centres for a Covid-19 test first, rather than use a home test like schoolchildren.
Lawrence Dallaglio, the former England rugby captain, raised the alarm last night after holding talks with Whitehall officials over plans to allow fans into Wembley and the World Snooker Championship.
He said the government was “in a mess of its own making” for putting in place a “crazy” system of testing that would “put off” fans and overload the NHS. Dallaglio has offered to help ministers set up a system in which fans can get a test at home, validated by a credited laboratory, with the results recorded on a phone app that would be used to access the event.
He said: “I want to get fans and supporters safely back into events by the summer, but I fail to see what’s being proposed can achieve that. A system that involves using already overstretched NHS resources to test a few hundred fans here and there just won’t do. It has got failure written all over it.
“The government won’t allow fans to rapid flow test themselves at home on game day and digitally verify their negative test before going to the event in safety.”
They just need to do away with the testing requirement once everyone has been vaccinated, especially in July when we're highly likely to have double dosed 90-95% of all adults. It just seems completely pointless at that stage to continue COVID safe measures indefinitely.
It's pointless for the country, certainly, but not for the government, as it gets to keep its emergency powers.
When does parliament break for the summer?
I posted the other day that you probably need the powers for a few weeks after June 21st to react quickly if there is a problem. So July 31st would be reasonable.
But if that is in the recess then you would need to recall parliament for emergency legislation which would be a pain, spread panic and delay the response (partly for logistical reasons and partly because the government would hesitate to recall because of the political cost)
Perhaps Sept 30 is really just a sensible measure rather than some great point of principle
I'm all for MPs taking their well-deserved three month break, but I don't think it's sufficient to end democracy in this country to do so.
But the government has completely lost the habit of submitting itself to scrutiny in this crisis.
I note they said schools should work extra weeks, but despite having much longer holidays than schools nobody has suggested sorting out Parliament so it sits for longer.
Enough already from politicians about changing the school holidays. Won’t happen, and shouldn’t happen. We have already booked a holiday this August as have many millions of other parents. The six week summer break is fine. Leave it alone.
I'm sure there is a special unit in the Dept Education that exists soley to propose the curtailment of the six week summer school break every time there is some good excuse to look at it yet again.
It's been proposed every so often throughout my entire adult life as far as I can recall.
"Only there for bringing in the harvest" etc etc...
Well, with all the East European agricultural workers gone, they might actually be needed for the harvest now.
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
You may be looking for qualities he doesn't have. All the talk of bringing back Cooper et al seriously shows up the dearth of talent and ideas in the party. They haven't recovered yet from the Corbyn lurch to the left - itself a sadly recurring them in Labour history. In short the members live in a country largely unsuited to their beliefs. Not a problem for the Tories in the same way as they've always been more flexible on the ideological issues - despite what you sometimes read on here from the Chingford tendency. They will come back at some point - but it will probably need a Blair type leader to do it.
You may be right. But all the "talk of bringing back Cooper at al" comes not from Labour but mainly from Tories, especially those on PB. I don't know anybody in Labour who thinks Cooper, Balls, Burnham etc. are a panacea for Labour's woes (which is not to rule out the possibility of one or more of them ending up in the Shadow Cabinet).
On Starmer, I've always thought he would need at least two years as Leader to demonstrate whether he has what it takes, given the mess he has to sort out. He's had less than one year so far, and it's been a very strange old year in which I think any opposition leader would have struggled against widespread support for the government (any government) through Covid.
On topic, raunchy as Shagger's front page revelations are, its hardly a news flash. Tory supporters are perfectly happy to both say "ah he's a lad isn't he" and simultaneously "he's a good father and a family man look at him with Carrie and the baby".
So what with any other politician would have sunk him multiple times over instead boosts Shagger because of the footballification of politics. However, should Keith be revealed to have been shagging the lass who runs his donkey sanctuary there would be Consternation and Uproar about how morally degenerate he is in having an affair.
It's pathetic how partisanly puritan people get.
"Man has sex" is not news. "Woman has sex" is not news.
I couldn't care less if its Boris, Keith, Jezza, Drakeford, Sturgeon, Salmond or anyone else you can throw a stick at.
The days when people were remotely bothered by politicians sex lives are long gone. The Mirror have thrown money away on this - most of this woman's story has been kicking about for a few years, and no one was interested.
Not true. Boris is getting hollowed out, bit by bit.
The best bit in the Arcuri story was where he ponced £3.10 off her to buy a drink. What a grease stain of a human he is.
We've commented in the past, have we not, that Boris Johnson appears to be the sort of chap who'll have a drink with, and be one of the, lads until it comes to his round. Then he finds he's left his wallet at home!
In my pub going days I tended to judge pals on who would slow down as you approached the hostelry so they wouldn't have to buy the first round, BJ strikes me as that sort.
We had a slightly more subtle example of that - something that might or not be ok depending on one's view. Bloke who would have a half (himself) when getting his round but always have a pint otherwise. All fine on the money front but, still, just a bit of a "thing" that perhaps needlessly detracted from group cohesion and corp d'esprit. Still not sure about this one, even though that bloke was me.
Been there and done that, partly because I know some beer monsters and my capacity for processing a gallon of liquid in an evening is much diminished. As long as they got their pint and could call me a 'poof', group cohesion pretty much held I found.
And it can be easier to buy yourself a half than get one of your mates to buy you one when it's their round.
It can, but I usually get a single shot (whisky) or a highball when it someone else's round and get what I want (usually double, usually more expensive) when it's mine.
The old rule of thumb for ODIs was, wickets permitting, to double the score after 30 overs.
Not sure if that applies for the modern more aggressive game but if it did then India are on track for over 400.
Then again there's a part of me that thinks, wickets permitting, that the modern England could chase 400.
It's incredible how the game has changed.
I remember when a team that scored 250+ in the first innings was regarded as pretty much have in the game wrapped up.
Agreed.
Today India all out for 329, would have 100% wrapped the game up in the past, but now probably a par score that leaves the game a bit 50/50. Much better end of India's innings by England today.
The liberal left and centre do seem to have vacated the free speech debate at the moment and left it to those who simultaneously think cancel culture is terrible but want to close the bbc down because a presenter commented on the size of a flag.
We should definitely do more to support teachers in this situation and stand up to over zealous parents, whatever the short term consequences of doing so.
The first and most important thing we need to say is that no-one, absolutely no-one is entitled to demand others' respect for their beliefs - whether that is an organised religion or none or belief in the moon being made of Gorgonzola.
Respect for the right to believe what you want: yes. Automatic respect for what you choose to believe: no.
Respect is earned not demanded and certainly not demanded with threats and menaces. In fact any group or belief that does so is worthy of contempt not respect.
And this applies especially to religions, which can be some of the biggest and most intolerant bullies going.
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
Starmer needs to flesh out his modern Wilsonism, which is not going to be easy. Going down either a Blairite or Corbynite path will end in failure, so he probably needs to find an intellectual "guru", or a group of them, to fit such a forbidding task.
I think this is actually what the group of senior Labour figures were asking for in the briefing this week.
The liberal left and centre do seem to have vacated the free speech debate at the moment and left it to those who simultaneously think cancel culture is terrible but want to close the bbc down because a presenter commented on the size of a flag.
We should definitely do more to support teachers in this situation and stand up to over zealous parents, whatever the short term consequences of doing so.
On the contrary, the liberal left and centre haven't vacated the free speech debate at all. They've staked out their position quite clearly - if it conflicts with the latest woke nostrum, then they're firmly against it.
The liberal left and centre do seem to have vacated the free speech debate at the moment and left it to those who simultaneously think cancel culture is terrible but want to close the bbc down because a presenter commented on the size of a flag.
We should definitely do more to support teachers in this situation and stand up to over zealous parents, whatever the short term consequences of doing so.
Labour has a massive client vote at stake there - it explains the dangers of identity based politics.
The old rule of thumb for ODIs was, wickets permitting, to double the score after 30 overs.
Not sure if that applies for the modern more aggressive game but if it did then India are on track for over 400.
Then again there's a part of me that thinks, wickets permitting, that the modern England could chase 400.
It's incredible how the game has changed.
I remember when a team that scored 250+ in the first innings was regarded as pretty much have in the game wrapped up.
Agreed.
Today India all out for 329, would have 100% wrapped the game up in the past, but now probably a par score that leaves the game a bit 50/50. Much better end of India's innings by England today.
A lot will depend on this opening partnership for England. They have been brilliant in this series so far. If they have a good powerplay again then the match could soon be over. If India get 2 wickets in the powerplay then its game on.
Were I a teacher there I would be searching for a change of scene asap and I suspect virtually every teacher in the school will be.
Seems to me there is potential here for the Libdems. Defending the liberal enlightenment? Defending the ending of the blasphemy laws?
Maybe am I missing something but should be right up their street.
Chance to get back into relevancy?
Problem is, they aren’t Liberal. Standing up to religious fundamentalists should be a key part of their sales pitch. But they’re as scared of some Muslims as the Labour Party are.
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
My goodness, and I thought I was negative about Labour's prospects. If you're left relying on Sir Keith to develop passion and a sense of humour any time soon, then the wait for Godot is truly on. Still, at least this journalist from the FT is sympathetic to his plight...
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
You may be looking for qualities he doesn't have. All the talk of bringing back Cooper et al seriously shows up the dearth of talent and ideas in the party. They haven't recovered yet from the Corbyn lurch to the left - itself a sadly recurring them in Labour history. In short the members live in a country largely unsuited to their beliefs. Not a problem for the Tories in the same way as they've always been more flexible on the ideological issues - despite what you sometimes read on here from the Chingford tendency. They will come back at some point - but it will probably need a Blair type leader to do it.
It might take a very long time for them to come back - product of torching the red wall vote and the loss of Scotland.
The huge problem we now have in England is that Labour's surviving core vote - the very young, the very poor, public sector workers, wealthy metropolitans and black and Asian voters - is too small to win but far too big for a rival to come along and displace it. Labour also has nowhere to go: Johnson has parked himself in the centre of public opinion, it's impossible for Labour to outmanoeuvre him on the Right and if it cleaves Leftward again it simply re-enters Corbyn territory.
The obvious risk is that Labour simply sits there, a useless lump of God knows what bunging up the electoral plumbing, its city mayors leading a loud but largely ineffectual opposition whilst the Tories rule for decades.
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
Here is why Labour aren't cutting through: Despite the open corruption of the Tories, their disastrous Brexit negotiation, the vast excess death toll of their pandemic management failure - millions of voters simply do not care.
They had enough of being patronised by politicians of all parties, were offered the opportunity to Take Back Control and did so by voting Brexit then Boris. That their lives have not improved, that they have less control, that economically we're increasingly in the shit doesn't matter - they are giving Boris a massive honeymoon free pass.
Labour can't cut through by pointing at the government's outrageous cash for pub landlords actions because people have chosen not to care. In any other time with any other politician the events of the last year would have ended them and their party. Instead the Tories get a bounce.
It is post-truth anti-politics. Labour could cut through if they had another charismatic leader like Blair who can make people feel optimistic about another direction. Instead they have Keith who can't charm his way out of a cardboard box and is endlessly relentlessly negative. People are sick of negative, they want to feel good about stuff.
Wasn't it Rachel Reeves who wrote to the Govt demanding they consider a list of companies who had been in touch with her, and they turned out to be just as distant from 'PPE Experts' as all the ones she was complaining about?
The liberal left and centre do seem to have vacated the free speech debate at the moment and left it to those who simultaneously think cancel culture is terrible but want to close the bbc down because a presenter commented on the size of a flag.
We should definitely do more to support teachers in this situation and stand up to over zealous parents, whatever the short term consequences of doing so.
On the contrary, the liberal left and centre haven't vacated the free speech debate at all. They've staked out their position quite clearly - if it conflicts with the latest woke nostrum, then they're firmly against it.
In this particular case, we’ve already seen that a small minority are quite happy to kill to “protect” their religious principles. Are you willing to put your life on the line for this particular freedom? Right now, for real? Because that’s what it’s likely to cost were you a teacher in this school & you put your head over the parapet right now.
If you think the Head (& other teachers) are simply folding to “wokeness” here then I suggest you’re suffering from a comprehensive lack of empathy.
Oh well - another excuse for having a pop at liberals and liberalism. I thought the head teacher's comment was measured and certainly not grovelling. I'm also well aware there are provocateurs at work on both sides as seems inevitable in every skirmish in the so-called "culture wars".
I suppose there's an alternative - a public order confrontation outside the school gates and eventually some taking their children out of a school which tries to promote diversity into an educational establishment which might not. All that does is re-enforce barriers, misconceptions and prejudices.
Liberalism often walks a fine line - tolerance and recognition of different viewpoints isn't always easy and especially not when it comes to faith. The temptation for parents to take their children to places where their (the parents) faith isn't questioned must be very strong but diversity, by its very nature, encourages us to look at other options and perhaps question our own.
I don't have a problem with some people thinking this is the new normal, seriously I don't. The issue I have is that there's a very large older group of people trying to assert this new normal on the rest of the country as a necessity to "save the NHS" or something along those lines.
What you call a positive life changing experience has been a living nightmare for people and there just seems to be an agenda to push the "lockdown can be positive" idea at the moment.
I hate it and everything about it, and, this isn't a reflection on you personally, I find those who like it to be a bit sad.
I don't think there's anyone who is positively pleased about lockdown, @MaxPB . The fairly even division shown by the polls is between those who have found positive aspects (see more of the kids, no commuting, etc.) and those who say they hate everything about it. The former group are resistant to the idea "Let's restore the previous world exactly as it was", while the latter group really want to go back to "normal". I'm not sure that this distinction really exists as much as we think, though - surely you wouldn't deny that not having to commute has its attractions for some? Or that an optional mixed working model with some days in the office and some at home would be a reasonable idea, so long as it was really optional? (I appreciate that in some jobs it's not possible.)
The more serious disagreement is simply on the speed of opening up, though that too is a matter of weeks and months, not long term. People who feel lockdown has some redeeming features are more inclined to say "Let's do it slowly", while those who don't want to bloody well get on with it. We can probably all agree it should be done as quickly as is compatible with not having a fresh surge resulting in a new lockdown. What that means is something to debate, but not a huge gulf between us all.
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
Starmer needs to flesh out his modern Wilsonism, which is not going to be easy. Going down either a Blairite or Corbynite path will end in failure, so he probably needs to find an intellectual "guru", or a group of them, to fit such a forbidding task.
I think this is actually what the group of senior Labour figures were asking for in the briefing this week.
Agree.
All the "Aren't Tories Awful" parties define themselves by the straw man of the Tory they create.
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
Have you ever seen some awkward dance? He can’t be someone he isn’t, I’d say he was too honest for that. That’s why he was not a good choice as leader, he should play Gordon to someone else’s Tony. Now there is no obvious Tony but it’s more obvious Sir Keir definitely isn’t it.
His delivery in face to camera monologues is Brown/EdM esque, I worry in a campaign he will flop dismally.
The leader needs to be a frontman, even if they are flawed and not the best brains. Freddie Mercury might not have been as good a singer as Brian May, Jagger might not be able to sing as well as Wyman, but it doesn’t matter because they have star quality, and though that is snootily sneered upon in political circles, it is vital in order to gain power
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
My goodness, and I thought I was negative about Labour's prospects. If you're left relying on Sir Keith to develop passion and a sense of humour any time soon, then the wait for Godot is truly on. Still, at least this journalist from the FT is sympathetic to his plight...
And again - identity politics trumps serious analysis. By any measure both are 'equally' unsjuited to the task in hand.
Reeves would be a clear shift by Starmer to the Blairite right, remember when she said Labour must be the party of those in work, not those on welfare?
The liberal left and centre do seem to have vacated the free speech debate at the moment and left it to those who simultaneously think cancel culture is terrible but want to close the bbc down because a presenter commented on the size of a flag.
We should definitely do more to support teachers in this situation and stand up to over zealous parents, whatever the short term consequences of doing so.
On the contrary, the liberal left and centre haven't vacated the free speech debate at all. They've staked out their position quite clearly - if it conflicts with the latest woke nostrum, then they're firmly against it.
It's got damn all to do with woke nostrums. It's fear, that's all. (That + votes.)
It's why Hattersley and Greer and others all rushed to criticise Rushdie and Staw criticised the Danes over their cartoons and PEN criticised Charlie Hebdo (and so miserably on). They didn't want to be attacked or stabbed or beheaded. Though they dressed it up in a lot of blather about "respect" and "culture" and "racism". Only Grayson Perry has ever been honest about why he doesn't tackle Islam.
People who demand "respect" for their religion using threats and outrage and claims to victimhood are bullies. That is all. And there is only one way to deal with bullies.
Plans to get sports fans back in stadiums and music fans back at festivals this summer will fail because the government is insisting they go to NHS testing centres for a Covid-19 test first, rather than use a home test like schoolchildren.
Lawrence Dallaglio, the former England rugby captain, raised the alarm last night after holding talks with Whitehall officials over plans to allow fans into Wembley and the World Snooker Championship.
He said the government was “in a mess of its own making” for putting in place a “crazy” system of testing that would “put off” fans and overload the NHS. Dallaglio has offered to help ministers set up a system in which fans can get a test at home, validated by a credited laboratory, with the results recorded on a phone app that would be used to access the event.
He said: “I want to get fans and supporters safely back into events by the summer, but I fail to see what’s being proposed can achieve that. A system that involves using already overstretched NHS resources to test a few hundred fans here and there just won’t do. It has got failure written all over it.
“The government won’t allow fans to rapid flow test themselves at home on game day and digitally verify their negative test before going to the event in safety.”
They just need to do away with the testing requirement once everyone has been vaccinated, especially in July when we're highly likely to have double dosed 90-95% of all adults. It just seems completely pointless at that stage to continue COVID safe measures indefinitely.
It's pointless for the country, certainly, but not for the government, as it gets to keep its emergency powers.
When does parliament break for the summer?
I posted the other day that you probably need the powers for a few weeks after June 21st to react quickly if there is a problem. So July 31st would be reasonable.
But if that is in the recess then you would need to recall parliament for emergency legislation which would be a pain, spread panic and delay the response (partly for logistical reasons and partly because the government would hesitate to recall because of the political cost)
Perhaps Sept 30 is really just a sensible measure rather than some great point of principle
I'm all for MPs taking their well-deserved three month break, but I don't think it's sufficient to end democracy in this country to do so.
But the government has completely lost the habit of submitting itself to scrutiny in this crisis.
I note they said schools should work extra weeks, but despite having much longer holidays than schools nobody has suggested sorting out Parliament so it sits for longer.
Enough already from politicians about changing the school holidays. Won’t happen, and shouldn’t happen. We have already booked a holiday this August as have many millions of other parents. The six week summer break is fine. Leave it alone.
I'm sure there is a special unit in the Dept Education that exists soley to propose the curtailment of the six week summer school break every time there is some good excuse to look at it yet again.
It's been proposed every so often throughout my entire adult life as far as I can recall.
"Only there for bringing in the harvest" etc etc...
See also “four terms of equal length”, a pastime for education ‘reform’ fanatics.
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
You may be looking for qualities he doesn't have. All the talk of bringing back Cooper et al seriously shows up the dearth of talent and ideas in the party. They haven't recovered yet from the Corbyn lurch to the left - itself a sadly recurring them in Labour history. In short the members live in a country largely unsuited to their beliefs. Not a problem for the Tories in the same way as they've always been more flexible on the ideological issues - despite what you sometimes read on here from the Chingford tendency. They will come back at some point - but it will probably need a Blair type leader to do it.
Cooper has talent but she has been woefully short on ideas.
The liberal left and centre do seem to have vacated the free speech debate at the moment and left it to those who simultaneously think cancel culture is terrible but want to close the bbc down because a presenter commented on the size of a flag.
We should definitely do more to support teachers in this situation and stand up to over zealous parents, whatever the short term consequences of doing so.
On the contrary, the liberal left and centre haven't vacated the free speech debate at all. They've staked out their position quite clearly - if it conflicts with the latest woke nostrum, then they're firmly against it.
In this particular case, we’ve already seen that a small minority are quite happy to kill to “protect” their religious principles. Are you willing to put your life on the line for this particular freedom? Right now, for real? Because that’s what it’s likely to cost were you a teacher in this school & you put your head over the parapet right now.
If you think the Head (& other teachers) are simply folding to “wokeness” here then I suggest you’re suffering from a comprehensive lack of empathy.
I'm not blaming the school staff, for that reason - I'm blaming the politicians who should be lending them unequivocal support. For all the criticism justly directed at him, I'd point out that the Conservative Education Secretary was very quick and clear in doing exactly that.
Did his Labour shadow, the illustrious Kate Green, do the same? Of course not!
Were I a teacher there I would be searching for a change of scene asap and I suspect virtually every teacher in the school will be.
Seems to me there is potential here for the Libdems. Defending the liberal enlightenment? Defending the ending of the blasphemy laws?
Maybe am I missing something but should be right up their street.
Chance to get back into relevancy?
Problem is, they aren’t Liberal. Standing up to religious fundamentalists should be a key part of their sales pitch. But they’re as scared of some Muslims as the Labour Party are.
Macron as a liberal President has stood up for the liberal enlightenment against religious fundamentalism.
However it has come at a cost, with protests in the Muslim world against him
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
My goodness, and I thought I was negative about Labour's prospects. If you're left relying on Sir Keith to develop passion and a sense of humour any time soon, then the wait for Godot is truly on. Still, at least this journalist from the FT is sympathetic to his plight...
And again - identity politics trumps serious analysis. By any measure both are 'equally' unsjuited to the task in hand.
Dodds strikes me as a behind the scenes person. She has no presence. Funnily enough Ed Milliband has grown as a politician since his time as leader. His speech attacking the PM over the Internal Markets Bill was very good indeed and did get under the PM's skin. He had the right balance of detail and contemptuous mockery too.
On topic, Drakeford will almost certainly remain First Minister after the Senedd elections and Labour the largest party, even if Labour loses seats to the Tories and Plaid.
Some Welsh voters who will vote for Plaid to push for Welsh independence are still reasonably satisfied with Drakeford's performance as the thread header suggests
Were I a teacher there I would be searching for a change of scene asap and I suspect virtually every teacher in the school will be.
Seems to me there is potential here for the Libdems. Defending the liberal enlightenment? Defending the ending of the blasphemy laws?
Maybe am I missing something but should be right up their street.
Chance to get back into relevancy?
Problem is, they aren’t Liberal. Standing up to religious fundamentalists should be a key part of their sales pitch. But they’re as scared of some Muslims as the Labour Party are.
Macron as a liberal President has stood up for the liberal enlightenment against religious fundamentalism.
However it has come at a cost, with protests in the Muslim world against him
It is the one and only thing Macron unequivocally deserves credit for. 👍
Oh well - another excuse for having a pop at liberals and liberalism. I thought the head teacher's comment was measured and certainly not grovelling. I'm also well aware there are provocateurs at work on both sides as seems inevitable in every skirmish in the so-called "culture wars".
I suppose there's an alternative - a public order confrontation outside the school gates and eventually some taking their children out of a school which tries to promote diversity into an educational establishment which might not. All that does is re-enforce barriers, misconceptions and prejudices.
Liberalism often walks a fine line - tolerance and recognition of different viewpoints isn't always easy and especially not when it comes to faith. The temptation for parents to take their children to places where their (the parents) faith isn't questioned must be very strong but diversity, by its very nature, encourages us to look at other options and perhaps question our own.
Do you think of the East End as diverse? My girlfriend works in a state school in Stepney where 100% of the pupils are from one religion, there are no white kids. The reverse would be seen as a horror, and we be told it was bad for the kids
The negatives far outweigh the positives. I can't think of anyone who enjoys not being able to meet friends, or go on holiday, or visit cultural attractions, or go to pubs and restaurants, or do sports in groups.
Those are aspects of life - important aspects - but just aspects. I picked other important aspects - how we work, how we interact with our home environment and with our families.
Everything you say is part of life - it doesn't wholly define life.
We DON’T interact with our families though do we? Except through the stultifying, sanitising, soulless medium of Zoom. My parents are in their mid-70s. They haven’t seen any of their grandchildren for nine months. The idea that the few positives of lockdown even register against the huge mass of negatives is ridiculous.
The negatives far outweigh the positives. I can't think of anyone who enjoys not being able to meet friends, or go on holiday, or visit cultural attractions, or go to pubs and restaurants, or do sports in groups.
Those are aspects of life - important aspects - but just aspects. I picked other important aspects - how we work, how we interact with our home environment and with our families.
Everything you say is part of life - it doesn't wholly define life.
We DON’T interact with our families though do we? Except through the stultifying, sanitising, soulless medium of Zoom. My parents are in their mid-70s. They haven’t seen any of their grandchildren for nine months. The idea that the few positives of lockdown even register against the huge mass of negatives is ridiculous.
Why haven’t they seen the grandkids? My parents are the same age as yours and they see their Grandson 3-4 times a week
Maybe the reason I have been ok w lockdown is because we don’t follow the rules!
On topic, Drakeford will almost certainly remain First Minister after the Senedd elections and Labour the largest party, even if Labour loses seats to the Tories and Plaid.
Some Welsh voters who will vote for Plaid to push for Welsh independence are still reasonably satisfied with Drakeford's performance as the thread header suggests
The navy’s out on exercises today, getting ready for taking on the Chinese over Taiwan. We even have a fisheries protection vessel sailing about today; we don’t seem them often down this way.
On topic, Drakeford will almost certainly remain First Minister after the Senedd elections and Labour the largest party, even if Labour loses seats to the Tories and Plaid.
Some Welsh voters who will vote for Plaid to push for Welsh independence are still reasonably satisfied with Drakeford's performance as the thread header suggests
He would still get in on the list and Labour would still be largest party even on that poll. Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies has ruled out any deals with Plaid, so Labour will remain in power
In my opinion, sacking Dodds correctly identifies the problem - a lack of dynamism among the Labour front bench - but adopts the wrong ccure.
You don't have to be Shadow Chancellor to make an impact.
You need someone who can bring the interesting out of the rest of them, or you have to shake up the whole team.
Starmer - dull Rayner - perfectly capable of being interesting Dodds - dull Nandy - perfectly capable of being interesting Thomas-Symonds - dull so far, don't know enough to judge his capacity to be interesting Reeves - perfectly capable of being interesting Lammy - love him or hate, him, interesting Healey - dull Miliband - dull but has moments Thornberry - perfectly capable of being interesting Reynolds - dull so far, don't know enough to judge his capacity to be interesting Ashworth - perfectly capable of being interesting Green - dull (that's enough, ed.)
If Starmer doesn't feel he has that at the top of his party, he can look beyond it. An Alastair Campbell, a Steve Hilton... even a Dominic Cummings...
The liberal left and centre do seem to have vacated the free speech debate at the moment and left it to those who simultaneously think cancel culture is terrible but want to close the bbc down because a presenter commented on the size of a flag.
We should definitely do more to support teachers in this situation and stand up to over zealous parents, whatever the short term consequences of doing so.
On the contrary, the liberal left and centre haven't vacated the free speech debate at all. They've staked out their position quite clearly - if it conflicts with the latest woke nostrum, then they're firmly against it.
In this particular case, we’ve already seen that a small minority are quite happy to kill to “protect” their religious principles. Are you willing to put your life on the line for this particular freedom? Right now, for real? Because that’s what it’s likely to cost were you a teacher in this school & you put your head over the parapet right now.
If you think the Head (& other teachers) are simply folding to “wokeness” here then I suggest you’re suffering from a comprehensive lack of empathy.
If that is what the teacher and Head are facing then the police should be investigating and arresting those making such threats not standing next to them while they attack the school and its staff.
I just looked him up as I hadn’t realised he was a former Labour PPC.
Far more surprising was the revelation that he has three Commonwealth gold medals at Ping Pong?! WTAF?
Yeah. I originally knew him as that table tennis player who wrote a few articles about the pressures, mindsets and routines of being an elite sportsman. And assumed they were ghost written. More fool me then.
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
Have you ever seen some awkward dance? He can’t be someone he isn’t, I’d say he was too honest for that. That’s why he was not a good choice as leader, he should play Gordon to someone else’s Tony. Now there is no obvious Tony but it’s more obvious Sir Keir definitely isn’t it.
His delivery in face to camera monologues is Brown/EdM esque, I worry in a campaign he will flop dismally.
The leader needs to be a frontman, even if they are flawed and not the best brains. Freddie Mercury might not have been as good a singer as Brian May, Jagger might not be able to sing as well as Wyman, but it doesn’t matter because they have star quality, and though that is snootily sneered upon in political circles, it is vital in order to gain power
Joe Biden, Angela Merkel, John Major, Theresa May and many other current or recent leaders may disagree with that analysis. What you're talking about certainly helps, but it's not the be all and end all. Whoever defeats Boris is unlikely to do it through having more deeply flawed charisma than him.
Ultimately the treasury will want the tax income from hospitality and to eliminate furlough as early as possible so that's what will drive the decision making process in the end.
The worry I have is how long it will take for that rational thinking to assert itself, how much unnecessary loneliness and isolation it will result in for millions of younger people who are wasting away distanced from their friends and colleagues.
This is going to be cultural, not political and economic.
There will be those who will want to forget Covid ever happened - wipe it from the mind and go back to the pre-Covid life in its entirety (which will mean initially to excess before balance is restored).
There will be those for whom it has been a nightmare and the scale of the mental health damage is yet to be truly understood - I do know there have been huge increases in calls from those facing physical abuse and from vulnerable adults and children.
I get all of that - I really do.
BUT, there are those for whom Covid has either been, in whole or in part, a positive life-changing experience. Whatever the continued background stigmatisation of home working, for many it has been a revelation. Not having the commute (whether road, rail or bus or whatever), having more time to spend with family or even at home (and for a lot of people, home is a place they like to be (and recognising for a few it is purgatory)) are all for some people positives.
It has enabled people to stop and think, to evaluate or re-evaluate life priorities, to work out what is really important and what matters. Let's not downplay this either - Covid has changed the lives of millions, some, regrettable for the worse, others, arguably for the better.
The world has changed - much as some might like to, we can't put the genie back in Pandora's Box (mixed metaphor alert !!). The new "normal" won't be the old normal and as there were winners and losers then, there will be winners and losers now.
Sorry, but you could have realised all those things without having a lockdown. I resent people who say the lockdown has made life better for them because, as I say, they could have worked that out themselves beforehand without needing something that affected everyone.
I'm hoping that the world won't be changed by it, and in a couple of years time everything will be back to the way it was before.
On topic, Drakeford will almost certainly remain First Minister after the Senedd elections and Labour the largest party, even if Labour loses seats to the Tories and Plaid.
Some Welsh voters who will vote for Plaid to push for Welsh independence are still reasonably satisfied with Drakeford's performance as the thread header suggests
He would still get in on the list and Labour would still be largest party even on that poll. Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies has ruled out any deals with Plaid, so Labour will remain in power
He’s not on the list. In fact I’m fairly sure you can’t be on both in Wales.
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
My goodness, and I thought I was negative about Labour's prospects. If you're left relying on Sir Keith to develop passion and a sense of humour any time soon, then the wait for Godot is truly on. Still, at least this journalist from the FT is sympathetic to his plight...
And again - identity politics trumps serious analysis. By any measure both are 'equally' unsjuited to the task in hand.
Reeves would be a clear shift by Starmer to the Blairite right, remember when she said Labour must be the party of those in work, not those on welfare?
We've reached a sorry state if the notion that the Labour Party should represent the interests of working people is seen as some sort of right wing extreme view in the party.
"Salmond’s cunning plan is not going to work. His attempt to game the system may gain some seats, but his divisive presence in the campaign is likely to lose other seats by suppressing the SNP vote. I said he is unpopular in Scotland, but let me spell out how unpopular he is since his work for Russian TV and his feud with Sturgeon: he is more unpopular than Boris Johnson. According to YouGov, Salmond has a negative 63-point rating in Scotland, whereas Johnson is on minus 42.
Salmond’s return to frontline politics can only be a disaster for the cause of independence."
Oh well - another excuse for having a pop at liberals and liberalism. I thought the head teacher's comment was measured and certainly not grovelling. I'm also well aware there are provocateurs at work on both sides as seems inevitable in every skirmish in the so-called "culture wars".
I suppose there's an alternative - a public order confrontation outside the school gates and eventually some taking their children out of a school which tries to promote diversity into an educational establishment which might not. All that does is re-enforce barriers, misconceptions and prejudices.
Liberalism often walks a fine line - tolerance and recognition of different viewpoints isn't always easy and especially not when it comes to faith. The temptation for parents to take their children to places where their (the parents) faith isn't questioned must be very strong but diversity, by its very nature, encourages us to look at other options and perhaps question our own.
Do you think of the East End as diverse? My girlfriend works in a state school in Stepney where 100% of the pupils are from one religion, there are no white kids. The reverse would be seen as a horror, and we be told it was bad for the kids
A school should broadly reflect the wider community kids will live in. Its not a problem if 90% of kids are from one religion if 90% of the people around them are also the same religion. Around them should certainly be much wider than a school catchment area though.
So imo a 90%+ Catholic or Protestant school in Belfast is problematic and widens divisions in society as does a 90%+ Islamic school in London. But a 90% Catholic school in parts of Italy, or 90% protestant school in parts of the US, or a 90% Islamic school in the Middle East could all be fine.
On Labour's travails - I've increasingly come to the view that what the left needs is optimism. The right might be able to win with a bleak pessimism but I don't think the left can. For all their faults the three election winners in recent years - Blair, Cameron and Johnson - had a certain feelgood quality.
I have sympathy for those who have enjoyed/benefitted from lockdown. No doubt a lot of people who commuted two or three hours a day can feel the difference. Also the sense of a rip off society with things like car parking fees being exposed. What I don't have sympathy with is people who want to see government imposed restrictions on our behaviour continue long term because we've largely got used to them and it's no big deal anyway.
Of course Starmer should also make it clear Labour is now opposed to FOM - which it is by implication but has not stated openly
Expect a heavy dollop of fudge over that issue. If he moves decisively towards the Leaver vote on that one then he's explicitly rejecting both open door immigration and any meaningful reintegration with Europe. His metropolitan and student votes would both be bloody furious.
I’m checking, in Wales it seems the ban is on standing in more than one region now, not seats and regions, but there’s still not much overlap of candidates. Unlike in Scotland, where Sarwar and Sturgeon compete for the same seat and the loser will likely get in on the list.
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
Have you ever seen some awkward dance? He can’t be someone he isn’t, I’d say he was too honest for that. That’s why he was not a good choice as leader, he should play Gordon to someone else’s Tony. Now there is no obvious Tony but it’s more obvious Sir Keir definitely isn’t it.
His delivery in face to camera monologues is Brown/EdM esque, I worry in a campaign he will flop dismally.
The leader needs to be a frontman, even if they are flawed and not the best brains. Freddie Mercury might not have been as good a singer as Brian May, Jagger might not be able to sing as well as Wyman, but it doesn’t matter because they have star quality, and though that is snootily sneered upon in political circles, it is vital in order to gain power
Joe Biden, Angela Merkel, John Major, Theresa May and many other current or recent leaders may disagree with that analysis. What you're talking about certainly helps, but it's not the be all and end all. Whoever defeats Boris is unlikely to do it through having more deeply flawed charisma than him.
The case of Theresa May helps make the point - she was not elected by her party’s members, and threw away a humongous poll lead and a majority because she was so stiff in the campaign.
With Major I’d say incumbency helps.
Biden was much further clear mid term than he won by. I don’t say it is all that matters, but it adds a 7-8 point swing at campaign time if one leader is much more charismatic. As Sir Keir is so far behind Boris in that regard, Lab need to be 5-6 points clear now to win IMO
Oh well - another excuse for having a pop at liberals and liberalism. I thought the head teacher's comment was measured and certainly not grovelling. I'm also well aware there are provocateurs at work on both sides as seems inevitable in every skirmish in the so-called "culture wars".
I suppose there's an alternative - a public order confrontation outside the school gates and eventually some taking their children out of a school which tries to promote diversity into an educational establishment which might not. All that does is re-enforce barriers, misconceptions and prejudices.
Liberalism often walks a fine line - tolerance and recognition of different viewpoints isn't always easy and especially not when it comes to faith. The temptation for parents to take their children to places where their (the parents) faith isn't questioned must be very strong but diversity, by its very nature, encourages us to look at other options and perhaps question our own.
Do you think of the East End as diverse? My girlfriend works in a state school in Stepney where 100% of the pupils are from one religion, there are no white kids. The reverse would be seen as a horror, and we be told it was bad for the kids
A school should broadly reflect the wider community kids will live in. Its not a problem if 90% of kids are from one religion if 90% of the people around them are also the same religion. Around them should certainly be much wider than a school catchment area though.
So imo a 90%+ Catholic or Protestant school in Belfast is problematic and widens divisions in society as does a 90%+ Islamic school in London. But a 90% Catholic school in parts of Italy, or 90% protestant school in parts of the US, or a 90% Islamic school in the Middle East could all be fine.
The solution, of course, is to adopt a system of secular education: no religious schools of any faith. Religion should be confined to the private sphere. Of course no party dare propose this in fear of the entrenched vested interests from all this country's major religions.
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
You may be looking for qualities he doesn't have. All the talk of bringing back Cooper et al seriously shows up the dearth of talent and ideas in the party. They haven't recovered yet from the Corbyn lurch to the left - itself a sadly recurring them in Labour history. In short the members live in a country largely unsuited to their beliefs. Not a problem for the Tories in the same way as they've always been more flexible on the ideological issues - despite what you sometimes read on here from the Chingford tendency. They will come back at some point - but it will probably need a Blair type leader to do it.
You may be right. But all the "talk of bringing back Cooper at al" comes not from Labour but mainly from Tories, especially those on PB. I don't know anybody in Labour who thinks Cooper, Balls, Burnham etc. are a panacea for Labour's woes (which is not to rule out the possibility of one or more of them ending up in the Shadow Cabinet).
On Starmer, I've always thought he would need at least two years as Leader to demonstrate whether he has what it takes, given the mess he has to sort out. He's had less than one year so far, and it's been a very strange old year in which I think any opposition leader would have struggled against widespread support for the government (any government) through Covid.
Plenty of Opposition Parties are making lots of hay during COVID, though.
The German Greens look like they may bring down the strongest politician in Europe. Marine Le Pen is surging in the polls in France. Sinn Fein lead the polls in Ireland, Fianna Fail are back in the toilet.
Even ... even ... even ... the dire Andrew RT Davies seems to be making strong progress in Wales.
So, I think the argument that opposition parties struggle "against widespread support for the government (any government) through Covid" is not true.
Two countries where the Opposition has made limited progress are England and Scotland.
The fault in both cases lies with the Opposition.
There has been plenty for the dreary and lawyerly SKS to get his teeth into -- the problem is he is not very good.
Oh well - another excuse for having a pop at liberals and liberalism. I thought the head teacher's comment was measured and certainly not grovelling. I'm also well aware there are provocateurs at work on both sides as seems inevitable in every skirmish in the so-called "culture wars".
I suppose there's an alternative - a public order confrontation outside the school gates and eventually some taking their children out of a school which tries to promote diversity into an educational establishment which might not. All that does is re-enforce barriers, misconceptions and prejudices.
Liberalism often walks a fine line - tolerance and recognition of different viewpoints isn't always easy and especially not when it comes to faith. The temptation for parents to take their children to places where their (the parents) faith isn't questioned must be very strong but diversity, by its very nature, encourages us to look at other options and perhaps question our own.
Do you think of the East End as diverse? My girlfriend works in a state school in Stepney where 100% of the pupils are from one religion, there are no white kids. The reverse would be seen as a horror, and we be told it was bad for the kids
A school should broadly reflect the wider community kids will live in. Its not a problem if 90% of kids are from one religion if 90% of the people around them are also the same religion. Around them should certainly be much wider than a school catchment area though.
So imo a 90%+ Catholic or Protestant school in Belfast is problematic and widens divisions in society as does a 90%+ Islamic school in London. But a 90% Catholic school in parts of Italy, or 90% protestant school in parts of the US, or a 90% Islamic school in the Middle East could all be fine.
The solution, of course, is to adopt a system of secular education: no religious schools of any faith. Of course no party dare propose this in fear of the entrenched vested interests from all this country's major religions.
Agreed, you would still get clustering though, just as we have done with rich parents effectively creating selective schools through catchment areas.
Oh well - another excuse for having a pop at liberals and liberalism. I thought the head teacher's comment was measured and certainly not grovelling. I'm also well aware there are provocateurs at work on both sides as seems inevitable in every skirmish in the so-called "culture wars".
I suppose there's an alternative - a public order confrontation outside the school gates and eventually some taking their children out of a school which tries to promote diversity into an educational establishment which might not. All that does is re-enforce barriers, misconceptions and prejudices.
Liberalism often walks a fine line - tolerance and recognition of different viewpoints isn't always easy and especially not when it comes to faith. The temptation for parents to take their children to places where their (the parents) faith isn't questioned must be very strong but diversity, by its very nature, encourages us to look at other options and perhaps question our own.
Do you think of the East End as diverse? My girlfriend works in a state school in Stepney where 100% of the pupils are from one religion, there are no white kids. The reverse would be seen as a horror, and we be told it was bad for the kids
A school should broadly reflect the wider community kids will live in. Its not a problem if 90% of kids are from one religion if 90% of the people around them are also the same religion. Around them should certainly be much wider than a school catchment area though.
So imo a 90%+ Catholic or Protestant school in Belfast is problematic and widens divisions in society as does a 90%+ Islamic school in London. But a 90% Catholic school in parts of Italy, or 90% protestant school in parts of the US, or a 90% Islamic school in the Middle East could all be fine.
The solution, of course, is to adopt a system of secular education: no religious schools of any faith. Of course no party dare propose this in fear of the entrenched vested interests from all this country's major religions.
The school I am talking about, where my girlfriend works, is a secular school of no faith in inner London; 100% of the pupils from the same religion
The Sunday Times front page splashes David Cameron and "toxic banker" Greensill. Boris is a convenient distraction.
Exactly. Financial sleaze runs right through this government. It is an open goal, and something Keir should be good at convincing the electoral jury over.
Really? The story is that Dave tried to make direct contact with Rishi a number of times and each time he got rejected. Not sure there's much of a story in it.
There is a story in it - that Dave was trying to pull in favours..
Which party is Dave standing for?
Rishi refused to let even Dave pull in favours is the story.
The interesting aspect is why this story - which hurts an ex-PM who left office 5 years ago - is appearing now. What are we being diverted from looking at?
The same might be said about the Mirror story too.
Isn’t it just that Greensill is going under (I believe) and it’s an interesting UK angle for the press?
Possibly the government is leaking because it shows they *didn’t* do favours for their mates?
Greensill going under also takes out a whole lot of our steel industry as it now desperately need money,
How Cameron ties into the need to bail British Steel out yet again is something I can't work out.
Gupta (the owner of British Steel) is dependent on Greensill for financing.
He is pleading for money
It’s a pity that his wife has just started the refurbishment of her beautiful house on Belgrave Square. Poor optics.
Cameron is slipping down in my estimation as time passes. Not just this, more generally.
I had him as "mediocre" but he's flirting with "poor" now.
Let's see if he can turn it around.
Predictably Rachel Reeves is now asking for an inquiry into this latest scandal. Whereas the better response would be to ask for full transparency on the contracts entered into by this government. Not be diverted into obsessing about what the last PM but one did a decade ago.
Rachel Reeves has been doing exactly what you ask, so that's not a fair criticism. It's just that this government takes no notice.
Labour aren't cutting through though. Not sure why. Starmer needs to develop a bit of star quality, something which makes people interested in what he has to say. I don't know whether it is style or that he does not have much to say or a bit of both. Or whether now is not the time, whoever was speaking for them. But there seems to be too much of a hole where one is badly needed.
It's complex. Certainly speeches like the one I cited are getting minimal press coverage; it's really hard for Labour during the pandemic to get a fair hearing, especially in the press.
But I agree that Starmer isn't cutting through enough. In my view, he needs a) more passion, and b) a better sense of humour; for example, instead of always getting cross at BJ's refusal to answer any questions, he needs to start taking the piss out of him from time to time. Policy stuff can wait until after the current health crisis is over.
My goodness, and I thought I was negative about Labour's prospects. If you're left relying on Sir Keith to develop passion and a sense of humour any time soon, then the wait for Godot is truly on. Still, at least this journalist from the FT is sympathetic to his plight...
And again - identity politics trumps serious analysis. By any measure both are 'equally' unsjuited to the task in hand.
Reeves would be a clear shift by Starmer to the Blairite right, remember when she said Labour must be the party of those in work, not those on welfare?
We've reached a sorry state if the notion that the Labour Party should represent the interests of working people is seen as some sort of right wing extreme view in the party.
Isn't it obvious that it shouldn't be either/or? Of course Labour should represent the interests of working people, but it should also represent the interests of those who, through no fault of their own, can't find or are unable to work.
At the worst point of the horror here, our hospital numbers reached just under 40,000. However, Poland is a substantially smaller country (about 38m, versus 67m for the UK.) Very grim.
The liberal left and centre do seem to have vacated the free speech debate at the moment and left it to those who simultaneously think cancel culture is terrible but want to close the bbc down because a presenter commented on the size of a flag.
We should definitely do more to support teachers in this situation and stand up to over zealous parents, whatever the short term consequences of doing so.
On the contrary, the liberal left and centre haven't vacated the free speech debate at all. They've staked out their position quite clearly - if it conflicts with the latest woke nostrum, then they're firmly against it.
In this particular case, we’ve already seen that a small minority are quite happy to kill to “protect” their religious principles. Are you willing to put your life on the line for this particular freedom? Right now, for real? Because that’s what it’s likely to cost were you a teacher in this school & you put your head over the parapet right now.
If you think the Head (& other teachers) are simply folding to “wokeness” here then I suggest you’re suffering from a comprehensive lack of empathy.
If that is what the teacher and Head are facing then the police should be investigating and arresting those making such threats not standing next to them while they attack the school and its staff.
You know though that we will act out of fear rather than face down these loons
Comments
Everything you say is part of life - it doesn't wholly define life.
We should definitely do more to support teachers in this situation and stand up to over zealous parents, whatever the short term consequences of doing so.
https://twitter.com/SteveNickSmith/status/1375969675578904581
On Starmer, I've always thought he would need at least two years as Leader to demonstrate whether he has what it takes, given the mess he has to sort out. He's had less than one year so far, and it's been a very strange old year in which I think any opposition leader would have struggled against widespread support for the government (any government) through Covid.
Today India all out for 329, would have 100% wrapped the game up in the past, but now probably a par score that leaves the game a bit 50/50. Much better end of India's innings by England today.
Respect for the right to believe what you want: yes.
Automatic respect for what you choose to believe: no.
Respect is earned not demanded and certainly not demanded with threats and menaces. In fact any group or belief that does so is worthy of contempt not respect.
And this applies especially to religions, which can be some of the biggest and most intolerant bullies going.
Matthew Parris's article in yesterday's Times was very good on this - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-religion-has-the-right-to-escape-ridicule-6bn08vcvm.
Maybe am I missing something but should be right up their street.
Chance to get back into relevancy?
I think this is actually what the group of senior Labour figures were asking for in the briefing this week.
The huge problem we now have in England is that Labour's surviving core vote - the very young, the very poor, public sector workers, wealthy metropolitans and black and Asian voters - is too small to win but far too big for a rival to come along and displace it. Labour also has nowhere to go: Johnson has parked himself in the centre of public opinion, it's impossible for Labour to outmanoeuvre him on the Right and if it cleaves Leftward again it simply re-enters Corbyn territory.
The obvious risk is that Labour simply sits there, a useless lump of God knows what bunging up the electoral plumbing, its city mayors leading a loud but largely ineffectual opposition whilst the Tories rule for decades.
Credibility somewhat absent.
If you think the Head (& other teachers) are simply folding to “wokeness” here then I suggest you’re suffering from a comprehensive lack of empathy.
I suppose there's an alternative - a public order confrontation outside the school gates and eventually some taking their children out of a school which tries to promote diversity into an educational establishment which might not. All that does is re-enforce barriers, misconceptions and prejudices.
Liberalism often walks a fine line - tolerance and recognition of different viewpoints isn't always easy and especially not when it comes to faith. The temptation for parents to take their children to places where their (the parents) faith isn't questioned must be very strong but diversity, by its very nature, encourages us to look at other options and perhaps question our own.
The more serious disagreement is simply on the speed of opening up, though that too is a matter of weeks and months, not long term. People who feel lockdown has some redeeming features are more inclined to say "Let's do it slowly", while those who don't want to bloody well get on with it. We can probably all agree it should be done as quickly as is compatible with not having a fresh surge resulting in a new lockdown. What that means is something to debate, but not a huge gulf between us all.
All the "Aren't Tories Awful" parties define themselves by the straw man of the Tory they create.
They need to break free.
His delivery in face to camera monologues is Brown/EdM esque, I worry in a campaign he will flop dismally.
The leader needs to be a frontman, even if they are flawed and not the best brains. Freddie Mercury might not have been as good a singer as Brian May, Jagger might not be able to sing as well as Wyman, but it doesn’t matter because they have star quality, and though that is snootily sneered upon in political circles, it is vital in order to gain power
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1376135876925923331?s=19
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rachel-reeves-says-labour-does-not-want-represent-people-out-work-10114614.html
It's why Hattersley and Greer and others all rushed to criticise Rushdie and Staw criticised the Danes over their cartoons and PEN criticised Charlie Hebdo (and so miserably on). They didn't want to be attacked or stabbed or beheaded. Though they dressed it up in a lot of blather about "respect" and "culture" and "racism". Only Grayson Perry has ever been honest about why he doesn't tackle Islam.
People who demand "respect" for their religion using threats and outrage and claims to victimhood are bullies. That is all. And there is only one way to deal with bullies.
Did his Labour shadow, the illustrious Kate Green, do the same? Of course not!
However it has come at a cost, with protests in the Muslim world against him
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/1375823542118457347
I wonder how many more years it'll be before it comes into service?
Some Welsh voters who will vote for Plaid to push for Welsh independence are still reasonably satisfied with Drakeford's performance as the thread header suggests
Maybe the reason I have been ok w lockdown is because we don’t follow the rules!
https://order-order.com/2021/03/23/bombshell-welsh-poll-sees-drakeford-losing-seat/
Far more surprising was the revelation that he has three Commonwealth gold medals at Ping Pong?! WTAF?
14 and out in the first over for Roy.
You don't have to be Shadow Chancellor to make an impact.
You need someone who can bring the interesting out of the rest of them, or you have to shake up the whole team.
Starmer - dull
Rayner - perfectly capable of being interesting
Dodds - dull
Nandy - perfectly capable of being interesting
Thomas-Symonds - dull so far, don't know enough to judge his capacity to be interesting
Reeves - perfectly capable of being interesting
Lammy - love him or hate, him, interesting
Healey - dull
Miliband - dull but has moments
Thornberry - perfectly capable of being interesting
Reynolds - dull so far, don't know enough to judge his capacity to be interesting
Ashworth - perfectly capable of being interesting
Green - dull
(that's enough, ed.)
If Starmer doesn't feel he has that at the top of his party, he can look beyond it. An Alastair Campbell, a Steve Hilton... even a Dominic Cummings...
Not the start we needed. Can get the run rate required, but desperately need a good partnership.
And assumed they were ghost written. More fool me then.
I'm hoping that the world won't be changed by it, and in a couple of years time everything will be back to the way it was before.
Not that I expect him to lose his seat.
Salmond’s return to frontline politics can only be a disaster for the cause of independence."
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alex-salmond-alba-party-nicola-sturgeon-scottish-independence-b1823335.html
So imo a 90%+ Catholic or Protestant school in Belfast is problematic and widens divisions in society as does a 90%+ Islamic school in London. But a 90% Catholic school in parts of Italy, or 90% protestant school in parts of the US, or a 90% Islamic school in the Middle East could all be fine.
Defence for example.
Of course Starmer should also make it clear Labour is now opposed to FOM - which it is by implication but has not stated openly
I have sympathy for those who have enjoyed/benefitted from lockdown. No doubt a lot of people who commuted two or three hours a day can feel the difference. Also the sense of a rip off society with things like car parking fees being exposed. What I don't have sympathy with is people who want to see government imposed restrictions on our behaviour continue long term because we've largely got used to them and it's no big deal anyway.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1376138328685355012?s=19
With Major I’d say incumbency helps.
Biden was much further clear mid term than he won by. I don’t say it is all that matters, but it adds a 7-8 point swing at campaign time if one leader is much more charismatic. As Sir Keir is so far behind Boris in that regard, Lab need to be 5-6 points clear now to win IMO
The German Greens look like they may bring down the strongest politician in Europe. Marine Le Pen is surging in the polls in France. Sinn Fein lead the polls in Ireland, Fianna Fail are back in the toilet.
Even ... even ... even ... the dire Andrew RT Davies seems to be making strong progress in Wales.
So, I think the argument that opposition parties struggle "against widespread support for the government (any government) through Covid" is not true.
Two countries where the Opposition has made limited progress are England and Scotland.
The fault in both cases lies with the Opposition.
There has been plenty for the dreary and lawyerly SKS to get his teeth into -- the problem is he is not very good.
In 2019 there were questions about Labour being replaced with some other party.
Clearly that is a hell of a lot of progress