Cummo’s account seems the most credible, both at face value and because of the detail backing it up, and the offer to provide further evidence and answer questions.
Which puts us in the position where the PM personally decided to get his hands dirty phoning the press to spread what he knew were a pack of lies. Presumably to deflect attention away from one of Carrie’s friends.
No-one gives a toss what Cummings says about Boris. People think the former is an off-the-wall sociopath who dislikes everyone and the latter an opportunistic chancer who professes to like everyone, but is actually a ruthless politican. It's all priced in already.
Total Westminster bubble story. The journalists are too close to the action and getting overexcited and the opposition too desperate to believe they have a chance to take the Government down.
Somehow don’t think you would be saying this if the leaks had come from Blair or Brown’s Downing St.
This is clearly serious and more than a bubble story. It contains preferential treatment for donors , Tories ‘using Covid’ , accusations of madness and toxicity at the heart of government.
I appreciate you want it to go away, not least because it questions why on Earth anyone can support this.
No. I'm on record here (repeatedly) for attacking the self-interest, cronyism and low-level corruption of this administration - and, I think Boris only cares about himself.
But, that's not going to dent Government support because their policies and values are simply far more in tune with the electorate. It will only do so once the opposition have already got to an electable position first.
That the clown would rather refund the downing street decorating donors, than reveal who they are, does make who they might be an important question, of legitimate public interest.
Yep. That's what's going to bring about a change of Government in the United Kingdom after 11 years.
Downing Street decorators.
You're trying your favourite straw person trick again. I simply said it was a question of legitimate public interest. Which it is.
It's strawman (it means straw(hu)man; only Wokeies say "strawperson" because they're afraid of misgendering a scarecrow and being accused of misogyny -normal people think that's nuts) and yes such questions should always be asked but the theme of this thread is that this is Der Untergang.
Now it's distraction (and with error, since the term began as 'man of straw')
Who handed over money to the PM to decorate his home is a question of legitimate public interest.
Man is short for human. In the context you describe it was used as shorthand for our species, hence "what a piece of work is man" as written by Shakespeare in Hamlet in reference to the human condition. It is derogated from human to apply to words all across our language, including man and woman by the way, and the idea we must qualify explicitly that an scarecrow used for target practice is genderless to avoid offence is laughable. People simply do this to demonstrate their Woke credentials which is banal, self-absorbed, mildly pompous and trivialises any serious real world issues of gender equality that still need to be addressed.
You said yourself you weren't that Woke. So stop it.
“Man delights not me. No, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.”
From the same speech...
That doesn't disprove my point. Like I said both Man and Woman are derivatives of Human, and Man can be used as an abbreviation for the species Hu(man) or as a reference to a specific gender - depending on the context.
The issue we have now is that we wilfully ignore context if it offers us a chance to demonstrate our "right on" credentials.
A word whose definition depends on context is one I would try to find a substitute for if I want to be understood. Perhaps it’s the Physics teacher bit of me speaking; words like weight, acceleration and battery cause enough problems due to their common usage being at odds with how they are used technically without adding to the list. If you mean “human” say it, don’t rely on “man” meaning the same thing or you might end up like the Witch-king of Angmar.
Strawperson isn't a word you go to in order to be better understood. It's simply ludicrous.
The English language is full of words that mean different things in different contexts. In fact, arguably, context is everything.
‘Straw person’ is a bit corny.
I thank you.
Wheat are you trying to suggest, or is it just a rye pun?
I think "straw man" is a gendered noun, as attacking a straw man was a training exercise in the military, with bayonets and the like. The straw figures would be male, rather than female as a result. I understand the expression now means more generally attacking a defenseless caricature of someone's argument.
Given the gravity of accusations from Dominic Cummings, and the continuing cover up around the Downing Street refurbishment, it is crucial a full investigation is launched.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The 'unelectability' of Labour is decided by 2 or 3 million voters who voted Labour before and didn't recently, voting Tory instead. Until Labour has a broad and coherent middling strategy that seems to make a better and more plausible offer to Mansfield man and Bassetlaw woman than the Tories they have a problem.
Every time the Pidcock tendency speak of Tory scum, vermin, 'Never kissed a Tory' blah blah they are showing contempt for the 2 or 3 million people whose support they need. Tories get this. Labour doesn't.
(I shall carry on voting Labour for Police Commissioner, local council and so on but they are way off persuading me to even think about them as a national government).
You may be right, but they need to win over Mansfield man and Bassetlaw woman without losing the votes of Brighton man and Cambridge woman. Tricky, but doable IMO.
Mansfield Man is in some part commute-to-Nottingham man, which makes it more interesting.
The Robin Hood line (Nottm to Shirebrook) does more than a million passengers each year, afaics.
That seems such a self evidently self destructive approach that it lacks credibility. We are worried that X might bad mouth us so let's pick a fight with X beforehand and piss him off. I mean, really?
Someone I know who worked for Boris Johnson put it to me back in January when I wrote this piece about Dom apperaring before inquiries and select committee was
'Dom knows where all the bodies are buried, all 75,000 of them'
Now that figure is somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000.
Even at the time - when Cummings and Johnson were still close - the former advisor was privately deeply critical of some of the decisions the prime minister took.
Cummings believed that at key moments - particularly in early Autumn last year - Johnson recklessly prioritised keeping the economy open over the clear scientific advice about how many more people would die as a result.
Around late September and early October Cummings was so aggravated by Johnson’s decision not to impose a third lockdown that he printed out an A3 sheet of case rates and deaths, and carried it around in his daily business.
“He walked around Whitehall showing it to everyone. Literally everyone,” one source said. “He opened up a meeting about civil service reform by getting it out and explaining why it showed we need to lock down.”
But that is so easy to handle, difficult judgments, the cost of lockdown not only in money but in lives as people driven to despair, other views were possible etc etc. It won't go anywhere. Its quite possible that Cummings showed better judgment on this than the PM but so what? So did many on here. It makes no difference, we are where we are.
A definite weakness in Boris is his enthusiasm with getting distracted with this kind of fluff. The smart thing to do would be to ignore Cummings completely and suggest that any such evidence will be considered by the government Inquiry in due course. By drawing attention to this in advance and getting involved in leak allegations the PM is diminishing himself and his office. Its stupid.
I think when you look at the number of deaths from January onwards then Boris Johnson's save Christmas strategy, only partially cancelled at the last moment, looks like a sick joke.
I've said I can just about forgive Boris Johnson for his mistakes last March, but he has repeated those mistakes again and again, only introducing lockdown far too late in November when the numbers showed it should have begun in September/October, as was clear at the time, ditto the December one.
And yet we have had months of lockdown at enormous economic cost. Those that went even harder at lockdown than us are dying now in large numbers. Lockdown defers death for a few weeks at a considerable cost. Only vaccines offer a way out. This was Chris Whitty's message a year past March and it is right.
There are or were serious arguments to be had as to whether a country is better to take it on the chin or drag things out by removing peoples' liberty and ability to earn provided that blow to the chin does not overwhelm the NHS causing additional unnecessary deaths like we see in Brazil and India. We never got close to that. If that was the primary objective shouldn't the government have allowed as much freedom as was compatible with that criteria?
It seems to me that there is no clear right or wrong on this. Others, including Cummings, may have done things differently. That is not clearly right or wrong either. It is simply a different set of outcomes with different costs.
Well said. In a pandemic people die, in fact in normal times people die.
What's more abnormal is taking away people's basic civil liberties.
The reason to have a lockdown was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed, not to prevent every single death. If the Government is to be criticised it should be for locking down too hard and too long now, the NHS is nowhere near being overwhelmed and liberties should be restored.
But too many people in this country are prepared to be illiberal so that argument is going nowhere.
They set out a road map to unlocking and are following it. The advantage of predictability is it allows people (and particularly businesses) to plan.
You need to make the case that it is better to introduce a bit of near term uncertainty to accelerate lockdown as well as making the case in the numbers. The risk, of course, is that there is a lot of uncertainty and if things go wrong the government will be blamed for the acceleration regardless of whether it is their fault or not.
If I was cynical I could see an announcement on, say, May 1 that the government’s policies have been so effective that they will accelerate the lifting of restrictions as of May 17.
There is indeed an argument for dates not data, but that argument has not been made.
The imposition of restrictions was to "protect the NHS", the notion that it is illegal to be inside a relatives living room, or illegal for a restaurant to offer tables inside, in order to "protect the NHS" when we have no hospitalisations, no deaths and vey few cases is absolutely preposterous.
I don't and won't support the taking away of civil liberties because people are scared of their own shadow.
Not sure if we've heard of him since. Clearly not got very good judgement.
😀
It’s a semi serious point though.
The BBC had Gauke on the other day as a Tory criticising Boris. If they have to dig that deep to find opponents from his own side then Boris is in a decent place politically
Interesting that this is breaking down, with people from indian and west african origins now floating towards the Conservatives a bit more. Maybe because it appears a bit like they dont hate their very existence as much anymore.
Priti Patel would not allow her own parents residence here
And many many immigrants would hold similar views because they recognise the danger of the ever open door approach in a small country which is very attractive to many who live elsewhere..... depite Brexit.
That seems such a self evidently self destructive approach that it lacks credibility. We are worried that X might bad mouth us so let's pick a fight with X beforehand and piss him off. I mean, really?
Someone I know who worked for Boris Johnson put it to me back in January when I wrote this piece about Dom apperaring before inquiries and select committee was
'Dom knows where all the bodies are buried, all 75,000 of them'
Now that figure is somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000.
Even at the time - when Cummings and Johnson were still close - the former advisor was privately deeply critical of some of the decisions the prime minister took.
Cummings believed that at key moments - particularly in early Autumn last year - Johnson recklessly prioritised keeping the economy open over the clear scientific advice about how many more people would die as a result.
Around late September and early October Cummings was so aggravated by Johnson’s decision not to impose a third lockdown that he printed out an A3 sheet of case rates and deaths, and carried it around in his daily business.
“He walked around Whitehall showing it to everyone. Literally everyone,” one source said. “He opened up a meeting about civil service reform by getting it out and explaining why it showed we need to lock down.”
But that is so easy to handle, difficult judgments, the cost of lockdown not only in money but in lives as people driven to despair, other views were possible etc etc. It won't go anywhere. Its quite possible that Cummings showed better judgment on this than the PM but so what? So did many on here. It makes no difference, we are where we are.
A definite weakness in Boris is his enthusiasm with getting distracted with this kind of fluff. The smart thing to do would be to ignore Cummings completely and suggest that any such evidence will be considered by the government Inquiry in due course. By drawing attention to this in advance and getting involved in leak allegations the PM is diminishing himself and his office. Its stupid.
I think when you look at the number of deaths from January onwards then Boris Johnson's save Christmas strategy, only partially cancelled at the last moment, looks like a sick joke.
I've said I can just about forgive Boris Johnson for his mistakes last March, but he has repeated those mistakes again and again, only introducing lockdown far too late in November when the numbers showed it should have begun in September/October, as was clear at the time, ditto the December one.
And yet we have had months of lockdown at enormous economic cost. Those that went even harder at lockdown than us are dying now in large numbers. Lockdown defers death for a few weeks at a considerable cost. Only vaccines offer a way out. This was Chris Whitty's message a year past March and it is right.
There are or were serious arguments to be had as to whether a country is better to take it on the chin or drag things out by removing peoples' liberty and ability to earn provided that blow to the chin does not overwhelm the NHS causing additional unnecessary deaths like we see in Brazil and India. We never got close to that. If that was the primary objective shouldn't the government have allowed as much freedom as was compatible with that criteria?
It seems to me that there is no clear right or wrong on this. Others, including Cummings, may have done things differently. That is not clearly right or wrong either. It is simply a different set of outcomes with different costs.
I think you're wrong about the bit in bold. I remember @MaxPB talking about CFR by age that showed the fatality rate for older age groups increasing a lot during the peak of our latest wave - a sign that the NHS was rationing care and concentrating on treating the younger patients who benefited most.
That's a sign that the NHS was overwhelmed and additional deaths were caused as a result. It just happened in a quieter, more organised, very British way - including that no-one wants to talk about it.
Apologies to Max if I misinterpreted what he posted some weeks ago.
Care, particularly intensive care, was clearly rationed and given to those with the best prospects. But that is not meltdown. Meltdown is what we are seeing in India where hospitals run out of oxygen or Brazil where incubation tubes are inserted without medication. Horrific. We didn't come close.
On that definition the NHS was never at risk of meltdown, because we have a centralised system that was always going to ration care, when it was overwhelmed with a level of demand that it could not service. More than that - there was no level of demand that would cause meltdown of the NHS, even if it was reduced to only providing intensive care to the under-40s because of the level of demand.
The difference in India appears to be that they do not have the central organisation to enforce this rationing.
Oxygen is not intensive care, it is normal emergency care. Parts of India are out of oxygen.
Indeed there is a case in such situations to stop intensive care, in order to free up oxygen, medical and nursing care for ward patients whose prognosis is much better with relatively light interventions compared to ventilation. Obviously those then needing ICU will nearly all die, but ward patients will survive.
Horrific.
Is there anything we can do to help? It's absolutely awful. 😢
In terms of vaccines
Given the remaining mix of population in this country to be first dosed we can probably restrict our Astra to more or less second doses and let India have priority on imports we might otherwise have taken. We're really not the problem though, the EU and USA need to sort their (lack of) export out. India does though have a large amount of internal capacity; of course it's main problem here is it also has a collosal population. They ought to be on a 1 dose strategy till everyone over 50 is done at any rate.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
Yep, agreed. It's keep the new base and win back some of the old. The opposite, win back the old base and keep some of the new is not a goer. There comes a point where if core values are genuinely disconnected then such is life. The WWC Leave demographic, like you say, are not all driven mainly by nationalism and 'trad' social conservative values, rather than hard-headed economic concerns, and therein lies the target. Win back those guys and gals. This, plus expanding the new base, plus a chunk of floating voters looking for integrity and competence after 5 years of the Boris Johnson show, can deliver' Labour biggest party' at the next GE.
The thing is that some of your "new base" values, like hatred of your fellow citizens, hatred of your own country and despising your own flag, are anathema to most of the nation.
There are certain extreme values that are beyond the pale. Once you get into the realms of hate you're typically there.
The Labour Party, like the BNP and other parties built on hatred don't deserve a majority. Let go of the hate and you may have a chance.
Don't be so silly. Nobody has said that "the flag" should be despised or that everyone who likes to display it is a bad news bear. All I did was try to tempt you to do a little digging into the links between Eng Nat as a political creed and the far right. You refused and chose 'ignorance is bliss'. Your call. But the price of that ignorance is it renders any comments from you on this subject as chaff.
On 'flags' btw, quick tale from yesterday. I went to play golf at a club in South London and when I got there I found it festooned to the rafters with the St George. You literally couldn't move for flags. "Gosh," I thought, as I pulled in. "This looks a little OTT. What's the deal here?"
Then I realized. St George's Day! Patron Saint of England. George and the dragon and all that. WTF not get those flags out. Bet you got yours out, Philip, didn't you? Good on yer, if so. It doesn't prove you're a far right racist little englander.
Same applies to all those people who chose not to get theirs out. Or even those who don't possess one. You don't have to prove your patriotism with a flag. People who insist you have to prove your patriotism with a flag ARE bad news bears. I think that's one thing that all of sound mind and good character, regardless of their politics, can agree on.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
A shocking inditement. Sometimes the site borders on unreadable with all the pbtories apologising for SeanT's latest outburst.
That seems such a self evidently self destructive approach that it lacks credibility. We are worried that X might bad mouth us so let's pick a fight with X beforehand and piss him off. I mean, really?
Someone I know who worked for Boris Johnson put it to me back in January when I wrote this piece about Dom apperaring before inquiries and select committee was
'Dom knows where all the bodies are buried, all 75,000 of them'
Now that figure is somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000.
Even at the time - when Cummings and Johnson were still close - the former advisor was privately deeply critical of some of the decisions the prime minister took.
Cummings believed that at key moments - particularly in early Autumn last year - Johnson recklessly prioritised keeping the economy open over the clear scientific advice about how many more people would die as a result.
Around late September and early October Cummings was so aggravated by Johnson’s decision not to impose a third lockdown that he printed out an A3 sheet of case rates and deaths, and carried it around in his daily business.
“He walked around Whitehall showing it to everyone. Literally everyone,” one source said. “He opened up a meeting about civil service reform by getting it out and explaining why it showed we need to lock down.”
But that is so easy to handle, difficult judgments, the cost of lockdown not only in money but in lives as people driven to despair, other views were possible etc etc. It won't go anywhere. Its quite possible that Cummings showed better judgment on this than the PM but so what? So did many on here. It makes no difference, we are where we are.
A definite weakness in Boris is his enthusiasm with getting distracted with this kind of fluff. The smart thing to do would be to ignore Cummings completely and suggest that any such evidence will be considered by the government Inquiry in due course. By drawing attention to this in advance and getting involved in leak allegations the PM is diminishing himself and his office. Its stupid.
I think when you look at the number of deaths from January onwards then Boris Johnson's save Christmas strategy, only partially cancelled at the last moment, looks like a sick joke.
I've said I can just about forgive Boris Johnson for his mistakes last March, but he has repeated those mistakes again and again, only introducing lockdown far too late in November when the numbers showed it should have begun in September/October, as was clear at the time, ditto the December one.
And yet we have had months of lockdown at enormous economic cost. Those that went even harder at lockdown than us are dying now in large numbers. Lockdown defers death for a few weeks at a considerable cost. Only vaccines offer a way out. This was Chris Whitty's message a year past March and it is right.
There are or were serious arguments to be had as to whether a country is better to take it on the chin or drag things out by removing peoples' liberty and ability to earn provided that blow to the chin does not overwhelm the NHS causing additional unnecessary deaths like we see in Brazil and India. We never got close to that. If that was the primary objective shouldn't the government have allowed as much freedom as was compatible with that criteria?
It seems to me that there is no clear right or wrong on this. Others, including Cummings, may have done things differently. That is not clearly right or wrong either. It is simply a different set of outcomes with different costs.
Well said. In a pandemic people die, in fact in normal times people die.
What's more abnormal is taking away people's basic civil liberties.
The reason to have a lockdown was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed, not to prevent every single death. If the Government is to be criticised it should be for locking down too hard and too long now, the NHS is nowhere near being overwhelmed and liberties should be restored.
But too many people in this country are prepared to be illiberal so that argument is going nowhere.
They set out a road map to unlocking and are following it. The advantage of predictability is it allows people (and particularly businesses) to plan.
You need to make the case that it is better to introduce a bit of near term uncertainty to accelerate lockdown as well as making the case in the numbers. The risk, of course, is that there is a lot of uncertainty and if things go wrong the government will be blamed for the acceleration regardless of whether it is their fault or not.
If I was cynical I could see an announcement on, say, May 1 that the government’s policies have been so effective that they will accelerate the lifting of restrictions as of May 17.
As far as I can ascertain, lockdown ends for all intents and purposes on 17 May. You can go to hotels, you can stay over with friends, the Rule of Six ends outdoors (the latter point is less well known - but is absolutely huge because it means garden parties are back on).
Hopefully the weather will hold and we’ll have a great time. Three weeks to go.
That seems such a self evidently self destructive approach that it lacks credibility. We are worried that X might bad mouth us so let's pick a fight with X beforehand and piss him off. I mean, really?
Someone I know who worked for Boris Johnson put it to me back in January when I wrote this piece about Dom apperaring before inquiries and select committee was
'Dom knows where all the bodies are buried, all 75,000 of them'
Now that figure is somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000.
Even at the time - when Cummings and Johnson were still close - the former advisor was privately deeply critical of some of the decisions the prime minister took.
Cummings believed that at key moments - particularly in early Autumn last year - Johnson recklessly prioritised keeping the economy open over the clear scientific advice about how many more people would die as a result.
Around late September and early October Cummings was so aggravated by Johnson’s decision not to impose a third lockdown that he printed out an A3 sheet of case rates and deaths, and carried it around in his daily business.
“He walked around Whitehall showing it to everyone. Literally everyone,” one source said. “He opened up a meeting about civil service reform by getting it out and explaining why it showed we need to lock down.”
But that is so easy to handle, difficult judgments, the cost of lockdown not only in money but in lives as people driven to despair, other views were possible etc etc. It won't go anywhere. Its quite possible that Cummings showed better judgment on this than the PM but so what? So did many on here. It makes no difference, we are where we are.
A definite weakness in Boris is his enthusiasm with getting distracted with this kind of fluff. The smart thing to do would be to ignore Cummings completely and suggest that any such evidence will be considered by the government Inquiry in due course. By drawing attention to this in advance and getting involved in leak allegations the PM is diminishing himself and his office. Its stupid.
I think when you look at the number of deaths from January onwards then Boris Johnson's save Christmas strategy, only partially cancelled at the last moment, looks like a sick joke.
I've said I can just about forgive Boris Johnson for his mistakes last March, but he has repeated those mistakes again and again, only introducing lockdown far too late in November when the numbers showed it should have begun in September/October, as was clear at the time, ditto the December one.
And yet we have had months of lockdown at enormous economic cost. Those that went even harder at lockdown than us are dying now in large numbers. Lockdown defers death for a few weeks at a considerable cost. Only vaccines offer a way out. This was Chris Whitty's message a year past March and it is right.
There are or were serious arguments to be had as to whether a country is better to take it on the chin or drag things out by removing peoples' liberty and ability to earn provided that blow to the chin does not overwhelm the NHS causing additional unnecessary deaths like we see in Brazil and India. We never got close to that. If that was the primary objective shouldn't the government have allowed as much freedom as was compatible with that criteria?
It seems to me that there is no clear right or wrong on this. Others, including Cummings, may have done things differently. That is not clearly right or wrong either. It is simply a different set of outcomes with different costs.
I think you're wrong about the bit in bold. I remember @MaxPB talking about CFR by age that showed the fatality rate for older age groups increasing a lot during the peak of our latest wave - a sign that the NHS was rationing care and concentrating on treating the younger patients who benefited most.
That's a sign that the NHS was overwhelmed and additional deaths were caused as a result. It just happened in a quieter, more organised, very British way - including that no-one wants to talk about it.
Apologies to Max if I misinterpreted what he posted some weeks ago.
Care, particularly intensive care, was clearly rationed and given to those with the best prospects. But that is not meltdown. Meltdown is what we are seeing in India where hospitals run out of oxygen or Brazil where incubation tubes are inserted without medication. Horrific. We didn't come close.
On that definition the NHS was never at risk of meltdown, because we have a centralised system that was always going to ration care, when it was overwhelmed with a level of demand that it could not service. More than that - there was no level of demand that would cause meltdown of the NHS, even if it was reduced to only providing intensive care to the under-40s because of the level of demand.
The difference in India appears to be that they do not have the central organisation to enforce this rationing.
Oxygen is not intensive care, it is normal emergency care. Parts of India are out of oxygen.
Indeed there is a case in such situations to stop intensive care, in order to free up oxygen, medical and nursing care for ward patients whose prognosis is much better with relatively light interventions compared to ventilation. Obviously those then needing ICU will nearly all die, but ward patients will survive.
Horrific.
Is there anything we can do to help? It's absolutely awful. 😢
In terms of vaccines
Given the remaining mix of population in this country to be first dosed we can probably restrict our Astra to more or less second doses and let India have priority on imports we might otherwise have taken. We're really not the problem though, the EU and USA need to sort their (lack of) export out. India does though have a large amount of internal capacity; of course it's main problem here is it also has a collosal population. They ought to be on a 1 dose strategy till everyone over 50 is done at any rate.
I don't think vaccines are the solution - to be honest it takes months for vaccines to filter through to hospitalisations. It takes time to distribute them, then three weeks for them to become really effective, then a week or two for infection to become hospitalisation.
By then India's likely to be through the worst of the peak and lockdown will be taking effect. Besides which our available vaccines will be a drop in the ocean for a population the size of India.
I was more thinking in terms of O2 or something else they might critically need that we could get their and be using within days.
That seems such a self evidently self destructive approach that it lacks credibility. We are worried that X might bad mouth us so let's pick a fight with X beforehand and piss him off. I mean, really?
Someone I know who worked for Boris Johnson put it to me back in January when I wrote this piece about Dom apperaring before inquiries and select committee was
'Dom knows where all the bodies are buried, all 75,000 of them'
Now that figure is somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000.
Even at the time - when Cummings and Johnson were still close - the former advisor was privately deeply critical of some of the decisions the prime minister took.
Cummings believed that at key moments - particularly in early Autumn last year - Johnson recklessly prioritised keeping the economy open over the clear scientific advice about how many more people would die as a result.
Around late September and early October Cummings was so aggravated by Johnson’s decision not to impose a third lockdown that he printed out an A3 sheet of case rates and deaths, and carried it around in his daily business.
“He walked around Whitehall showing it to everyone. Literally everyone,” one source said. “He opened up a meeting about civil service reform by getting it out and explaining why it showed we need to lock down.”
But that is so easy to handle, difficult judgments, the cost of lockdown not only in money but in lives as people driven to despair, other views were possible etc etc. It won't go anywhere. Its quite possible that Cummings showed better judgment on this than the PM but so what? So did many on here. It makes no difference, we are where we are.
A definite weakness in Boris is his enthusiasm with getting distracted with this kind of fluff. The smart thing to do would be to ignore Cummings completely and suggest that any such evidence will be considered by the government Inquiry in due course. By drawing attention to this in advance and getting involved in leak allegations the PM is diminishing himself and his office. Its stupid.
I think when you look at the number of deaths from January onwards then Boris Johnson's save Christmas strategy, only partially cancelled at the last moment, looks like a sick joke.
I've said I can just about forgive Boris Johnson for his mistakes last March, but he has repeated those mistakes again and again, only introducing lockdown far too late in November when the numbers showed it should have begun in September/October, as was clear at the time, ditto the December one.
And yet we have had months of lockdown at enormous economic cost. Those that went even harder at lockdown than us are dying now in large numbers. Lockdown defers death for a few weeks at a considerable cost. Only vaccines offer a way out. This was Chris Whitty's message a year past March and it is right.
There are or were serious arguments to be had as to whether a country is better to take it on the chin or drag things out by removing peoples' liberty and ability to earn provided that blow to the chin does not overwhelm the NHS causing additional unnecessary deaths like we see in Brazil and India. We never got close to that. If that was the primary objective shouldn't the government have allowed as much freedom as was compatible with that criteria?
It seems to me that there is no clear right or wrong on this. Others, including Cummings, may have done things differently. That is not clearly right or wrong either. It is simply a different set of outcomes with different costs.
I think you're wrong about the bit in bold. I remember @MaxPB talking about CFR by age that showed the fatality rate for older age groups increasing a lot during the peak of our latest wave - a sign that the NHS was rationing care and concentrating on treating the younger patients who benefited most.
That's a sign that the NHS was overwhelmed and additional deaths were caused as a result. It just happened in a quieter, more organised, very British way - including that no-one wants to talk about it.
Apologies to Max if I misinterpreted what he posted some weeks ago.
Care, particularly intensive care, was clearly rationed and given to those with the best prospects. But that is not meltdown. Meltdown is what we are seeing in India where hospitals run out of oxygen or Brazil where incubation tubes are inserted without medication. Horrific. We didn't come close.
On that definition the NHS was never at risk of meltdown, because we have a centralised system that was always going to ration care, when it was overwhelmed with a level of demand that it could not service. More than that - there was no level of demand that would cause meltdown of the NHS, even if it was reduced to only providing intensive care to the under-40s because of the level of demand.
The difference in India appears to be that they do not have the central organisation to enforce this rationing.
Oxygen is not intensive care, it is normal emergency care. Parts of India are out of oxygen.
Indeed there is a case in such situations to stop intensive care, in order to free up oxygen, medical and nursing care for ward patients whose prognosis is much better with relatively light interventions compared to ventilation. Obviously those then needing ICU will nearly all die, but ward patients will survive.
Horrific.
Is there anything we can do to help? It's absolutely awful. 😢
I think it was on the news this morning that they are looking.
Noteworthy I think that the respirators rapidly built here were a portable model.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
That was a bizarre comment. You can only get elected if you're prepared to compromise with the voters.
That seems such a self evidently self destructive approach that it lacks credibility. We are worried that X might bad mouth us so let's pick a fight with X beforehand and piss him off. I mean, really?
Someone I know who worked for Boris Johnson put it to me back in January when I wrote this piece about Dom apperaring before inquiries and select committee was
'Dom knows where all the bodies are buried, all 75,000 of them'
Now that figure is somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000.
Even at the time - when Cummings and Johnson were still close - the former advisor was privately deeply critical of some of the decisions the prime minister took.
Cummings believed that at key moments - particularly in early Autumn last year - Johnson recklessly prioritised keeping the economy open over the clear scientific advice about how many more people would die as a result.
Around late September and early October Cummings was so aggravated by Johnson’s decision not to impose a third lockdown that he printed out an A3 sheet of case rates and deaths, and carried it around in his daily business.
“He walked around Whitehall showing it to everyone. Literally everyone,” one source said. “He opened up a meeting about civil service reform by getting it out and explaining why it showed we need to lock down.”
But that is so easy to handle, difficult judgments, the cost of lockdown not only in money but in lives as people driven to despair, other views were possible etc etc. It won't go anywhere. Its quite possible that Cummings showed better judgment on this than the PM but so what? So did many on here. It makes no difference, we are where we are.
A definite weakness in Boris is his enthusiasm with getting distracted with this kind of fluff. The smart thing to do would be to ignore Cummings completely and suggest that any such evidence will be considered by the government Inquiry in due course. By drawing attention to this in advance and getting involved in leak allegations the PM is diminishing himself and his office. Its stupid.
I think when you look at the number of deaths from January onwards then Boris Johnson's save Christmas strategy, only partially cancelled at the last moment, looks like a sick joke.
I've said I can just about forgive Boris Johnson for his mistakes last March, but he has repeated those mistakes again and again, only introducing lockdown far too late in November when the numbers showed it should have begun in September/October, as was clear at the time, ditto the December one.
And yet we have had months of lockdown at enormous economic cost. Those that went even harder at lockdown than us are dying now in large numbers. Lockdown defers death for a few weeks at a considerable cost. Only vaccines offer a way out. This was Chris Whitty's message a year past March and it is right.
There are or were serious arguments to be had as to whether a country is better to take it on the chin or drag things out by removing peoples' liberty and ability to earn provided that blow to the chin does not overwhelm the NHS causing additional unnecessary deaths like we see in Brazil and India. We never got close to that. If that was the primary objective shouldn't the government have allowed as much freedom as was compatible with that criteria?
It seems to me that there is no clear right or wrong on this. Others, including Cummings, may have done things differently. That is not clearly right or wrong either. It is simply a different set of outcomes with different costs.
I think you're wrong about the bit in bold. I remember @MaxPB talking about CFR by age that showed the fatality rate for older age groups increasing a lot during the peak of our latest wave - a sign that the NHS was rationing care and concentrating on treating the younger patients who benefited most.
That's a sign that the NHS was overwhelmed and additional deaths were caused as a result. It just happened in a quieter, more organised, very British way - including that no-one wants to talk about it.
Apologies to Max if I misinterpreted what he posted some weeks ago.
Care, particularly intensive care, was clearly rationed and given to those with the best prospects. But that is not meltdown. Meltdown is what we are seeing in India where hospitals run out of oxygen or Brazil where incubation tubes are inserted without medication. Horrific. We didn't come close.
On that definition the NHS was never at risk of meltdown, because we have a centralised system that was always going to ration care, when it was overwhelmed with a level of demand that it could not service. More than that - there was no level of demand that would cause meltdown of the NHS, even if it was reduced to only providing intensive care to the under-40s because of the level of demand.
The difference in India appears to be that they do not have the central organisation to enforce this rationing.
Oxygen is not intensive care, it is normal emergency care. Parts of India are out of oxygen.
Indeed there is a case in such situations to stop intensive care, in order to free up oxygen, medical and nursing care for ward patients whose prognosis is much better with relatively light interventions compared to ventilation. Obviously those then needing ICU will nearly all die, but ward patients will survive.
Horrific.
Is there anything we can do to help? It's absolutely awful. 😢
In terms of vaccines
Given the remaining mix of population in this country to be first dosed we can probably restrict our Astra to more or less second doses and let India have priority on imports we might otherwise have taken. We're really not the problem though, the EU and USA need to sort their (lack of) export out. India does though have a large amount of internal capacity; of course it's main problem here is it also has a collosal population. They ought to be on a 1 dose strategy till everyone over 50 is done at any rate.
The UK rollout has been exceptionally well-organised and quick - for a wealthy country of 60 odd million with a well structured health service. It has taken 4 months and counting. India is not wealthy, has a weaker health service and almost 1.4 billion people.... they have a lot of pain to go yet.
Honestly attacking Dom Cummings then expecting him not to respond is as dumb as allowing international air travel, especially from India attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour and not expecting them to respond.
And the government is not dumb. So why did they do it?
I think I'd like to see the workings-out that allow you to say that the government is not dumb.
One of the smart things Johnson tends to do is delegate the hard work to others, while he provides the oomph and pizzazz. That's fine, though he has lost a lot of his team in the last two years. One of the curiosities of Operation Diss Dom is the allegation that Boris himself made the phone calls. Not a good idea, if true.
Let me rephrase.
They didn’t knowingly do something stupid. They must have thought it was a good idea. Why did they do it?
As for opening up earlier I note we still have two more months of restrictions. That is a long time for a nation well vaccinated with capacity in its health service.
But it's what most people on here were cheering on for the past year and you lot are supposed to be brighter than the average Brit so is it any wonder the govt is happy to keep our freedoms?
Once you let a govt know you are happy to give up your freedom you cede to it something you will never reclaim.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh This is extraordinary and risks getting lost. @SamCoatesSky says @BorisJohnson personally phoned newspaper editors to brief that Cummings had leaked his messages.
I don't think the Cummings/Johnson battle will be a game-changer, but I am confused and have been from the start as to why Johnson started it. He must have known that Cummings would fire back very publicly, and that the media would love it. And while it's all a bit 'Westminster Village' for the average voter, its still newspaper headlines which aren't exactly helpful. It's not like this has moved us on from a terrible news cycle for Johnson. Why did he ever get this started?
From The Times
But what causes Downing Street particular trepidation is the date next month when Cummings is due to give evidence before MPs investigating the government’s handling of the pandemic.
Even at the time - when Cummings and Johnson were still close - the former advisor was privately deeply critical of some of the decisions the prime minister took.
Cummings believed that at key moments - particularly in early Autumn last year - Johnson recklessly prioritised keeping the economy open over the clear scientific advice about how many more people would die as a result.
Around late September and early October Cummings was so aggravated by Johnson’s decision not to impose a third lockdown that he printed out an A3 sheet of case rates and deaths, and carried it around in his daily business.
“He walked around Whitehall showing it to everyone. Literally everyone,” one source said. “He opened up a meeting about civil service reform by getting it out and explaining why it showed we need to lock down.”
The fear is that Cummings will now use his appearance to let rip and attack the prime minister in a way that could be deeply damaging among voters who care nothing about WhatsApp messages or palace intrigue.
“The issue is the select committee appearance,” said once source.
“At the last one (select committee appearance) Dom was pretty well behaved. He took a swipe at Hancock but it could have been a hell of a lot worse.
“Boris has made it much more likely that Dom’s evidence will be more forthright than it otherwise would have been.”
Another added: “He’s going to be forensic. He’s going to say things that are verifiable, that are backed up by documents and emails. He will be laser-like about it.”
Cummings himself ominously wrote in his blog: “I will answer questions about any of these issues to Parliament on 26 May for as long as the MPs want.”
Some suspect blaming Cummings for the leaks was part of a deliberate attempt by Downing Street to smear Cummings as a disgruntled ex-employee and to blunt the impact of whatever evidence he gives to the committee.
That seems such a self evidently self destructive approach that it lacks credibility. We are worried that X might bad mouth us so let's pick a fight with X beforehand and piss him off. I mean, really?
Looks like BJ & co are in dire need of a Machiavellian super forecaster who can play 3D chess.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
"Left = Hate Britain" is nothing but a Tory attack line. Take a look at those on here who bang it out the most. They are all True Blue partisans.
So in India Anti-American sentiment is exploding. The same bound to happen in Turkey. Do foreign policy commentators think this is good or bad for US interests? Did you see it happening under Biden? Do you think Turkey and India are irrelevant?
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
Yep, agreed. It's keep the new base and win back some of the old. The opposite, win back the old base and keep some of the new is not a goer. There comes a point where if core values are genuinely disconnected then such is life. The WWC Leave demographic, like you say, are not all driven mainly by nationalism and 'trad' social conservative values, rather than hard-headed economic concerns, and therein lies the target. Win back those guys and gals. This, plus expanding the new base, plus a chunk of floating voters looking for integrity and competence after 5 years of the Boris Johnson show, can deliver' Labour biggest party' at the next GE.
The thing is that some of your "new base" values, like hatred of your fellow citizens, hatred of your own country and despising your own flag, are anathema to most of the nation.
There are certain extreme values that are beyond the pale. Once you get into the realms of hate you're typically there.
The Labour Party, like the BNP and other parties built on hatred don't deserve a majority. Let go of the hate and you may have a chance.
Don't be so silly. Nobody has said that "the flag" should be despised or that everyone who likes to display it is a bad news bear. All I did was try to tempt you to do a little digging into the links between Eng Nat as a political creed and the far right. You refused and chose 'ignorance is bliss'. Your call. But the price of that ignorance is it renders any comments from you on this subject as chaff.
On 'flags' btw, quick tale from yesterday. I went to play golf at a club in South London and when I got there I found it festooned to the rafters with the St George. You literally couldn't move for flags. "Gosh," I thought, as I pulled in. "This looks a little OTT. What's the deal here?"
Then I realized. St George's Day! Patron Saint of England. George and the dragon and all that. WTF not get those flags out. Bet you got yours out, Philip, didn't you? Good on yer, if so. It doesn't prove you're a far right racist little englander.
Same applies to all those people who chose not to get theirs out. Or even those who don't possess one. You don't have to prove your patriotism with a flag. People who insist you have to prove your patriotism with a flag ARE bad news bears. I think that's one thing that all of sound mind and good character, regardless of their politics, can agree on.
There is nothing to link Eng Nat and the far right beyond your own bigotry. It is like linking Muslims with terrorists. If you want to give some unbigotted evidence that all Eng Nats are far right then you're just talking chaff. That in your eyes would even think of linking the national flag with the far right is as bigotted and hate-filled as someone who sees a hijab and thinks "terrorist".
And as for saying "nobody" on this very thread Roger said he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because of how much he hates the locals there. As far as I can see nobody on your side of politics here has disowned or disassociated themselves from those comments. Funny that.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Big G, others and I disown HYUFD's remarks on this site all the freaking time.
Afternoon all. Who the hell at No.10 thought it would be a good idea to go after Dominic Cummings?
Doubly so when he had nothing to do with the leaks, a reputation for assiduously keeping notes and messages, and knowing that Fleet St would lap up the story.
The only conclusion is that the whole thing is a massive dead cat, so what’s the real story we are all missing?
And as for saying "nobody" on this very thread Roger said he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because of how much he hates the locals there. As far as I can see nobody on your side of politics here has disowned or disassociated themselves from those comments. Funny that.
I'm not sure what Roger's bigoted opinion of Hartlepool has to do with "our side of politics".
I think this constituency is a genuine 50:50 call so if you are getting better odds on Labour that is where the value is. Normally it would be a walk in the park for an Opposition but as David identifies the unknown factor is the large Brexit Party vote.
It's interesting that Boris took time out to campaign there. I doubt he would have done that if he wasn't getting told that it was a possible win. But Labour, surely, aren't going backwards from the disaster of 2019, are they?
It is not Labour going backwards, its what happens to Brexit party voters. The Labour vote share will surely increase but probably not by enough to hold off the Tory vote.
If Labour lose they are going backwards. From a disastrously low base. These Brexit voters were in the main 1 time supporters pissed off that the likes of Starmer was frustrating the democratic will. If Labour has not found a way to re-engage with those pissed off voters now that Brexit is done they are in trouble.
It is a fundamental problem that we have discussed on here many times. Labour are now essentially a metropolitan liberal elitist party and have those priorities in the same way that say Hillary had in the US. It means a lot of success in London and other University dominated cities but it means very little to traditional Labour heartlands. It is bizarre that Eton educated Boris speaks something closer to these peoples' language than the leader of a party set up by Trade Unions but it is a fact. If that metropolitan elite want back to power they need to broaden their base.
I think David's leader is accurate - like him I hear snippets suggesting the Tories have a decent chance in Hartlepool, but not a 60% chance.
In response to DavidL's first point, obviously parties always want to regain lost support. But I'm not sure it's easier than gaining floating voters. If you've voted X all your life and then decidde to switch, it's quite a big deal and you buy into it personally. Switching back feels difficult. Labour needs to get most votes nationally. Whether the route to that is over the Red Wall I'm less sure.
I agree. I suspect that Labour could do increasingly well in metropolitan suburbia, particularly in university cities.
@Casino_Royale has a hive of bees in his bonnet, particularly "Wokeness" and vegetarianism, but that is the cultural zeitgeist amongst the university educated, who are now 50% of young people and now having families, moving out to suburbia and commuter towns and taking their cultural values with them.
The problem for many "left behind towns" is that the youngsters leave for university, and don't fancy returning to small town life. They like the buzz, and the opportunities of the cities. I have observed the cultural transformation of Leicester from a gritty post industrial city to a university one over the last 3 decades, as I am sure that you saw in Nottingham. It is a much better place to live and work.
That trend is as dangerous for the Tories as the crumbling of the Red Wall was for Labour. I don't think it will shift enough seats in 2024 though possibly the GE after.
I could see natural organic sustainable meat being supplemented by synthetic real meat for the mass market, similarly to how industralised factories and feedstocks are now - just replacing them.
You'd get high quality sustainable herds for the former, preserving the gene pool and with very high animal welfare standards, whilst still making meat affordable for the masses on the latter.
I think that could work.
The economics of synthetic meat don’t work for the mass market. There will always be a place - I think it will expand the market plus cannibalise (sic) the organic segment.
What’s been interesting is the rollback of RWA programmes during the pandemic as consumers have shown a strong preference for cheap food over RWA.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Big G, others and I disown HYUFD's remarks on this site all the freaking time.
So?
Nobody expects you to "disown his remarks". We don't assume that you all have the same opinion as him on a subject he is quite frankly mocked for on a regular basis.
As for opening up earlier I note we still have two more months of restrictions. That is a long time for a nation well vaccinated with capacity in its health service.
But it's what most people on here were cheering on for the past year and you lot are supposed to be brighter than the average Brit so is it any wonder the govt is happy to keep our freedoms?
Once you let a govt know you are happy to give up your freedom you cede to it something you will never reclaim.
Apart from foreign travel and possibly nightclubs, it’s not clear to me what difference the additional restrictions will make between 17 May and 21 June. There’s no Rule of Six outdoors after 17 May for example: a massive liberalisation that is little known?
I think this constituency is a genuine 50:50 call so if you are getting better odds on Labour that is where the value is. Normally it would be a walk in the park for an Opposition but as David identifies the unknown factor is the large Brexit Party vote.
It's interesting that Boris took time out to campaign there. I doubt he would have done that if he wasn't getting told that it was a possible win. But Labour, surely, aren't going backwards from the disaster of 2019, are they?
It is not Labour going backwards, its what happens to Brexit party voters. The Labour vote share will surely increase but probably not by enough to hold off the Tory vote.
If Labour lose they are going backwards. From a disastrously low base. These Brexit voters were in the main 1 time supporters pissed off that the likes of Starmer was frustrating the democratic will. If Labour has not found a way to re-engage with those pissed off voters now that Brexit is done they are in trouble.
It is a fundamental problem that we have discussed on here many times. Labour are now essentially a metropolitan liberal elitist party and have those priorities in the same way that say Hillary had in the US. It means a lot of success in London and other University dominated cities but it means very little to traditional Labour heartlands. It is bizarre that Eton educated Boris speaks something closer to these peoples' language than the leader of a party set up by Trade Unions but it is a fact. If that metropolitan elite want back to power they need to broaden their base.
I think David's leader is accurate - like him I hear snippets suggesting the Tories have a decent chance in Hartlepool, but not a 60% chance.
In response to DavidL's first point, obviously parties always want to regain lost support. But I'm not sure it's easier than gaining floating voters. If you've voted X all your life and then decidde to switch, it's quite a big deal and you buy into it personally. Switching back feels difficult. Labour needs to get most votes nationally. Whether the route to that is over the Red Wall I'm less sure.
Come on Nick, the Red Wall IS the Labour Party.
If we don't appeal to working class communities across the country then we might as well pack up and go home.
Some might feel more comfortable hand wringing with the north London dinner party set, but we won't form a government by fixating on the pet causes of those who can stroll through life with nothing more to worry about than whether Waitrose will have a supply of Good Brie.
Might "WAS the Labour Party" be better there?
The point was made a few days ago that places like Mansfield have very high home ownership.
How sticky will these new "working class Tories" be?
I think this constituency is a genuine 50:50 call so if you are getting better odds on Labour that is where the value is. Normally it would be a walk in the park for an Opposition but as David identifies the unknown factor is the large Brexit Party vote.
It's interesting that Boris took time out to campaign there. I doubt he would have done that if he wasn't getting told that it was a possible win. But Labour, surely, aren't going backwards from the disaster of 2019, are they?
It is not Labour going backwards, its what happens to Brexit party voters. The Labour vote share will surely increase but probably not by enough to hold off the Tory vote.
If Labour lose they are going backwards. From a disastrously low base. These Brexit voters were in the main 1 time supporters pissed off that the likes of Starmer was frustrating the democratic will. If Labour has not found a way to re-engage with those pissed off voters now that Brexit is done they are in trouble.
It is a fundamental problem that we have discussed on here many times. Labour are now essentially a metropolitan liberal elitist party and have those priorities in the same way that say Hillary had in the US. It means a lot of success in London and other University dominated cities but it means very little to traditional Labour heartlands. It is bizarre that Eton educated Boris speaks something closer to these peoples' language than the leader of a party set up by Trade Unions but it is a fact. If that metropolitan elite want back to power they need to broaden their base.
I think David's leader is accurate - like him I hear snippets suggesting the Tories have a decent chance in Hartlepool, but not a 60% chance.
In response to DavidL's first point, obviously parties always want to regain lost support. But I'm not sure it's easier than gaining floating voters. If you've voted X all your life and then decidde to switch, it's quite a big deal and you buy into it personally. Switching back feels difficult. Labour needs to get most votes nationally. Whether the route to that is over the Red Wall I'm less sure.
I agree. I suspect that Labour could do increasingly well in metropolitan suburbia, particularly in university cities.
@Casino_Royale has a hive of bees in his bonnet, particularly "Wokeness" and vegetarianism, but that is the cultural zeitgeist amongst the university educated, who are now 50% of young people and now having families, moving out to suburbia and commuter towns and taking their cultural values with them.
The problem for many "left behind towns" is that the youngsters leave for university, and don't fancy returning to small town life. They like the buzz, and the opportunities of the cities. I have observed the cultural transformation of Leicester from a gritty post industrial city to a university one over the last 3 decades, as I am sure that you saw in Nottingham. It is a much better place to live and work.
That trend is as dangerous for the Tories as the crumbling of the Red Wall was for Labour. I don't think it will shift enough seats in 2024 though possibly the GE after.
Of course that depends on each individual's requirements of what is a good place to live and work.
And the things associated with buzzing cities - new apartments, trendy craft beer bars, ethnic restaurants can now be found in abundance in the old industrial towns. The era of the only restaurant being a Berni Inn is long gone. Even in Hartlepool:
The shopping streets may be struggling but they don't show the whole story.
Yes, and that is how cultural change happens, and little pieces of the "Left Behind Towns" will become more hipster, with their craft ales and avocado toast brunch menus. Sure there might well be more work for pharmacology graduates, but these are more likely to be 3rd generation British Asians than local WWC. Indeed one paradox of government porkbarrelling of these towns is that cultural change will accelerate rather than reverse there.
There was an interesting report recently on Towns, and one finding was a marked ambivalence to newly created well paying jobs if they went to incomers. I shall see if I can find it.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Big G, others and I disown HYUFD's remarks on this site all the freaking time.
So?
Nobody expects you to "disown his remarks". We don't assume that you all have the same opinion as him on a subject he is quite frankly mocked for on a regular basis.
You don't assume it because we disassociate ourselves from such remarks.
When so many on your side of politics make it clear that they hate segments of our society - and you do nothing to disassociate yourself from that - then the implicit assumption becomes that you're at least content to let that slide.
When the Labour Party is happy to give the whip to those who call ethnic minorities "racial gatekeepers" or those who clearly hate their own flag and nation, then what are others supposed to think?
If a Tory MP expressed such hatred I'd want the whip removed immediately.
The fact is that when the Conservatives win Hartlepool, a good 30% of Hartlepool residents will still vote Labour. Is the implication here that they condone criticism of their own town or something?
Although I appreciate that most British people jokily call their own town a sh*thole...
As for opening up earlier I note we still have two more months of restrictions. That is a long time for a nation well vaccinated with capacity in its health service.
But it's what most people on here were cheering on for the past year and you lot are supposed to be brighter than the average Brit so is it any wonder the govt is happy to keep our freedoms?
Once you let a govt know you are happy to give up your freedom you cede to it something you will never reclaim.
Apart from foreign travel and possibly nightclubs, it’s not clear to me what difference the additional restrictions will make between 17 May and 21 June. There’s no Rule of Six outdoors after 17 May for example: a massive liberalisation that is little known?
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
It is the perception among May. And it hurts you. Politics is about perception not reality.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Big G, others and I disown HYUFD's remarks on this site all the freaking time.
So?
Nobody expects you to "disown his remarks". We don't assume that you all have the same opinion as him on a subject he is quite frankly mocked for on a regular basis.
You don't assume it because we disassociate ourselves from such remarks.
When so many on your side of politics make it clear that they hate segments of our society - and you do nothing to disassociate yourself from that - then the implicit assumption becomes that you're at least content to let that slide.
When the Labour Party is happy to give the whip to those who call ethnic minorities "racial gatekeepers" or those who clearly hate their own flag and nation, then what are others supposed to think?
If a Tory MP expressed such hatred I'd want the whip removed immediately.
I didn't even see Roger's comment until you and Felix started whining about it.
Cummo’s account seems the most credible, both at face value and because of the detail backing it up, and the offer to provide further evidence and answer questions.
Which puts us in the position where the PM personally decided to get his hands dirty phoning the press to spread what he knew were a pack of lies. Presumably to deflect attention away from one of Carrie’s friends.
No-one gives a toss what Cummings says about Boris. People think the former is an off-the-wall sociopath who dislikes everyone and the latter an opportunistic chancer who professes to like everyone, but is actually a ruthless politican. It's all priced in already.
Total Westminster bubble story. The journalists are too close to the action and getting overexcited and the opposition too desperate to believe they have a chance to take the Government down.
Somehow don’t think you would be saying this if the leaks had come from Blair or Brown’s Downing St.
This is clearly serious and more than a bubble story. It contains preferential treatment for donors , Tories ‘using Covid’ , accusations of madness and toxicity at the heart of government.
I appreciate you want it to go away, not least because it questions why on Earth anyone can support this.
No. I'm on record here (repeatedly) for attacking the self-interest, cronyism and low-level corruption of this administration - and, I think Boris only cares about himself.
But, that's not going to dent Government support because their policies and values are simply far more in tune with the electorate. It will only do so once the opposition have already got to an electable position first.
That the clown would rather refund the downing street decorating donors, than reveal who they are, does make who they might be an important question, of legitimate public interest.
Yep. That's what's going to bring about a change of Government in the United Kingdom after 11 years.
Downing Street decorators.
You're trying your favourite straw person trick again. I simply said it was a question of legitimate public interest. Which it is.
It's strawman (it means straw(hu)man; only Wokeies say "strawperson" because they're afraid of misgendering a scarecrow and being accused of misogyny -normal people think that's nuts) and yes such questions should always be asked but the theme of this thread is that this is Der Untergang.
Now it's distraction (and with error, since the term began as 'man of straw')
Who handed over money to the PM to decorate his home is a question of legitimate public interest.
Man is short for human. In the context you describe it was used as shorthand for our species, hence "what a piece of work is man" as written by Shakespeare in Hamlet in reference to the human condition. It is derogated from human to apply to words all across our language, including man and woman by the way, and the idea we must qualify explicitly that an scarecrow used for target practice is genderless to avoid offence is laughable. People simply do this to demonstrate their Woke credentials which is banal, self-absorbed, mildly pompous and trivialises any serious real world issues of gender equality that still need to be addressed.
You said yourself you weren't that Woke. So stop it.
“Man delights not me. No, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.”
From the same speech...
That doesn't disprove my point. Like I said both Man and Woman are derivatives of Human, and Man can be used as an abbreviation for the species Hu(man) or as a reference to a specific gender - depending on the context.
The issue we have now is that we wilfully ignore context if it offers us a chance to demonstrate our "right on" credentials.
A word whose definition depends on context is one I would try to find a substitute for if I want to be understood. Perhaps it’s the Physics teacher bit of me speaking; words like weight, acceleration and battery cause enough problems due to their common usage being at odds with how they are used technically without adding to the list. If you mean “human” say it, don’t rely on “man” meaning the same thing or you might end up like the Witch-king of Angmar.
Strawperson isn't a word you go to in order to be better understood. It's simply ludicrous.
The English language is full of words that mean different things in different contexts. In fact, arguably, context is everything.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
That's an either/or choice. Labour need an And strategy to get above 40%+. I've written a thread header on here before on how they could do that, and it depends on building a positive unifying vision for the future of Britain that takes the broadcast coalition with them - and they could easily outflank the Tories on Unionism at the same time too.
It does depend upon ditching a few niche hobby horses though or, at least , not making them the centre of your platform and finding moderate solutions to advance them rather than dogmatic ones.
I don't disagree (and I'm really as uninterested in ostentatious patriotism as you get without being actually insane). I don't think most voters (even most Tory voters) consciously think that they're primarily voting about patriotism and anti-wokism. They want to be basically confident that a party has the country's interests at heart before they'll even consider them, but they don't need them to keep going on about it, which if anything arouses suspicion ("The more he talked of his honour, the faster we counted the spoons"). Conversely, they'll accept a few hobby-horses if they feel that the main thrust of the party is relevant to them - if they feel Labour will make them more secure and better off, while also wanting to be nicer to some asylum-seekers, there are plenty of traditional working-class voters who will see that as a tolerable package. It's a snobbish mistake to think that Red Wall voters are mostly bigots, but they do want to be seen as first priority.
I agree, and I would say that your last sentence is bang on, I would add that it is a mistaken assumption made equally by Left and Right.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The 'unelectability' of Labour is decided by 2 or 3 million voters who voted Labour before and didn't recently, voting Tory instead. Until Labour has a broad and coherent middling strategy that seems to make a better and more plausible offer to Mansfield man and Bassetlaw woman than the Tories they have a problem.
Every time the Pidcock tendency speak of Tory scum, vermin, 'Never kissed a Tory' blah blah they are showing contempt for the 2 or 3 million people whose support they need. Tories get this. Labour doesn't.
(I shall carry on voting Labour for Police Commissioner, local council and so on but they are way off persuading me to even think about them as a national government).
You may be right, but they need to win over Mansfield man and Bassetlaw woman without losing the votes of Brighton man and Cambridge woman. Tricky, but doable IMO.
Labour would be a happier party in a more pluralist system with fair votes, under which they could set out a moderately socialist programme that their members believed in, and fight their corner against a range of other parties, including those representing liberal and green viewpoints that are currently barely represented.
Only what appears to be an increasingly remote chance of winning another jackpot under the current voting system prevents them from facing this reality.
Honestly attacking Dom Cummings then expecting him not to respond is as dumb as allowing international air travel, especially from India attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour and not expecting them to respond.
Pearl Harbor was arguably the greatest strategic mistake ever. Even bigger than Singapore’s infamous guns. Even bigger than Napoleon’s invasion of Russia.
What sort of imbecile attacks the world’s largest navy and seriously pisses them off, while at the same time missing the only three capital ships of actual value in the Pacific Fleet?
To be fair, missing the carriers wasn't intentional (and the battleships sunk and/or seriously damaged were of genuine value too) - though neither of those points was a strategic mistake; that being the attack on Pearl in the first place, which, you rightly describe as the worst strategic decision ever. How was Japan ever going to win a war against the US (and, simultaneously, China, the UK and others) and if it wasn't winnable, why the fuck initiate it?
They were being strangled by oil sanctions to the point that pursuing the war in China would have become impossible (I'm not sure if they'd withdrawn from China sanctions would have been relaxed?), and the military were so pig-headed that they felt that was simply unacceptable, so they had to seize oil across Asia. "But that will bring the Americans in!" "OK, we must take the Americans out too."
Which reminds me uneasily of a possible risk that sanctions on Iran lead the hardliners to press ahead recklessly with the nuclear programme - "These sanctions are intolerable therefore we must be prepared to strike back" rather than the rational "These sanction are intolerable so we must change our behaviour to get them lifted".
I don't think "Military were pig-headed" is quite the mix.
The society itself was militarised.
I wonder what the USA would have done had they just gone for the old colonisalists - UK, Netherlands etc.
Slightly tricky in that the Philippines were in the USA's Empire at that time, but an interesting thought.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
Yep, agreed. It's keep the new base and win back some of the old. The opposite, win back the old base and keep some of the new is not a goer. There comes a point where if core values are genuinely disconnected then such is life. The WWC Leave demographic, like you say, are not all driven mainly by nationalism and 'trad' social conservative values, rather than hard-headed economic concerns, and therein lies the target. Win back those guys and gals. This, plus expanding the new base, plus a chunk of floating voters looking for integrity and competence after 5 years of the Boris Johnson show, can deliver' Labour biggest party' at the next GE.
The thing is that some of your "new base" values, like hatred of your fellow citizens, hatred of your own country and despising your own flag, are anathema to most of the nation.
There are certain extreme values that are beyond the pale. Once you get into the realms of hate you're typically there.
The Labour Party, like the BNP and other parties built on hatred don't deserve a majority. Let go of the hate and you may have a chance.
Don't be so silly. Nobody has said that "the flag" should be despised or that everyone who likes to display it is a bad news bear. All I did was try to tempt you to do a little digging into the links between Eng Nat as a political creed and the far right. You refused and chose 'ignorance is bliss'. Your call. But the price of that ignorance is it renders any comments from you on this subject as chaff.
On 'flags' btw, quick tale from yesterday. I went to play golf at a club in South London and when I got there I found it festooned to the rafters with the St George. You literally couldn't move for flags. "Gosh," I thought, as I pulled in. "This looks a little OTT. What's the deal here?"
Then I realized. St George's Day! Patron Saint of England. George and the dragon and all that. WTF not get those flags out. Bet you got yours out, Philip, didn't you? Good on yer, if so. It doesn't prove you're a far right racist little englander.
Same applies to all those people who chose not to get theirs out. Or even those who don't possess one. You don't have to prove your patriotism with a flag. People who insist you have to prove your patriotism with a flag ARE bad news bears. I think that's one thing that all of sound mind and good character, regardless of their politics, can agree on.
There is nothing to link Eng Nat and the far right beyond your own bigotry. It is like linking Muslims with terrorists. If you want to give some unbigotted evidence that all Eng Nats are far right then you're just talking chaff. That in your eyes would even think of linking the national flag with the far right is as bigotted and hate-filled as someone who sees a hijab and thinks "terrorist".
And as for saying "nobody" on this very thread Roger said he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because of how much he hates the locals there. As far as I can see nobody on your side of politics here has disowned or disassociated themselves from those comments. Funny that.
(i) There are links between the Eng Nat creed and the far right. (ii) All Eng Nats are far right.
If you can't distinguish between these 2 statements (one of which is true and one of which isn't) a development of any value here is not possible. Which is ok because it would be boring anyway and Saturday mornings need a bit of fizz.
So let's go back to what I asked you. A very straightforward question about yesterday, St George's day and flags.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Big G, others and I disown HYUFD's remarks on this site all the freaking time.
So?
Nobody expects you to "disown his remarks". We don't assume that you all have the same opinion as him on a subject he is quite frankly mocked for on a regular basis.
You don't assume it because we disassociate ourselves from such remarks.
When so many on your side of politics make it clear that they hate segments of our society - and you do nothing to disassociate yourself from that - then the implicit assumption becomes that you're at least content to let that slide.
When the Labour Party is happy to give the whip to those who call ethnic minorities "racial gatekeepers" or those who clearly hate their own flag and nation, then what are others supposed to think?
If a Tory MP expressed such hatred I'd want the whip removed immediately.
Whatever one may think of Nigel Farage, he was really quick at kicking people out of his party for obviously racist comments, especially when he suddenly found himself with a couple of thousand councillors who didn’t expect to win and won’t have been fully vetted.
The contrast with a much larger party - with their suspensions, enquiries and then quietly letting them back in a few weeks or months later, was noticable.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The point @Casino_Royale was making is the two legacy parts of the Labour coalition (three if you include the specific appeal to minorities).
I think Labour can probably manage to bridge 2 but not 3. It’s not easy to resolve the problem and I’m not going to promise to have a magic solution for you 😁
Labour's problem - solutions welcome - from the point of view of a patriot who would happily vote for Attlee:
There are now 4 sorts of English Labour seat (and though this simplifies, it is much truer than is comfortable):
a) SUPERB: super urban, social housing, payroll vote, poor, benefits (Bootle, Knowsley)
b) BAME: self explanatory (East Ham, Bethnal Green)
c) TOYNBEES: self regarding, educated, student, Guardian, too posh to vote Tory, private school, wealth, nowheres (Putney, Cambridge, Hampstead)
d) GUNAL: Grim up north, always Labour (Hartlepool).
The first three are self contained enclaves with little in common. The first three categories are basically safe for Labour for now, but there are not nearly enough of them. Every single seat in the last category has drifted or is drifting.
Only a handful of Labour held seats fall outside these categories. Ipswich was one in 2017. Look at it now.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Big G, others and I disown HYUFD's remarks on this site all the freaking time.
Honestly attacking Dom Cummings then expecting him not to respond is as dumb as allowing international air travel, especially from India attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour and not expecting them to respond.
Pearl Harbor was arguably the greatest strategic mistake ever. Even bigger than Singapore’s infamous guns. Even bigger than Napoleon’s invasion of Russia.
What sort of imbecile attacks the world’s largest navy and seriously pisses them off, while at the same time missing the only three capital ships of actual value in the Pacific Fleet?
To be fair, missing the carriers wasn't intentional (and the battleships sunk and/or seriously damaged were of genuine value too) - though neither of those points was a strategic mistake; that being the attack on Pearl in the first place, which, you rightly describe as the worst strategic decision ever. How was Japan ever going to win a war against the US (and, simultaneously, China, the UK and others) and if it wasn't winnable, why the fuck initiate it?
The belief was that they could buy six months to quickly secure south-east Asia, and the oil and rubber, and then throw up a defensive cordon across the mid-pacific islands and stalemate America there who'd eventually sue for peace.
It was based on the idea democracies were decadent, weak and divided. It probably had only a 10% chance of working.
Why did they try it? They were desperate. The US oil embargo was really crippling their economy and war effort in China, with no way out unless they stopped, and south-east Asia was so poorly defended it was simply too tempting an answer.
Cognitive dissonance did the rest.
And TBF - I am not an expert on the pacific war - there was a pretty heated debate in the Japanese government/military about whether it was the right thing to do
Afternoon all. Who the hell at No.10 thought it would be a good idea to go after Dominic Cummings?
Doubly so when he had nothing to do with the leaks, a reputation for assiduously keeping notes and messages, and knowing that Fleet St would lap up the story.
The only conclusion is that the whole thing is a massive dead cat, so what’s the real story we are all missing?
Particularly good at updating past notes too I believe.
I have no Idea how he got security clearance to work at the heart of this government.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Big G, others and I disown HYUFD's remarks on this site all the freaking time.
So?
Nobody expects you to "disown his remarks". We don't assume that you all have the same opinion as him on a subject he is quite frankly mocked for on a regular basis.
You don't assume it because we disassociate ourselves from such remarks.
When so many on your side of politics make it clear that they hate segments of our society - and you do nothing to disassociate yourself from that - then the implicit assumption becomes that you're at least content to let that slide.
When the Labour Party is happy to give the whip to those who call ethnic minorities "racial gatekeepers" or those who clearly hate their own flag and nation, then what are others supposed to think?
If a Tory MP expressed such hatred I'd want the whip removed immediately.
I didn't even see Roger's comment until you and Felix started whining about it.
Beggars can’t be choosers, when there’s a big steaming dungheap in your back garden you’ve got to point at whichever piss poor squirrels that’re available.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Big G, others and I disown HYUFD's remarks on this site all the freaking time.
So?
Nobody expects you to "disown his remarks". We don't assume that you all have the same opinion as him on a subject he is quite frankly mocked for on a regular basis.
You don't assume it because we disassociate ourselves from such remarks.
When so many on your side of politics make it clear that they hate segments of our society - and you do nothing to disassociate yourself from that - then the implicit assumption becomes that you're at least content to let that slide.
When the Labour Party is happy to give the whip to those who call ethnic minorities "racial gatekeepers" or those who clearly hate their own flag and nation, then what are others supposed to think?
If a Tory MP expressed such hatred I'd want the whip removed immediately.
I didn't even see Roger's comment until you and Felix started whining about it.
Well there we go. I appreciate you may not read the entire thread, but I find it hard to believe that nobody here on the left didn't read it. What I do believe is that some will have read it but not twigged about it.
Now that you have seen it do you have anything to say, or do you not care about it? Because that's kind of the point.
Cummo’s account seems the most credible, both at face value and because of the detail backing it up, and the offer to provide further evidence and answer questions.
Which puts us in the position where the PM personally decided to get his hands dirty phoning the press to spread what he knew were a pack of lies. Presumably to deflect attention away from one of Carrie’s friends.
No-one gives a toss what Cummings says about Boris. People think the former is an off-the-wall sociopath who dislikes everyone and the latter an opportunistic chancer who professes to like everyone, but is actually a ruthless politican. It's all priced in already.
Total Westminster bubble story. The journalists are too close to the action and getting overexcited and the opposition too desperate to believe they have a chance to take the Government down.
Somehow don’t think you would be saying this if the leaks had come from Blair or Brown’s Downing St.
This is clearly serious and more than a bubble story. It contains preferential treatment for donors , Tories ‘using Covid’ , accusations of madness and toxicity at the heart of government.
I appreciate you want it to go away, not least because it questions why on Earth anyone can support this.
No. I'm on record here (repeatedly) for attacking the self-interest, cronyism and low-level corruption of this administration - and, I think Boris only cares about himself.
But, that's not going to dent Government support because their policies and values are simply far more in tune with the electorate. It will only do so once the opposition have already got to an electable position first.
That the clown would rather refund the downing street decorating donors, than reveal who they are, does make who they might be an important question, of legitimate public interest.
How does a refund work here to the satisfaction of anyone?
X gives Y £100k Y refunds X £100k
What is to stop X then giving Y the £100k back after its refunded, if they were able to give it under the radar in the first place.
Ask Bernie Eccelstone?
Err, I am not a Labour party member or fan, that happened 24 years ago. If it is your best defence of corruption that someone else did something 24 years ago, it is not a good sign.
There have been arrests in Liverpool Labour council in the past months!
My answer was a response to the question “how does a refund work to the satisfaction of anyone”. Bernie did ok.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
That was a bizarre comment. You can only get elected if you're prepared to compromise with the voters.
But there's no such thing as THE voters. What there is are X million souls on the rolls. Appeal to some, alienate others, but how many of each and where? - such is the name of the game.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The point @Casino_Royale was making is the two legacy parts of the Labour coalition (three if you include the specific appeal to minorities).
I think Labour can probably manage to bridge 2 but not 3. It’s not easy to resolve the problem and I’m not going to promise to have a magic solution for you 😁
Labour's problem - solutions welcome - from the point of view of a patriot who would happily vote for Attlee:
There are now 4 sorts of English Labour seat (and though this simplifies, it is much truer than is comfortable):
a) SUPERB: super urban, social housing, payroll vote, poor, benefits (Bootle, Knowsley)
b) BAME: self explanatory (East Ham, Bethnal Green)
c) TOYNBEES: self regarding, educated, student, Guardian, too posh to vote Tory, private school, wealth, nowheres (Putney, Cambridge, Hampstead)
d) GUNAL: Grim up north, always Labour (Hartlepool).
The first three are self contained enclaves with little in common. The first three categories are basically safe for Labour for now, but there are not nearly enough of them. Every single seat in the last category has drifted or is drifting.
Only a handful of Labour held seats fall outside these categories. Ipswich was one in 2017. Look at it now.
This is a total London-centric view of England.
What about seats like Tynemouth or Blaydon?
Not super posh "Guardian" seats. Not student seats.
Labour needs policies that it can sell to both its metropolitan and traditional working class potential voters.
Things like the environment: middle class priority, but sell it as a big investment and jobs programme in the Midlands and North. Let's onshore the expertise around wind farm manufacturing, electric cars etc ourselves etc.
Attacking Tory sleeze and the corruption of the rich should also be a safe target for both target demographics.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Big G, others and I disown HYUFD's remarks on this site all the freaking time.
So?
Nobody expects you to "disown his remarks". We don't assume that you all have the same opinion as him on a subject he is quite frankly mocked for on a regular basis.
You don't assume it because we disassociate ourselves from such remarks.
When so many on your side of politics make it clear that they hate segments of our society - and you do nothing to disassociate yourself from that - then the implicit assumption becomes that you're at least content to let that slide.
When the Labour Party is happy to give the whip to those who call ethnic minorities "racial gatekeepers" or those who clearly hate their own flag and nation, then what are others supposed to think?
If a Tory MP expressed such hatred I'd want the whip removed immediately.
I didn't even see Roger's comment until you and Felix started whining about it.
The complacency and hubris shown by Tories is as palpable as it is reminiscent of other untouchable administrations in the past.
If you have seriously read this thread you know that is simply not true.
Eh? I’ve read it.
The stuff about the electorate not caring, it all being priced in, that Tory party values being more in line, the opposition being weak and divided and that people will vote for Boris anyway is truly complacent and straight out of the New Labour copybook in its final years.
The Tories are delivering a hugely successful vaccine roll-out. Voters really like it. The polls reflect this - both in party vote share and personal ratings. None of this should be a surprise. Extrapolating that to a much wider narrative when prior to the roll-out Labour was getting opinion poll leads and the PM's personal ratings were deeply negative is a bit of a stretch. I think that the 10 million plus people who voted Labour across the UK in 2019 were mistaken to back a party led by Jeremy Corbyn, but I struggle to believe that they and the millions of others who supported the Greens and the LibDems are all anti-British wokeists. I think it's a whole lot more complicated than that.
The point is that the Wokeism/national scepticism is already attracting all the votes it'll get and it's a low ceiling.
I'm explaining what's required to go further.
But Labour, the Greens and the LibDems get more votes combined than the Tories. If they represent national scepticism, they represent the majority view - especially so if you throw in the SNP and Plaid Cymru. As I say, though, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
That seems such a self evidently self destructive approach that it lacks credibility. We are worried that X might bad mouth us so let's pick a fight with X beforehand and piss him off. I mean, really?
Someone I know who worked for Boris Johnson put it to me back in January when I wrote this piece about Dom apperaring before inquiries and select committee was
'Dom knows where all the bodies are buried, all 75,000 of them'
Now that figure is somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000.
Even at the time - when Cummings and Johnson were still close - the former advisor was privately deeply critical of some of the decisions the prime minister took.
Cummings believed that at key moments - particularly in early Autumn last year - Johnson recklessly prioritised keeping the economy open over the clear scientific advice about how many more people would die as a result.
Around late September and early October Cummings was so aggravated by Johnson’s decision not to impose a third lockdown that he printed out an A3 sheet of case rates and deaths, and carried it around in his daily business.
“He walked around Whitehall showing it to everyone. Literally everyone,” one source said. “He opened up a meeting about civil service reform by getting it out and explaining why it showed we need to lock down.”
But that is so easy to handle, difficult judgments, the cost of lockdown not only in money but in lives as people driven to despair, other views were possible etc etc. It won't go anywhere. Its quite possible that Cummings showed better judgment on this than the PM but so what? So did many on here. It makes no difference, we are where we are.
A definite weakness in Boris is his enthusiasm with getting distracted with this kind of fluff. The smart thing to do would be to ignore Cummings completely and suggest that any such evidence will be considered by the government Inquiry in due course. By drawing attention to this in advance and getting involved in leak allegations the PM is diminishing himself and his office. Its stupid.
I think when you look at the number of deaths from January onwards then Boris Johnson's save Christmas strategy, only partially cancelled at the last moment, looks like a sick joke.
I've said I can just about forgive Boris Johnson for his mistakes last March, but he has repeated those mistakes again and again, only introducing lockdown far too late in November when the numbers showed it should have begun in September/October, as was clear at the time, ditto the December one.
Conservative Unionists could pretty much kill Independence stone dead by focusing on Sturgeon's appalling handling of Covid.
But to do so they would have to admit that Boris was less than perfect and that seems an impossible thing for them to do.
"Alison Saunders thinks she has done a good job: “I do, I do. [It’s] been quite affirming internally, saying goodbye. People think I’ve done a good job – it matters what people in the service think.” She is proud, she says, of changing the work culture where there is “smarter working, so we have people working remotely and from home” and of reportedly boosting staff morale while presiding over 25% funding cuts and shedding a third of the now 6,000-employee workforce."
As for opening up earlier I note we still have two more months of restrictions. That is a long time for a nation well vaccinated with capacity in its health service.
But it's what most people on here were cheering on for the past year and you lot are supposed to be brighter than the average Brit so is it any wonder the govt is happy to keep our freedoms?
Once you let a govt know you are happy to give up your freedom you cede to it something you will never reclaim.
Opening up slowly is sensible and not a sign of a permanent loss of freedom.
Do you drive around without a seatbelt as an act of defiance?
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Big G, others and I disown HYUFD's remarks on this site all the freaking time.
So?
Nobody expects you to "disown his remarks". We don't assume that you all have the same opinion as him on a subject he is quite frankly mocked for on a regular basis.
You don't assume it because we disassociate ourselves from such remarks.
When so many on your side of politics make it clear that they hate segments of our society - and you do nothing to disassociate yourself from that - then the implicit assumption becomes that you're at least content to let that slide.
When the Labour Party is happy to give the whip to those who call ethnic minorities "racial gatekeepers" or those who clearly hate their own flag and nation, then what are others supposed to think?
If a Tory MP expressed such hatred I'd want the whip removed immediately.
I didn't even see Roger's comment until you and Felix started whining about it.
Well there we go. I appreciate you may not read the entire thread, but I find it hard to believe that nobody here on the left didn't read it. What I do believe is that some will have read it but not twigged about it.
Now that you have seen it do you have anything to say, or do you not care about it? Because that's kind of the point.
Not really. I have already said it was bigoted. But I don't speak for Roger any more than Roger speaks for me or "the left".
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
In 1997, 2001 and 2005 Labour didn't have any problem winning Hartlepool and Islington at the same time. The problem now is that the gap between those two segments of the electorate is much wider than it used to be. There's always been a difference but it didn't use to be unbridgeable.
1. Prosecutions brought by private bodies do tend to lead to abuse of this type. The RSPCA has had similar complaints and when I was a government lawyers decades ago (I was at the time dealing with wildlife matters, amongst others) they had a terrible reputation for being over-zealous and paying no regard to the law.
2. The Post Office did have ministerial oversight of a type so when this started being an issue, Ministers should have got more involved.
3. Judges are there to ensure that trials - whether they're brought privately or by the CPS - are handled in accordance with the rules. It's not clear to me whether there has been any judicial failing here.
4. My best guess is that the failure was mainly that of the Post Office who failed to carry out any sort of proper investigation and deliberately or negligently did not disclose the information they knew about the problems with their Horizon system. Fujitsu will also have been at fault. If the information is not disclosed and people lie about what they know, it becomes very hard indeed for defence counsel to do the investigative work needed to show that the prosecution is fundamentally misconceived.
5. The lawyers for the Post Office who did the prosecution also need scrutinising. They know the criminal disclosure rules. The argument that it is a private prosecution and therefore they don't need to worry about this really does not wash. Every solicitor, every barrister has an overriding duty not to mislead the court. If they failed in that duty they should be held to account.
6. Far too many people and institutions have a blind faith in technology and technological solutions, in the belief that because IT is is involved, because it comes from a computer it must be right. Anyone with any real knowledge of technology and the combination of it and human behaviour knows that this is nonsense. It is something which all those - on this forum and elsewhere - advocating technological solutions to some issue or other should bear in mind.
This was a case of a badly flawed system and an arrogant cowardly institution which put its own interests first. But more importantly, it was a case - as all such cases are - of humans making mistakes, lying and covering up, of people doing the wrong thing and of others failing to do the right thing. All involved should feel thoroughly ashamed of their part in this affair. And some of them should face legal consequences for their misbehaviour.
I think institutional inertia plays a role. Once one manager starts a private prosecution it’s much harder for their successor to stop it.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
Yep, agreed. It's keep the new base and win back some of the old. The opposite, win back the old base and keep some of the new is not a goer. There comes a point where if core values are genuinely disconnected then such is life. The WWC Leave demographic, like you say, are not all driven mainly by nationalism and 'trad' social conservative values, rather than hard-headed economic concerns, and therein lies the target. Win back those guys and gals. This, plus expanding the new base, plus a chunk of floating voters looking for integrity and competence after 5 years of the Boris Johnson show, can deliver' Labour biggest party' at the next GE.
The thing is that some of your "new base" values, like hatred of your fellow citizens, hatred of your own country and despising your own flag, are anathema to most of the nation.
There are certain extreme values that are beyond the pale. Once you get into the realms of hate you're typically there.
The Labour Party, like the BNP and other parties built on hatred don't deserve a majority. Let go of the hate and you may have a chance.
Don't be so silly. Nobody has said that "the flag" should be despised or that everyone who likes to display it is a bad news bear. All I did was try to tempt you to do a little digging into the links between Eng Nat as a political creed and the far right. You refused and chose 'ignorance is bliss'. Your call. But the price of that ignorance is it renders any comments from you on this subject as chaff.
On 'flags' btw, quick tale from yesterday. I went to play golf at a club in South London and when I got there I found it festooned to the rafters with the St George. You literally couldn't move for flags. "Gosh," I thought, as I pulled in. "This looks a little OTT. What's the deal here?"
Then I realized. St George's Day! Patron Saint of England. George and the dragon and all that. WTF not get those flags out. Bet you got yours out, Philip, didn't you? Good on yer, if so. It doesn't prove you're a far right racist little englander.
Same applies to all those people who chose not to get theirs out. Or even those who don't possess one. You don't have to prove your patriotism with a flag. People who insist you have to prove your patriotism with a flag ARE bad news bears. I think that's one thing that all of sound mind and good character, regardless of their politics, can agree on.
There is nothing to link Eng Nat and the far right beyond your own bigotry. It is like linking Muslims with terrorists. If you want to give some unbigotted evidence that all Eng Nats are far right then you're just talking chaff. That in your eyes would even think of linking the national flag with the far right is as bigotted and hate-filled as someone who sees a hijab and thinks "terrorist".
And as for saying "nobody" on this very thread Roger said he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because of how much he hates the locals there. As far as I can see nobody on your side of politics here has disowned or disassociated themselves from those comments. Funny that.
(i) There are links between the Eng Nat creed and the far right. (ii) All Eng Nats are far right.
If you can't distinguish between these 2 statements (one of which is true and one of which isn't) a development of any value here is not possible. Which is ok because it would be boring anyway and Saturday mornings need a bit of fizz.
So let's go back to what I asked you. A very straightforward question about yesterday, St George's day and flags.
Did you get yours out?
(i) Is irrelevant gaslighting. (ii) Is bullshit.
So which did you mean? Were you trying to gaslight, falsely associating perfectly normal behaviour with extremists, or were you bullshitting?
As for my flag, I changed my avatar. Which I intend to keep because I think the new one is pretty cool. What do you think?
Cummo’s account seems the most credible, both at face value and because of the detail backing it up, and the offer to provide further evidence and answer questions.
Which puts us in the position where the PM personally decided to get his hands dirty phoning the press to spread what he knew were a pack of lies. Presumably to deflect attention away from one of Carrie’s friends.
No-one gives a toss what Cummings says about Boris. People think the former is an off-the-wall sociopath who dislikes everyone and the latter an opportunistic chancer who professes to like everyone, but is actually a ruthless politican. It's all priced in already.
Total Westminster bubble story. The journalists are too close to the action and getting overexcited and the opposition too desperate to believe they have a chance to take the Government down.
Somehow don’t think you would be saying this if the leaks had come from Blair or Brown’s Downing St.
This is clearly serious and more than a bubble story. It contains preferential treatment for donors , Tories ‘using Covid’ , accusations of madness and toxicity at the heart of government.
I appreciate you want it to go away, not least because it questions why on Earth anyone can support this.
No. I'm on record here (repeatedly) for attacking the self-interest, cronyism and low-level corruption of this administration - and, I think Boris only cares about himself.
But, that's not going to dent Government support because their policies and values are simply far more in tune with the electorate. It will only do so once the opposition have already got to an electable position first.
That the clown would rather refund the downing street decorating donors, than reveal who they are, does make who they might be an important question, of legitimate public interest.
How does a refund work here to the satisfaction of anyone?
X gives Y £100k Y refunds X £100k
What is to stop X then giving Y the £100k back after its refunded, if they were able to give it under the radar in the first place.
Ask Bernie Eccelstone?
Err, I am not a Labour party member or fan, that happened 24 years ago. If it is your best defence of corruption that someone else did something 24 years ago, it is not a good sign.
There have been arrests in Liverpool Labour council in the past months!
My answer was a response to the question “how does a refund work to the satisfaction of anyone”. Bernie did ok.
Bernie did very well - he got the policy change he was lobbying for, and then got his million back. Win-win!
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
I always enjoy @roger for his refreshing candour! Not that I always agree with them...
I think his point is that a Labour Party that abandons internationalism, compassion to asylum seekers, and a desire for social justice is one which deserves to lose. If abandoning those principles in pursuit of an elusive demographic drunk on right wing populism is the plan, then it is better to lose Hartlepool. I understand that feeling.
Interesting that this is breaking down, with people from indian and west african origins now floating towards the Conservatives a bit more. Maybe because it appears a bit like they dont hate their very existence as much anymore.
Priti Patel would not allow her own parents residence here
The ugandan refugees (who werent ugandan..) seem to have been amongst the most successful of all recent migrations. Her parents didnt come under the refugee scheme but would have been entitled to.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Worry not. I have back channels to the Labour leadership and I've told them of what's happened here this morning.
There'll be a statement soon from Starmer disowning Roger.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The point @Casino_Royale was making is the two legacy parts of the Labour coalition (three if you include the specific appeal to minorities).
I think Labour can probably manage to bridge 2 but not 3. It’s not easy to resolve the problem and I’m not going to promise to have a magic solution for you 😁
Labour's problem - solutions welcome - from the point of view of a patriot who would happily vote for Attlee:
There are now 4 sorts of English Labour seat (and though this simplifies, it is much truer than is comfortable):
a) SUPERB: super urban, social housing, payroll vote, poor, benefits (Bootle, Knowsley)
b) BAME: self explanatory (East Ham, Bethnal Green)
c) TOYNBEES: self regarding, educated, student, Guardian, too posh to vote Tory, private school, wealth, nowheres (Putney, Cambridge, Hampstead)
d) GUNAL: Grim up north, always Labour (Hartlepool).
The first three are self contained enclaves with little in common. The first three categories are basically safe for Labour for now, but there are not nearly enough of them. Every single seat in the last category has drifted or is drifting.
Only a handful of Labour held seats fall outside these categories. Ipswich was one in 2017. Look at it now.
This is a total London-centric view of England.
What about seats like Tynemouth or Blaydon?
Not super posh "Guardian" seats. Not student seats.
Thanks. I'll tentatively give you Tynemouth. Blaydon is a bit of super urban and a bit of always Labour. (I live in the north, over 300 miles from London and I can see Scotland from up the road). Have you started the new job.
Given the gravity of accusations from Dominic Cummings, and the continuing cover up around the Downing Street refurbishment, it is crucial a full investigation is launched.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The point @Casino_Royale was making is the two legacy parts of the Labour coalition (three if you include the specific appeal to minorities).
I think Labour can probably manage to bridge 2 but not 3. It’s not easy to resolve the problem and I’m not going to promise to have a magic solution for you 😁
Labour's problem - solutions welcome - from the point of view of a patriot who would happily vote for Attlee:
There are now 4 sorts of English Labour seat (and though this simplifies, it is much truer than is comfortable):
a) SUPERB: super urban, social housing, payroll vote, poor, benefits (Bootle, Knowsley)
b) BAME: self explanatory (East Ham, Bethnal Green)
c) TOYNBEES: self regarding, educated, student, Guardian, too posh to vote Tory, private school, wealth, nowheres (Putney, Cambridge, Hampstead)
d) GUNAL: Grim up north, always Labour (Hartlepool).
The first three are self contained enclaves with little in common. The first three categories are basically safe for Labour for now, but there are not nearly enough of them. Every single seat in the last category has drifted or is drifting.
Only a handful of Labour held seats fall outside these categories. Ipswich was one in 2017. Look at it now.
When you think Hampstead, you probably think big £3 million houses in the Village. When I think of it I think of the big council estate behind Finchley Road in Swiss Cottage where my grandparents lived. More people live in the latter than in the former. This is a common tale in all Labour-held seats in London and other big cities.
I think this constituency is a genuine 50:50 call so if you are getting better odds on Labour that is where the value is. Normally it would be a walk in the park for an Opposition but as David identifies the unknown factor is the large Brexit Party vote.
It's interesting that Boris took time out to campaign there. I doubt he would have done that if he wasn't getting told that it was a possible win. But Labour, surely, aren't going backwards from the disaster of 2019, are they?
It is not Labour going backwards, its what happens to Brexit party voters. The Labour vote share will surely increase but probably not by enough to hold off the Tory vote.
If Labour lose they are going backwards. From a disastrously low base. These Brexit voters were in the main 1 time supporters pissed off that the likes of Starmer was frustrating the democratic will. If Labour has not found a way to re-engage with those pissed off voters now that Brexit is done they are in trouble.
It is a fundamental problem that we have discussed on here many times. Labour are now essentially a metropolitan liberal elitist party and have those priorities in the same way that say Hillary had in the US. It means a lot of success in London and other University dominated cities but it means very little to traditional Labour heartlands. It is bizarre that Eton educated Boris speaks something closer to these peoples' language than the leader of a party set up by Trade Unions but it is a fact. If that metropolitan elite want back to power they need to broaden their base.
I think David's leader is accurate - like him I hear snippets suggesting the Tories have a decent chance in Hartlepool, but not a 60% chance.
In response to DavidL's first point, obviously parties always want to regain lost support. But I'm not sure it's easier than gaining floating voters. If you've voted X all your life and then decidde to switch, it's quite a big deal and you buy into it personally. Switching back feels difficult. Labour needs to get most votes nationally. Whether the route to that is over the Red Wall I'm less sure.
I agree. I suspect that Labour could do increasingly well in metropolitan suburbia, particularly in university cities.
@Casino_Royale has a hive of bees in his bonnet, particularly "Wokeness" and vegetarianism, but that is the cultural zeitgeist amongst the university educated, who are now 50% of young people and now having families, moving out to suburbia and commuter towns and taking their cultural values with them.
The problem for many "left behind towns" is that the youngsters leave for university, and don't fancy returning to small town life. They like the buzz, and the opportunities of the cities. I have observed the cultural transformation of Leicester from a gritty post industrial city to a university one over the last 3 decades, as I am sure that you saw in Nottingham. It is a much better place to live and work.
That trend is as dangerous for the Tories as the crumbling of the Red Wall was for Labour. I don't think it will shift enough seats in 2024 though possibly the GE after.
I'm far from convinced young people are that left-wing. Sure, attitudes change with each generation - this one will live in a much more multi-racial society, and one threatened by climate change - so of course they'll be concerned by those issues.
I think many of them have open minds on how best this can be addressed though. I focus on how Wokeism is more likely to hinder rather than help a peaceful and prosperous multi-racial society and the importance of nationhood in a stable world. I also challenge the need to go vegan on the science and evidence, and have interesting discussions on this.
There are several twenty-somethings at work who sometimes seek me out for my views on things like this, and I do find they listen and engage face to face (social media is a terrible thing) because I offer a different view.
True, they might secretly think I'm a wanker behind my back but we're still talking and in a democracy that's how you get to good solutions.
Voting left wing and being left wing are two different things. Lots of people have a spell of voting left wing, especially when young. Some stick to it, but not many. Vanishingly few people live left wing lives with regard to their own prospects, property, family, career, opportunity, wealth, expropriation, revolution etc.
Nearly all of us are some sort of social democrat - and we are run by a social democrat government right now.
Minorities from many areas of the world come with ultra conservative right wing views used to vote en masse for the Labour Party because Labour was the party most likely to facilitate their family and friends been able to come and join them.
Interesting that this is breaking down, with people from indian and west african origins now floating towards the Conservatives a bit more. Maybe because it appears a bit like they dont hate their very existence as much anymore.
Instead increasingly Labour hates them instead.
The bile towards "racial gatekeepers" and others, it's like the bile towards nationalists.
It takes a while for people to clock on that you hate them sometimes, but when they do, the turning can be brutal.
The "racial gatekeepers" one is a definitely one to be stored away. It's certainly a veil slipping moment.
That seems such a self evidently self destructive approach that it lacks credibility. We are worried that X might bad mouth us so let's pick a fight with X beforehand and piss him off. I mean, really?
Someone I know who worked for Boris Johnson put it to me back in January when I wrote this piece about Dom apperaring before inquiries and select committee was
'Dom knows where all the bodies are buried, all 75,000 of them'
Now that figure is somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000.
Even at the time - when Cummings and Johnson were still close - the former advisor was privately deeply critical of some of the decisions the prime minister took.
Cummings believed that at key moments - particularly in early Autumn last year - Johnson recklessly prioritised keeping the economy open over the clear scientific advice about how many more people would die as a result.
Around late September and early October Cummings was so aggravated by Johnson’s decision not to impose a third lockdown that he printed out an A3 sheet of case rates and deaths, and carried it around in his daily business.
“He walked around Whitehall showing it to everyone. Literally everyone,” one source said. “He opened up a meeting about civil service reform by getting it out and explaining why it showed we need to lock down.”
But that is so easy to handle, difficult judgments, the cost of lockdown not only in money but in lives as people driven to despair, other views were possible etc etc. It won't go anywhere. Its quite possible that Cummings showed better judgment on this than the PM but so what? So did many on here. It makes no difference, we are where we are.
A definite weakness in Boris is his enthusiasm with getting distracted with this kind of fluff. The smart thing to do would be to ignore Cummings completely and suggest that any such evidence will be considered by the government Inquiry in due course. By drawing attention to this in advance and getting involved in leak allegations the PM is diminishing himself and his office. Its stupid.
I think when you look at the number of deaths from January onwards then Boris Johnson's save Christmas strategy, only partially cancelled at the last moment, looks like a sick joke.
I've said I can just about forgive Boris Johnson for his mistakes last March, but he has repeated those mistakes again and again, only introducing lockdown far too late in November when the numbers showed it should have begun in September/October, as was clear at the time, ditto the December one.
Conservative Unionists could pretty much kill Independence stone dead by focusing on Sturgeon's appalling handling of Covid.
But to do so they would have to admit that Boris was less than perfect and that seems an impossible thing for them to do.
They’re giving it a bash with deaths in care homes. That they themselves at the time were demanding that vulnerable oldies in Covidious hospitals should be taken back to care homes rather blunts it. They could of course do an Anas and just pretend that they’d spoken out against this.
As for opening up earlier I note we still have two more months of restrictions. That is a long time for a nation well vaccinated with capacity in its health service.
But it's what most people on here were cheering on for the past year and you lot are supposed to be brighter than the average Brit so is it any wonder the govt is happy to keep our freedoms?
Once you let a govt know you are happy to give up your freedom you cede to it something you will never reclaim.
Opening up slowly is sensible and not a sign of a permanent loss of freedom.
Do you drive around without a seatbelt as an act of defiance?
If you think the seatbelt laws are analogous to not being able to see your parents by law then I am beginning to see why we are where we are.
That seems such a self evidently self destructive approach that it lacks credibility. We are worried that X might bad mouth us so let's pick a fight with X beforehand and piss him off. I mean, really?
Someone I know who worked for Boris Johnson put it to me back in January when I wrote this piece about Dom apperaring before inquiries and select committee was
'Dom knows where all the bodies are buried, all 75,000 of them'
Now that figure is somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000.
Even at the time - when Cummings and Johnson were still close - the former advisor was privately deeply critical of some of the decisions the prime minister took.
Cummings believed that at key moments - particularly in early Autumn last year - Johnson recklessly prioritised keeping the economy open over the clear scientific advice about how many more people would die as a result.
Around late September and early October Cummings was so aggravated by Johnson’s decision not to impose a third lockdown that he printed out an A3 sheet of case rates and deaths, and carried it around in his daily business.
“He walked around Whitehall showing it to everyone. Literally everyone,” one source said. “He opened up a meeting about civil service reform by getting it out and explaining why it showed we need to lock down.”
But that is so easy to handle, difficult judgments, the cost of lockdown not only in money but in lives as people driven to despair, other views were possible etc etc. It won't go anywhere. Its quite possible that Cummings showed better judgment on this than the PM but so what? So did many on here. It makes no difference, we are where we are.
A definite weakness in Boris is his enthusiasm with getting distracted with this kind of fluff. The smart thing to do would be to ignore Cummings completely and suggest that any such evidence will be considered by the government Inquiry in due course. By drawing attention to this in advance and getting involved in leak allegations the PM is diminishing himself and his office. Its stupid.
I think when you look at the number of deaths from January onwards then Boris Johnson's save Christmas strategy, only partially cancelled at the last moment, looks like a sick joke.
I've said I can just about forgive Boris Johnson for his mistakes last March, but he has repeated those mistakes again and again, only introducing lockdown far too late in November when the numbers showed it should have begun in September/October, as was clear at the time, ditto the December one.
And yet we have had months of lockdown at enormous economic cost. Those that went even harder at lockdown than us are dying now in large numbers. Lockdown defers death for a few weeks at a considerable cost. Only vaccines offer a way out. This was Chris Whitty's message a year past March and it is right.
There are or were serious arguments to be had as to whether a country is better to take it on the chin or drag things out by removing peoples' liberty and ability to earn provided that blow to the chin does not overwhelm the NHS causing additional unnecessary deaths like we see in Brazil and India. We never got close to that. If that was the primary objective shouldn't the government have allowed as much freedom as was compatible with that criteria?
It seems to me that there is no clear right or wrong on this. Others, including Cummings, may have done things differently. That is not clearly right or wrong either. It is simply a different set of outcomes with different costs.
Well said. In a pandemic people die, in fact in normal times people die.
What's more abnormal is taking away people's basic civil liberties.
The reason to have a lockdown was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed, not to prevent every single death. If the Government is to be criticised it should be for locking down too hard and too long now, the NHS is nowhere near being overwhelmed and liberties should be restored.
But too many people in this country are prepared to be illiberal so that argument is going nowhere.
They set out a road map to unlocking and are following it. The advantage of predictability is it allows people (and particularly businesses) to plan.
You need to make the case that it is better to introduce a bit of near term uncertainty to accelerate lockdown as well as making the case in the numbers. The risk, of course, is that there is a lot of uncertainty and if things go wrong the government will be blamed for the acceleration regardless of whether it is their fault or not.
If I was cynical I could see an announcement on, say, May 1 that the government’s policies have been so effective that they will accelerate the lifting of restrictions as of May 17.
There is indeed an argument for dates not data, but that argument has not been made.
The imposition of restrictions was to "protect the NHS", the notion that it is illegal to be inside a relatives living room, or illegal for a restaurant to offer tables inside, in order to "protect the NHS" when we have no hospitalisations, no deaths and vey few cases is absolutely preposterous.
I don't and won't support the taking away of civil liberties because people are scared of their own shadow.
That’s not the argument though.
They have already been restricted and a path to lifting those restrictions set out. You need to make a case to change from that path.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Big G, others and I disown HYUFD's remarks on this site all the freaking time.
So?
Nobody expects you to "disown his remarks". We don't assume that you all have the same opinion as him on a subject he is quite frankly mocked for on a regular basis.
You don't assume it because we disassociate ourselves from such remarks.
When so many on your side of politics make it clear that they hate segments of our society - and you do nothing to disassociate yourself from that - then the implicit assumption becomes that you're at least content to let that slide.
When the Labour Party is happy to give the whip to those who call ethnic minorities "racial gatekeepers" or those who clearly hate their own flag and nation, then what are others supposed to think?
If a Tory MP expressed such hatred I'd want the whip removed immediately.
I didn't even see Roger's comment until you and Felix started whining about it.
Well there we go. I appreciate you may not read the entire thread, but I find it hard to believe that nobody here on the left didn't read it. What I do believe is that some will have read it but not twigged about it.
Now that you have seen it do you have anything to say, or do you not care about it? Because that's kind of the point.
Have you appointed yourself as the moral arbiter of this forum?
I suspect most of us have better things to do than to respond to every comment indicating our approval or disapproval. It would be time consuming and banal.
So, for example, I usually ignore your comments, whether or not I agree with them. But I've now made the foolish mistake of engaging. I'm sure I'll regret it.......
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The point @Casino_Royale was making is the two legacy parts of the Labour coalition (three if you include the specific appeal to minorities).
I think Labour can probably manage to bridge 2 but not 3. It’s not easy to resolve the problem and I’m not going to promise to have a magic solution for you 😁
Labour's problem - solutions welcome - from the point of view of a patriot who would happily vote for Attlee:
There are now 4 sorts of English Labour seat (and though this simplifies, it is much truer than is comfortable):
a) SUPERB: super urban, social housing, payroll vote, poor, benefits (Bootle, Knowsley)
b) BAME: self explanatory (East Ham, Bethnal Green)
c) TOYNBEES: self regarding, educated, student, Guardian, too posh to vote Tory, private school, wealth, nowheres (Putney, Cambridge, Hampstead)
d) GUNAL: Grim up north, always Labour (Hartlepool).
The first three are self contained enclaves with little in common. The first three categories are basically safe for Labour for now, but there are not nearly enough of them. Every single seat in the last category has drifted or is drifting.
Only a handful of Labour held seats fall outside these categories. Ipswich was one in 2017. Look at it now.
This is a total London-centric view of England.
What about seats like Tynemouth or Blaydon?
Not super posh "Guardian" seats. Not student seats.
Tynemouth and Blaydon aren't up north?
Though I think "Grim up North" is a rather silly remark, the North is not grim.
That seems such a self evidently self destructive approach that it lacks credibility. We are worried that X might bad mouth us so let's pick a fight with X beforehand and piss him off. I mean, really?
Someone I know who worked for Boris Johnson put it to me back in January when I wrote this piece about Dom apperaring before inquiries and select committee was
'Dom knows where all the bodies are buried, all 75,000 of them'
Now that figure is somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000.
Even at the time - when Cummings and Johnson were still close - the former advisor was privately deeply critical of some of the decisions the prime minister took.
Cummings believed that at key moments - particularly in early Autumn last year - Johnson recklessly prioritised keeping the economy open over the clear scientific advice about how many more people would die as a result.
Around late September and early October Cummings was so aggravated by Johnson’s decision not to impose a third lockdown that he printed out an A3 sheet of case rates and deaths, and carried it around in his daily business.
“He walked around Whitehall showing it to everyone. Literally everyone,” one source said. “He opened up a meeting about civil service reform by getting it out and explaining why it showed we need to lock down.”
But that is so easy to handle, difficult judgments, the cost of lockdown not only in money but in lives as people driven to despair, other views were possible etc etc. It won't go anywhere. Its quite possible that Cummings showed better judgment on this than the PM but so what? So did many on here. It makes no difference, we are where we are.
A definite weakness in Boris is his enthusiasm with getting distracted with this kind of fluff. The smart thing to do would be to ignore Cummings completely and suggest that any such evidence will be considered by the government Inquiry in due course. By drawing attention to this in advance and getting involved in leak allegations the PM is diminishing himself and his office. Its stupid.
I think when you look at the number of deaths from January onwards then Boris Johnson's save Christmas strategy, only partially cancelled at the last moment, looks like a sick joke.
I've said I can just about forgive Boris Johnson for his mistakes last March, but he has repeated those mistakes again and again, only introducing lockdown far too late in November when the numbers showed it should have begun in September/October, as was clear at the time, ditto the December one.
And yet we have had months of lockdown at enormous economic cost. Those that went even harder at lockdown than us are dying now in large numbers. Lockdown defers death for a few weeks at a considerable cost. Only vaccines offer a way out. This was Chris Whitty's message a year past March and it is right.
There are or were serious arguments to be had as to whether a country is better to take it on the chin or drag things out by removing peoples' liberty and ability to earn provided that blow to the chin does not overwhelm the NHS causing additional unnecessary deaths like we see in Brazil and India. We never got close to that. If that was the primary objective shouldn't the government have allowed as much freedom as was compatible with that criteria?
It seems to me that there is no clear right or wrong on this. Others, including Cummings, may have done things differently. That is not clearly right or wrong either. It is simply a different set of outcomes with different costs.
Well said. In a pandemic people die, in fact in normal times people die.
What's more abnormal is taking away people's basic civil liberties.
The reason to have a lockdown was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed, not to prevent every single death. If the Government is to be criticised it should be for locking down too hard and too long now, the NHS is nowhere near being overwhelmed and liberties should be restored.
But too many people in this country are prepared to be illiberal so that argument is going nowhere.
They set out a road map to unlocking and are following it. The advantage of predictability is it allows people (and particularly businesses) to plan.
You need to make the case that it is better to introduce a bit of near term uncertainty to accelerate lockdown as well as making the case in the numbers. The risk, of course, is that there is a lot of uncertainty and if things go wrong the government will be blamed for the acceleration regardless of whether it is their fault or not.
If I was cynical I could see an announcement on, say, May 1 that the government’s policies have been so effective that they will accelerate the lifting of restrictions as of May 17.
There is indeed an argument for dates not data, but that argument has not been made.
The imposition of restrictions was to "protect the NHS", the notion that it is illegal to be inside a relatives living room, or illegal for a restaurant to offer tables inside, in order to "protect the NHS" when we have no hospitalisations, no deaths and vey few cases is absolutely preposterous.
I don't and won't support the taking away of civil liberties because people are scared of their own shadow.
That’s not the argument though.
They have already been restricted and a path to lifting those restrictions set out. You need to make a case to change from that path.
OK. The case for restricting civil liberties was to protect the NHS. The NHS has been protected and so there is no justification for restricting civil liberties. So change the path.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
Yep, agreed. It's keep the new base and win back some of the old. The opposite, win back the old base and keep some of the new is not a goer. There comes a point where if core values are genuinely disconnected then such is life. The WWC Leave demographic, like you say, are not all driven mainly by nationalism and 'trad' social conservative values, rather than hard-headed economic concerns, and therein lies the target. Win back those guys and gals. This, plus expanding the new base, plus a chunk of floating voters looking for integrity and competence after 5 years of the Boris Johnson show, can deliver' Labour biggest party' at the next GE.
The thing is that some of your "new base" values, like hatred of your fellow citizens, hatred of your own country and despising your own flag, are anathema to most of the nation.
There are certain extreme values that are beyond the pale. Once you get into the realms of hate you're typically there.
The Labour Party, like the BNP and other parties built on hatred don't deserve a majority. Let go of the hate and you may have a chance.
Don't be so silly. Nobody has said that "the flag" should be despised or that everyone who likes to display it is a bad news bear. All I did was try to tempt you to do a little digging into the links between Eng Nat as a political creed and the far right. You refused and chose 'ignorance is bliss'. Your call. But the price of that ignorance is it renders any comments from you on this subject as chaff.
On 'flags' btw, quick tale from yesterday. I went to play golf at a club in South London and when I got there I found it festooned to the rafters with the St George. You literally couldn't move for flags. "Gosh," I thought, as I pulled in. "This looks a little OTT. What's the deal here?"
Then I realized. St George's Day! Patron Saint of England. George and the dragon and all that. WTF not get those flags out. Bet you got yours out, Philip, didn't you? Good on yer, if so. It doesn't prove you're a far right racist little englander.
Same applies to all those people who chose not to get theirs out. Or even those who don't possess one. You don't have to prove your patriotism with a flag. People who insist you have to prove your patriotism with a flag ARE bad news bears. I think that's one thing that all of sound mind and good character, regardless of their politics, can agree on.
There is nothing to link Eng Nat and the far right beyond your own bigotry. It is like linking Muslims with terrorists. If you want to give some unbigotted evidence that all Eng Nats are far right then you're just talking chaff. That in your eyes would even think of linking the national flag with the far right is as bigotted and hate-filled as someone who sees a hijab and thinks "terrorist".
And as for saying "nobody" on this very thread Roger said he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because of how much he hates the locals there. As far as I can see nobody on your side of politics here has disowned or disassociated themselves from those comments. Funny that.
(i) There are links between the Eng Nat creed and the far right. (ii) All Eng Nats are far right.
If you can't distinguish between these 2 statements (one of which is true and one of which isn't) a development of any value here is not possible. Which is ok because it would be boring anyway and Saturday mornings need a bit of fizz.
So let's go back to what I asked you. A very straightforward question about yesterday, St George's day and flags.
Did you get yours out?
(i) Is irrelevant gaslighting. (ii) Is bullshit.
So which did you mean? Were you trying to gaslight, falsely associating perfectly normal behaviour with extremists, or were you bullshitting?
As for my flag, I changed my avatar. Which I intend to keep because I think the new one is pretty cool. What do you think?
I think this goes hand in hand with the corruption stories. No one responsible will suffer much, indeed the chief executive Paula Vennells got a CBE and a job in the cabinet office!
People in power can do as they please, break rules and not suffer consequences.
Lol @ Vennells’s CBE for “services to the post office and charity”
These people are sophisticated crooks and deserve jail time.
The complacency and hubris shown by Tories is as palpable as it is reminiscent of other untouchable administrations in the past.
If you have seriously read this thread you know that is simply not true.
Eh? I’ve read it.
The stuff about the electorate not caring, it all being priced in, that Tory party values being more in line, the opposition being weak and divided and that people will vote for Boris anyway is truly complacent and straight out of the New Labour copybook in its final years.
The Tories are delivering a hugely successful vaccine roll-out. Voters really like it. The polls reflect this - both in party vote share and personal ratings. None of this should be a surprise. Extrapolating that to a much wider narrative when prior to the roll-out Labour was getting opinion poll leads and the PM's personal ratings were deeply negative is a bit of a stretch. I think that the 10 million plus people who voted Labour across the UK in 2019 were mistaken to back a party led by Jeremy Corbyn, but I struggle to believe that they and the millions of others who supported the Greens and the LibDems are all anti-British wokeists. I think it's a whole lot more complicated than that.
The point is that the Wokeism/national scepticism is already attracting all the votes it'll get and it's a low ceiling.
I'm explaining what's required to go further.
But Labour, the Greens and the LibDems get more votes combined than the Tories. If they represent national scepticism, they represent the majority view - especially so if you throw in the SNP and Plaid Cymru. As I say, though, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
It was the same in the eighties, when the Tories’ resounding electoral wins seemed to let them persuade themselves that they somehow spoke for a majority, when in reality significant change was being imposed on the majority by a minority, helped along by a flawed and unfair voting system.
If only there had been a government since that had realised this and promised to change it......
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Big G, others and I disown HYUFD's remarks on this site all the freaking time.
So?
Nobody expects you to "disown his remarks". We don't assume that you all have the same opinion as him on a subject he is quite frankly mocked for on a regular basis.
You don't assume it because we disassociate ourselves from such remarks.
When so many on your side of politics make it clear that they hate segments of our society - and you do nothing to disassociate yourself from that - then the implicit assumption becomes that you're at least content to let that slide.
When the Labour Party is happy to give the whip to those who call ethnic minorities "racial gatekeepers" or those who clearly hate their own flag and nation, then what are others supposed to think?
If a Tory MP expressed such hatred I'd want the whip removed immediately.
We have a Prime Minister who described Black Africans as picaninnies and who said they would be better off ruled by white Europeans; one who claimed that Barack Obama hated Britain because his father was a Kenyan. I believe he still holds the Conservative whip.
I think this goes hand in hand with the corruption stories. No one responsible will suffer much, indeed the chief executive Paula Vennells got a CBE and a job in the cabinet office!
People in power can do as they please, break rules and not suffer consequences.
Lol @ Vennells’s CBE for “services to the post office and charity”
These people are sophisticated crooks and deserve jail time.
I began to listen to the post office podcast yesterday. Amazing.
More amazing was that c&#t Vince Cable on PM yesterday denying any responsibility for this which happened on his watch.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
Yep, agreed. It's keep the new base and win back some of the old. The opposite, win back the old base and keep some of the new is not a goer. There comes a point where if core values are genuinely disconnected then such is life. The WWC Leave demographic, like you say, are not all driven mainly by nationalism and 'trad' social conservative values, rather than hard-headed economic concerns, and therein lies the target. Win back those guys and gals. This, plus expanding the new base, plus a chunk of floating voters looking for integrity and competence after 5 years of the Boris Johnson show, can deliver' Labour biggest party' at the next GE.
The thing is that some of your "new base" values, like hatred of your fellow citizens, hatred of your own country and despising your own flag, are anathema to most of the nation.
There are certain extreme values that are beyond the pale. Once you get into the realms of hate you're typically there.
The Labour Party, like the BNP and other parties built on hatred don't deserve a majority. Let go of the hate and you may have a chance.
Don't be so silly. Nobody has said that "the flag" should be despised or that everyone who likes to display it is a bad news bear. All I did was try to tempt you to do a little digging into the links between Eng Nat as a political creed and the far right. You refused and chose 'ignorance is bliss'. Your call. But the price of that ignorance is it renders any comments from you on this subject as chaff.
On 'flags' btw, quick tale from yesterday. I went to play golf at a club in South London and when I got there I found it festooned to the rafters with the St George. You literally couldn't move for flags. "Gosh," I thought, as I pulled in. "This looks a little OTT. What's the deal here?"
Then I realized. St George's Day! Patron Saint of England. George and the dragon and all that. WTF not get those flags out. Bet you got yours out, Philip, didn't you? Good on yer, if so. It doesn't prove you're a far right racist little englander.
Same applies to all those people who chose not to get theirs out. Or even those who don't possess one. You don't have to prove your patriotism with a flag. People who insist you have to prove your patriotism with a flag ARE bad news bears. I think that's one thing that all of sound mind and good character, regardless of their politics, can agree on.
There is nothing to link Eng Nat and the far right beyond your own bigotry. It is like linking Muslims with terrorists. If you want to give some unbigotted evidence that all Eng Nats are far right then you're just talking chaff. That in your eyes would even think of linking the national flag with the far right is as bigotted and hate-filled as someone who sees a hijab and thinks "terrorist".
And as for saying "nobody" on this very thread Roger said he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because of how much he hates the locals there. As far as I can see nobody on your side of politics here has disowned or disassociated themselves from those comments. Funny that.
(i) There are links between the Eng Nat creed and the far right. (ii) All Eng Nats are far right.
If you can't distinguish between these 2 statements (one of which is true and one of which isn't) a development of any value here is not possible. Which is ok because it would be boring anyway and Saturday mornings need a bit of fizz.
So let's go back to what I asked you. A very straightforward question about yesterday, St George's day and flags.
Did you get yours out?
(i) Is irrelevant gaslighting. (ii) Is bullshit.
So which did you mean? Were you trying to gaslight, falsely associating perfectly normal behaviour with extremists, or were you bullshitting?
As for my flag, I changed my avatar. Which I intend to keep because I think the new one is pretty cool. What do you think?
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The point @Casino_Royale was making is the two legacy parts of the Labour coalition (three if you include the specific appeal to minorities).
I think Labour can probably manage to bridge 2 but not 3. It’s not easy to resolve the problem and I’m not going to promise to have a magic solution for you 😁
Labour's problem - solutions welcome - from the point of view of a patriot who would happily vote for Attlee:
There are now 4 sorts of English Labour seat (and though this simplifies, it is much truer than is comfortable):
a) SUPERB: super urban, social housing, payroll vote, poor, benefits (Bootle, Knowsley)
b) BAME: self explanatory (East Ham, Bethnal Green)
c) TOYNBEES: self regarding, educated, student, Guardian, too posh to vote Tory, private school, wealth, nowheres (Putney, Cambridge, Hampstead)
d) GUNAL: Grim up north, always Labour (Hartlepool).
The first three are self contained enclaves with little in common. The first three categories are basically safe for Labour for now, but there are not nearly enough of them. Every single seat in the last category has drifted or is drifting.
Only a handful of Labour held seats fall outside these categories. Ipswich was one in 2017. Look at it now.
This is a total London-centric view of England.
What about seats like Tynemouth or Blaydon?
Not super posh "Guardian" seats. Not student seats.
Those are in category (d), although the title shouldn't always include the word "grim".
"Alison Saunders thinks she has done a good job: “I do, I do. [It’s] been quite affirming internally, saying goodbye. People think I’ve done a good job – it matters what people in the service think.” She is proud, she says, of changing the work culture where there is “smarter working, so we have people working remotely and from home” and of reportedly boosting staff morale while presiding over 25% funding cuts and shedding a third of the now 6,000-employee workforce."
Interesting that she focuses on internal administrative matters rather than on the essentials of her job - effective prosecutions. And who can blame her. After all, under her watch there was the scandal of disclosure issues in a number of rape cases, for which she had to apologise. Disclosure is absolutely essential to the work of the CPS. If they can't get that right they may as well not bother existing. Without proper disclosure it is impossible to have a fair trial and justice.
It is precisely because we have people like this at the top of our institutions - people who focus on everything but what is really important - that so many of them are frankly third and second rate and getting worse rather than better.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The point @Casino_Royale was making is the two legacy parts of the Labour coalition (three if you include the specific appeal to minorities).
I think Labour can probably manage to bridge 2 but not 3. It’s not easy to resolve the problem and I’m not going to promise to have a magic solution for you 😁
Labour's problem - solutions welcome - from the point of view of a patriot who would happily vote for Attlee:
There are now 4 sorts of English Labour seat (and though this simplifies, it is much truer than is comfortable):
a) SUPERB: super urban, social housing, payroll vote, poor, benefits (Bootle, Knowsley)
b) BAME: self explanatory (East Ham, Bethnal Green)
c) TOYNBEES: self regarding, educated, student, Guardian, too posh to vote Tory, private school, wealth, nowheres (Putney, Cambridge, Hampstead)
d) GUNAL: Grim up north, always Labour (Hartlepool).
The first three are self contained enclaves with little in common. The first three categories are basically safe for Labour for now, but there are not nearly enough of them. Every single seat in the last category has drifted or is drifting.
Only a handful of Labour held seats fall outside these categories. Ipswich was one in 2017. Look at it now.
When you think Hampstead, you probably think big £3 million houses in the Village. When I think of it I think of the big council estate behind Finchley Road in Swiss Cottage where my grandparents lived. More people live in the latter than in the former. This is a common tale in all Labour-held seats in London and other big cities.
Yes. All the qualifications are true. But I think my main generalisation stands. Labour's vote is over reliant on population enclaves that are difficult to form policy for, tricky to add to, and lack enough of the middling sort that dominates the Tory vote.
As for opening up earlier I note we still have two more months of restrictions. That is a long time for a nation well vaccinated with capacity in its health service.
But it's what most people on here were cheering on for the past year and you lot are supposed to be brighter than the average Brit so is it any wonder the govt is happy to keep our freedoms?
Once you let a govt know you are happy to give up your freedom you cede to it something you will never reclaim.
Opening up slowly is sensible and not a sign of a permanent loss of freedom.
Do you drive around without a seatbelt as an act of defiance?
If you think the seatbelt laws are analogous to not being able to see your parents by law then I am beginning to see why we are where we are.
Who is prevented from seeing their parents by law at the moment? Even care home visits are allowed with testing.
I think this goes hand in hand with the corruption stories. No one responsible will suffer much, indeed the chief executive Paula Vennells got a CBE and a job in the cabinet office!
People in power can do as they please, break rules and not suffer consequences.
Lol @ Vennells’s CBE for “services to the post office and charity”
These people are sophisticated crooks and deserve jail time.
I began to listen to the post office podcast yesterday. Amazing.
More amazing was that c&#t Vince Cable on PM yesterday denying any responsibility for this which happened on his watch.
The people responsible for this, at both the PO and Fujitsu, need to be held accountable by a court of law. Gongs for those working at the PO at the time also need to be strippped, starting with Paula Vennels.
As for opening up earlier I note we still have two more months of restrictions. That is a long time for a nation well vaccinated with capacity in its health service.
But it's what most people on here were cheering on for the past year and you lot are supposed to be brighter than the average Brit so is it any wonder the govt is happy to keep our freedoms?
Once you let a govt know you are happy to give up your freedom you cede to it something you will never reclaim.
Opening up slowly is sensible and not a sign of a permanent loss of freedom.
Do you drive around without a seatbelt as an act of defiance?
If you think the seatbelt laws are analogous to not being able to see your parents by law then I am beginning to see why we are where we are.
Who is prevented from seeing their parents by law at the moment? Even care home visits are allowed with testing.
We have applauded without question every measure to restrict our freedom for the past year.
Honestly attacking Dom Cummings then expecting him not to respond is as dumb as allowing international air travel, especially from India attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour and not expecting them to respond.
Pearl Harbor was arguably the greatest strategic mistake ever. Even bigger than Singapore’s infamous guns. Even bigger than Napoleon’s invasion of Russia.
What sort of imbecile attacks the world’s largest navy and seriously pisses them off, while at the same time missing the only three capital ships of actual value in the Pacific Fleet?
To be fair, missing the carriers wasn't intentional (and the battleships sunk and/or seriously damaged were of genuine value too) - though neither of those points was a strategic mistake; that being the attack on Pearl in the first place, which, you rightly describe as the worst strategic decision ever. How was Japan ever going to win a war against the US (and, simultaneously, China, the UK and others) and if it wasn't winnable, why the fuck initiate it?
Wasn't it effectively a choice of war or withdraw from China ?
The latter likely leading to the assassination of the military leadership by more enthusiastic junior ranks.
The attacks on SE Asia were, from the Japanese point, essential to secure supplies that the US embargoes had started denying them. That inevitably meant war with the UK and Netherlands - though that was a reasonable strategic risk as there was a fair chance that developments in Europe could resolve that problem. Clearly, bypassing the Philippines and other US bases would leave a much messier and more vulnerable position there but that surely only goes to emphasise why the key Japanese priority should have been to keep the US *out* of a Pacific war. Indeed, the fact that even after Pearl, Washington gave priority to the European theatre strongly suggests that the risk of not attacking it was well worth taking.
America fought both wars equally. It was a quirk of geopolitics or something that one was an island-hopping war fought by the US Navy, aircraft carriers and marines, whereas the other largely occupied the army and airforce.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The 'unelectability' of Labour is decided by 2 or 3 million voters who voted Labour before and didn't recently, voting Tory instead. Until Labour has a broad and coherent middling strategy that seems to make a better and more plausible offer to Mansfield man and Bassetlaw woman than the Tories they have a problem.
Every time the Pidcock tendency speak of Tory scum, vermin, 'Never kissed a Tory' blah blah they are showing contempt for the 2 or 3 million people whose support they need. Tories get this. Labour doesn't.
(I shall carry on voting Labour for Police Commissioner, local council and so on but they are way off persuading me to even think about them as a national government).
You may be right, but they need to win over Mansfield man and Bassetlaw woman without losing the votes of Brighton man and Cambridge woman. Tricky, but doable IMO.
Labour would be a happier party in a more pluralist system with fair votes, under which they could set out a moderately socialist programme that their members believed in, and fight their corner against a range of other parties, including those representing liberal and green viewpoints that are currently barely represented.
Only what appears to be an increasingly remote chance of winning another jackpot under the current voting system prevents them from facing this reality.
Yes, I'm for PR. I love our FPTP system in many ways - the drama, the micro subplots in different areas and seats, the betting opps, the way it can lead to sweeping sudden change, the brutal beauty of that - but the downside of warped representation and the promotion of shallow binary partisanship in loco intelligent solutions to big problems is imo greater. I voted for AV in the Ref and I'd vote for either that or (preferably) proper PR again if it comes back. Constituencies plus List. I'd live with the "two classes of MP" negative of that. I think it's the best way to go.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The point @Casino_Royale was making is the two legacy parts of the Labour coalition (three if you include the specific appeal to minorities).
I think Labour can probably manage to bridge 2 but not 3. It’s not easy to resolve the problem and I’m not going to promise to have a magic solution for you 😁
Labour's problem - solutions welcome - from the point of view of a patriot who would happily vote for Attlee:
There are now 4 sorts of English Labour seat (and though this simplifies, it is much truer than is comfortable):
a) SUPERB: super urban, social housing, payroll vote, poor, benefits (Bootle, Knowsley)
b) BAME: self explanatory (East Ham, Bethnal Green)
c) TOYNBEES: self regarding, educated, student, Guardian, too posh to vote Tory, private school, wealth, nowheres (Putney, Cambridge, Hampstead)
d) GUNAL: Grim up north, always Labour (Hartlepool).
The first three are self contained enclaves with little in common. The first three categories are basically safe for Labour for now, but there are not nearly enough of them. Every single seat in the last category has drifted or is drifting.
Only a handful of Labour held seats fall outside these categories. Ipswich was one in 2017. Look at it now.
This is a total London-centric view of England.
What about seats like Tynemouth or Blaydon?
Not super posh "Guardian" seats. Not student seats.
Tynemouth and Blaydon aren't up north?
Though I think "Grim up North" is a rather silly remark, the North is not grim.
Of course it isn't. I live there. And I can see the factory chimney towers less than half a mile away. Is your irony filter switched on?
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The point @Casino_Royale was making is the two legacy parts of the Labour coalition (three if you include the specific appeal to minorities).
I think Labour can probably manage to bridge 2 but not 3. It’s not easy to resolve the problem and I’m not going to promise to have a magic solution for you 😁
Labour's problem - solutions welcome - from the point of view of a patriot who would happily vote for Attlee:
There are now 4 sorts of English Labour seat (and though this simplifies, it is much truer than is comfortable):
a) SUPERB: super urban, social housing, payroll vote, poor, benefits (Bootle, Knowsley)
b) BAME: self explanatory (East Ham, Bethnal Green)
c) TOYNBEES: self regarding, educated, student, Guardian, too posh to vote Tory, private school, wealth, nowheres (Putney, Cambridge, Hampstead)
d) GUNAL: Grim up north, always Labour (Hartlepool).
The first three are self contained enclaves with little in common. The first three categories are basically safe for Labour for now, but there are not nearly enough of them. Every single seat in the last category has drifted or is drifting.
Only a handful of Labour held seats fall outside these categories. Ipswich was one in 2017. Look at it now.
The huge hole in this list is the role of the Public Sector Payroll Vote.
As for opening up earlier I note we still have two more months of restrictions. That is a long time for a nation well vaccinated with capacity in its health service.
But it's what most people on here were cheering on for the past year and you lot are supposed to be brighter than the average Brit so is it any wonder the govt is happy to keep our freedoms?
Once you let a govt know you are happy to give up your freedom you cede to it something you will never reclaim.
Apart from foreign travel and possibly nightclubs, it’s not clear to me what difference the additional restrictions will make between 17 May and 21 June. There’s no Rule of Six outdoors after 17 May for example: a massive liberalisation that is little known?
I would like to go to Ascot.
My guess is that will be a ‘test event’ with a full crowd. See also England vs Scotland at Wembley (which is on the same week I think?)
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
I always enjoy @roger for his refreshing candour! Not that I always agree with them...
I think his point is that a Labour Party that abandons internationalism, compassion to asylum seekers, and a desire for social justice is one which deserves to lose. If abandoning those principles in pursuit of an elusive demographic drunk on right wing populism is the plan, then it is better to lose Hartlepool. I understand that feeling.
Yep. We should try and win back the Wall but not chase it to the exclusion of all else.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The point @Casino_Royale was making is the two legacy parts of the Labour coalition (three if you include the specific appeal to minorities).
I think Labour can probably manage to bridge 2 but not 3. It’s not easy to resolve the problem and I’m not going to promise to have a magic solution for you 😁
Labour's problem - solutions welcome - from the point of view of a patriot who would happily vote for Attlee:
There are now 4 sorts of English Labour seat (and though this simplifies, it is much truer than is comfortable):
a) SUPERB: super urban, social housing, payroll vote, poor, benefits (Bootle, Knowsley)
b) BAME: self explanatory (East Ham, Bethnal Green)
c) TOYNBEES: self regarding, educated, student, Guardian, too posh to vote Tory, private school, wealth, nowheres (Putney, Cambridge, Hampstead)
d) GUNAL: Grim up north, always Labour (Hartlepool).
The first three are self contained enclaves with little in common. The first three categories are basically safe for Labour for now, but there are not nearly enough of them. Every single seat in the last category has drifted or is drifting.
Only a handful of Labour held seats fall outside these categories. Ipswich was one in 2017. Look at it now.
This is a total London-centric view of England.
What about seats like Tynemouth or Blaydon?
Not super posh "Guardian" seats. Not student seats.
Thanks. I'll tentatively give you Tynemouth. Blaydon is a bit of super urban and a bit of always Labour. (I live in the north, over 300 miles from London and I can see Scotland from up the road). Have you started the new job.
I guess Tynemouth has some Guardian, some super urban, but the split isn't always so distinct.
Solihull for example has a very fast growing BAME population — well to do BAME from Birmingham — and yet is more solidly Tory than it has been for a long time.
I start my new job in June thanks! I have exams to get through first.
Apologies for mischaracterising the London-centricism.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
Winning strategy for Labour? What about look at what Blair did and try to do it again?
The problem with that approach is that Blair would not do in 2021 what he did in 1996. He would craft a platform and a tent that attracted a sufficiently large minority of the country to make himself invincible but it would be a different coalition from 1996/7. . Its what successful politicians do.
Its what Boris does. Those that accuse him of inconsistency or lack of principles are completely missing the point. His job, as leader of the Conservative party or any leader of the Labour party is to speak to the electorate as it is now, to address the concerns they are facing today and to assuage their fears of tomorrow. High principles, academic rigor and lofty rhetoric may score you points with the opinion writers. Bread and butter focus on current concerns win elections. Boris totally gets that. SKS, I am not so sure.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
Yep, agreed. It's keep the new base and win back some of the old. The opposite, win back the old base and keep some of the new is not a goer. There comes a point where if core values are genuinely disconnected then such is life. The WWC Leave demographic, like you say, are not all driven mainly by nationalism and 'trad' social conservative values, rather than hard-headed economic concerns, and therein lies the target. Win back those guys and gals. This, plus expanding the new base, plus a chunk of floating voters looking for integrity and competence after 5 years of the Boris Johnson show, can deliver' Labour biggest party' at the next GE.
The thing is that some of your "new base" values, like hatred of your fellow citizens, hatred of your own country and despising your own flag, are anathema to most of the nation.
There are certain extreme values that are beyond the pale. Once you get into the realms of hate you're typically there.
The Labour Party, like the BNP and other parties built on hatred don't deserve a majority. Let go of the hate and you may have a chance.
Don't be so silly. Nobody has said that "the flag" should be despised or that everyone who likes to display it is a bad news bear. All I did was try to tempt you to do a little digging into the links between Eng Nat as a political creed and the far right. You refused and chose 'ignorance is bliss'. Your call. But the price of that ignorance is it renders any comments from you on this subject as chaff.
On 'flags' btw, quick tale from yesterday. I went to play golf at a club in South London and when I got there I found it festooned to the rafters with the St George. You literally couldn't move for flags. "Gosh," I thought, as I pulled in. "This looks a little OTT. What's the deal here?"
Then I realized. St George's Day! Patron Saint of England. George and the dragon and all that. WTF not get those flags out. Bet you got yours out, Philip, didn't you? Good on yer, if so. It doesn't prove you're a far right racist little englander.
Same applies to all those people who chose not to get theirs out. Or even those who don't possess one. You don't have to prove your patriotism with a flag. People who insist you have to prove your patriotism with a flag ARE bad news bears. I think that's one thing that all of sound mind and good character, regardless of their politics, can agree on.
There is nothing to link Eng Nat and the far right beyond your own bigotry. It is like linking Muslims with terrorists. If you want to give some unbigotted evidence that all Eng Nats are far right then you're just talking chaff. That in your eyes would even think of linking the national flag with the far right is as bigotted and hate-filled as someone who sees a hijab and thinks "terrorist".
And as for saying "nobody" on this very thread Roger said he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because of how much he hates the locals there. As far as I can see nobody on your side of politics here has disowned or disassociated themselves from those comments. Funny that.
(i) There are links between the Eng Nat creed and the far right. (ii) All Eng Nats are far right.
If you can't distinguish between these 2 statements (one of which is true and one of which isn't) a development of any value here is not possible. Which is ok because it would be boring anyway and Saturday mornings need a bit of fizz.
So let's go back to what I asked you. A very straightforward question about yesterday, St George's day and flags.
Did you get yours out?
(i) Is irrelevant gaslighting. (ii) Is bullshit.
So which did you mean? Were you trying to gaslight, falsely associating perfectly normal behaviour with extremists, or were you bullshitting?
As for my flag, I changed my avatar. Which I intend to keep because I think the new one is pretty cool. What do you think?
Comments
I think "straw man" is a gendered noun, as attacking a straw man was a training exercise in the military, with bayonets and the like. The straw figures would be male, rather than female as a result. I understand the expression now means more generally attacking a defenseless caricature of someone's argument.
My letter to the Prime Minister this morning. https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1385888879455227904/photo/1
The Robin Hood line (Nottm to Shirebrook) does more than a million passengers each year, afaics.
The imposition of restrictions was to "protect the NHS", the notion that it is illegal to be inside a relatives living room, or illegal for a restaurant to offer tables inside, in order to "protect the NHS" when we have no hospitalisations, no deaths and vey few cases is absolutely preposterous.
I don't and won't support the taking away of civil liberties because people are scared of their own shadow.
It’s a semi serious point though.
The BBC had Gauke on the other day as a Tory criticising Boris. If they have to dig that deep to find opponents from his own side then Boris is in a decent place politically
Given the remaining mix of population in this country to be first dosed we can probably restrict our Astra to more or less second doses and let India have priority on imports we might otherwise have taken.
We're really not the problem though, the EU and USA need to sort their (lack of) export out.
India does though have a large amount of internal capacity; of course it's main problem here is it also has a collosal population. They ought to be on a 1 dose strategy till everyone over 50 is done at any rate.
On 'flags' btw, quick tale from yesterday. I went to play golf at a club in South London and when I got there I found it festooned to the rafters with the St George. You literally couldn't move for flags. "Gosh," I thought, as I pulled in. "This looks a little OTT. What's the deal here?"
Then I realized. St George's Day! Patron Saint of England. George and the dragon and all that. WTF not get those flags out. Bet you got yours out, Philip, didn't you? Good on yer, if so. It doesn't prove you're a far right racist little englander.
Same applies to all those people who chose not to get theirs out. Or even those who don't possess one. You don't have to prove your patriotism with a flag. People who insist you have to prove your patriotism with a flag ARE bad news bears. I think that's one thing that all of sound mind and good character, regardless of their politics, can agree on.
Hopefully the weather will hold and we’ll have a great time. Three weeks to go.
By then India's likely to be through the worst of the peak and lockdown will be taking effect. Besides which our available vaccines will be a drop in the ocean for a population the size of India.
I was more thinking in terms of O2 or something else they might critically need that we could get their and be using within days.
Noteworthy I think that the respirators rapidly built here were a portable model.
Incoming 2-0 defeat.
They didn’t knowingly do something stupid. They must have thought it was a good idea. Why did they do it?
I Would Do Anything for Gove But I Won't Do That
But it's what most people on here were cheering on for the past year and you lot are supposed to be brighter than the average Brit so is it any wonder the govt is happy to keep our freedoms?
Once you let a govt know you are happy to give up your freedom you cede to it something you will never reclaim.
So in India Anti-American sentiment is exploding. The same bound to happen in Turkey. Do foreign policy commentators think this is good or bad for US interests? Did you see it happening under Biden? Do you think Turkey and India are irrelevant?
And as for saying "nobody" on this very thread Roger said he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because of how much he hates the locals there. As far as I can see nobody on your side of politics here has disowned or disassociated themselves from those comments. Funny that.
Doubly so when he had nothing to do with the leaks, a reputation for assiduously keeping notes and messages, and knowing that Fleet St would lap up the story.
The only conclusion is that the whole thing is a massive dead cat, so what’s the real story we are all missing?
Talk about reaching.
What’s been interesting is the rollback of RWA programmes during the pandemic as consumers have shown a strong preference for cheap food over RWA.
Nobody expects you to "disown his remarks". We don't assume that you all have the same opinion as him on a subject he is quite frankly mocked for on a regular basis.
The point was made a few days ago that places like Mansfield have very high home ownership.
How sticky will these new "working class Tories" be?
There was an interesting report recently on Towns, and one finding was a marked ambivalence to newly created well paying jobs if they went to incomers. I shall see if I can find it.
When so many on your side of politics make it clear that they hate segments of our society - and you do nothing to disassociate yourself from that - then the implicit assumption becomes that you're at least content to let that slide.
When the Labour Party is happy to give the whip to those who call ethnic minorities "racial gatekeepers" or those who clearly hate their own flag and nation, then what are others supposed to think?
If a Tory MP expressed such hatred I'd want the whip removed immediately.
Although I appreciate that most British people jokily call their own town a sh*thole...
Only what appears to be an increasingly remote chance of winning another jackpot under the current voting system prevents them from facing this reality.
The society itself was militarised.
I wonder what the USA would have done had they just gone for the old colonisalists - UK, Netherlands etc.
Slightly tricky in that the Philippines were in the USA's Empire at that time, but an interesting thought.
(ii) All Eng Nats are far right.
If you can't distinguish between these 2 statements (one of which is true and one of which isn't) a development of any value here is not possible. Which is ok because it would be boring anyway and Saturday mornings need a bit of fizz.
So let's go back to what I asked you. A very straightforward question about yesterday, St George's day and flags.
Did you get yours out?
The contrast with a much larger party - with their suspensions, enquiries and then quietly letting them back in a few weeks or months later, was noticable.
I am proud that we are so comfortable in our own identity that we don't have to pipe ourselves off over it once a year.
Feels good man.
There are now 4 sorts of English Labour seat (and though this simplifies, it is much truer than is comfortable):
a) SUPERB: super urban, social housing, payroll vote, poor, benefits (Bootle, Knowsley)
b) BAME: self explanatory (East Ham, Bethnal Green)
c) TOYNBEES: self regarding, educated, student, Guardian, too posh to vote Tory, private school, wealth, nowheres (Putney, Cambridge, Hampstead)
d) GUNAL: Grim up north, always Labour (Hartlepool).
The first three are self contained enclaves with little in common. The first three categories are basically safe for Labour for now, but there are not nearly enough of them. Every single seat in the last category has drifted or is drifting.
Only a handful of Labour held seats fall outside these categories. Ipswich was one in 2017. Look at it now.
I have no Idea how he got security clearance to work at the heart of this government.
Now that you have seen it do you have anything to say, or do you not care about it? Because that's kind of the point.
What about seats like Tynemouth or Blaydon?
Not super posh "Guardian" seats. Not student seats.
Things like the environment: middle class priority, but sell it as a big investment and jobs programme in the Midlands and North. Let's onshore the expertise around wind farm manufacturing, electric cars etc ourselves etc.
Attacking Tory sleeze and the corruption of the rich should also be a safe target for both target demographics.
But to do so they would have to admit that Boris was less than perfect and that seems an impossible thing for them to do.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/oct/27/alison-saunders-outgoing-dpp-good-job-interview-cps
The DPP before Alison Saunders was Keir Starmer.
Do you drive around without a seatbelt as an act of defiance?
(ii) Is bullshit.
So which did you mean? Were you trying to gaslight, falsely associating perfectly normal behaviour with extremists, or were you bullshitting?
As for my flag, I changed my avatar. Which I intend to keep because I think the new one is pretty cool. What do you think?
I think his point is that a Labour Party that abandons internationalism, compassion to asylum seekers, and a desire for social justice is one which deserves to lose. If abandoning those principles in pursuit of an elusive demographic drunk on right wing populism is the plan, then it is better to lose Hartlepool. I understand that feeling.
There'll be a statement soon from Starmer disowning Roger.
They have already been restricted and a path to lifting those restrictions set out. You need to make a case to change from that path.
I suspect most of us have better things to do than to respond to every comment indicating our approval or disapproval. It would be time consuming and banal.
So, for example, I usually ignore your comments, whether or not I agree with them. But I've now made the foolish mistake of engaging. I'm sure I'll regret it.......
Though I think "Grim up North" is a rather silly remark, the North is not grim.
https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU
These people are sophisticated crooks and deserve jail time.
If only there had been a government since that had realised this and promised to change it......
More amazing was that c&#t Vince Cable on PM yesterday denying any responsibility for this which happened on his watch.
It is precisely because we have people like this at the top of our institutions - people who focus on everything but what is really important - that so many of them are frankly third and second rate and getting worse rather than better.
And some people still can't.
Solihull for example has a very fast growing BAME population — well to do BAME from Birmingham — and yet is more solidly Tory than it has been for a long time.
I start my new job in June thanks! I have exams to get through first.
Apologies for mischaracterising the London-centricism.
Its what Boris does. Those that accuse him of inconsistency or lack of principles are completely missing the point. His job, as leader of the Conservative party or any leader of the Labour party is to speak to the electorate as it is now, to address the concerns they are facing today and to assuage their fears of tomorrow. High principles, academic rigor and lofty rhetoric may score you points with the opinion writers. Bread and butter focus on current concerns win elections. Boris totally gets that. SKS, I am not so sure.