Labour drifting again in Hartlepool. I always thought Tories would sneak in by less than 2k votes but given how well it’s been going for them and recent noises on Teeside I reckon it could be a larger win. Paul Williams is such a poor fit for that seat.
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 Public Sector Payroll Vote.
It seems to me that is fairly evenly spread across the country, (NHS, Schools, local government) but with pockets of greater significance in some urban areas.
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.
The journalist who exposed much of this, Nick Wallis, certainly deserves an honour. Or some professional award.
Paula Vennells should have all her honours taken away. Those bodies which have her on their boards should be thinking hard about whether she should continue. The Anglican Church might want to send her for remedial lessons on the 10 Commandments - as she is, apparently, an Anglican priest. See also what I wrote about her here - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/16/rewards-for-failure/.
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?
I figured category (d) "Grim up North, always Labour" was irony due to the fact Hartlepool is probably going to vote Conservative in large numbers in a week or so...
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?
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.
LOL. This again?
We have a PM who satirised Blair's Imperial Progress to avoid the UK where he was unpopular, by using Imperial Victorian Language.
Quite appropriate.
I think this is actually one of Labour's more serious problems. They focus far too much on attacking fabricated Straw Men rather than the Govt as it is.
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.
Him thinking the ‘no one brought it to my attention’ was a good line to pursue was plain weird.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
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.
LOL. This again?
We have a PM who satirised Blair's Imperial Progress to avoid the UK where he was unpopular, by using Victorian Language.
Quite appropriate.
I think this is actually one of Labour's problems. They focus far too much on attacking fabricated Straw men rather than the Govt as it is.
Yes, of course: racism is fine when the Tories do 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.
LOL. This again?
We have a PM who satirised Blair's Imperial Progress to avoid the UK where he was unpopular, by using Victorian Language.
Quite appropriate.
I think this is actually one of Labour's problems. They focus far too much on attacking fabricated Straw men rather than the Govt as it is.
Yes, of course: racism is fine when the Tories do it!
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?
Sometimes a dumb petulant act is just an act of dumb petulance. And the Prime Minister, for all his talents, does have form for doing things that, in the light of day, look pretty foolish.
One of the risks for BoJo is that he starts to believe his own hype that he really is a great national leader, rather than just the front man.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
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?
You can't comment on (i) having chosen not to look into it. Sorry.
Yes, the new avatar suits you. I think you should keep it.
But it's not a proper flesh & blood flag. So given you did not get one out - even on such a special day - are we to conclude that you do not possess a flag of St George?
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.
Him thinking the ‘no one brought it to my attention’ was a good line to pursue was plain weird.
That seems to be the story here, summed up quite well in one line.
Everyone blamed everyone else, throughout. Nobody is responsible.
I suspect that a large number of the 20.000 sub-post office managers quietly made up for the errors out of their own pocket. They deserve to be repaid as well.
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.
LOL. This again?
We have a PM who satirised Blair's Imperial Progress to avoid the UK where he was unpopular, by using Victorian Language.
Quite appropriate.
I think this is actually one of Labour's problems. They focus far too much on attacking fabricated Straw men rather than the Govt as it is.
Yes, of course: racism is fine when the Tories do it!
Satire is not racism.
It may have gone over your head though.
What was the satire involved in saying black Africans do not know how to manage their own economies and would be better off ruled by white Europeans?
It never begins to surprise me that so many of those who were so keen to condemn Jeremy Corbyn's undoubted anti-Semitism are perfectly happy to explain away Boris Johnson's racism. It applies the other way round too, of course.
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.
We are lifting restrictions. People have the time to plan and make sure they have inventory in place so they can open in a profitable manner. Within 3 weeks most restrictions will be gone.
What’s the benefit of all that uncertainty and disruption?
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
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.
You don't have to delve back quite that far. In 2017 Labour didn't have any problem winning Hartlepool and Islington at the same time. Neither were close.
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.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
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.
He ascribed that viewpoint to the NGO community as neo-colonialists
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.
Likewise, the triple lock Tory payroll vote.
But the Tories are dumping a huge wad of the "Public Sector Payroll" vote on Darlington!
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.
Best of luck. Absolutely agree about Solihull - one of a load of reasons why Labour should not take the ethnic minority vote for granted, not is that vote a single thing.
What I am describing is Labour seats not Tory ones and I think my generalisation reveals a genuine problem. Once upon a time it was the Tories who had to create a 'one nation' narrative. They don't need to right now, running the NHS with government as a sideline, a social democrat policy and so on. Labour have no default position 'one nation' image, and need to develop one fast.
They need to keep their current base of course - but it can't be added to much as they already hold almost all the Bame, Toynbee and Super urban seats. Only a one nation approach can do 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.
LOL. This again?
We have a PM who satirised Blair's Imperial Progress to avoid the UK where he was unpopular, by using Victorian Language.
Quite appropriate.
I think this is actually one of Labour's problems. They focus far too much on attacking fabricated Straw men rather than the Govt as it is.
Yes, of course: racism is fine when the Tories do it!
Satire is not racism.
It may have gone over your head though.
Demanding folk disown an individual punter on an obscure forum while defending picaninnies and water melon smiles, cracking satire, Gromit!
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.
He ascribed that viewpoint to the NGO community as neo-colonialists
Of course he did. And, presumably, he did the same when he claimed that Black Africans cannot govern themselves effectively; and when he claimed that Barack Obama hates Britain because his father is Kenyan. There is always an explanation ready for those who are very happy to accuse the other side of racism but will never accept it exists on their own side.
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.
We are lifting restrictions. People have the time to plan and make sure they have inventory in place so they can open in a profitable manner. Within 3 weeks most restrictions will be gone.
What’s the benefit of all that uncertainty and disruption?
Well for eg the hospitality trade the month of May is one of the busiest in the year, unlike January, so if its safe to be fully open then just dragging this out for another three weeks for the hell of it is unjustifiable.
If a premise feels they're not ready to open as they need to prepare inventory etc then its not compulsory to open sooner, they can still go on the 17th if they choose to do so. That would be their choice. But if others are prepared, ready and available - and if its safe to do so - then there is no justification to keep them closed.
The onus needs to be on justifying removing people's civil liberties, not on restoring them.
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.
You don't have to delve back quite that far. In 2017 Labour didn't have any problem winning Hartlepool and Islington at the same time. Neither were close.
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.
LOL. This again?
We have a PM who satirised Blair's Imperial Progress to avoid the UK where he was unpopular, by using Victorian Language.
Quite appropriate.
I think this is actually one of Labour's problems. They focus far too much on attacking fabricated Straw men rather than the Govt as it is.
Yes, of course: racism is fine when the Tories do it!
Satire is not racism.
It may have gone over your head though.
Demanding folk disown an individual punter on an obscure forum while defending picaninnies and water melon smiles, cracking satire, Gromit!
Not demanding, just pointing out the issue.
And the fact that the hatred that is endemic on the left is visible on a daily basis - while the supposed racism on the right is from a satirical article by a then journalist two decades ago with nothing more relevant to go on - rather shows the difference.
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.
AV was just idiot Clegg’s pointless bauble from the Tories.
Trust me, election aficionados like most PB’ers would absolutely love STV elections for the UK Parliament.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
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?
You can't comment on (i) having chosen not to look into it. Sorry.
Yes, the new avatar suits you. I think you should keep it.
But it's not a proper flesh & blood flag. So given you did not get one out - even on such a special day - are we to conclude that you do not possess a flag of St George?
There is nothing to look into in (i)
If you have some evidence for (i) feel free to present it, otherwise I'll treat it with the same contempt I'd treat any other bigot.
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 Public Sector Payroll Vote.
It seems to me that is fairly evenly spread across the country, (NHS, Schools, local government) but with pockets of greater significance in some urban areas.
Fairly evenly, yes. But there are big concentrations in a minority (yes, a largish minority ) of constituencies.
eg My local hospital is a decent sized district hospital (600 beds, 13 theatres) and covers perhaps 5 constituencies. But it has 3500-4000 staff, who live overwhelmingly in 2 of those. It is right on the boundary.
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.
I took Grim Up North to be the elision that enabled his model always to work. At least from the viewpoint of a Londoner.
That’s a new irregular use of the word elision, by the way. Language evolves, and you’ve just witnessed a mutation.
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.
LOL. This again?
We have a PM who satirised Blair's Imperial Progress to avoid the UK where he was unpopular, by using Victorian Language.
Quite appropriate.
I think this is actually one of Labour's problems. They focus far too much on attacking fabricated Straw men rather than the Govt as it is.
Yes, of course: racism is fine when the Tories do it!
Satire is not racism.
It may have gone over your head though.
Demanding folk disown an individual punter on an obscure forum while defending picaninnies and water melon smiles, cracking satire, Gromit!
Not demanding, just pointing out the issue.
And the fact that the hatred that is endemic on the left is visible on a daily basis - while the supposed racism on the right is from a satirical article by a then journalist two decades ago with nothing more relevant to go on - rather shows the difference.
I am still struggling to see the satire involved in claiming that sub-Saharan Africans would be better off being ruled by white Europeans.
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.
LOL. This again?
We have a PM who satirised Blair's Imperial Progress to avoid the UK where he was unpopular, by using Victorian Language.
Quite appropriate.
I think this is actually one of Labour's problems. They focus far too much on attacking fabricated Straw men rather than the Govt as it is.
Yes, of course: racism is fine when the Tories do it!
Satire is not racism.
It may have gone over your head though.
Demanding folk disown an individual punter on an obscure forum while defending picaninnies and water melon smiles, cracking satire, Gromit!
Not demanding, just pointing out the issue.
And the fact that the hatred that is endemic on the left is visible on a daily basis - while the supposed racism on the right is from a satirical article by a then journalist two decades ago with nothing more relevant to go on - rather shows the difference.
I am still struggling to see the satire involved in claiming that sub-Saharan Africans would be better off being ruled by white Europeans.
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.
He ascribed that viewpoint to the NGO community as neo-colonialists
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?
You can't comment on (i) having chosen not to look into it. Sorry.
Yes, the new avatar suits you. I think you should keep it.
But it's not a proper flesh & blood flag. So given you did not get one out - even on such a special day - are we to conclude that you do not possess a flag of St George?
There is nothing to look into in (i)
If you have some evidence for (i) feel free to present it, otherwise I'll treat it with the same contempt I'd treat any other bigot.
The dodging of the question is telling me that you - you of all people! - do NOT possess a flag of St George.
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.
LOL. This again?
We have a PM who satirised Blair's Imperial Progress to avoid the UK where he was unpopular, by using Victorian Language.
Quite appropriate.
I think this is actually one of Labour's problems. They focus far too much on attacking fabricated Straw men rather than the Govt as it is.
Yes, of course: racism is fine when the Tories do it!
Satire is not racism.
It may have gone over your head though.
Demanding folk disown an individual punter on an obscure forum while defending picaninnies and water melon smiles, cracking satire, Gromit!
Not demanding, just pointing out the issue.
And the fact that the hatred that is endemic on the left is visible on a daily basis - while the supposed racism on the right is from a satirical article by a then journalist two decades ago with nothing more relevant to go on - rather shows the difference.
If it’s a lovingly crafted bit of satire going over the heads of hateful lefties, why is it having been written two decades ago important? Presumably you’d think it bitingly on the mark if BJ had disgorged it yesterday?
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?
You can't comment on (i) having chosen not to look into it. Sorry.
Yes, the new avatar suits you. I think you should keep it.
But it's not a proper flesh & blood flag. So given you did not get one out - even on such a special day - are we to conclude that you do not possess a flag of St George?
There is nothing to look into in (i)
If you have some evidence for (i) feel free to present it, otherwise I'll treat it with the same contempt I'd treat any other bigot.
The dodging of the question is telling me that you - you of all people! - do NOT possess a flag of St George.
Well well.
I don't possess a flagpole.
I've flown the flag in the past. Not this year, there's no judgement on people who do or don't - its merely those that condemn those that do that are silly.
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.
AV was just idiot Clegg’s pointless bauble from the Tories.
Trust me, election aficionados like most PB’ers would absolutely love STV elections for the UK Parliament.
Yep. I'm sure. But the more substantive point is the capacity of FPTP to bring immediate and sweeping radical change. I think one must accept that this is something we'd be giving up. PR wouldn't be better on all fronts. But it would be sufficiently net better for me to support it.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
Btw, if Boris then stole such a policy, which he might, I would be delighted.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
Thing is, if labour did push such policies, the tories would probably nick them.
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.
LOL. This again?
We have a PM who satirised Blair's Imperial Progress to avoid the UK where he was unpopular, by using Victorian Language.
Quite appropriate.
I think this is actually one of Labour's problems. They focus far too much on attacking fabricated Straw men rather than the Govt as it is.
Yes, of course: racism is fine when the Tories do it!
Satire is not racism.
It may have gone over your head though.
Demanding folk disown an individual punter on an obscure forum while defending picaninnies and water melon smiles, cracking satire, Gromit!
Not demanding, just pointing out the issue.
And the fact that the hatred that is endemic on the left is visible on a daily basis - while the supposed racism on the right is from a satirical article by a then journalist two decades ago with nothing more relevant to go on - rather shows the difference.
If it’s a lovingly crafted bit of satire going over the heads of hateful lefties, why is it having been written two decades ago important? Presumably you’d think it bitingly on the mark if BJ had disgorged it yesterday?
I would yes, though considering he was mocking the Prime Minister of the day it would be perverse for him to write the piece today. For entirely different reasons.
Its also important because the point is that people who are bigoted say bigoted stuff all the time. Not one time two decades ago.
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.
LOL. This again?
We have a PM who satirised Blair's Imperial Progress to avoid the UK where he was unpopular, by using Victorian Language.
Quite appropriate.
I think this is actually one of Labour's problems. They focus far too much on attacking fabricated Straw men rather than the Govt as it is.
Yes, of course: racism is fine when the Tories do it!
Satire is not racism.
It may have gone over your head though.
Missed the one about Barack Obama. If you look at the original piece, that one is, it seems to me, a lie. He did not make the claim *.
Of course the goons who write opinion for the Indy, the Mirror, or the Express will rewrite it with wax crayons. It's what they do, but that does not make it true.
And if you use that umpteen years later as some sort of trump card in a debate, rather than making a case, it reflects straight back on you.
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?
Yes, there's two separate points. First, many Red Wall seats like Mansfield and Hartlepool are no longer as traditionally working-class as people think. Lots of people of different backgrounds and attitudes have moved to them and bought houses simply because houses are cheaper. Second, if we define Labour=working class, we lose. That's not to say (and I didn't say) that we shouldn't care about the working-class communities (if we ceased to do so, there would be little point in belonging), just that the strategy needs to have broad appeal.
Part of the issue is turnout, too. There's a very marked difference in turnout within every seat between the poorest and richest areas (and nearly every seat has some of each), and if you have just one day to campaign, you'll find you get much more interest as a Labour candidate in a middle-income area than a very poor one. You care about the very poor area because you're a Labour candidate, not because you think that's where most of your voters will come from.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
Thing is, if labour did push such policies, the tories would probably nick them.
Great. Better for society, better for those concerned, kudos and respect to Labour for pushing the agenda. What's not to like? Both parties are currently running out of Ed Miliband policies to implement.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
Thing is, if labour did push such policies, the tories would probably nick them.
Boris is a complete magpie. Attracted to the shiny things.
My best chance of getting tidal lagoons away is to have Labour make them their policy.....
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I have just read Count Binface's manifesto. It is rather good, more sensible than some proper party manifestos. And if you have seen the place they put the handdryer in the Uxbridge pub loo you would know what I mean.
Yes, it is rather good. I am glad that someone finally is tackling the big issues.
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 Public Sector Payroll Vote.
It seems to me that is fairly evenly spread across the country, (NHS, Schools, local government) but with pockets of greater significance in some urban areas.
Public sector workers lean Labour, but there's a signficiant Conservative minority. It's a small sample size, but the latest MORI poll has Labour ahead 7% among public sector workers, 10% behind among private sector workers.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
Thing is, if labour did push such policies, the tories would probably nick them.
Boris is a complete magpie. Attracted to the shiny things.
My best chance of getting tidal lagoons away is to have Labour make them their policy.....
Does these shiny things involve baby oil and a pole?
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?
You can't comment on (i) having chosen not to look into it. Sorry.
Yes, the new avatar suits you. I think you should keep it.
But it's not a proper flesh & blood flag. So given you did not get one out - even on such a special day - are we to conclude that you do not possess a flag of St George?
There is nothing to look into in (i)
If you have some evidence for (i) feel free to present it, otherwise I'll treat it with the same contempt I'd treat any other bigot.
The dodging of the question is telling me that you - you of all people! - do NOT possess a flag of St George.
Well well.
I don't possess a flagpole.
I've flown the flag in the past. Not this year, there's no judgement on people who do or don't - its merely those that condemn those that do that are silly.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
Thing is, if labour did push such policies, the tories would probably nick them.
I think a header on those policies would be interesting.
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?
Yes, there's two separate points. First, many Red Wall seats like Mansfield and Hartlepool are no longer as traditionally working-class as people think. Lots of people of different backgrounds and attitudes have moved to them and bought houses simply because houses are cheaper. Second, if we define Labour=working class, we lose. That's not to say (and I didn't say) that we shouldn't care about the working-class communities (if we ceased to do so, there would be little point in belonging), just that the strategy needs to have broad appeal.
Part of the issue is turnout, too. There's a very marked difference in turnout within every seat between the poorest and richest areas (and nearly every seat has some of each), and if you have just one day to campaign, you'll find you get much more interest as a Labour candidate in a middle-income area than a very poor one. You care about the very poor area because you're a Labour candidate, not because you think that's where most of your voters will come from.
The very poor areas have much more mobility. They also have large numbers who aren't registered to vote, either because they have just arrived or don't expect to stay - so make no commitment to the democratic process in that place.
It is all rather depressing to be in an obviously run-down area with a canvass card - and to see that the list might go 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12. Half have no vote. And when you do find somebody in at one of those on the register, more often than not they have no interest in politics.
I have just read Count Binface's manifesto. It is rather good, more sensible than some proper party manifestos. And if you have seen the place they put the handdryer in the Uxbridge pub loo you would know what I mean.
Yes, it is rather good. I am glad that someone finally is tackling the big issues.
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.
Unless of course the racism was instigated by himself.
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.
He ascribed that viewpoint to the NGO community as neo-colonialists
Of course he did. And, presumably, he did the same when he claimed that Black Africans cannot govern themselves effectively; and when he claimed that Barack Obama hates Britain because his father is Kenyan. There is always an explanation ready for those who are very happy to accuse the other side of racism but will never accept it exists on their own side.
Boris may be many things but I don't think he is a racist.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
Thing is, if labour did push such policies, the tories would probably nick them.
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?
You can't comment on (i) having chosen not to look into it. Sorry.
Yes, the new avatar suits you. I think you should keep it.
But it's not a proper flesh & blood flag. So given you did not get one out - even on such a special day - are we to conclude that you do not possess a flag of St George?
There is nothing to look into in (i)
If you have some evidence for (i) feel free to present it, otherwise I'll treat it with the same contempt I'd treat any other bigot.
The dodging of the question is telling me that you - you of all people! - do NOT possess a flag of St George.
Well well.
I don't possess a flagpole.
I've flown the flag in the past. Not this year, there's no judgement on people who do or don't - its merely those that condemn those that do that are silly.
PS sorry Gallowgate but SALAH! ⚽
You have a flag but no pole?
Oh dear. When did that happen?
In the same position. I was awarded a US flag for something I did (forget what or by whom). It is nicely folded in a triangle, in a box somewhere.
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.
Translatioon: you'd rather fall back on core votes in your core Metropolitan seats, and stay there, rather than compromise with the electorate to 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.
Yep. We should try and win back the Wall but not chase it to the exclusion of all else.
Translatioon: you'd rather fall back on core votes in your core Metropolitan seats, and stay there, rather than compromise with the electorate to win.
That's not really what he means. What he means is that the offering must be a compromise for both the Metropolitan seats and the "red wall" seats. It can't simply be a red wall only offering that loses the Metropolitan seats the Green Party or Lib Dems or whoever.
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.
Translatioon: you'd rather fall back on core votes in your core Metropolitan seats, and stay there, rather than compromise with the electorate to win.
That's not really what he means. What he means is that the offering must be a compromise for both the Metropolitan seats and the "red wall" seats. It can't simply be a red wall only offering that loses the Metropolitan seats the Green Party or Lib Dems or whoever.
Why not?
If the Greens go from 1 seat to 5, but Labour takes 50 seats from the Tories, is that a bad thing?
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.
Translatioon: you'd rather fall back on core votes in your core Metropolitan seats, and stay there, rather than compromise with the electorate to win.
That's not really what he means. What he means is that the offering must be a compromise for both the Metropolitan seats and the "red wall" seats. It can't simply be a red wall only offering that loses the Metropolitan seats the Green Party or Lib Dems or whoever.
Why not?
If the Greens go from 1 seat to 5, but Labour takes 50 seats from the Tories, is that a bad thing?
That's not really what he means. What he means is that the offering must be a compromise for both the Metropolitan seats and the "red wall" seats. It can't simply be a red wall only offering that loses the Metropolitan seats the Green Party or Lib Dems or whoever.
Legalising cannabis gets both constituencies but I doubt Starmer will go there. It's a perfect policy because Johnson could not steal it as he couldn't bring the rest of his party along on it.
Four day working week would also do it.
The one advantage Starmer does have is that the tory attack of profligate Labour spending now has no meaning. So he should promise the earth to anybody who'll listen and fund it with borrowing.
That's not really what he means. What he means is that the offering must be a compromise for both the Metropolitan seats and the "red wall" seats. It can't simply be a red wall only offering that loses the Metropolitan seats the Green Party or Lib Dems or whoever.
Legalising cannabis gets both constituencies but I doubt Starmer will go there. It's a perfect policy because Johnson could not steal it as he couldn't bring the rest of his party along on it.
Four day working week would also do it.
The one advantage Starmer does have is that the tory attack of profligate Labour spending now has no meaning. So he should promise the earth to anybody who'll listen and fund it with borrowing.
Legalising cannabis is a huge open goal for Labour.
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.
Translatioon: you'd rather fall back on core votes in your core Metropolitan seats, and stay there, rather than compromise with the electorate to win.
That's not really what he means. What he means is that the offering must be a compromise for both the Metropolitan seats and the "red wall" seats. It can't simply be a red wall only offering that loses the Metropolitan seats the Green Party or Lib Dems or whoever.
Why not?
If the Greens go from 1 seat to 5, but Labour takes 50 seats from the Tories, is that a bad thing?
Obviously yes for me, but from your perspective?
There’s also a “they’ve nowhere else to go factor”. I think the Greens could be a problem for Labour nationally by getting 5-7% of the vote, but I don’t see London going Green in an SNP type landslide.
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.
Translatioon: you'd rather fall back on core votes in your core Metropolitan seats, and stay there, rather than compromise with the electorate to win.
That's not really what he means. What he means is that the offering must be a compromise for both the Metropolitan seats and the "red wall" seats. It can't simply be a red wall only offering that loses the Metropolitan seats the Green Party or Lib Dems or whoever.
Why not?
If the Greens go from 1 seat to 5, but Labour takes 50 seats from the Tories, is that a bad thing?
Obviously yes for me, but from your perspective?
I don't really care, but Labour will care.
How much did the Tories care about losing Richmond Park, Putney and St Albans, when they gained 54 seats from Labour and 3 from the Lib Dems on the same day?
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
How exactly are they "trapped" in such employment? Surely they can leave it if it's so terrible?
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.
He ascribed that viewpoint to the NGO community as neo-colonialists
Of course he did. And, presumably, he did the same when he claimed that Black Africans cannot govern themselves effectively; and when he claimed that Barack Obama hates Britain because his father is Kenyan. There is always an explanation ready for those who are very happy to accuse the other side of racism but will never accept it exists on their own side.
Boris may be many things but I don't think he is a racist.
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.
Translatioon: you'd rather fall back on core votes in your core Metropolitan seats, and stay there, rather than compromise with the electorate to win.
That's not really what he means. What he means is that the offering must be a compromise for both the Metropolitan seats and the "red wall" seats. It can't simply be a red wall only offering that loses the Metropolitan seats the Green Party or Lib Dems or whoever.
Why not?
If the Greens go from 1 seat to 5, but Labour takes 50 seats from the Tories, is that a bad thing?
Obviously yes for me, but from your perspective?
I don't really care, but Labour will care.
How much did the Tories care about losing Richmond Park, Putney and St Albans, when they gained 54 seats from Labour and 3 from the Lib Dems on the same day?
Because Labour might make small gains from the Tories in the "red wall" but in doing so lose vast swathes of their metropolitan base.
It is a risk that might not pay off.
There was little risk of a majority of Tory seats voting for Corbyn or Swinson.
There is however a big risk of Labour metropolitan seats voting for someone other than Starmer.
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.
Him thinking the ‘no one brought it to my attention’ was a good line to pursue was plain weird.
That seems to be the story here, summed up quite well in one line.
Everyone blamed everyone else, throughout. Nobody is responsible.
I suspect that a large number of the 20.000 sub-post office managers quietly made up for the errors out of their own pocket. They deserve to be repaid as well.
Presumably the money that went missing went somewhere else. It would be useful to know where before coughing up as a taxpayer.
There has only actually been one poll of Hartlepool per se - the Survation survey showing a 7% Tory lead on the basis of 302 respondents. Serious doubts have been expressed regarding its acuracy. The earlier 3% Labour lead which David Herdson refers to was not a poll of the constituency - but simply extrapolation from a wider survey of Red Wall seats as to how former Brexit Party voters were likely to break.
I suspect quite a few PB Tories are underestimating the damage that the Cummings statement could do in the medium term. It's worth a careful read. The PM will, I suspect, be worried by it.
Cummings is clearly so furious that he has committed to print a fairly devastating critique of the workings of No. 10 and the PM's integrity. Why has he done this? Because he could not tolerate the PM/No. 10, 48 hours ago, generating headlines in their favoured press that Cummings was the source of the leaks. He wasn't, because if he was he wouldn't have responded by publishing the statement. Normally, Cummings would defend himself through off-the-record conversations, not by writing a potentially libelous statement calling the PM a liar. There could be more of this to come, both from Cummings and other sources.
It was a serious misjudgment for the PM to pin the leaks on Cummings, one that he will already be regretting. It may be a Westminster bubble story (I don't think it is actually), but sometimes bubbles burst. I don't think any impact will be seen in time for the May elections, though. The SC hearing on 26 May should be in people's diaries.
Calling the PM a liar is hardly libellous.
Not in the way that calling him a fine, upstanding fellow whose word is his bond, would be, no.
Hmph.. could you say that of Starmer or Davey or Sturgeon or Drakeford or Farage or Salmond ...
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.
Translatioon: you'd rather fall back on core votes in your core Metropolitan seats, and stay there, rather than compromise with the electorate to win.
That's not really what he means. What he means is that the offering must be a compromise for both the Metropolitan seats and the "red wall" seats. It can't simply be a red wall only offering that loses the Metropolitan seats the Green Party or Lib Dems or whoever.
Why not?
If the Greens go from 1 seat to 5, but Labour takes 50 seats from the Tories, is that a bad thing?
Obviously yes for me, but from your perspective?
I don't really care, but Labour will care.
How much did the Tories care about losing Richmond Park, Putney and St Albans, when they gained 54 seats from Labour and 3 from the Lib Dems on the same day?
Because Labour might make small gains from the Tories in the "red wall" but in doing so lose vast swathes of their metropolitan base.
It is a risk that might not pay off.
There was little risk of a majority of Tory seats voting for Corbyn or Swinson.
There is however a big risk of Labour metropolitan seats voting for someone other than Starmer.
But numerically the metropolitan areas that might swing make up much fewer constituencies than the middle England constituencies.
Besides where may they go to? If it's the Greens that's not such a concern, since Greens will vote with Labour. If it's to the Tories that's a different matter.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
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?
You can't comment on (i) having chosen not to look into it. Sorry.
Yes, the new avatar suits you. I think you should keep it.
But it's not a proper flesh & blood flag. So given you did not get one out - even on such a special day - are we to conclude that you do not possess a flag of St George?
There is nothing to look into in (i)
If you have some evidence for (i) feel free to present it, otherwise I'll treat it with the same contempt I'd treat any other bigot.
The dodging of the question is telling me that you - you of all people! - do NOT possess a flag of St George.
Well well.
I don't possess a flagpole.
I've flown the flag in the past. Not this year, there's no judgement on people who do or don't - its merely those that condemn those that do that are silly.
PS sorry Gallowgate but SALAH! ⚽
You have a flag but no pole?
Oh dear. When did that happen?
In the same position. I was awarded a US flag for something I did (forget what or by whom). It is nicely folded in a triangle, in a box somewhere.
I have Betsy Ross flag in my office on display. I am not a Boogoloo Boy though, no not at all...
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.
Translatioon: you'd rather fall back on core votes in your core Metropolitan seats, and stay there, rather than compromise with the electorate to win.
That's not really what he means. What he means is that the offering must be a compromise for both the Metropolitan seats and the "red wall" seats. It can't simply be a red wall only offering that loses the Metropolitan seats the Green Party or Lib Dems or whoever.
Why not?
If the Greens go from 1 seat to 5, but Labour takes 50 seats from the Tories, is that a bad thing?
Obviously yes for me, but from your perspective?
I don't really care, but Labour will care.
How much did the Tories care about losing Richmond Park, Putney and St Albans, when they gained 54 seats from Labour and 3 from the Lib Dems on the same day?
Because Labour might make small gains from the Tories in the "red wall" but in doing so lose vast swathes of their metropolitan base.
It is a risk that might not pay off.
There was little risk of a majority of Tory seats voting for Corbyn or Swinson.
There is however a big risk of Labour metropolitan seats voting for someone other than Starmer.
Elections aren't won or lost in the Red Wall or the metropolitan seats. The Red Wall simply made the difference between a Tory majority of about 10 or 20 and one of about 80. The seats that really matter are the "Middle England" medium-sized towns, like Tamworth, Nuneaton, Ipswich, Peterborough, Telford, Swindon North/South, Northampton North/South, etc. They all voted for Blair 3 times in 1997, 2001 and 2005.
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.
Translatioon: you'd rather fall back on core votes in your core Metropolitan seats, and stay there, rather than compromise with the electorate to win.
That's not really what he means. What he means is that the offering must be a compromise for both the Metropolitan seats and the "red wall" seats. It can't simply be a red wall only offering that loses the Metropolitan seats the Green Party or Lib Dems or whoever.
Why not?
If the Greens go from 1 seat to 5, but Labour takes 50 seats from the Tories, is that a bad thing?
Obviously yes for me, but from your perspective?
I don't really care, but Labour will care.
How much did the Tories care about losing Richmond Park, Putney and St Albans, when they gained 54 seats from Labour and 3 from the Lib Dems on the same day?
Because Labour might make small gains from the Tories in the "red wall" but in doing so lose vast swathes of their metropolitan base.
It is a risk that might not pay off.
There was little risk of a majority of Tory seats voting for Corbyn or Swinson.
There is however a big risk of Labour metropolitan seats voting for someone other than Starmer.
Elections aren't won or lost in the Red Wall or the metropolitan seats. The Red Wall simply made the difference between a Tory majority of about 10 or 20 and one of about 80. The seats that really matter are the "Middle England" medium-sized towns, like Tamworth, Nuneaton, Ipswich, Peterborough, Telford, Swindon North/South, Northampton North/South, etc. They all voted for Blair 3 times in 1997, 2001 and 2005.
The point still stands.
Further the Labour leadership are in the metropolitan seats, by and large. There's no point a shadow cabinet winning an election in which they lose their own seats to the Greens or whoever.
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.
Translatioon: you'd rather fall back on core votes in your core Metropolitan seats, and stay there, rather than compromise with the electorate to win.
That's not really what he means. What he means is that the offering must be a compromise for both the Metropolitan seats and the "red wall" seats. It can't simply be a red wall only offering that loses the Metropolitan seats the Green Party or Lib Dems or whoever.
Then, I'd agree with him.
I'm not sure he is saying that though. From what I've read in the past I think he's uncomfortable with basic compromises on soft patriotism, for example.
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?
You can't comment on (i) having chosen not to look into it. Sorry.
Yes, the new avatar suits you. I think you should keep it.
But it's not a proper flesh & blood flag. So given you did not get one out - even on such a special day - are we to conclude that you do not possess a flag of St George?
There is nothing to look into in (i)
If you have some evidence for (i) feel free to present it, otherwise I'll treat it with the same contempt I'd treat any other bigot.
The dodging of the question is telling me that you - you of all people! - do NOT possess a flag of St George.
Well well.
I don't possess a flagpole.
I've flown the flag in the past. Not this year, there's no judgement on people who do or don't - its merely those that condemn those that do that are silly.
PS sorry Gallowgate but SALAH! ⚽
You have a flag but no pole?
Oh dear. When did that happen?
In the same position. I was awarded a US flag for something I did (forget what or by whom). It is nicely folded in a triangle, in a box somewhere.
Sounds like it's staying there then, Tim. No pole, no fly.
But Philip used to have a pole and now doesn't. This is what we're trying to get to the bottom of.
Morning all! I called this for the Tories and I haven't seen anything to persuade me that my former colleague Dr Paul Williams can win the seat. Reasons for the Tories:
1. The rapidly accelerating decline of Labour on Teesside. 2. Its a super Thursday election - people will be voting for a councillor, the mayor, the PCC and an MP so turnout will be good 3. A lot of people will already have voted Tory at least once before getting to the MP ticket. Ben Houchen will walk re-election and I now expect the Tory to win the PCC 4. Once you start voting Tory its easy to keep voting Tory 5. Pools council has seen a fractious collapse in Labour - there are now multiple competing independent groups mopping up the WC vote
But the Tories did win Hartlepool in 1959.Why did the voters not continue to vote Tory thereafter - if doing so is so easy?
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
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.
He ascribed that viewpoint to the NGO community as neo-colonialists
Of course he did. And, presumably, he did the same when he claimed that Black Africans cannot govern themselves effectively; and when he claimed that Barack Obama hates Britain because his father is Kenyan. There is always an explanation ready for those who are very happy to accuse the other side of racism but will never accept it exists on their own side.
Boris may be many things but I don't think he is a racist.
He’d have to have some actual views on stuff, to be a racist.
I'd expect a pattern of behaviour inside and outside of journalism to convince me of that, such as for Livingstone, Tommy Robinson, Corbyn or Nick Griffin, and I don't think a couple of articles with colourful phrases does it for me.
That doesn't mean many can't still find it offensive. But that's not prima facie evidence he's a racist.
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.
Likewise, the triple lock Tory payroll vote.
Perhaps.
Though there's been surprisingly little gain in income over inflation as a result. I make it 1% per year over inflation from 2012 to 2020 on a quick calculation. (Open to correction)
Which means the basic state pension is £137 per week, whilst without the triple lock it may have been around £125 per week.
That's £600 per year extra. Not sure that that justifies all the complaining we have about it.
That's not really what he means. What he means is that the offering must be a compromise for both the Metropolitan seats and the "red wall" seats. It can't simply be a red wall only offering that loses the Metropolitan seats the Green Party or Lib Dems or whoever.
Legalising cannabis gets both constituencies but I doubt Starmer will go there. It's a perfect policy because Johnson could not steal it as he couldn't bring the rest of his party along on it.
Four day working week would also do it.
The one advantage Starmer does have is that the tory attack of profligate Labour spending now has no meaning. So he should promise the earth to anybody who'll listen and fund it with borrowing.
Not sure about legalizing cannabis - it can be a gateway to much more toxic drugs like Marlboro Gold - but 4 day week is a good one. Also maybe UBI. That could be an idea whose time has come.
And on the financing, yes, "sound money" is out. Only trad types like me still believe in that. So Labour can let it rip there. Promise what needs to be promised and fund it via "monetization" (lol) of the consequential debt.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
The real wild card was UK prime minister Boris Johnson. He quickly held meetings with British supporter groups and then threatened to drop a “legislative bomb” on the English clubs that joined. A Downing Street official told a senior European football executive that the issue was “manna from heaven”, as there appeared to be no political downside from opposing it.
Post-Brexit, Johnson’s threat rang true. While the European Commission quickly made clear it would not intervene, English club officials began to worry whether the UK government would move to apply harsher visa restrictions on signing overseas players or target them with punitive taxes.
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.
On the other hand, many people who switched to Labour in 1964 & 1966 clearly switched back to the Tories in 1970- only to desert them again in 1974 for Labour and the Liberals. Working class voters who swung behind Thatcher in 1979 - and continued to vote Tory throughout the 1980s - switched back to Labour in the 1990s and subsequent elections.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
I have just read Count Binface's manifesto. It is rather good, more sensible than some proper party manifestos. And if you have seen the place they put the handdryer in the Uxbridge pub loo you would know what I mean.
Yes, it is rather good. I am glad that someone finally is tackling the big issues.
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.
This some on this site are obsessed with ‘woke’ people on Twitter, it’s oddly triggering for them. It’s even more odd given that the main thrust of these arguments is that those people are a small minority.
Comments
The Tories have locked up the English Leave vote. They also appear to be running on the "time for a change" theme.
Which is ironic.
Paula Vennells should have all her honours taken away. Those bodies which have her on their boards should be thinking hard about whether she should continue. The Anglican Church might want to send her for remedial lessons on the 10 Commandments - as she is, apparently, an Anglican priest. See also what I wrote about her here - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/16/rewards-for-failure/.
We have a PM who satirised Blair's Imperial Progress to avoid the UK where he was unpopular, by using Imperial Victorian Language.
Quite appropriate.
I think this is actually one of Labour's more serious problems. They focus far too much on attacking fabricated Straw Men rather than the Govt as it is.
It may have gone over your head though.
One of the risks for BoJo is that he starts to believe his own hype that he really is a great national leader, rather than just the front man.
Need a new shadow cabinet first.
Need some flagship policies.
Yes, the new avatar suits you. I think you should keep it.
But it's not a proper flesh & blood flag. So given you did not get one out - even on such a special day - are we to conclude that you do not possess a flag of St George?
Everyone blamed everyone else, throughout. Nobody is responsible.
I suspect that a large number of the 20.000 sub-post office managers quietly made up for the errors out of their own pocket. They deserve to be repaid as well.
It never begins to surprise me that so many of those who were so keen to condemn Jeremy Corbyn's undoubted anti-Semitism are perfectly happy to explain away Boris Johnson's racism. It applies the other way round too, of course.
What’s the benefit of all that uncertainty and disruption?
What I am describing is Labour seats not Tory ones and I think my generalisation reveals a genuine problem. Once upon a time it was the Tories who had to create a 'one nation' narrative. They don't need to right now, running the NHS with government as a sideline, a social democrat policy and so on. Labour have no default position 'one nation' image, and need to develop one fast.
They need to keep their current base of course - but it can't be added to much as they already hold almost all the Bame, Toynbee and Super urban seats. Only a one nation approach can do it.
If a premise feels they're not ready to open as they need to prepare inventory etc then its not compulsory to open sooner, they can still go on the 17th if they choose to do so. That would be their choice. But if others are prepared, ready and available - and if its safe to do so - then there is no justification to keep them closed.
The onus needs to be on justifying removing people's civil liberties, not on restoring them.
And the fact that the hatred that is endemic on the left is visible on a daily basis - while the supposed racism on the right is from a satirical article by a then journalist two decades ago with nothing more relevant to go on - rather shows the difference.
Trust me, election aficionados like most PB’ers would absolutely love STV elections for the UK Parliament.
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment.
A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours.
Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed".
Security of employment after a specified period.
The right to payment for "waiting time".
Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance.
A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
If you have some evidence for (i) feel free to present it, otherwise I'll treat it with the same contempt I'd treat any other bigot.
eg My local hospital is a decent sized district hospital (600 beds, 13 theatres) and covers perhaps 5 constituencies. But it has 3500-4000 staff, who live overwhelmingly in 2 of those. It is right on the boundary.
That’s a new irregular use of the word elision, by the way. Language evolves, and you’ve just witnessed a mutation.
Well well.
I've flown the flag in the past. Not this year, there's no judgement on people who do or don't - its merely those that condemn those that do that are silly.
PS sorry Gallowgate but SALAH! ⚽
Its also important because the point is that people who are bigoted say bigoted stuff all the time. Not one time two decades ago.
Of course the goons who write opinion for the Indy, the Mirror, or the Express will rewrite it with wax crayons. It's what they do, but that does not make it true.
And if you use that umpteen years later as some sort of trump card in a debate, rather than making a case, it reflects straight back on you.
IMO.
* https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/11/boris-johnson-no-regrets-obama-part-kenyan-remarks
Part of the issue is turnout, too. There's a very marked difference in turnout within every seat between the poorest and richest areas (and nearly every seat has some of each), and if you have just one day to campaign, you'll find you get much more interest as a Labour candidate in a middle-income area than a very poor one. You care about the very poor area because you're a Labour candidate, not because you think that's where most of your voters will come from.
My best chance of getting tidal lagoons away is to have Labour make them their policy.....
We need rather to educate actors not to be pompous Prima Donnas.
Oh dear. When did that happen?
It is all rather depressing to be in an obviously run-down area with a canvass card - and to see that the list might go 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12. Half have no vote. And when you do find somebody in at one of those on the register, more often than not they have no interest in politics.
And then you find a life-long Tory!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants
The "part-Keynan" thing was in direct reference to a previous Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2009/mar/04/obama-irish-brown-special
If the Greens go from 1 seat to 5, but Labour takes 50 seats from the Tories, is that a bad thing?
Obviously yes for me, but from your perspective?
Four day working week would also do it.
The one advantage Starmer does have is that the tory attack of profligate Labour spending now has no meaning. So he should promise the earth to anybody who'll listen and fund it with borrowing.
Not sure about the 4 day working week though.
It is a risk that might not pay off.
There was little risk of a majority of Tory seats voting for Corbyn or Swinson.
There is however a big risk of Labour metropolitan seats voting for someone other than Starmer.
Besides where may they go to? If it's the Greens that's not such a concern, since Greens will vote with Labour. If it's to the Tories that's a different matter.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
https://twitter.com/hannahrosewoods/status/1385856479954145280?s=20
Further the Labour leadership are in the metropolitan seats, by and large. There's no point a shadow cabinet winning an election in which they lose their own seats to the Greens or whoever.
I'm not sure he is saying that though. From what I've read in the past I think he's uncomfortable with basic compromises on soft patriotism, for example.
But Philip used to have a pole and now doesn't. This is what we're trying to get to the bottom of.
"Taiwan mobilises forces to thwart Chinese invasion
Everything from cyber attacks, blockades to full scale war is being prepared for"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/taiwan-mobilises-virtual-army-thwart-chinese-invasion/
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
That doesn't mean many can't still find it offensive. But that's not prima facie evidence he's a racist.
Though there's been surprisingly little gain in income over inflation as a result. I make it 1% per year over inflation from 2012 to 2020 on a quick calculation. (Open to correction)
Which means the basic state pension is £137 per week, whilst without the triple lock it may have been around £125 per week.
That's £600 per year extra. Not sure that that justifies all the complaining we have about it.
And on the financing, yes, "sound money" is out. Only trad types like me still believe in that. So Labour can let it rip there. Promise what needs to be promised and fund it via "monetization" (lol) of the consequential debt.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Post-Brexit, Johnson’s threat rang true. While the European Commission quickly made clear it would not intervene, English club officials began to worry whether the UK government would move to apply harsher visa restrictions on signing overseas players or target them with punitive taxes.
https://www.ft.com/content/f1af5993-21ed-4b92-9679-27f71482f76d
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0ZqNBd_orI