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
As we all do. The part of the syllabus in which this would have been shown ironically was about censorship. My other half has now also removed any link in her lesson plan, and hates herself for having to do so.
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.
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.
You think Theresa May was a good leader? 🤔
John Major was up against the Welsh Windbag.
Biden was up against a despised, certifiable lunatic and was still ran close.
Only Merkel is left of those and of course she is taking part under a different electoral system and has had to rely on the opposition parties being in a grand coalition with her for much of her term of office.
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.
UK hospital numbers maxed 12 days after new cases maxed.
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.
The media narrative in Wales, Ireland, France and Germany has been negative for the incumbent. The media narrative in Scotland has largely been positive for the incumbent, particularly as Nippy has got herself on TV most days. The media narrative in England was generally negative towards the Government during the Cummings era, and the opposition' party made hay. Once the UK media had decided Johnson had invented the vaccines and saved the world, the incumbent's electoral position improved and the opposition's declined.
That is not to say it might be nice if Starmer did some, well, "opposing".
Don't forget Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. There should be no finer example of this notion than RT becoming FM.
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.
UK hospital numbers maxed 12 days after new cases maxed.
Poland's new cases are still rising fast.
The hammering Eastern Europe is currently getting does suggest that the proposed strategy of spreading the covid hit into manageable waves over a year was indeed the right one.
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.
The Scottish unionists and the English Labour party both suffer from the same problem: a split base.
Starmer can't expand his appeal to try to win back Labour's lost supporters in the red wall towns without alienating the elements that stayed loyal under Corbyn.
The Scottish unionists suffer from a lack of committed unionist voters. The census data tell us that most voters in Scotland view their identity as "Scottish only," and plenty of them who might not think the SNP an effective government are willing to hold their noses and back them regardless in order to get rid of the UK. They can always split along more conventional left/right lines after the key objective has been achieved.
Unionists, on the other hand, comprise a minority - about a quarter of the population identified as British only or Scottish & British in 2011, since when that number is only likely to have drifted one way. The rest of the pro-Union vote is essentially only in it for the money. It's therefore impossible for the Unionist vote to coalesce behind a single party, hence the fact that there are three of them, all fighting like rats in a sack, each with a significant core of supporters that won't contemplate backing the other two.
Scottish unionism is doomed, and I've no idea how English Labour is meant to get back into the game, either.
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.
Well some might think that a lecture about what and who Liberal Democrats are, coming from political opponents might just be self interested twaddle from an extremely arrogant and entitled bunch of chancers.
FWIW I think the Lib Dems may well surprise a bit on the upside in May, and that would be the first time in local elections for several years. The last Euro elections did put the Lib Dems briefly back into contention and although the 19 General was pretty terrible, at 11.6% it was their best since 2010, so there is some potential for a recovery.
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.
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.
The Scottish unionists and the English Labour party both suffer from the same problem: a split base.
Starmer can't expand his appeal to try to win back Labour's lost supporters in the red wall towns without alienating the elements that stayed loyal under Corbyn.
The Scottish unionists suffer from a lack of committed unionist voters. The census data tell us that most voters in Scotland view their identity as "Scottish only," and plenty of them who might not think the SNP an effective government are willing to hold their noses and back them regardless in order to get rid of the UK. They can always split along more conventional left/right lines after the key objective has been achieved.
Unionists, on the other hand, comprise a minority - about a quarter of the population identified as British only or Scottish & British in 2011, since when that number is only likely to have drifted one way. The rest of the pro-Union vote is essentially only in it for the money. It's therefore impossible for the Unionist vote to coalesce behind a single party, hence the fact that there are three of them, all fighting like rats in a sack, each with a significant core of supporters that won't contemplate backing the other two.
Scottish unionism is doomed, and I've no idea how English Labour is meant to get back into the game, either.
If Johnson and/or his successors fail, Labour are the only game in town, and thankfully, now their leader is relatively benign. That's how they get back. Not a positive or pro-active message, but that's how government and oppositions work.
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.
For sure. The problem we have is being a party fixated on the bottom 10% and top 10% with nothing to say to the 80% in the middle. The ones who we ought to be convincing to vote Labour.
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.
"but they've got nowhere else to go, its not as if they'll vote Tory" Boris waves enthusiastically..
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
then progress is quite limited.
John Major was up against the Welsh Windbag.
Biden was up against a despised, certifiable lunatic and was still ran close.
Only Merkel is left of those and of course she is taking part under a different electoral system and has had to rely on the opposition parties being in a grand coalition with her for much of her term of office.
NEW THREAD
Poland's new cases are still rising fast.
That is not to say it might be nice if Starmer did some, well, "opposing".
Don't forget Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. There should be no finer example of this notion than RT becoming FM.
Question Time on the Rushdie knighthood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmv2sL2qkIM&t=782s
Starmer can't expand his appeal to try to win back Labour's lost supporters in the red wall towns without alienating the elements that stayed loyal under Corbyn.
The Scottish unionists suffer from a lack of committed unionist voters. The census data tell us that most voters in Scotland view their identity as "Scottish only," and plenty of them who might not think the SNP an effective government are willing to hold their noses and back them regardless in order to get rid of the UK. They can always split along more conventional left/right lines after the key objective has been achieved.
Unionists, on the other hand, comprise a minority - about a quarter of the population identified as British only or Scottish & British in 2011, since when that number is only likely to have drifted one way. The rest of the pro-Union vote is essentially only in it for the money. It's therefore impossible for the Unionist vote to coalesce behind a single party, hence the fact that there are three of them, all fighting like rats in a sack, each with a significant core of supporters that won't contemplate backing the other two.
Scottish unionism is doomed, and I've no idea how English Labour is meant to get back into the game, either.
FWIW I think the Lib Dems may well surprise a bit on the upside in May, and that would be the first time in local elections for several years. The last Euro elections did put the Lib Dems briefly back into contention and although the 19 General was pretty terrible, at 11.6% it was their best since 2010, so there is some potential for a recovery.
Boris waves enthusiastically..