Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
A small sample size does not make a poll dodgy.
It does to the extent that a significant Margin of Error will be involved. Beyond that , the weighted sample bore little relation to the 2019 result there.
No, it does not make it dodgy. It just means it has a larger uncertainty.
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
A small sample size does not make a poll dodgy.
It does to the extent that a significant Margin of Error will be involved. Beyond that , the weighted sample bore little relation to the 2019 result there.
No, it does not make it dodgy. It just means it has a larger uncertainty.
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
A small sample size does not make a poll dodgy.
It does to the extent that a significant Margin of Error will be involved. Beyond that , the weighted sample bore little relation to the 2019 result there.
No, it does not make it dodgy. It just means it has a larger uncertainty.
The latter rather points to it not being representative when weighted on the basis of recent voting behaviour there.
Late night question for the PB brains trust (I may repeat tomorrow to get more responses).
I have been following the 'Statement of Persons Nominated' around my area (Bootle). Someone I know, is clearly not very good with these things, has managed to foul up the application.
They are standing in a rock solid safe Labour ward, as NOT a Labour candidate (so the chances of winning are pretty much nil). They have entered their name, as the person standing as 'Jimmy Bloggs', and then, clearly not understanding the form, have entered the name of the person who nominated them as 'James A Bloggs'. Ie, they've nominated themselves.
Now I know administration foul ups are ten a penny, so its somehow been allowed to stand. They're not going to win. Labour will get 101% of the vote. However, should the impossible happen, and they do win; am I right in thinking the first thing that will happen is Labour candidate will make a complaint and the result overturned and they'll have lost anyway?
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
Nah, he was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
This, I'm sorry to say, is the most frightful load of tosh.
Imagine you were asked to write about a faraway foreign country you've never visited and - needing the money - you knock something out on autopilot, full of stock ideas and tropes and phrases, but with just enough zip to get it through a lazy editor.
That's you here. That's you every time you try to explain the Labour Party and what they need to do.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
This, I'm sorry to say, is the most frightful load of tosh.
Imagine you were asked to write about a faraway foreign country you've never visited and - needing the money - you knock something out on autopilot, full of stock ideas and tropes and phrases, but with just enough zip to get it through a lazy editor.
That's you here. That's you every time you try to explain the Labour Party and what they need to do.
Just trying to help, old boy. Feel free to ignore me. Aaaand keep on losing
Late night question for the PB brains trust (I may repeat tomorrow to get more responses).
I have been following the 'Statement of Persons Nominated' around my area (Bootle). Someone I know, is clearly not very good with these things, has managed to foul up the application.
They are standing in a rock solid safe Labour ward, as NOT a Labour candidate (so the chances of winning are pretty much nil). They have entered their name, as the person standing as 'Jimmy Bloggs', and then, clearly not understanding the form, have entered the name of the person who nominated them as 'James A Bloggs'. Ie, they've nominated themselves.
Now I know administration foul ups are ten a penny, so its somehow been allowed to stand. They're not going to win. Labour will get 101% of the vote. However, should the impossible happen, and they do win; am I right in thinking the first thing that will happen is Labour candidate will make a complaint and the result overturned and they'll have lost anyway?
If it is the one I'm looking at seems like there's at least two who have done that.
I confess, I've never been certain if the nominators cannot include the candidate themselves. It does seem odd for the form not to show both proposers, or that that the local elections team would not catch such an obvious mixup, if a proposer was invalid. Might it be that the application was correct but there is an error in the SOPN?
Honestly, in the unlikely event they lost, I'd advise the other party to let it go. Some mixups are worth challenging, and if it didn't affect the result, some are not.
In Swindon they had a parish election foul up at the count where the wrong candidates were called as the winners, receiving more votes than there were ballots.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
He was just a phoney careerist and Labour are well rid of him.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
This, I'm sorry to say, is the most frightful load of tosh.
Imagine you were asked to write about a faraway foreign country you've never visited and - needing the money - you knock something out on autopilot, full of stock ideas and tropes and phrases, but with just enough zip to get it through a lazy editor.
That's you here. That's you every time you try to explain the Labour Party and what they need to do.
That's probably true, although sometimes it takes a complete outsider to spot an obvious problem and solution of course. There were probably Labour figures offering 'helpful' advice to the Tories in the early 2000s, and some of it may even have been right.
Nah, he [Umunna] was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
The language is a little harsh, but I suspect you're right. I never understood what happened in 2015. Why he stood, then stood down. I was convinced he has skeletons in the closet, something he wouldn't want exposed as LotO (which is what he'd have become had he become Labour leader).
Something of a shame however. His entire political career has exploded before his eyes, potentially as a result of him not standing in 2015. Who'd have thought it?
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
Yes. I met him. Genuinely charismatic. Obviously super smart. Good looking (it shouldn’t matter but it helps). He was the next Blair and he’d have been good for the country maybe. A British Obama? Obviously he had back story issues but.... sigh
They went for the mad posh white Marxist grandpa. And here we are
It is strange how, whenever Labour is offered an actually and symbolically progressive leader, they turn it down
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
A small sample size does not make a poll dodgy.
It does to the extent that a significant Margin of Error will be involved. Beyond that , the weighted sample bore little relation to the 2019 result there.
No, it does not make it dodgy. It just means it has a larger uncertainty.
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
A small sample size does not make a poll dodgy.
It does to the extent that a significant Margin of Error will be involved. Beyond that , the weighted sample bore little relation to the 2019 result there.
No, it does not make it dodgy. It just means it has a larger uncertainty.
The latter rather points to it not being representative when weighted on the basis of recent voting behaviour there.
Wasn't there a twitter account that went a bit nuts with poll re-weighting. Look where that ended up.
I think that difference can easily be explained by a churn between voters and non-voters. Nothing "dodgy" about it.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
You were just saying a moment ago that Starmer's Londony elitey "Remainia" is a big reason why he has no chance of winning the Red Wall back.
Now you say that Chuka Umunna, perhaps the most Remain obsessed MP in the last parliament, the very epitome of the dreaded 'sneering' London liberal elite, would have been a great choice.
Nah, he [Umunna] was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
The language is a little harsh, but I suspect you're right. I never understood what happened in 2015. Why he stood, then stood down. I was convinced he has skeletons in the closet, something he wouldn't want exposed as LotO (which is what he'd have become had he become Labour leader).
Something of a shame however. His entire political career has exploded before his eyes, potentially as a result of him not standing in 2015. Who'd have thought it?
I met him away when not on the clock as a politician and he just absolutely spouted a load of BS about a subject he clearly didn't know anything about, but said with an air of an expert....the problem is he was talking to Mrs U, who is a genuine expert on that subject.
It was total unnecessary behaviour, rather just saying I don't know much about that, but I would be interested to know.
Seems like a parody. I'm no grammar fanatic, and frequently misspell, but ideas and knowledge need to be well communicated in order to get across the intended point, and poor spelling, grammar and punctuation can detract from that point.
Late night question for the PB brains trust (I may repeat tomorrow to get more responses).
I have been following the 'Statement of Persons Nominated' around my area (Bootle). Someone I know, is clearly not very good with these things, has managed to foul up the application.
They are standing in a rock solid safe Labour ward, as NOT a Labour candidate (so the chances of winning are pretty much nil). They have entered their name, as the person standing as 'Jimmy Bloggs', and then, clearly not understanding the form, have entered the name of the person who nominated them as 'James A Bloggs'. Ie, they've nominated themselves.
Now I know administration foul ups are ten a penny, so its somehow been allowed to stand. They're not going to win. Labour will get 101% of the vote. However, should the impossible happen, and they do win; am I right in thinking the first thing that will happen is Labour candidate will make a complaint and the result overturned and they'll have lost anyway?
If it is the one I'm looking at seems like there's at least two who have done that.
I confess, I've never been certain if the nominators cannot include the candidate themselves. It does seem odd for the form not to show both proposers, or that that the local elections team would not catch such an obvious mixup, if a proposer was invalid. Might it be that the application was correct but there is an error in the SOPN?
Honestly, in the unlikely event they lost, I'd advise the other party to let it go. Some mixups are worth challenging, and if it didn't affect the result, some are not.
In Swindon they had a parish election foul up at the count where the wrong candidates were called as the winners, receiving more votes than there were ballots.
I've not seen the form myself. Only the SOPN. Are there usually two nominators then (I recall a local candidate asked me once, after she confessed she needed a second)? Maybe they've nominated themselves, got their spouse to do the second and the SOPN just shows his name?
A foul up on the SOPN itself can't be ruled out.
As an aside, and without outing myself too much...... the ward in question is in Merseyside, but not in Bootle. Are you looking... ahem... across the Mersey?
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
A small sample size does not make a poll dodgy.
It does to the extent that a significant Margin of Error will be involved. Beyond that , the weighted sample bore little relation to the 2019 result there.
No, it does not make it dodgy. It just means it has a larger uncertainty.
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
A small sample size does not make a poll dodgy.
It does to the extent that a significant Margin of Error will be involved. Beyond that , the weighted sample bore little relation to the 2019 result there.
No, it does not make it dodgy. It just means it has a larger uncertainty.
The latter rather points to it not being representative when weighted on the basis of recent voting behaviour there.
Wasn't there a twitter account that went a bit nuts with poll re-weighting. Look where that ended up.
I think that difference can easily be explained by a churn between voters and non-voters. Nothing "dodgy" about it.
Centrist_Phone....who wasn't a centrist, nor a phone, nor any good when it came to looking at polls.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
You were just saying a moment ago that Starmer's Londony elitey "Remainia" is a big reason why he has no chance of winning the Red Wall back.
Now you say that Chuka Umunna, perhaps the most Remain obsessed MP in the last parliament, the very epitome of the dreaded 'sneering' London liberal elite, would have been a great choice.
??
I didn’t say anything about London elite, but yes, Umunna would struggle to win the red wall for the same reasons as Sir Keir. I think Chuka being better looking, younger, not white, & generally cooler would make him a better choice than Starmer though
Late night question for the PB brains trust (I may repeat tomorrow to get more responses).
I have been following the 'Statement of Persons Nominated' around my area (Bootle). Someone I know, is clearly not very good with these things, has managed to foul up the application.
They are standing in a rock solid safe Labour ward, as NOT a Labour candidate (so the chances of winning are pretty much nil). They have entered their name, as the person standing as 'Jimmy Bloggs', and then, clearly not understanding the form, have entered the name of the person who nominated them as 'James A Bloggs'. Ie, they've nominated themselves.
Now I know administration foul ups are ten a penny, so its somehow been allowed to stand. They're not going to win. Labour will get 101% of the vote. However, should the impossible happen, and they do win; am I right in thinking the first thing that will happen is Labour candidate will make a complaint and the result overturned and they'll have lost anyway?
If you post the question on this thread on the VoteUK discussion forum you're almost guaranteed to get an informative answer.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
This, I'm sorry to say, is the most frightful load of tosh.
Imagine you were asked to write about a faraway foreign country you've never visited and - needing the money - you knock something out on autopilot, full of stock ideas and tropes and phrases, but with just enough zip to get it through a lazy editor.
That's you here. That's you every time you try to explain the Labour Party and what they need to do.
Just trying to help, old boy. Feel free to ignore me. Aaaand keep on losing
I do try and ignore you. It might not seem that way, but believe me I do. Only step in when I feel I absolutely have to.
Seems like a parody. I'm no grammar fanatic, and frequently misspell, but ideas and knowledge need to be well communicated in order to get across the intended point, and poor spelling, grammar and punctuation can detract from that point.
What does ya meen, man right like tis, man is peng, not peak.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
This, I'm sorry to say, is the most frightful load of tosh.
Imagine you were asked to write about a faraway foreign country you've never visited and - needing the money - you knock something out on autopilot, full of stock ideas and tropes and phrases, but with just enough zip to get it through a lazy editor.
That's you here. That's you every time you try to explain the Labour Party and what they need to do.
That's probably true, although sometimes it takes a complete outsider to spot an obvious problem and solution of course. There were probably Labour figures offering 'helpful' advice to the Tories in the early 2000s, and some of it may even have been right.
Oh indeed. Detachment plus insight is a great combination. But there is neither here.
Nah, he [Umunna] was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
The language is a little harsh, but I suspect you're right. I never understood what happened in 2015. Why he stood, then stood down. I was convinced he has skeletons in the closet, something he wouldn't want exposed as LotO (which is what he'd have become had he become Labour leader).
Something of a shame however. His entire political career has exploded before his eyes, potentially as a result of him not standing in 2015. Who'd have thought it?
I met him away when not on the clock as a politician and he just absolutely spouted a load of BS about a subject he clearly didn't know anything about, but said with an air of an expert....the problem is he was talking to Mrs U, who is a genuine expert on that subject.
It was total unnecessary behaviour, rather just saying I don't know much about that, but I would be interested to know.
I take your point, but Chuka Umunna also had charisma. And that, quite frankly, is pretty rare in British politics right now
Boris has it, and he is prime minister thereby
My wider point is that Labour needs to break the mould but in a surprising way, to get out of this vortex of decline. Starmer is another worthy woke white British north London lawyer pretending to salute the flag. It’s not enough. Miliband and Corbyn were two different versions of the same thing.
Fuck knows. Maybe it’s Jess Phillips? But after Starmer rehabilitates them but fails to gain power, they need something excitingly new
Late night question for the PB brains trust (I may repeat tomorrow to get more responses).
I have been following the 'Statement of Persons Nominated' around my area (Bootle). Someone I know, is clearly not very good with these things, has managed to foul up the application.
They are standing in a rock solid safe Labour ward, as NOT a Labour candidate (so the chances of winning are pretty much nil). They have entered their name, as the person standing as 'Jimmy Bloggs', and then, clearly not understanding the form, have entered the name of the person who nominated them as 'James A Bloggs'. Ie, they've nominated themselves.
Now I know administration foul ups are ten a penny, so its somehow been allowed to stand. They're not going to win. Labour will get 101% of the vote. However, should the impossible happen, and they do win; am I right in thinking the first thing that will happen is Labour candidate will make a complaint and the result overturned and they'll have lost anyway?
If it is the one I'm looking at seems like there's at least two who have done that.
I confess, I've never been certain if the nominators cannot include the candidate themselves. It does seem odd for the form not to show both proposers, or that that the local elections team would not catch such an obvious mixup, if a proposer was invalid. Might it be that the application was correct but there is an error in the SOPN?
Honestly, in the unlikely event they lost, I'd advise the other party to let it go. Some mixups are worth challenging, and if it didn't affect the result, some are not.
In Swindon they had a parish election foul up at the count where the wrong candidates were called as the winners, receiving more votes than there were ballots.
I've not seen the form myself. Only the SOPN. Are there usually two nominators then (I recall a local candidate asked me once, after she confessed she needed a second)? Maybe they've nominated themselves, got their spouse to do the second and the SOPN just shows his name?
A foul up on the SOPN itself can't be ruled out.
As an aside, and without outing myself too much...... the ward in question is in Merseyside, but not in Bootle. Are you looking... ahem... across the Mersey?
I had a look at Sefton, which wiki told me was the borough for Bootle.
Ones I've seen usually have proposer, seconder, and assentors (not needed this year due to Covid regulations I think), though looking at a couple of others some (like Cornwall) don't even put a proposer on the SOPN so I guess it is not required to show.
But I still don't know if you can nominate yourself (though I believe you can act as your own agent).
Late night question for the PB brains trust (I may repeat tomorrow to get more responses).
I have been following the 'Statement of Persons Nominated' around my area (Bootle). Someone I know, is clearly not very good with these things, has managed to foul up the application.
They are standing in a rock solid safe Labour ward, as NOT a Labour candidate (so the chances of winning are pretty much nil). They have entered their name, as the person standing as 'Jimmy Bloggs', and then, clearly not understanding the form, have entered the name of the person who nominated them as 'James A Bloggs'. Ie, they've nominated themselves.
Now I know administration foul ups are ten a penny, so its somehow been allowed to stand. They're not going to win. Labour will get 101% of the vote. However, should the impossible happen, and they do win; am I right in thinking the first thing that will happen is Labour candidate will make a complaint and the result overturned and they'll have lost anyway?
If you post the question on this thread on the VoteUK discussion forum you're almost guaranteed to get an informative answer.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
Nah, he was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
That's correct. He should never have been in the party. Total careerist, devoid of any principles or substance.
Anybody starts saying Umunna is what Labour needed or needs, you can straightaway write them off as having not a clue what they're talking about. They will usually be die hard Tories.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
Nah, he was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
That's correct. He should never have been in the party. Total careerist, devoid of any principles or substance.
Anybody starts saying Umunna is what Labour needed or needs, you can straightaway write them off as having not a clue what they're talking about. They will usually be die hard Tories.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
Nah, he was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
That's correct. He should never have been in the party. Total careerist, devoid of any principles or substance.
Anybody starts saying Umunna is what Labour needed or needs, you can straightaway write them off as having not a clue what they're talking about. They will usually be die hard Tories.
This is why you will keep losing. Corbyn is fine, misguided but well meaning, Umunna had to go, a ‘careerist’ who wanted to win. Heaven forbid
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
You were just saying a moment ago that Starmer's Londony elitey "Remainia" is a big reason why he has no chance of winning the Red Wall back.
Now you say that Chuka Umunna, perhaps the most Remain obsessed MP in the last parliament, the very epitome of the dreaded 'sneering' London liberal elite, would have been a great choice.
??
I didn’t say anything about London elite, but yes, Umunna would struggle to win the red wall for the same reasons as Sir Keir. I think Chuka being better looking, younger, not white, & generally cooler would make him a better choice than Starmer though
You said "Starmer types" gave their jobs to Eastern Europeans.
Nah, he [Umunna] was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
The language is a little harsh, but I suspect you're right. I never understood what happened in 2015. Why he stood, then stood down. I was convinced he has skeletons in the closet, something he wouldn't want exposed as LotO (which is what he'd have become had he become Labour leader).
Something of a shame however. His entire political career has exploded before his eyes, potentially as a result of him not standing in 2015. Who'd have thought it?
I met him away when not on the clock as a politician and he just absolutely spouted a load of BS about a subject he clearly didn't know anything about, but said with an air of an expert....the problem is he was talking to Mrs U, who is a genuine expert on that subject.
It was total unnecessary behaviour, rather just saying I don't know much about that, but I would be interested to know.
I take your point, but Chuka Umunna also had charisma. And that, quite frankly, is pretty rare in British politics right now
Boris has it, and he is prime minister thereby
My wider point is that Labour needs to break the mould but in a surprising way, to get out of this vortex of decline. Starmer is another worthy woke white British north London lawyer pretending to salute the flag. It’s not enough. Miliband and Corbyn were two different versions of the same thing.
Fuck knows. Maybe it’s Jess Phillips? But after Starmer rehabilitates them but fails to gain power, they need something excitingly new
I don't think they need anything amazing. An intelligent individual, who appears vaguely normal decent type, who is at ease around common folk. Maybe even had what most people see as had a normal job for quite a few years before going into politics. Comfortable in talking about being proud of Britain, the flag, the sports teams, the traditions, the monarchy and not captured by the nuttiest woke stuff. And whose hobbies are what most people do, bit of sport or something rather than collecting photos with terrorists or manhole covers.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
You were just saying a moment ago that Starmer's Londony elitey "Remainia" is a big reason why he has no chance of winning the Red Wall back.
Now you say that Chuka Umunna, perhaps the most Remain obsessed MP in the last parliament, the very epitome of the dreaded 'sneering' London liberal elite, would have been a great choice.
??
I didn’t say anything about London elite, but yes, Umunna would struggle to win the red wall for the same reasons as Sir Keir. I think Chuka being better looking, younger, not white, & generally cooler would make him a better choice than Starmer though
You said "Starmer types" gave their jobs to Eastern Europeans.
What did "Starmer types" mean?
People who were deluded enough to think that people in English working class towns might prefer the opportunity to up sticks and move to Sofia, Vilinius, or Bucharest and live in a house worth 7 grand to having job security in their home town with their friends and family
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
Nah, he was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
That's correct. He should never have been in the party. Total careerist, devoid of any principles or substance.
Anybody starts saying Umunna is what Labour needed or needs, you can straightaway write them off as having not a clue what they're talking about. They will usually be die hard Tories.
This is why you will keep losing. Corbyn is fine, misguided but well meaning, Umunna had to go, a ‘careerist’ who wanted to win. Heaven forbid
Your party is FUCKED
I don't think so. I think the next GE will be competitive. And I'd back my judgment on this stuff over yours any day of the week. I'm close to spooky. You just chunter away.
Nah, he [Umunna] was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
The language is a little harsh, but I suspect you're right. I never understood what happened in 2015. Why he stood, then stood down. I was convinced he has skeletons in the closet, something he wouldn't want exposed as LotO (which is what he'd have become had he become Labour leader).
Something of a shame however. His entire political career has exploded before his eyes, potentially as a result of him not standing in 2015. Who'd have thought it?
I met him away when not on the clock as a politician and he just absolutely spouted a load of BS about a subject he clearly didn't know anything about, but said with an air of an expert....the problem is he was talking to Mrs U, who is a genuine expert on that subject.
It was total unnecessary behaviour, rather just saying I don't know much about that, but I would be interested to know.
I take your point, but Chuka Umunna also had charisma. And that, quite frankly, is pretty rare in British politics right now
Boris has it, and he is prime minister thereby
My wider point is that Labour needs to break the mould but in a surprising way, to get out of this vortex of decline. Starmer is another worthy woke white British north London lawyer pretending to salute the flag. It’s not enough. Miliband and Corbyn were two different versions of the same thing.
Fuck knows. Maybe it’s Jess Phillips? But after Starmer rehabilitates them but fails to gain power, they need something excitingly new
I don't think they need anything amazing. An intelligent individual, who appears vaguely normal decent type, who is at ease around common folk. Maybe even had what most people see as had a normal job for quite a few years before going into politics. Comfortable in talking about being proud of Britain, the flag, the sports teams, the traditions, the monarchy and not captured by the nuttiest woke stuff. And whose hobbies are what most people do, bit of sport or something rather than collecting photos with terrorists or manhole covers.
Doesn't seem a huge ask.
No, having lost Scotland, possibly Wales, and half the Red Wall, plus Boris squatting in the centre ground, I think they need more than that, now. They need someone transformative. They can’t rely on the old pendulum
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
Nah, he was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
That's correct. He should never have been in the party. Total careerist, devoid of any principles or substance.
Anybody starts saying Umunna is what Labour needed or needs, you can straightaway write them off as having not a clue what they're talking about. They will usually be die hard Tories.
Sounds like Blair, Cameron & Boris to me
He was superficially as superficial as them, yes, but that's where it ends. Tony and Dave both had some substance. And Johnson is just Johnson. He's one of a kind.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
Nah, he was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
That's correct. He should never have been in the party. Total careerist, devoid of any principles or substance.
Anybody starts saying Umunna is what Labour needed or needs, you can straightaway write them off as having not a clue what they're talking about. They will usually be die hard Tories.
This is why you will keep losing. Corbyn is fine, misguided but well meaning, Umunna had to go, a ‘careerist’ who wanted to win. Heaven forbid
Your party is FUCKED
I don't think so. I think the next GE will be competitive. And I'd back my judgment on this stuff over yours any day of the week. I'm close to spooky. You just chunter away.
Nailed you on the death of BAME tho? Ya didn’t see that coming.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
You were just saying a moment ago that Starmer's Londony elitey "Remainia" is a big reason why he has no chance of winning the Red Wall back.
Now you say that Chuka Umunna, perhaps the most Remain obsessed MP in the last parliament, the very epitome of the dreaded 'sneering' London liberal elite, would have been a great choice.
??
I didn’t say anything about London elite, but yes, Umunna would struggle to win the red wall for the same reasons as Sir Keir. I think Chuka being better looking, younger, not white, & generally cooler would make him a better choice than Starmer though
You said "Starmer types" gave their jobs to Eastern Europeans.
What did "Starmer types" mean?
People who were deluded enough to think that people in English working class towns might prefer the opportunity to up sticks and move to Sofia, Vilinius, or Bucharest and live in a house worth 7 grand to having job security in their home town with their friends and family
Ok. But what distinguishes a "Starmer type" from a common or garden politician who supported Remain?
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
Nah, he was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
That's correct. He should never have been in the party. Total careerist, devoid of any principles or substance.
Anybody starts saying Umunna is what Labour needed or needs, you can straightaway write them off as having not a clue what they're talking about. They will usually be die hard Tories.
This is why you will keep losing. Corbyn is fine, misguided but well meaning, Umunna had to go, a ‘careerist’ who wanted to win. Heaven forbid
Your party is FUCKED
I don't think so. I think the next GE will be competitive. And I'd back my judgment on this stuff over yours any day of the week. I'm close to spooky. You just chunter away.
Nailed you on the death of BAME tho? Ya didn’t see that coming.
You have to be a particularly mad party, in sharp decline - or terminal decadence - to shun ‘careerists’
May God give us the ‘careerists’ over the passionate ‘ideologues’, 9 times out of 10. Especially in politics. Careerists like winning. Thus extending their careers.
Corbyn was the committed socialist, Blair the careerist centrist. Corbyn was, of course, an antiSemitic catastrophe. By contrast, it was only when Blair stopped his careerism, and went ideological over Iraq, that he lost his career and Labour lost elections.
If he’d stayed ‘careerist’, Labour would likely be entering their 58th consecutive term in power
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
You were just saying a moment ago that Starmer's Londony elitey "Remainia" is a big reason why he has no chance of winning the Red Wall back.
Now you say that Chuka Umunna, perhaps the most Remain obsessed MP in the last parliament, the very epitome of the dreaded 'sneering' London liberal elite, would have been a great choice.
??
I didn’t say anything about London elite, but yes, Umunna would struggle to win the red wall for the same reasons as Sir Keir. I think Chuka being better looking, younger, not white, & generally cooler would make him a better choice than Starmer though
You said "Starmer types" gave their jobs to Eastern Europeans.
What did "Starmer types" mean?
People who were deluded enough to think that people in English working class towns might prefer the opportunity to up sticks and move to Sofia, Vilinius, or Bucharest and live in a house worth 7 grand to having job security in their home town with their friends and family
Ok. But what distinguishes a "Starmer type" from a common or garden politician who supported Remain?
Nothing much I’d say. Almost all Labour politicians supported it, so it’s not easy to come up with someone who didn’t that could be leader. Given that handicap, they’re best off getting a photogenic smoothie in to try and bluff their way back into contention, and I’d say Chuka would have been better equipped than Sir Keir for that
My main grouse with Starmer todate is his failure to push the sleaze issue. We really need to be hearing much more - and on a regular ongoing basis - about this being 'the most corrupt Government of the last 100 years'. A lot of material is available to use now - comparisons with Putin's Russia in this regard - or the Trump administration - would not go amiss.
My main grouse with Starmer todate is his failure to push the sleaze issue. We really need to be hearing much more - and on a regular ongoing basis - about this being 'the most corrupt Government of the last 100 years'. A lot of material is available to use now - comparisons with Putin's Russia in this regard - or the Trump administration - would not go amiss.
Yes, HMG and Putin's Russia are almost impossible to distinguish now.
My main grouse with Starmer todate is his failure to push the sleaze issue. We really need to be hearing much more - and on a regular ongoing basis - about this being 'the most corrupt Government of the last 100 years'. A lot of material is available to use now - comparisons with Putin's Russia in this regard - or the Trump administration - would not go amiss.
Because Labour is in such a great position to talk about sleaze......
My main grouse with Starmer todate is his failure to push the sleaze issue. We really need to be hearing much more - and on a regular ongoing basis - about this being 'the most corrupt Government of the last 100 years'. A lot of material is available to use now - comparisons with Putin's Russia in this regard - or the Trump administration - would not go amiss.
Yes, HMG and Putin's Russia are almost impossible to distinguish now.
At least we agree on that - the corruption is now far too obvious to be ignored.
My main grouse with Starmer todate is his failure to push the sleaze issue. We really need to be hearing much more - and on a regular ongoing basis - about this being 'the most corrupt Government of the last 100 years'. A lot of material is available to use now - comparisons with Putin's Russia in this regard - or the Trump administration - would not go amiss.
Yes, HMG and Putin's Russia are almost impossible to distinguish now.
At least we agree on that - the corruption is now far too obvious to be ignored.
My main grouse with Starmer todate is his failure to push the sleaze issue. We really need to be hearing much more - and on a regular ongoing basis - about this being 'the most corrupt Government of the last 100 years'. A lot of material is available to use now - comparisons with Putin's Russia in this regard - or the Trump administration - would not go amiss.
Yes, HMG and Putin's Russia are almost impossible to distinguish now.
At least we agree on that - the corruption is now far too obvious to be ignored.
My main grouse with Starmer todate is his failure to push the sleaze issue. We really need to be hearing much more - and on a regular ongoing basis - about this being 'the most corrupt Government of the last 100 years'. A lot of material is available to use now - comparisons with Putin's Russia in this regard - or the Trump administration - would not go amiss.
Yes, HMG and Putin's Russia are almost impossible to distinguish now.
At least we agree on that - the corruption is now far too obvious to be ignored.
Whoosh.
Even Cameron is now being tainted by it.
The story was he sent an email to lobby on behalf of a company. A request which was ignored. Yes, as bad as Russia.
They are discovering that vaccines are not perfect - but their reactions seem to be irrational. The EMA is largely being ignored by national governments. It is both tragic and comic at the same time.
My main grouse with Starmer todate is his failure to push the sleaze issue. We really need to be hearing much more - and on a regular ongoing basis - about this being 'the most corrupt Government of the last 100 years'. A lot of material is available to use now - comparisons with Putin's Russia in this regard - or the Trump administration - would not go amiss.
Yes, HMG and Putin's Russia are almost impossible to distinguish now.
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
On the other hand, even tonight's polls would actually point to an increased Labour majority there. The betting has probably been influenced by a dodgy poll of 302 voters.
A small sample size does not make a poll dodgy.
It does to the extent that a significant Margin of Error will be involved. Beyond that , the weighted sample bore little relation to the 2019 result there.
The absence of any significant rumours of the way things are going make it very difficult to call. My instinct from the start was a narrow Labour hold on a low turnout andmy view has not changed.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
Nah, he was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
That's correct. He should never have been in the party. Total careerist, devoid of any principles or substance.
Anybody starts saying Umunna is what Labour needed or needs, you can straightaway write them off as having not a clue what they're talking about. They will usually be die hard Tories.
Not Chuka's greatest fan but Blair was probably at least as much a fake and won 3 elections. Of course he has earned undying hatred from his party for that achievement. It does seem that Labour's recurring dilemma is the contempt so many of its members have for the views of most voters.
ICYMI Airline software super-bug: Flight loads miscalculated because women using 'Miss' were treated as children
A programming error in the software used by UK airline TUI to check-in passengers led to miscalculated flight loads on three flights last July, a potentially serious safety issue.
The error occurred, according to a report [PDF] released on Thursday by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), because the check-in software treated travelers identified as "Miss" in the passenger list as children, and assigned them a weight of 35 kg (~77 lbs) instead of 69 kg (~152 lbs) for an adult.
This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First that a software upgrade made during a Covid shutdown of aviation was not adequately tested. Second, that the different meaning of "Miss" between cultures forms some sort of argument in the university English debate mentioned earlier. Third, see first.
ICYMI Airline software super-bug: Flight loads miscalculated because women using 'Miss' were treated as children
A programming error in the software used by UK airline TUI to check-in passengers led to miscalculated flight loads on three flights last July, a potentially serious safety issue.
The error occurred, according to a report [PDF] released on Thursday by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), because the check-in software treated travelers identified as "Miss" in the passenger list as children, and assigned them a weight of 35 kg (~77 lbs) instead of 69 kg (~152 lbs) for an adult.
This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First that a software upgrade made during a Covid shutdown of aviation was not adequately tested. Second, that the different meaning of "Miss" between cultures forms some sort of argument in the university English debate mentioned earlier. Third, see first.
Read that report last week.
A serious failure to test the software, followed by failures of the crew to sense-check the outputs. It’s hardly as if they’ve been running to 20-minute turnarounds for the past few months, is it?
Overweight is still overweight though, even though there’s plenty of margins built in to the design. Thankfully the more important load balance wasn’t screwed up.
Late night question for the PB brains trust (I may repeat tomorrow to get more responses).
I have been following the 'Statement of Persons Nominated' around my area (Bootle). Someone I know, is clearly not very good with these things, has managed to foul up the application.
They are standing in a rock solid safe Labour ward, as NOT a Labour candidate (so the chances of winning are pretty much nil). They have entered their name, as the person standing as 'Jimmy Bloggs', and then, clearly not understanding the form, have entered the name of the person who nominated them as 'James A Bloggs'. Ie, they've nominated themselves.
Now I know administration foul ups are ten a penny, so its somehow been allowed to stand. They're not going to win. Labour will get 101% of the vote. However, should the impossible happen, and they do win; am I right in thinking the first thing that will happen is Labour candidate will make a complaint and the result overturned and they'll have lost anyway?
If it is the one I'm looking at seems like there's at least two who have done that.
I confess, I've never been certain if the nominators cannot include the candidate themselves. It does seem odd for the form not to show both proposers, or that that the local elections team would not catch such an obvious mixup, if a proposer was invalid. Might it be that the application was correct but there is an error in the SOPN?
Honestly, in the unlikely event they lost, I'd advise the other party to let it go. Some mixups are worth challenging, and if it didn't affect the result, some are not.
In Swindon they had a parish election foul up at the count where the wrong candidates were called as the winners, receiving more votes than there were ballots.
The question as to whether, if you are an elector in the area concerned (which is never a requirement, the requirement always relating to the area of jurisdiction of the body you are standing for), you can nominate yourself, is an interesting one to which I don’t know the answer. I have always assumed you cannot, but don’t recall it ever being spelled out anywhere?
Who expected in May 1926 - in the aftermath of the General Strike - that Baldwin would be defeated at the following election? In May1929 he lost office - for the second time - and remained Tory leader for a further 8 years.
By the skin of his teeth, and having decided to fight on to spite Beaverbrook having notified the Shadow Cabinet and The Times that he was going to resign.
He was also more than a little fortunate that his fight back coincided with the implosion of the Macdonald government, otherwise he might still have been ousted.
Multiple-choice questions will take care of all that English usage malarky.
Good morning one and all. Brighter here, but still cold. And one of the blue-tits in our nest snuggled down in the nest apparently to sleep last night. Rather touching, watching it, actually.
On the question in hand, at one time, long ago, I had to support (or otherwise!) pharmacists who wished to open new pharmacies. I was always repelled by, and consequently negative towards, supporting letters which were badly written and misspelled. And the applicants were people who had, often recently, obtained good degrees.
Multiple-choice questions will take care of all that English usage malarky.
Good morning one and all. Brighter here, but still cold. And one of the blue-tits in our nest snuggled down in the nest apparently to sleep last night. Rather touching, watching it, actually.
On the question in hand, at one time, long ago, I had to support (or otherwise!) pharmacists who wished to open new pharmacies. It was always repelled by, and consequentlynegative towards, supporting letters which were badly written and misspelled.
Multiple-choice questions will take care of all that English usage malarky.
Good morning one and all. Brighter here, but still cold. And one of the blue-tits in our nest snuggled down in the nest apparently to sleep last night. Rather touching, watching it, actually.
On the question in hand, at one time, long ago, I had to support (or otherwise!) pharmacists who wished to open new pharmacies. It was always repelled by, and consequentlynegative towards, supporting letters which were badly written and misspelled.
Ummm...
That was a bit sharp; proof reading failure again!
Late night question for the PB brains trust (I may repeat tomorrow to get more responses).
I have been following the 'Statement of Persons Nominated' around my area (Bootle). Someone I know, is clearly not very good with these things, has managed to foul up the application.
They are standing in a rock solid safe Labour ward, as NOT a Labour candidate (so the chances of winning are pretty much nil). They have entered their name, as the person standing as 'Jimmy Bloggs', and then, clearly not understanding the form, have entered the name of the person who nominated them as 'James A Bloggs'. Ie, they've nominated themselves.
Now I know administration foul ups are ten a penny, so its somehow been allowed to stand. They're not going to win. Labour will get 101% of the vote. However, should the impossible happen, and they do win; am I right in thinking the first thing that will happen is Labour candidate will make a complaint and the result overturned and they'll have lost anyway?
If it is the one I'm looking at seems like there's at least two who have done that.
I confess, I've never been certain if the nominators cannot include the candidate themselves. It does seem odd for the form not to show both proposers, or that that the local elections team would not catch such an obvious mixup, if a proposer was invalid. Might it be that the application was correct but there is an error in the SOPN?
Honestly, in the unlikely event they lost, I'd advise the other party to let it go. Some mixups are worth challenging, and if it didn't affect the result, some are not.
In Swindon they had a parish election foul up at the count where the wrong candidates were called as the winners, receiving more votes than there were ballots.
The question as to whether, if you are an elector in the area concerned (which is never a requirement, the requirement always relating to the area of jurisdiction of the body you are standing for), you can nominate yourself, is an interesting one to which I don’t know the answer. I have always assumed you cannot, but don’t recall it ever being spelled out anywhere?
The answer, surprisingly to me at least, is yes. I have always avoided it in the past, but this year with Covid, our Elections Office were encouraging it, although it has always been possible.
Being seen by many as un-patriotic is a pretty disastrous position for Labour to be in when you consider that working-class people are probably more likely to be serving in, are have served in, the armed forces. But that may not be true in the big cities and university towns, where most Labour activists are situated.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly. With the significant assistance of J Corbyn Esq. What a calamity he was
At some point it will become an issue, having an Opposition fundamentally crippled on the issue of "whether they actually like the country, or the people, they seek to govern" but for now it is hilarious
What they Labour need is a leader who seems happily at ease with Britishness, not just tolerant of it, or "respectful". Blair did that, superbly, by inventing Cool Britannia. He embodied it. He was a Brit, and he enioyed being British, but he did it in a new and interesting way
Starmer salutes the flag and looks stiff and earnest. It helps, but is is not enough, I fear - unless Boris and the Tories implode
Labour. Where is your Blair?
Starmer is on record as saying he wants the monarchy abolished. He’s posing with the flag because PR teams have told him to. The voters Labour have lost were lost because Starmer types offered their jobs to anyone from Eastern Europe who fancied bidding for it - they’re not going to be fooled by a rictus grin next to a Union Jack. He was kneeling to the BLM less than a year ago
Yes.
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
A real shame for Labour that Chuka jumped ship. A horrendous move in hindsight for the party & for him political career-wise, though he may be happier now he’s out of it. He would have Labour much closer to the Tories now, in my opinion.
Nah, he was a massive fake. I've met him, total empty suit bullshitter.
That's correct. He should never have been in the party. Total careerist, devoid of any principles or substance.
Anybody starts saying Umunna is what Labour needed or needs, you can straightaway write them off as having not a clue what they're talking about. They will usually be die hard Tories.
Not Chuka's greatest fan but Blair was probably at least as much a fake and won 3 elections. Of course he has earned undying hatred from his party for that achievement. It does seem that Labour's recurring dilemma is the contempt so many of its members have for the views of most voters.
That contempt becomes hatred when those voters have travelled from Labour --> Tory scum.
It's almost as if they will defile the Labour Party if they come back.
Chuka Umunna was a real waste of someone who clearly had something to offer. He is, as is pointed out, charismatic and he also seemed a very capable performer. Something the Labour Party really struggle for these days. It’s a pity for politics he opted out.
Labours front bench is full of poor performers. The worst of which has to be Kate Green. When faced against the most inept education secretary in many many years she’s not made a dent. Her most memorable comments have been around changing the name of an OBE to remove empire from the name and ‘decolonialising the curriculum’. Both of which may be worthwhile long term aims but short term she needs to get stuck in.
Late night question for the PB brains trust (I may repeat tomorrow to get more responses).
I have been following the 'Statement of Persons Nominated' around my area (Bootle). Someone I know, is clearly not very good with these things, has managed to foul up the application.
They are standing in a rock solid safe Labour ward, as NOT a Labour candidate (so the chances of winning are pretty much nil). They have entered their name, as the person standing as 'Jimmy Bloggs', and then, clearly not understanding the form, have entered the name of the person who nominated them as 'James A Bloggs'. Ie, they've nominated themselves.
Now I know administration foul ups are ten a penny, so its somehow been allowed to stand. They're not going to win. Labour will get 101% of the vote. However, should the impossible happen, and they do win; am I right in thinking the first thing that will happen is Labour candidate will make a complaint and the result overturned and they'll have lost anyway?
If it is the one I'm looking at seems like there's at least two who have done that.
I confess, I've never been certain if the nominators cannot include the candidate themselves. It does seem odd for the form not to show both proposers, or that that the local elections team would not catch such an obvious mixup, if a proposer was invalid. Might it be that the application was correct but there is an error in the SOPN?
Honestly, in the unlikely event they lost, I'd advise the other party to let it go. Some mixups are worth challenging, and if it didn't affect the result, some are not.
In Swindon they had a parish election foul up at the count where the wrong candidates were called as the winners, receiving more votes than there were ballots.
The question as to whether, if you are an elector in the area concerned (which is never a requirement, the requirement always relating to the area of jurisdiction of the body you are standing for), you can nominate yourself, is an interesting one to which I don’t know the answer. I have always assumed you cannot, but don’t recall it ever being spelled out anywhere?
The answer, surprisingly to me at least, is yes. I have always avoided it in the past, but this year with Covid, our Elections Office were encouraging it, although it has always been possible.
Chuka Umunna was a real waste of someone who clearly had something to offer. He is, as is pointed out, charismatic and he also seemed a very capable performer. Something the Labour Party really struggle for these days. It’s a pity for politics he opted out.
Labours front bench is full of poor performers. The worst of which has to be Kate Green. When faced against the most inept education secretary in many many years she’s not made a dent. Her most memorable comments have been around changing the name of an OBE to remove empire from the name and ‘decolonialising the curriculum’. Both of which may be worthwhile long term aims but short term she needs to get stuck in.
Don’t understand the Chuka love. He sacrificed his career on the altar of a second referendum, thereby displaying exceptionally poor judgement. Much the same as Rory the Tory. Both bright, charismatic and early on showed promise. But when push came to shove they weren’t cut out to reach the top.
Seeing the comments about the Sputnik vaccine and the deaths. we are all participating in a large scale phase 3 trial. Long term effects will come out. The EU have been pretty inept in their handling of the vaccine rollout. Politicians more concerned with shoring their own positions than sorting out the vaccinations. Mind you the health commissioner used to run a breast cancer charity and was a psychologist so is hardly eminently qualified to deal with these issues. It’s a shambles and is costing their citizens their lives.
The EMA are right, the benefits outweigh the risks.
Presumably though, these hotspots could still have local lockdowns, rigidly enforced, with intensive testing and the carrot and stick of payments whilst self-isolating and heavy fines for those who don't comply. Local lockdowns to stamp out forest fires will not have the wider political fall-out of national lockdowns. (Although, if it turned out they are all areas with Labour MPs, that might raise some eyebrows....)
The scientists need to turn their mind to performing micro-surgery to solve the problem, rather than reaching for their trusty sledgehammer.
Good to see a minor outbreak of sanity in France. There'll be an uncomfortable calculation to be done since the Health Authorities told them to do it from January. Could have had another 3m with one dose.
PARIS (Reuters) - France will lengthen the period between the first and second shots of mRNA anti-COVID vaccines to six weeks from four weeks as of April 14 to accelerate the inoculation campaign, Health Minister Olivier Veran told the JDD newspaper on Sunday.
Although France’s top health authority advised a six-week period between the two shots in January in order to stretch supplies, the government at the time said there was insufficient data on how well the vaccines performed with a longer interval.
Chuka Umunna was a real waste of someone who clearly had something to offer. He is, as is pointed out, charismatic and he also seemed a very capable performer. Something the Labour Party really struggle for these days. It’s a pity for politics he opted out.
Labours front bench is full of poor performers. The worst of which has to be Kate Green. When faced against the most inept education secretary in many many years she’s not made a dent. Her most memorable comments have been around changing the name of an OBE to remove empire from the name and ‘decolonialising the curriculum’. Both of which may be worthwhile long term aims but short term she needs to get stuck in.
I'll see your Kate Green. And raise you Anneliese Dodd.
The first female Labour politician to hold the post of either shadow or actual Chancellor. Green might be awful, but at least she won't have held back the cause of Labour having its first female leader.
Chuka was no Blair. Smooth talking, yes. Good looking, yes. But nothing whatsoever of interest to say.
Blair, though no intellectual, had *content*. He still does - witness his recent interventions on vaccination. There was even a Blairite ideology, even if it was borrowed from Anthony Giddens.
A better comparator for Chuka might be Cameron. Remember when Obama’s people reported back that he was astonishingly lightweight?
My main grouse with Starmer todate is his failure to push the sleaze issue. We really need to be hearing much more - and on a regular ongoing basis - about this being 'the most corrupt Government of the last 100 years'. A lot of material is available to use now - comparisons with Putin's Russia in this regard - or the Trump administration - would not go amiss.
Because Labour is in such a great position to talk about sleaze......
Good to see a minor outbreak of sanity in France. There'll be an uncomfortable calculation to be done since the Health Authorities told them to do it from January. Could have had another 3m with one dose.
PARIS (Reuters) - France will lengthen the period between the first and second shots of mRNA anti-COVID vaccines to six weeks from four weeks as of April 14 to accelerate the inoculation campaign, Health Minister Olivier Veran told the JDD newspaper on Sunday.
Although France’s top health authority advised a six-week period between the two shots in January in order to stretch supplies, the government at the time said there was insufficient data on how well the vaccines performed with a longer interval.
Macron claimed the AZ vaccine was quasi-ineffective for people over 65. Very, very loudly. France’s top health authority was always going to get drowned out. And on delaying second doses, reluctant to get fired by pointing out that as with vaccines, on refusing to adopt "l'attitde rosbif" he was again being a twat.
Chuka Umunna was a real waste of someone who clearly had something to offer. He is, as is pointed out, charismatic and he also seemed a very capable performer. Something the Labour Party really struggle for these days. It’s a pity for politics he opted out.
Labours front bench is full of poor performers. The worst of which has to be Kate Green. When faced against the most inept education secretary in many many years she’s not made a dent. Her most memorable comments have been around changing the name of an OBE to remove empire from the name and ‘decolonialising the curriculum’. Both of which may be worthwhile long term aims but short term she needs to get stuck in.
I'll see your Kate Green. And raise you Anneliese Dodd.
The first female Labour politician to hold the post of either shadow or actual Chancellor. Green might be awful, but at least she won't have held back the cause of Labour having its first female leader.
It's been extremely difficult for opposition politicians of any stripe to 'break through' recently, as the pandemic has been 'front and centre'. Now we can hope that that is receding, political life will more more normal, and, importantly, Parliament can return for proper debates and questions, and politicians and journalists can deal properly with such matters as the iniquitous Police and Crime, and rapidly developing car-crash which is Brexit.
Chuka was no Blair. Smooth talking, yes. Good looking, yes. But nothing whatsoever of interest to say.
Blair, though no intellectual, had *content*. He still does - witness his recent interventions on vaccination. There was even a Blairite ideology, even if it was borrowed from Anthony Giddens.
A better comparator for Chuka might be Cameron. Remember when Obama’s people reported back that he was astonishingly lightweight?
Blair's "recent interventions on vaccination" was him jumping the gun after being given a briefing on Government thinking about delaying the second dose. To very considerable annoyance within Government - and at the cost of him being excluded from subsequent briefings. It is said.
Good to see a minor outbreak of sanity in France. There'll be an uncomfortable calculation to be done since the Health Authorities told them to do it from January. Could have had another 3m with one dose.
PARIS (Reuters) - France will lengthen the period between the first and second shots of mRNA anti-COVID vaccines to six weeks from four weeks as of April 14 to accelerate the inoculation campaign, Health Minister Olivier Veran told the JDD newspaper on Sunday.
Although France’s top health authority advised a six-week period between the two shots in January in order to stretch supplies, the government at the time said there was insufficient data on how well the vaccines performed with a longer interval.
Macron claimed the AZ vaccine was quasi-ineffective for people over 65. Very, very loudly. France’s top health authority was always going to get drowned out. And on delaying second doses, reluctant to get fired by pointing out that as with vaccines, on refusing to adopt "l'attitde rosbif" he was again being a twat.
Presumably this is driving the Government's polling uptick:
"approval for the government’s handling of the pandemic is now positive for the first time since May 2020, in the latest sign that the vaccine rollout has helped transform its fortunes.
The latest Opinium poll for the Observer found that 44% now approve of the government’s Covid handling, with 36% disapproving. Driving the approval is support for the vaccine distribution programme, with 72% approving of the efforts and only 8% disapproving. Support is high even among Labour (71%) and SNP voters (57%). A majority of voters (54%) believe the government’s roadmap out of Covid restrictions is at about the right pace, up slightly from 47% a fortnight ago."
Late night question for the PB brains trust (I may repeat tomorrow to get more responses).
I have been following the 'Statement of Persons Nominated' around my area (Bootle). Someone I know, is clearly not very good with these things, has managed to foul up the application.
They are standing in a rock solid safe Labour ward, as NOT a Labour candidate (so the chances of winning are pretty much nil). They have entered their name, as the person standing as 'Jimmy Bloggs', and then, clearly not understanding the form, have entered the name of the person who nominated them as 'James A Bloggs'. Ie, they've nominated themselves.
Now I know administration foul ups are ten a penny, so its somehow been allowed to stand. They're not going to win. Labour will get 101% of the vote. However, should the impossible happen, and they do win; am I right in thinking the first thing that will happen is Labour candidate will make a complaint and the result overturned and they'll have lost anyway?
If it is the one I'm looking at seems like there's at least two who have done that.
I confess, I've never been certain if the nominators cannot include the candidate themselves. It does seem odd for the form not to show both proposers, or that that the local elections team would not catch such an obvious mixup, if a proposer was invalid. Might it be that the application was correct but there is an error in the SOPN?
Honestly, in the unlikely event they lost, I'd advise the other party to let it go. Some mixups are worth challenging, and if it didn't affect the result, some are not.
In Swindon they had a parish election foul up at the count where the wrong candidates were called as the winners, receiving more votes than there were ballots.
The question as to whether, if you are an elector in the area concerned (which is never a requirement, the requirement always relating to the area of jurisdiction of the body you are standing for), you can nominate yourself, is an interesting one to which I don’t know the answer. I have always assumed you cannot, but don’t recall it ever being spelled out anywhere?
The answer, surprisingly to me at least, is yes. I have always avoided it in the past, but this year with Covid, our Elections Office were encouraging it, although it has always been possible.
Chuka Umunna was a real waste of someone who clearly had something to offer. He is, as is pointed out, charismatic and he also seemed a very capable performer. Something the Labour Party really struggle for these days. It’s a pity for politics he opted out.
Labours front bench is full of poor performers. The worst of which has to be Kate Green. When faced against the most inept education secretary in many many years she’s not made a dent. Her most memorable comments have been around changing the name of an OBE to remove empire from the name and ‘decolonialising the curriculum’. Both of which may be worthwhile long term aims but short term she needs to get stuck in.
I'll see your Kate Green. And raise you Anneliese Dodd.
The first female Labour politician to hold the post of either shadow or actual Chancellor. Green might be awful, but at least she won't have held back the cause of Labour having its first female leader.
It's been extremely difficult for opposition politicians of any stripe to 'break through' recently, as the pandemic has been 'front and centre'. Now we can hope that that is receding, political life will more more normal, and, importantly, Parliament can return for proper debates and questions, and politicians and journalists can deal properly with such matters as the iniquitous Police and Crime, and rapidly developing car-crash which is Brexit.
(Note to Ydoethur (proof-read!)
Flip side, it has also given cover for those who are piss-poor at their job of opposing from being found out....
Chuka Umunna was a real waste of someone who clearly had something to offer. He is, as is pointed out, charismatic and he also seemed a very capable performer. Something the Labour Party really struggle for these days. It’s a pity for politics he opted out.
Labours front bench is full of poor performers. The worst of which has to be Kate Green. When faced against the most inept education secretary in many many years she’s not made a dent. Her most memorable comments have been around changing the name of an OBE to remove empire from the name and ‘decolonialising the curriculum’. Both of which may be worthwhile long term aims but short term she needs to get stuck in.
I'll see your Kate Green. And raise you Anneliese Dodd.
The first female Labour politician to hold the post of either shadow or actual Chancellor. Green might be awful, but at least she won't have held back the cause of Labour having its first female leader.
Surely the first woman ever to hold either of those roles? Or is there some Tory that I’ve missed?
As for Green, it’s just embarrassing. She has occasionally made the right noises, but you have to go find them. If I were Shadow Education Secretary Gavin Williamson would right now be having suicidal thoughts because I would be pushing him so hard. The problem might simply be he’s making so many errors it’s difficult to know where to start.
"Unpatriotic" is also a really hard thing to shake off. You can pose behind a billion flags but if one single MP says something daft and anti-British, back to square one: you are "unpatriotic"
The Tories have weaponised this brilliantly.
Only if you think "English" equals "British"
Scots don't think BoZo and chums are patriots. It's not clear the Welsh do either. And let's not talk about Northern Ireland...
Surely the first woman ever to hold either of those roles? Or is there some Tory that I’ve missed?
No, but I was looking at it through the lens of Labour's inability to have a female leader - 46 years and counting behind the supposed misogynistic Tories. Dodd will give Labour's knuckle-draggers extra ammunition, when it comes to replacing Starmer.
Chuka Umunna was a real waste of someone who clearly had something to offer. He is, as is pointed out, charismatic and he also seemed a very capable performer. Something the Labour Party really struggle for these days. It’s a pity for politics he opted out.
Labours front bench is full of poor performers. The worst of which has to be Kate Green. When faced against the most inept education secretary in many many years she’s not made a dent. Her most memorable comments have been around changing the name of an OBE to remove empire from the name and ‘decolonialising the curriculum’. Both of which may be worthwhile long term aims but short term she needs to get stuck in.
I'll see your Kate Green. And raise you Anneliese Dodd.
The first female Labour politician to hold the post of either shadow or actual Chancellor. Green might be awful, but at least she won't have held back the cause of Labour having its first female leader.
Surely the first woman ever to hold either of those roles? Or is there some Tory that I’ve missed?
As for Green, it’s just embarrassing. She has occasionally made the right noises, but you have to go find them. If I were Shadow Education Secretary Gavin Williamson would right now be having suicidal thoughts because I would be pushing him so hard. The problem might simply be he’s making so many errors it’s difficult to know where to start.
Chuka Umunna was a real waste of someone who clearly had something to offer. He is, as is pointed out, charismatic and he also seemed a very capable performer. Something the Labour Party really struggle for these days. It’s a pity for politics he opted out.
Labours front bench is full of poor performers. The worst of which has to be Kate Green. When faced against the most inept education secretary in many many years she’s not made a dent. Her most memorable comments have been around changing the name of an OBE to remove empire from the name and ‘decolonialising the curriculum’. Both of which may be worthwhile long term aims but short term she needs to get stuck in.
I'll see your Kate Green. And raise you Anneliese Dodd.
The first female Labour politician to hold the post of either shadow or actual Chancellor. Green might be awful, but at least she won't have held back the cause of Labour having its first female leader.
It's been extremely difficult for opposition politicians of any stripe to 'break through' recently, as the pandemic has been 'front and centre'. Now we can hope that that is receding, political life will more more normal, and, importantly, Parliament can return for proper debates and questions, and politicians and journalists can deal properly with such matters as the iniquitous Police and Crime, and rapidly developing car-crash which is Brexit.
Surely the first woman ever to hold either of those roles? Or is there some Tory that I’ve missed?
No, but I was looking at it through the lens of Labour's inability to have a female leader - 46 years and counting behind the supposed misogynistic Tories. Dodd will give Labour's knuckle-draggers extra ammunition, when it comes to replacing Starmer.
It’s not about ammunition, because nobody overtly campaigns against a woman being leader of the Labour Party. It’s just that they always find an excuse, however flimsy, as to why that particular woman isn’t the right person at that moment.
In 2010 and 2020 it was easy because the lone/leading female candidate clearly was not up to being leader. But in 2016 they decided Cooper was ‘uninspiring’ and elected Corbyn instead. Now, if you want a clearer and more absurd example of sexism I’m struggling to find it, but nobody stood up and actually said ‘we don’t want her as leader because she has a vagina.’
In a way, such covert sexism is more insidious than that would have been. But it does mean there’s no reason to think Dodds’ performance will make a difference to it.
Chuka Umunna was a real waste of someone who clearly had something to offer. He is, as is pointed out, charismatic and he also seemed a very capable performer. Something the Labour Party really struggle for these days. It’s a pity for politics he opted out.
Labours front bench is full of poor performers. The worst of which has to be Kate Green. When faced against the most inept education secretary in many many years she’s not made a dent. Her most memorable comments have been around changing the name of an OBE to remove empire from the name and ‘decolonialising the curriculum’. Both of which may be worthwhile long term aims but short term she needs to get stuck in.
I'll see your Kate Green. And raise you Anneliese Dodd.
The first female Labour politician to hold the post of either shadow or actual Chancellor. Green might be awful, but at least she won't have held back the cause of Labour having its first female leader.
Surely the first woman ever to hold either of those roles? Or is there some Tory that I’ve missed?
As for Green, it’s just embarrassing. She has occasionally made the right noises, but you have to go find them. If I were Shadow Education Secretary Gavin Williamson would right now be having suicidal thoughts because I would be pushing him so hard. The problem might simply be he’s making so many errors it’s difficult to know where to start.
Justine Greening?
I don’t think she was ever Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Best SoS at the DfE in 40 years though. May’s dismissal of her was the worst misjudgment of a premiership not noted for sound choices.
Chuka was no Blair. Smooth talking, yes. Good looking, yes. But nothing whatsoever of interest to say.
Blair, though no intellectual, had *content*. He still does - witness his recent interventions on vaccination. There was even a Blairite ideology, even if it was borrowed from Anthony Giddens.
A better comparator for Chuka might be Cameron. Remember when Obama’s people reported back that he was astonishingly lightweight?
Blair's "recent interventions on vaccination" was him jumping the gun after being given a briefing on Government thinking about delaying the second dose. To very considerable annoyance within Government - and at the cost of him being excluded from subsequent briefings. It is said.
That has the whiff of bullshit about it. I seem to remember government poo pooing Blair’s idea at the time.
Chuka Umunna was a real waste of someone who clearly had something to offer. He is, as is pointed out, charismatic and he also seemed a very capable performer. Something the Labour Party really struggle for these days. It’s a pity for politics he opted out.
Labours front bench is full of poor performers. The worst of which has to be Kate Green. When faced against the most inept education secretary in many many years she’s not made a dent. Her most memorable comments have been around changing the name of an OBE to remove empire from the name and ‘decolonialising the curriculum’. Both of which may be worthwhile long term aims but short term she needs to get stuck in.
I'll see your Kate Green. And raise you Anneliese Dodd.
The first female Labour politician to hold the post of either shadow or actual Chancellor. Green might be awful, but at least she won't have held back the cause of Labour having its first female leader.
It's been extremely difficult for opposition politicians of any stripe to 'break through' recently, as the pandemic has been 'front and centre'. Now we can hope that that is receding, political life will more more normal, and, importantly, Parliament can return for proper debates and questions, and politicians and journalists can deal properly with such matters as the iniquitous Police and Crime, and rapidly developing car-crash which is Brexit.
(Note to Ydoethur (proof-read!)
Shame about the missing bracket...
Although actually I think the middle one should be a dash, not a bracket.
Surely the first woman ever to hold either of those roles? Or is there some Tory that I’ve missed?
No, but I was looking at it through the lens of Labour's inability to have a female leader - 46 years and counting behind the supposed misogynistic Tories. Dodd will give Labour's knuckle-draggers extra ammunition, when it comes to replacing Starmer.
It’s not about ammunition, because nobody overtly campaigns against a woman being leader of the Labour Party. It’s just that they always find an excuse, however flimsy, as to why that particular woman isn’t the right person at that moment.
In 2010 and 2020 it was easy because the lone/leading female candidate clearly was not up to being leader. But in 2016 they decided Cooper was ‘uninspiring’ and elected Corbyn instead. Now, if you want a clearer and more absurd example of sexism I’m struggling to find it, but nobody stood up and actually said ‘we don’t want her as leader because she has a vagina.’
In a way, such covert sexism is more insidious than that would have been. But it does mean there’s no reason to think Dodds’ performance will make a difference to it.
I remember hearing (from Stephen Bush, who I trust as a political commentator) that no woman has ever beaten any man in a Labour Party leadership contest, i.e. the lowest placed man has always been above the highest placed woman.
To be fair the Tories’ first two female leaders were never put to the vote of the members.
This time last year, my central heating had been off for a month.
Today, it’s snowing.
Failed to restart at Headingly because of snow. Glamorgan coach said it had never happened to him before. Might have saved Yorkshire's blushes, though.
Surely the first woman ever to hold either of those roles? Or is there some Tory that I’ve missed?
No, but I was looking at it through the lens of Labour's inability to have a female leader - 46 years and counting behind the supposed misogynistic Tories. Dodd will give Labour's knuckle-draggers extra ammunition, when it comes to replacing Starmer.
It’s not about ammunition, because nobody overtly campaigns against a woman being leader of the Labour Party. It’s just that they always find an excuse, however flimsy, as to why that particular woman isn’t the right person at that moment.
In 2010 and 2020 it was easy because the lone/leading female candidate clearly was not up to being leader. But in 2016 they decided Cooper was ‘uninspiring’ and elected Corbyn instead. Now, if you want a clearer and more absurd example of sexism I’m struggling to find it, but nobody stood up and actually said ‘we don’t want her as leader because she has a vagina.’
In a way, such covert sexism is more insidious than that would have been. But it does mean there’s no reason to think Dodds’ performance will make a difference to it.
I remember hearing (from Stephen Bush, who I trust as a political commentator) that no woman has ever beaten any man in a Labour Party leadership contest, i.e. the lowest placed man has always been above the highest placed woman.
To be fair the Tories’ first two female leaders were never put to the vote of the members.
He’s correct.
1994 - Beckett third behind Blair and Prescott 2010 - Abbott fifth behind Miliband, Miliband, Balls and Burnham 2015 - Cooper third, Kendall fourth behind Corbyn and Burnham 2020 - Starmer wins, ahead of Long Bailey and Nandy.
Your other point is true but slightly misleading. Until 1983 Labour didn’t elect its leaders among the membership, nor did the Tories until 2001. So Thatcher topping the ballot - twice - in 1975 is not a sign that she was somehow less worthy than others. It’s just a sign of a different set of priorities and systems. You can only win the competition you’re in, and she did.
And in 2016 - the first leadership election a woman had stood for the Tory leadership in since that time - the last two candidates were both female so a woman would have been elected even if Leadsom hadn’t withdrawn.
In 2019 of course no woman got past the first round, but Leadsom did get more votes than Harper.
Chuka Umunna was a real waste of someone who clearly had something to offer. He is, as is pointed out, charismatic and he also seemed a very capable performer. Something the Labour Party really struggle for these days. It’s a pity for politics he opted out.
Labours front bench is full of poor performers. The worst of which has to be Kate Green. When faced against the most inept education secretary in many many years she’s not made a dent. Her most memorable comments have been around changing the name of an OBE to remove empire from the name and ‘decolonialising the curriculum’. Both of which may be worthwhile long term aims but short term she needs to get stuck in.
I'll see your Kate Green. And raise you Anneliese Dodd.
The first female Labour politician to hold the post of either shadow or actual Chancellor. Green might be awful, but at least she won't have held back the cause of Labour having its first female leader.
It's been extremely difficult for opposition politicians of any stripe to 'break through' recently, as the pandemic has been 'front and centre'. Now we can hope that that is receding, political life will more more normal, and, importantly, Parliament can return for proper debates and questions, and politicians and journalists can deal properly with such matters as the iniquitous Police and Crime, and rapidly developing car-crash which is Brexit.
(Note to Ydoethur (proof-read!)
Always mañana with Labour - where do they think they are? Spain!
Comments
I fear in retrospect the BLM kneel will haunt him
However, I quite like Sir Kir "Royale" Starmer, at least he won't fuck the country like Corbyn. He is decent, and sensitive, and intelligent. A bit woke, but he doesn't actively support Hamas and the IRA, who want to kill British people for being British
For Labour, such is their plight, this constitutes progress: not having a leader who wants to kill average British voters
Early days, but a necessary step, one feels.
Next, post-Starmer, they need to find a new Blair. A Chuka Umunna character, perhaps. Just an idea. Someone cool and black and British and happy about it. Idris Elba as James Bond. I can see that working, for much of the party (and many voters)
I have been following the 'Statement of Persons Nominated' around my area (Bootle).
Someone I know, is clearly not very good with these things, has managed to foul up the application.
They are standing in a rock solid safe Labour ward, as NOT a Labour candidate (so the chances of winning are pretty much nil).
They have entered their name, as the person standing as 'Jimmy Bloggs', and then, clearly not understanding the form, have entered the name of the person who nominated them as 'James A Bloggs'. Ie, they've nominated themselves.
Now I know administration foul ups are ten a penny, so its somehow been allowed to stand.
They're not going to win. Labour will get 101% of the vote.
However, should the impossible happen, and they do win; am I right in thinking the first thing that will happen is Labour candidate will make a complaint and the result overturned and they'll have lost anyway?
Imagine you were asked to write about a faraway foreign country you've never visited and - needing the money - you knock something out on autopilot, full of stock ideas and tropes and phrases, but with just enough zip to get it through a lazy editor.
That's you here. That's you every time you try to explain the Labour Party and what they need to do.
I confess, I've never been certain if the nominators cannot include the candidate themselves. It does seem odd for the form not to show both proposers, or that that the local elections team would not catch such an obvious mixup, if a proposer was invalid. Might it be that the application was correct but there is an error in the SOPN?
Honestly, in the unlikely event they lost, I'd advise the other party to let it go. Some mixups are worth challenging, and if it didn't affect the result, some are not.
In Swindon they had a parish election foul up at the count where the wrong candidates were called as the winners, receiving more votes than there were ballots.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9457171/Fury-education-regulator-tells-universities-marking-students-bad-spelling-ELITIST.html
Something of a shame however. His entire political career has exploded before his eyes, potentially as a result of him not standing in 2015. Who'd have thought it?
They went for the mad posh white Marxist grandpa. And here we are
It is strange how, whenever Labour is offered an actually and symbolically progressive leader, they turn it down
I think that difference can easily be explained by a churn between voters and non-voters. Nothing "dodgy" about it.
Now you say that Chuka Umunna, perhaps the most Remain obsessed MP in the last parliament, the very epitome of the dreaded 'sneering' London liberal elite, would have been a great choice.
??
It was total unnecessary behaviour, rather just saying I don't know much about that, but I would be interested to know.
A foul up on the SOPN itself can't be ruled out.
As an aside, and without outing myself too much...... the ward in question is in Merseyside, but not in Bootle. Are you looking... ahem... across the Mersey?
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/13614/sefton?page=2
Boris has it, and he is prime minister thereby
My wider point is that Labour needs to break the mould but in a surprising way, to get out of this vortex of decline. Starmer is another worthy woke white British north London lawyer pretending to salute the flag. It’s not enough. Miliband and Corbyn were two different versions of the same thing.
Fuck knows. Maybe it’s Jess Phillips? But after Starmer rehabilitates them but fails to gain power, they need something excitingly new
Ones I've seen usually have proposer, seconder, and assentors (not needed this year due to Covid regulations I think), though looking at a couple of others some (like Cornwall) don't even put a proposer on the SOPN so I guess it is not required to show.
But I still don't know if you can nominate yourself (though I believe you can act as your own agent).
Anybody starts saying Umunna is what Labour needed or needs, you can straightaway write them off as having not a clue what they're talking about. They will usually be die hard Tories.
Your party is FUCKED
What did "Starmer types" mean?
Doesn't seem a huge ask.
I’ll say it again; they need a Blair
I did. Heh
May God give us the ‘careerists’ over the passionate ‘ideologues’, 9 times out of 10. Especially in politics. Careerists like winning. Thus extending their careers.
Corbyn was the committed socialist, Blair the careerist centrist. Corbyn was, of course, an antiSemitic catastrophe. By contrast, it was only when Blair stopped his careerism, and went ideological over Iraq, that he lost his career and Labour lost elections.
If he’d stayed ‘careerist’, Labour would likely be entering their 58th consecutive term in power
Goodnight
Con 45%
REFUK 4%
UKIP 2%
Total: right of centre 51%
http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Deltapoll-MoS210410_voteint.pdf
BREAKING: U.S. reports record 4.6 million COVID-19 vaccinations in one day"
Boris Johnson accused of dropping pledge to ‘follow data not dates’ and urged to wait for more vaccinations before easing restrictions"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/10/virus-hotspots-could-lead-to-third-covid-wave-in-uk-scientists-warn
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56695489
Airline software super-bug: Flight loads miscalculated because women using 'Miss' were treated as children
A programming error in the software used by UK airline TUI to check-in passengers led to miscalculated flight loads on three flights last July, a potentially serious safety issue.
The error occurred, according to a report [PDF] released on Thursday by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), because the check-in software treated travelers identified as "Miss" in the passenger list as children, and assigned them a weight of 35 kg (~77 lbs) instead of 69 kg (~152 lbs) for an adult.
https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/08/tui_software_mistake/
This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First that a software upgrade made during a Covid shutdown of aviation was not adequately tested. Second, that the different meaning of "Miss" between cultures forms some sort of argument in the university English debate mentioned earlier. Third, see first.
A serious failure to test the software, followed by failures of the crew to sense-check the outputs. It’s hardly as if they’ve been running to 20-minute turnarounds for the past few months, is it?
Overweight is still overweight though, even though there’s plenty of margins built in to the design. Thankfully the more important load balance wasn’t screwed up.
He was also more than a little fortunate that his fight back coincided with the implosion of the Macdonald government, otherwise he might still have been ousted.
On the question in hand, at one time, long ago, I had to support (or otherwise!) pharmacists who wished to open new pharmacies. I was always repelled by, and consequently negative towards, supporting letters which were badly written and misspelled.
And the applicants were people who had, often recently, obtained good degrees.
It's almost as if they will defile the Labour Party if they come back.
Labours front bench is full of poor performers. The worst of which has to be Kate Green. When faced against the most inept education secretary in many many years she’s not made a dent. Her most memorable comments have been around changing the name of an OBE to remove empire from the name and ‘decolonialising the curriculum’. Both of which may be worthwhile long term aims but short term she needs to get stuck in.
The EMA are right, the benefits outweigh the risks.
The scientists need to turn their mind to performing micro-surgery to solve the problem, rather than reaching for their trusty sledgehammer.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-france-idUSKBN2BX0L6
PARIS (Reuters) - France will lengthen the period between the first and second shots of mRNA anti-COVID vaccines to six weeks from four weeks as of April 14 to accelerate the inoculation campaign, Health Minister Olivier Veran told the JDD newspaper on Sunday.
Although France’s top health authority advised a six-week period between the two shots in January in order to stretch supplies, the government at the time said there was insufficient data on how well the vaccines performed with a longer interval.
The first female Labour politician to hold the post of either shadow or actual Chancellor. Green might be awful, but at least she won't have held back the cause of Labour having its first female leader.
Smooth talking, yes. Good looking, yes.
But nothing whatsoever of interest to say.
Blair, though no intellectual, had *content*. He still does - witness his recent interventions on vaccination.
There was even a Blairite ideology, even if it was borrowed from Anthony Giddens.
A better comparator for Chuka might be Cameron. Remember when Obama’s people reported back that he was astonishingly lightweight?
(Note to Ydoethur (proof-read!)
"approval for the government’s handling of the pandemic is now positive for the first time since May 2020, in the latest sign that the vaccine rollout has helped transform its fortunes.
The latest Opinium poll for the Observer found that 44% now approve of the government’s Covid handling, with 36% disapproving. Driving the approval is support for the vaccine distribution programme, with 72% approving of the efforts and only 8% disapproving. Support is high even among Labour (71%) and SNP voters (57%). A majority of voters (54%) believe the government’s roadmap out of Covid restrictions is at about the right pace, up slightly from 47% a fortnight ago."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/10/virus-hotspots-could-lead-to-third-covid-wave-in-uk-scientists-warn
As for Green, it’s just embarrassing. She has occasionally made the right noises, but you have to go find them. If I were Shadow Education Secretary Gavin Williamson would right now be having suicidal thoughts because I would be pushing him so hard. The problem might simply be he’s making so many errors it’s difficult to know where to start.
Scots don't think BoZo and chums are patriots. It's not clear the Welsh do either. And let's not talk about Northern Ireland...
In 2010 and 2020 it was easy because the lone/leading female candidate clearly was not up to being leader. But in 2016 they decided Cooper was ‘uninspiring’ and elected Corbyn instead. Now, if you want a clearer and more absurd example of sexism I’m struggling to find it, but nobody stood up and actually said ‘we don’t want her as leader because she has a vagina.’
In a way, such covert sexism is more insidious than that would have been. But it does mean there’s no reason to think Dodds’ performance will make a difference to it.
Best SoS at the DfE in 40 years though. May’s dismissal of her was the worst misjudgment of a premiership not noted for sound choices.
To be fair the Tories’ first two female leaders were never put to the vote of the members.
Today, it’s snowing.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/suicide-decline-united-states-covid-pandemic/
1994 - Beckett third behind Blair and Prescott
2010 - Abbott fifth behind Miliband, Miliband, Balls and Burnham
2015 - Cooper third, Kendall fourth behind Corbyn and Burnham
2020 - Starmer wins, ahead of Long Bailey and Nandy.
Your other point is true but slightly misleading. Until 1983 Labour didn’t elect its leaders among the membership, nor did the Tories until 2001. So Thatcher topping the ballot - twice - in 1975 is not a sign that she was somehow less worthy than others. It’s just a sign of a different set of priorities and systems. You can only win the competition you’re in, and she did.
And in 2016 - the first leadership election a woman had stood for the Tory leadership in since that time - the last two candidates were both female so a woman would have been elected even if Leadsom hadn’t withdrawn.
In 2019 of course no woman got past the first round, but Leadsom did get more votes than Harper.