I'm disappointed Labour didn't drop below 200 seats, as per the exit poll.
I really wanted to taste that.
That's a rather unpleasant remark. I don't think grinding down your 'enemy' is what this country needs right now. So go and vent your hatred on something else please.
And, besides, it meant I won plenty of money
(Looked very dicey with the exit poll so I was rather relieved that Labour crept over the 200)
I agree with you. At the same time I remember when the Tories were reduced to 165 seats in 1997 and 166 in 2001 a lot of Labour supporters were crowing about it for a long time.
True!
I'm out of the country but what has been the response to Nicola Sturgeon's reaction when Jo Swinson lost her seat?
They keep showing it on tv - definitely the election moment - I don t think politicos give a shit, can t speak for the proles
So no one thought it was inappropriate? I have to confess (look away now Scots) that I've never quite got the visceral hatred between SNP and SLD?
The SLD have been wining like fuck about it no one else gives a shit.
I've got an SNP supporting friend who has been very vocally defending Sturgeon on Twitter. He wouldn't be doing that if it wasn't coming under fire. It is at the very least going to be endlessly repeated as an annoying Sturgeon clip on everything. 'More Scottish kids leave school without being able to read than ever before' [Nicola guffaws and punches the air] etc.
Yeah, the 'defending someone against bullshit means that someone did bad' is where we're at. I'm applying that to the relentless BJ apologias on here from now on.
I don't think I've said she did bad. I was contradicting the statement that it's only Lib Dems who give a shit.
CHB - didn't they mock that people like us would be gone from this site by now?
They did. But I think you and I have had similar realisations in the last few days.
I genuinely think I'm a pragmatist, what underlines me is getting the Conservative Party out - and I think therefore you can see where I come from with my views.
I genuinely thought Labour could do that with Corbyn and his policies - but I was wrong. Some of them aren't bad in isolation - but it's caught up in the anti-business, anti-media, anti-aspiration, really anti-Britain sphere that makes him so toxic. I am embarrassed I could not see it.
I think the lack of focus was a big issue too. The "no shark unjumped" manifesto had lots of things that pleased different groups, but all of them felt that the cumulative effect was to cast doubt on whether we could really do any of it. We kept changing the subject, which was helpful in driving the news agenda (and I think that was a contributing factor in winning back Lab-Lib voters) but unhelpful in making any group feel confident that we were really interested in them.
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
It's a mistake to expect defeated Labour members and activists to come to terms with it immediately.
They need to work through the seven stages of grief first, which could take weeks or months. If they don't they will pick a leader that accords with whatever stage of grief they've reached at the time.
It took us two cycles before Dave became leader, it could be two cycles before Labour get to that point.
About that bridge over the Irish sea, it might be good politics and generate lots of jobs to spite both Irish and Scotish nationalists.
An extra bit is power generation, you could use the bridge to generate power from the strong sea current and the wind, that would generate some extra money flow to pay for the construction costs.
I can't see a bridge ever being constructed, can you?
I don't think the plan is for Boris himself to actually build it. Thanks for your contribution though, there's a dire shortage of verbose, crudely partisan, foul mouthed wankers around here - you're just what we've been looking for.
I simply don't understand how you can think it is a great idea? And I have provided my reasons for that. Why not refute them?
I'm not going to hide my views and having seen some of the posts on this thread and many others I am no more partisan than the majority of posters and far less than some.
CHB - didn't they mock that people like us would be gone from this site by now?
They did. But I think you and I have had similar realisations in the last few days.
I genuinely think I'm a pragmatist, what underlines me is getting the Conservative Party out - and I think therefore you can see where I come from with my views.
I genuinely thought Labour could do that with Corbyn and his policies - but I was wrong. Some of them aren't bad in isolation - but it's caught up in the anti-business, anti-media, anti-aspiration, really anti-Britain sphere that makes him so toxic. I am embarrassed I could not see it.
I think the lack of focus was a big issue too. The "no shark unjumped" manifesto had lots of things that pleased different groups, but all of them felt that the cumulative effect was to cast doubt on whether we could really do any of it. We kept changing the subject, which was helpful in driving the news agenda (and I think that was a contributing factor in winning back Lab-Lib voters) but unhelpful in making any group feel confident that we were really interested in them.
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Give it a rest. Just watch the Vox Pops from across the North, time and time again all these people stating they absolutely detest Corbyn. People didn't detest Miliband, they thought he was a bit rubbish, but they didn't detest him.
CHB - didn't they mock that people like us would be gone from this site by now?
They did. But I think you and I have had similar realisations in the last few days.
I genuinely think I'm a pragmatist, what underlines me is getting the Conservative Party out - and I think therefore you can see where I come from with my views.
I genuinely thought Labour could do that with Corbyn and his policies - but I was wrong. Some of them aren't bad in isolation - but it's caught up in the anti-business, anti-media, anti-aspiration, really anti-Britain sphere that makes him so toxic. I am embarrassed I could not see it.
I think the lack of focus was a big issue too. The "no shark unjumped" manifesto had lots of things that pleased different groups, but all of them felt that the cumulative effect was to cast doubt on whether we could really do any of it. We kept changing the subject, which was helpful in driving the news agenda (and I think that was a contributing factor in winning back Lab-Lib voters) but unhelpful in making any group feel confident that we were really interested in them.
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Did you imagine a Prescott leadership, or was i spending time with aliens when it happened?
On your second question, building HS2 from the north is a non-starter. The capacity constraints are into London, so it would just be a white elephant: the trains couldn't decant anywhere.
Makes sense. Could be a long wait for them then.
Any idea of whether HS3 is only viable once HS2 is done and dusted?
The issue is more a decent trans-pennine link.
I'm not sure the 'high speed' bit matters too much at that length; it just needs a decent modern new main-line.
Federal States of Britain is the simple and obvious solution.
That's not going to happen though because Scots like their high public service expending at the expense of fellow Brits. It's a little bit canny but it will be South Sudan Mk 2 if they're stupid enough to vote en masse (well over 50pc) to be "an independent country"
Waahey, you've reached end stage 'we must now consider federalism cos I'm shiting it' stage. It comes to all yoons in the end.
About that bridge over the Irish sea, it might be good politics and generate lots of jobs to spite both Irish and Scotish nationalists.
An extra bit is power generation, you could use the bridge to generate power from the strong sea current and the wind, that would generate some extra money flow to pay for the construction costs.
I can't see a bridge ever being constructed, can you?
If it was easy, it wouldn't be a large infrastructure project would it?
At the very least, it doesn't involve purchasing everyone's back gardens, felling ancient woodland, causing massive transport delays, ruining picturesque villages etc.
CHB - didn't they mock that people like us would be gone from this site by now?
They did. But I think you and I have had similar realisations in the last few days.
I genuinely think I'm a pragmatist, what underlines me is getting the Conservative Party out - and I think therefore you can see where I come from with my views.
I genuinely thought Labour could do that with Corbyn and his policies - but I was wrong. Some of them aren't bad in isolation - but it's caught up in the anti-business, anti-media, anti-aspiration, really anti-Britain sphere that makes him so toxic. I am embarrassed I could not see it.
I think the lack of focus was a big issue too. The "no shark unjumped" manifesto had lots of things that pleased different groups, but all of them felt that the cumulative effect was to cast doubt on whether we could really do any of it. We kept changing the subject, which was helpful in driving the news agenda (and I think that was a contributing factor in winning back Lab-Lib voters) but unhelpful in making any group feel confident that we were really interested in them.
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Yes Blair's pledge card, as well as being unseemly, were rather bland.
Federal States of Britain is the simple and obvious solution.
That's not going to happen though because Scots like their high public service expending at the expense of fellow Brits. It's a little bit canny but it will be South Sudan Mk 2 if they're stupid enough to vote en masse (well over 50pc) to be "an independent country"
Waahey, you've reached end stage 'we must now consider federalism cos I'm shiting it' stage. It comes to all yoons in the end.
No. I've always been a federalist. The system as it stands now is a complete mess - almost as bad as the EU's
I worry about us centrists. The LibDems played a good hand incredibly poorly from c. 6 months ago. We made so many mistakes.
Labour are about to go into a internecine war. I suspect, but can't be sure, that the centre ground will win.
However, I'm not at ALL sure that it's correct for the Blairite contingent to be blaming this all on Jeremy Corbyn. It could be argued that a significantly large reason for their defeat is that the party wasn't sufficiently Leave. By dithering around and embracing Remain they alienated the working class northern vote. And they're the ones who lost them the election.
You're a centrist?
Could have fooled me.
Don't you mean you just wish the centre of public opinion is where you're at?
At some point your bitterness will hopefully evaporate and you will turn your energy to rebuilding this country and helping to bring people together. It's going to be needed because Brexit is going to be a (very) tough project to deliver successfully. That's where your focus should now be.
Yes I am. I just have a few ideas which might appear 'radical' like the public ownership of railways. Something which the majority of us agree with.
There's plenty about the Corbyn agenda that was bonkers.
No bitterness at all; you're reflecting your own feelings onto me.
Your posts on here are far from centrist, and at the same time are highly emotional: your responses dependent upon whether people agree with you or not.
You'd do well to reflect on that.
Mansplaining
I had no idea of your gender, and it would make no difference with respect to how I engage with you on here.
I judge the content of your posts on their own merit.
Downing Street boycotts Radio 4's Today programme in a bust-up over election bias as a Number 10 source slams the BBC for 'speaking to pro-Remain Islington, not the real world of Wakefield and Workington'
Last night, a No 10 source called on the BBC to mount an internal investigation into its performance during the campaign, saying: 'The BBC speaks to a pro-Remain metropolitan bubble in Islington, not the real world represented by Wakefield and Workington. There has been a failure by senior management at the BBC, and we expect them to launch an internal review of their performance.'
CHB - didn't they mock that people like us would be gone from this site by now?
They did. But I think you and I have had similar realisations in the last few days.
I genuinely think I'm a pragmatist, what underlines me is getting the Conservative Party out - and I think therefore you can see where I come from with my views.
I genuinely thought Labour could do that with Corbyn and his policies - but I was wrong. Some of them aren't bad in isolation - but it's caught up in the anti-business, anti-media, anti-aspiration, really anti-Britain sphere that makes him so toxic. I am embarrassed I could not see it.
I think the lack of focus was a big issue too. The "no shark unjumped" manifesto had lots of things that pleased different groups, but all of them felt that the cumulative effect was to cast doubt on whether we could really do any of it. We kept changing the subject, which was helpful in driving the news agenda (and I think that was a contributing factor in winning back Lab-Lib voters) but unhelpful in making any group feel confident that we were really interested in them.
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Yes Blair's pledge card, as well as being unseemly, were rather bland.
Also worth remembering that Labour in 1997 did feel that not putting something in the manifesto (or mentioning it in the campaign) restricted them from actually doing it. Brown just accidentally forgot to tell us about the Independence of the Bank of England that he de facto instigated on day 1!
I'm all for tidal barrages too. But it's worth investing so they don't sod off.
Why?
Because we belong to the most successful political union in modern history. I've always loved Scotland and coming to live here has been wonderful - it's given me so much. It troubles me that people feel so alienated from Britain, and I hope that one day all of us will feel ownership and pride in every square mile. And even if you're firmly in the Little England camp, if we have no successful formula for uniting the four nations of the UK, do we also wave goodbye to Cornwall? Yorkshire? Where does it stop?
I don't wish the Union gone per se, but one has to confront reality. Nearly half the population in Scotland and Northern Ireland has reached a settled opinion that they want to go, and a substantial fraction of them regard the English as colonisers and loathe us for it. That's no basis on which to construct a lasting political settlement.
A good Government can, over time, deal with the divides that afflict England and has a reasonable chance of keeping England and Wales together, but the rest of the country is gone. It's just a matter of time.
Doesn't this undermine your previous comment? It's only worth spending money on the idea if doing so might actually change minds and reverse the 'inevitability' of their departure?
I think something's gone a bit to pot with the nested comments on this one! The point I've been trying to make is that there is indeed no point in trying to bribe the restive components of the Union into staying put. After all, that was the whole point of the Barnett formula and its predecessors - and they didn't work.
I agree with you there. But I don't think this would be a bribe. More a demonstration of the relevancy and value of the Union.
CHB - didn't they mock that people like us would be gone from this site by now?
They did. But I think you and I have had similar realisations in the last few days.
I genuinely think I'm a pragmatist, what underlines me is getting the Conservative Party out - and I think therefore you can see where I come from with my views.
I genuinely thought Labour could do that with Corbyn and his policies - but I was wrong. Some of them aren't bad in isolation - but it's caught up in the anti-business, anti-media, anti-aspiration, really anti-Britain sphere that makes him so toxic. I am embarrassed I could not see it.
I think the lack of focus was a big issue too. The "no shark unjumped" manifesto had lots of things that pleased different groups, but all of them felt that the cumulative effect was to cast doubt on whether we could really do any of it. We kept changing the subject, which was helpful in driving the news agenda (and I think that was a contributing factor in winning back Lab-Lib voters) but unhelpful in making any group feel confident that we were really interested in them.
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Yes Blair's pledge card, as well as being unseemly, were rather bland.
Also worth remembering that Labour in 1997 did feel that not putting something in the manifesto (or mentioning it in the campaign) restricted them from actually doing it. Brown just accidentally forgot to tell us about the Independence of the Bank of England that he de facto instigated on day 1!
Nobody gave a shit because the consensus was that it was a good idea - but yes, once again, rather unseemly
I'm disappointed Labour didn't drop below 200 seats, as per the exit poll.
I really wanted to taste that.
That's a rather unpleasant remark. I don't think grinding down your 'enemy' is what this country needs right now. So go and vent your hatred on something else please.
And, besides, it meant I won plenty of money
(Looked very dicey with the exit poll so I was rather relieved that Labour crept over the 200)
I agree with you. At the same time I remember when the Tories were reduced to 165 seats in 1997 and 166 in 2001 a lot of Labour supporters were crowing about it for a long time.
True!
I'm out of the country but what has been the response to Nicola Sturgeon's reaction when Jo Swinson lost her seat?
They keep showing it on tv - definitely the election moment - I don t think politicos give a shit, can t speak for the proles
So no one thought it was inappropriate? I have to confess (look away now Scots) that I've never quite got the visceral hatred between SNP and SLD?
She was made a bit uncomfortable about it and had to apologise/claim it was celebrating her 'friend' being elected, not Swinson being defeated.
I'm not sure which measurement is being used to assert Sturgeon was 'made a bit uncomfortable', and if you think a young candidate with an impressive back story knocking out the leader of an opposition party isn't worth celebrating, perhaps you've never been part of a GE campaign (even at the low level that I've been).
Downing Street boycotts Radio 4's Today programme in a bust-up over election bias as a Number 10 source slams the BBC for 'speaking to pro-Remain Islington, not the real world of Wakefield and Workington'
Last night, a No 10 source called on the BBC to mount an internal investigation into its performance during the campaign, saying: 'The BBC speaks to a pro-Remain metropolitan bubble in Islington, not the real world represented by Wakefield and Workington. There has been a failure by senior management at the BBC, and we expect them to launch an internal review of their performance.'
I think we can all guess who gave this comment....
Ah, the 'real world'...
You would have thought the Conservatives would have been quite pleased. If they had reported more from Workington and Wakefield people might have cottoned on to what was happening
CHB - didn't they mock that people like us would be gone from this site by now?
They did. But I think you and I have had similar realisations in the last few days.
I genuinely think I'm a pragmatist, what underlines me is getting the Conservative Party out - and I think therefore you can see where I come from with my views.
I genuinely thought Labour could do that with Corbyn and his policies - but I was wrong. Some of them aren't bad in isolation - but it's caught up in the anti-business, anti-media, anti-aspiration, really anti-Britain sphere that makes him so toxic. I am embarrassed I could not see it.
I think the lack of focus was a big issue too. The "no shark unjumped" manifesto had lots of things that pleased different groups, but all of them felt that the cumulative effect was to cast doubt on whether we could really do any of it. We kept changing the subject, which was helpful in driving the news agenda (and I think that was a contributing factor in winning back Lab-Lib voters) but unhelpful in making any group feel confident that we were really interested in them.
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Hello Nick
More chance of Watford staying up than your lot ever winning a GE again!
Downing Street boycotts Radio 4's Today programme in a bust-up over election bias as a Number 10 source slams the BBC for 'speaking to pro-Remain Islington, not the real world of Wakefield and Workington'
Last night, a No 10 source called on the BBC to mount an internal investigation into its performance during the campaign, saying: 'The BBC speaks to a pro-Remain metropolitan bubble in Islington, not the real world represented by Wakefield and Workington. There has been a failure by senior management at the BBC, and we expect them to launch an internal review of their performance.'
CHB - didn't they mock that people like us would be gone from this site by now?
They did. But I think you and I have had similar realisations in the last few days.
I genuinely think I'm a pragmatist, what underlines me is getting the Conservative Party out - and I think therefore you can see where I come from with my views.
I genuinely thought Labour could do that with Corbyn and his policies - but I was wrong. Some of them aren't bad in isolation - but it's caught up in the anti-business, anti-media, anti-aspiration, really anti-Britain sphere that makes him so toxic. I am embarrassed I could not see it.
I think the lack of focus was a big issue too. The "no shark unjumped" manifesto had lots of things that pleased different groups, but all of them felt that the cumulative effect was to cast doubt on whether we could really do any of it. We kept changing the subject, which was helpful in driving the news agenda (and I think that was a contributing factor in winning back Lab-Lib voters) but unhelpful in making any group feel confident that we were really interested in them.
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Give it a rest. Just watch the Vox Pops from across the North, time and time again all these people stating they absolutely detest Corbyn. People didn't detest Miliband, they thought he was a bit rubbish, but they didn't detest him.
I think this is very true. Personally I don't detest Corbyn I just think he's a bit rubbish but just about everyone I have spoken to (even those minded to vote Labour) really do seem detest Corbyn.
It's a mistake to expect defeated Labour members and activists to come to terms with it immediately.
They need to work through the seven stages of grief first, which could take weeks or months. If they don't they will pick a leader that accords with whatever stage of grief they've reached at the time.
It took us two cycles before Dave became leader, it could be two cycles before Labour get to that point.
In hindsight the turning point was 2003, that was when we went for a competent leader, recognised the need to hold the line and make some advances.
We also picked one big enough and mature enough to let flowers shine, which directly led to Cameron's election in 2005.
That was just over 8 years in. Labour are rapidly coming up to ten years out of power with no sign of a Howard or Kinnock, let alone a Cameron or Blair.
Downing Street boycotts Radio 4's Today programme in a bust-up over election bias as a Number 10 source slams the BBC for 'speaking to pro-Remain Islington, not the real world of Wakefield and Workington'
Last night, a No 10 source called on the BBC to mount an internal investigation into its performance during the campaign, saying: 'The BBC speaks to a pro-Remain metropolitan bubble in Islington, not the real world represented by Wakefield and Workington. There has been a failure by senior management at the BBC, and we expect them to launch an internal review of their performance.'
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Agree with most of this.
I think the problem for Corbyn was he almost made it too easy for people to not like him and I have to conclude that is down to his media profile. It just was never any good.
Miliband failed because he could not articulate a good enough alternative vision to the Tories and people wondered why they'd bother to vote for Labour at all when they could just get the Tories instead who'd been doing it for five years already successfully. I also think that the collapse of the Lib Dems somewhat overexaggerated the problem because that's where the Tory majority pretty much came from. Miliband was somewhat unlucky in timing. I am quite sure that had he run this year Labour would have done a lot better.
Brown was never going to have it easy after so many years of Government, again I think he was somewhat unfortunate in his timing. And again I think media profile played a part with that.
Blair was Blair.
Corbyn basically had a rubbish media profile, decent-ish policies (at least in 2017) but a woeful leadership style and an inability to lead. The anti-Semitism crisis and failure to deal with Brexit will be what he is remembered for.
Labour needs to take some of the more popular policies, the anti-austerity, the bus services, the NHS funding and then tack those onto competent leadership and the ability to listen. That means not going back to the spin days of Blair but equally not maintaining the media apathy of Corbyn.
The real mark of the new leader will be getting on top of the anti-Semitism issue and dealing with it competently. If they're able to regain the trust of the Jewish community (and that via the JLM), I expect a lot of people will support them again.
And Labour really needs to spend the whole five years looking like a credible alternative Government. That means opposing but also supporting where necessary. I think Corbyn spent far too long telling people how everything the Tories did was awful but never about any of the good things about our country that were already there.
And for god sake, stay away from Israel and Palestine. And prioritise defence.
I despise when losers insist they won the argument. How very nice for you. What is that feeling based on? Thst you agree your offering is better? That people said "its nice, but I'm not voting for you"?
CHB - didn't they mock that people like us would be gone from this site by now?
They did. But I think you and I have had similar realisations in the last few days.
I genuinely think I'm a pragmatist, what underlines me is getting the Conservative Party out - and I think therefore you can see where I come from with my views.
I genuinely thought Labour could do that with Corbyn and his policies - but I was wrong. Some of them aren't bad in isolation - but it's caught up in the anti-business, anti-media, anti-aspiration, really anti-Britain sphere that makes him so toxic. I am embarrassed I could not see it.
I think the lack of focus was a big issue too. The "no shark unjumped" manifesto had lots of things that pleased different groups, but all of them felt that the cumulative effect was to cast doubt on whether we could really do any of it. We kept changing the subject, which was helpful in driving the news agenda (and I think that was a contributing factor in winning back Lab-Lib voters) but unhelpful in making any group feel confident that we were really interested in them.
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Hello Nick
More chance of Watford staying up than your lot ever winning a GE again!
😀😀😀😀😀😀😀
It's rather telling Nick focuses on process there (campaign discipline) and Whatabouts on the leader (any Labour leader is a target).
It's a remarkable display of cognitive dissonance.
He's one of the more intelligent Corbyn supporters. If that's where the bulk of them are at, now, they're going to be out of power an awfully long time.
Downing Street boycotts Radio 4's Today programme in a bust-up over election bias as a Number 10 source slams the BBC for 'speaking to pro-Remain Islington, not the real world of Wakefield and Workington'
Last night, a No 10 source called on the BBC to mount an internal investigation into its performance during the campaign, saying: 'The BBC speaks to a pro-Remain metropolitan bubble in Islington, not the real world represented by Wakefield and Workington. There has been a failure by senior management at the BBC, and we expect them to launch an internal review of their performance.'
I think we can all guess who gave this comment....
Dom - 'They didn't say what we wanted them to say'.
Is this the start of rationalising the removal of the licence fee?
To be fair, I think the point made is actually a good one. Albeit hardly something that signals evidence of BBC 'bias' since you hardly saw the rest of the media (left or right) devoting much time to Wakefield and Workington during the campaign. And if they did mention them, it was generally from afar.
I worry about us centrists. The LibDems played a good hand incredibly poorly from c. 6 months ago. We made so many mistakes.
Labour are about to go into a internecine war. I suspect, but can't be sure, that the centre ground will win.
However, I'm not at ALL sure that it's correct for the Blairite contingent to be blaming this all on Jeremy Corbyn. It could be argued that a significantly large reason for their defeat is that the party wasn't sufficiently Leave. By dithering around and embracing Remain they alienated the working class northern vote. And they're the ones who lost them the election.
When historians look back on this period they will see with crystal clear clarity that Jeremy Corbyn became and stayed leader just long enough to both cause and guarantee Brexit.
What I find really extraordinary is that on September 25th they would almost certainly have succeeded in a VONC with an installation of an alternative PM. Instead they bickered. And lost.
They were too certain they had the upper hand and could afford division and clever tactics
I really hope the Tories don't spend the next five years attacking the BBC and Channel 4. And I also hope this "anonymous source" briefing stuff is taken a bit more seriously, as it has given Cummings the ability to easily lie and get away with it.
Federal States of Britain is the simple and obvious solution.
That's not going to happen though because Scots like their high public service expending at the expense of fellow Brits. It's a little bit canny but it will be South Sudan Mk 2 if they're stupid enough to vote en masse (well over 50pc) to be "an independent country"
Waahey, you've reached end stage 'we must now consider federalism cos I'm shiting it' stage. It comes to all yoons in the end.
Two fundamental problems with federalism:
1. Westminster will never consider it, because a functioning federation requires an English Parliament, and that in turn would break up the Government. No British Prime Minister will do that. They want to play with the whole train set, not be forced to choose a half 2. Being part of a federal Britain is not independence. At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, the 45% who want independence want independence, not a federal system. It won't do anything to stabilise the situation or make the arguments go away
The situation that currently prevails is unsustainable. Trying to get around the tough decision that needs to be made by offering up imaginary constitutional non-solutions won't work.
I really hope the Tories don't spend the next five years attacking the BBC and Channel 4. And I also hope this "anonymous source" briefing stuff is taken a bit more seriously, as it has given Cummings the ability to easily lie and get away with it.
They need to make sure their houses are in order, especially Channel 4.
I'm disappointed Labour didn't drop below 200 seats, as per the exit poll.
I really wanted to taste that.
That's a rather unpleasant remark. I don't think grinding down your 'enemy' is what this country needs right now. So go and vent your hatred on something else please.
And, besides, it meant I won plenty of money
(Looked very dicey with the exit poll so I was rather relieved that Labour crept over the 200)
I agree with you. At the same time I remember when the Tories were reduced to 165 seats in 1997 and 166 in 2001 a lot of Labour supporters were crowing about it for a long time.
True!
I'm out of the country but what has been the response to Nicola Sturgeon's reaction when Jo Swinson lost her seat?
They keep showing it on tv - definitely the election moment - I don t think politicos give a shit, can t speak for the proles
So no one thought it was inappropriate? I have to confess (look away now Scots) that I've never quite got the visceral hatred between SNP and SLD?
She was made a bit uncomfortable about it and had to apologise/claim it was celebrating her 'friend' being elected, not Swinson being defeated.
I'm not sure which measurement is being used to assert Sturgeon was 'made a bit uncomfortable', and if you think a young candidate with an impressive back story knocking out the leader of an opposition party isn't worth celebrating, perhaps you've never been part of a GE campaign (even at the low level that I've been).
CHB - didn't they mock that people like us would be gone from this site by now?
They did. But I think you and I have had similar realisations in the last few days.
I genuinely think I'm a pragmatist, what underlines me is getting the Conservative Party out - and I think therefore you can see where I come from with my views.
I genuinely thought Labour could do that with Corbyn and his policies - but I was wrong. Some of them aren't bad in isolation - but it's caught up in the anti-business, anti-media, anti-aspiration, really anti-Britain sphere that makes him so toxic. I am embarrassed I could not see it.
I think the lack of focus was a big issue too. The "no shark unjumped" manifesto had lots of things that pleased different groups, but all of them felt that the cumulative effect was to cast doubt on whether we could really do any of it. We kept changing the subject, which was helpful in driving the news agenda (and I think that was a contributing factor in winning back Lab-Lib voters) but unhelpful in making any group feel confident that we were really interested in them.
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Give it a rest. Just watch the Vox Pops from across the North, time and time again all these people stating they absolutely detest Corbyn. People didn't detest Miliband, they thought he was a bit rubbish, but they didn't detest him.
Labour lost in 2015 because of a poor manifesto and policies and because of the Lib Dem collapse. Corbyn learnt all the wrong lessons from that.
Ed on 2017 manifesto = a win or a minority Government. At least Ed looked vaguely competent.
Downing Street boycotts Radio 4's Today programme in a bust-up over election bias as a Number 10 source slams the BBC for 'speaking to pro-Remain Islington, not the real world of Wakefield and Workington'
Last night, a No 10 source called on the BBC to mount an internal investigation into its performance during the campaign, saying: 'The BBC speaks to a pro-Remain metropolitan bubble in Islington, not the real world represented by Wakefield and Workington. There has been a failure by senior management at the BBC, and we expect them to launch an internal review of their performance.'
CHB - didn't they mock that people like us would be gone from this site by now?
They did. But I think you and I have had similar realisations in the last few days.
I genuinely think I'm a pragmatist, what underlines me is getting the Conservative Party out - and I think therefore you can see where I come from with my views.
I genuinely thought Labour could do that with Corbyn and his policies - but I was wrong. Some of them aren't bad in isolation - but it's caught up in the anti-business, anti-media, anti-aspiration, really anti-Britain sphere that makes him so toxic. I am embarrassed I could not see it.
I think the lack of focus was a big issue too. The "no shark unjumped" manifesto had lots of things that pleased different groups, but all of them felt that the cumulative effect was to cast doubt on whether we could really do any of it. We kept changing the subject, which was helpful in driving the news agenda (and I think that was a contributing factor in winning back Lab-Lib voters) but unhelpful in making any group feel confident that we were really interested in them.
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Give it a rest. Just watch the Vox Pops from across the North, time and time again all these people stating they absolutely detest Corbyn. People didn't detest Miliband, they thought he was a bit rubbish, but they didn't detest him.
Labour lost in 2015 because of a poor manifesto and policies and because of the Lib Dem collapse. Corbyn learnt all the wrong lessons from that.
Ed on 2017 manifesto = a win or a minority Government. At least Ed looked vaguely competent.
Actually I think Labour lost in 2015, because the Tories ran a highly effective campaign that started way before the GE. They had already shaped the debate before we even got to election.
CHB - didn't they mock that people like us would be gone from this site by now?
They did. But I think you and I have had similar realisations in the last few days.
I genuinely think I'm a pragmatist, what underlines me is getting the Conservative Party out - and I think therefore you can see where I come from with my views.
I genuinely thought Labour could do that with Corbyn and his policies - but I was wrong. Some of them aren't bad in isolation - but it's caught up in the anti-business, anti-media, anti-aspiration, really anti-Britain sphere that makes him so toxic. I am embarrassed I could not see it.
I think the lack of focus was a big issue too. The "no shark unjumped" manifesto had lots of things that pleased different groups, but all of them felt that the cumulative effect was to cast doubt on whether we could really do any of it. We kept changing the subject, which was helpful in driving the news agenda (and I think that was a contributing factor in winning back Lab-Lib voters) but unhelpful in making any group feel confident that we were really interested in them.
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Give it a rest. Just watch the Vox Pops from across the North, time and time again all these people stating they absolutely detest Corbyn. People didn't detest Miliband, they thought he was a bit rubbish, but they didn't detest him.
Labour lost in 2015 because of a poor manifesto and policies and because of the Lib Dem collapse. Corbyn learnt all the wrong lessons from that.
Ed on 2017 manifesto = a win or a minority Government. At least Ed looked vaguely competent.
I really hope the Tories don't spend the next five years attacking the BBC and Channel 4. And I also hope this "anonymous source" briefing stuff is taken a bit more seriously, as it has given Cummings the ability to easily lie and get away with it.
The most ugly part of the Tories (or at least some of them) is attacking the BBC and the Courts.
I'm under no illusions the Conservatives have many fans within either institution, but they've both been broadly fair and balanced. I don't like the licence fee particularly, and I really don't like the bullying aggressive behaviour of the TV licencing authority - a state-sanctioned bully.
I do think Channel 4 is a different matter, and have thought that should be privatised for over 20 years.
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Agree with most of this.
I think the problem for Corbyn was he almost made it too easy for people to not like him and I have to conclude that is down to his media profile. It just was never any good.
SNIP
Brown was never going to have it easy after so many years of Government, again I think he was somewhat unfortunate in his timing. And again I think media profile played a part with that.
Blair was Blair.
Corbyn basically had a rubbish media profile, decent-ish policies (at least in 2017) but a woeful leadership style and an inability to lead. The anti-Semitism crisis and failure to deal with Brexit will be what he is remembered for.
Labour needs to take some of the more popular policies, the anti-austerity, the bus services, the NHS funding and then tack those onto competent leadership and the ability to listen. That means not going back to the spin days of Blair but equally not maintaining the media apathy of Corbyn.
The real mark of the new leader will be getting on top of the anti-Semitism issue and dealing with it competently. If they're able to regain the trust of the Jewish community (and that via the JLM), I expect a lot of people will support them again.
And Labour really needs to spend the whole five years looking like a credible alternative Government. That means opposing but also supporting where necessary. I think Corbyn spent far too long telling people how everything the Tories did was awful but never about any of the good things about our country that were already there.
And for god sake, stay away from Israel and Palestine. And prioritise defence.
I agree with your Brown analysis - when he didn't call his honeymoon election I could see very clearly he was going to lose the election.
Blair is Blair is a total copout. He was just not a very nice human being and yet he was our PM for a decade. Maybe democracy just doesn't work? Also worth noting that Corbyn out preformed Blair in percentage terms in 2017
I simply don't understand how you can think it is a great idea? And I have provided my reasons for that. Why not refute them?
I'm not going to hide my views and having seen some of the posts on this thread and many others I am no more partisan than the majority of posters and far less than some.
Well, my comment was quite rude and unpleasant, and you no more deserved it than anyone else.
But I can only reiterate what I've already said. This project has been investigated, and costed more than once, and is still 'live'. Clearly it is a viable project of some description. So it's silly for people who know less than those who have studied it to dismiss it.
As for good reasons for doing it. -It will stimulate economic activity in two sites that could use economic development -It will make travel to Northern Ireland, and by extension the Republic of Ireland, easier, cheaper and more reliable - enabling more people from the mainland to explore the province, and vice versa -NI is the new borderland between the EU and the UK. This would link that into Scotland and Northern England in what I think would be a very powerful way -It would demonstrate that the Government has not abandoned its commitment to the Union, and that large scale infrastructure is not solely aimed at feeding London with more commuters -A project of this size and scale requires the resources of the Union and amply demonstrates its vibrancy and its value
Of course the % of the population who are 'working class' has declined too - but whoever thought (for example) the Miliband brothers were Tribunes of the North - and not well connected Labour aristocracy clearly had little idea. https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1205931357785985024?s=20
I really hope the Tories don't spend the next five years attacking the BBC and Channel 4. And I also hope this "anonymous source" briefing stuff is taken a bit more seriously, as it has given Cummings the ability to easily lie and get away with it.
The most ugly part of the Tories (or at least some of them) is attacking the BBC and the Courts.
I'm under no illusions the Conservatives have many fans within either institution, but they've both been broadly fair and balanced. I don't like the licence fee particularly, and I really don't like the bullying aggressive behaviour of the TV licencing authority - a state-sanctioned bully.
I do think Channel 4 is a different matter, and have thought that should be privatised for over 20 years.
My issue with the telly tax is that is actually totally unenforceable these days, and that watching this large moving picture box in your living room via an aerial is dying.
There does need to be real reform. What that is I don't know. But, the BBC won't accept any reform.
I despise when losers insist they won the argument. How very nice for you. What is that feeling based on? Thst you agree your offering is better? That people said "its nice, but I'm not voting for you"?
There argument was ignored because of their leader
Of course the % of the population who are 'working class' has declined too - but whoever thought (for example) the Miliband brothers were Tribunes of the North - and not well connected Labour aristocracy clearly had little idea. twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1205931357785985024?s=20
It was really striking seeing Alan Johnson on ITV on GE night next Mr Maomentum. Johnson is proper working class, from real hardship, worked his way up after having done real jobs. I don't agree with everything he says, but I respect him. He is what I would call proper Labour.
Downing Street boycotts Radio 4's Today programme in a bust-up over election bias as a Number 10 source slams the BBC for 'speaking to pro-Remain Islington, not the real world of Wakefield and Workington'
Last night, a No 10 source called on the BBC to mount an internal investigation into its performance during the campaign, saying: 'The BBC speaks to a pro-Remain metropolitan bubble in Islington, not the real world represented by Wakefield and Workington. There has been a failure by senior management at the BBC, and we expect them to launch an internal review of their performance.'
I think we can all guess who gave this comment....
Dom - 'They didn't say what we wanted them to say'.
Is this the start of rationalising the removal of the licence fee?
To be fair, I think the point made is actually a good one. Albeit hardly something that signals evidence of BBC 'bias' since you hardly saw the rest of the media (left or right) devoting much time to Wakefield and Workington during the campaign. And if they did mention them, it was generally from afar.
What does he mean by not speaking for Wakefield &c though? What is the real world that Cummings can see but is not shown in the BBC news room?
BBC News is subdivided into regional chunks, and although I rarely watched it I thought 'Look North' produced high quality out put that did factually cover the region whilst following national trends. You can find local BBC radio in the majority of cities staffed with people from the surrounding area. What more can the BBC do?
I saw more vox-pops from the North and Midlands accurately showing the strength of feeling for brexit and against Labour than those in the shires for disenfranchised ex-Conservatives.
#10 will now openly criticise the output of a public broadcasting company. To me this sounds like whispers of Trumpian rhetoric against perceived bias.
CHB - didn't they mock that people like us would be gone from this site by now?
They did. But I think you and I have had similar realisations in the last few days.
I genuinely think I'm a pragmatist, what underlines me is getting the Conservative Party out - and I think therefore you can see where I come from with my views.
I genuinely thought Labour could do that with Corbyn and his policies - but I was wrong. Some of them aren't bad in isolation - but it's caught up in the anti-business, anti-media, anti-aspiration, really anti-Britain sphere that makes him so toxic. I am embarrassed I could not see it.
I think the lack of focus was a big issue too. The "no shark unjumped" manifesto had lots of things that pleased different groups, but all of them felt that the cumulative effect was to cast doubt on whether we could really do any of it. We kept changing the subject, which was helpful in driving the news agenda (and I think that was a contributing factor in winning back Lab-Lib voters) but unhelpful in making any group feel confident that we were really interested in them.
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
Give it a rest. Just watch the Vox Pops from across the North, time and time again all these people stating they absolutely detest Corbyn. People didn't detest Miliband, they thought he was a bit rubbish, but they didn't detest him.
Labour lost in 2015 because of a poor manifesto and policies and because of the Lib Dem collapse. Corbyn learnt all the wrong lessons from that.
Ed on 2017 manifesto = a win or a minority Government. At least Ed looked vaguely competent.
Downing Street boycotts Radio 4's Today programme in a bust-up over election bias as a Number 10 source slams the BBC for 'speaking to pro-Remain Islington, not the real world of Wakefield and Workington'
Last night, a No 10 source called on the BBC to mount an internal investigation into its performance during the campaign, saying: 'The BBC speaks to a pro-Remain metropolitan bubble in Islington, not the real world represented by Wakefield and Workington. There has been a failure by senior management at the BBC, and we expect them to launch an internal review of their performance.'
I think we can all guess who gave this comment....
Dom - 'They didn't say what we wanted them to say'.
Is this the start of rationalising the removal of the licence fee?
To be fair, I think the point made is actually a good one. Albeit hardly something that signals evidence of BBC 'bias' since you hardly saw the rest of the media (left or right) devoting much time to Wakefield and Workington during the campaign. And if they did mention them, it was generally from afar.
What does he mean by not speaking for Wakefield &c though? What is the real world that Cummings can see but is not shown in the BBC news room?
BBC News is subdivided into regional chunks, and although I rarely watched it I thought 'Look North' produced high quality out put that did factually cover the region whilst following national trends. You can find local BBC radio in the majority of cities staffed with people from the surrounding area. What more can the BBC do?
I saw more vox-pops from the North and Midlands accurately showing the strength of feeling for brexit and against Labour than those in the shires for disenfranchised ex-Conservatives.
#10 will now openly criticise the output of a public broadcasting company. To me this sounds like whispers of Trumpian rhetoric against perceived bias.
Indeed, you could have predicted a Labour wipeout from the BBC coverage alone. I'd actually say it was quite negative of Labour.
Re npxmp comments, I don't recall swathes of the red wall falling due to supposed windbagging or oddness in their leaders..... Trad labour accepted them just fine it seemed. Given the polling showing concern at lab leadership especially Jezza was their no 1 issue even ahead of Brexit, I think having the magic Marxists just pushed them too far this time..
Actually I think Labour lost in 2015, because the Tories ran a highly effective campaign that started way before the GE. They had already shaped the debate before we even got to election.
The Tories spent five years telling people it was the "last Labour Government" that caused the problems - and so I think you're right.
But the Tories really can't use that anymore, in five years time that will really have ceased to be a potent argument.
But Labour can now use that argument quite effectively, if they are prepared to have a decent, credible alternative to offer.
I really hope the Tories don't spend the next five years attacking the BBC and Channel 4. And I also hope this "anonymous source" briefing stuff is taken a bit more seriously, as it has given Cummings the ability to easily lie and get away with it.
The most ugly part of the Tories (or at least some of them) is attacking the BBC and the Courts.
I'm under no illusions the Conservatives have many fans within either institution, but they've both been broadly fair and balanced. I don't like the licence fee particularly, and I really don't like the bullying aggressive behaviour of the TV licencing authority - a state-sanctioned bully.
I do think Channel 4 is a different matter, and have thought that should be privatised for over 20 years.
My issue with the telly tax is that is actually totally unenforceable these days, and that watching this large moving picture box in your living room via an aerial is dying.
There does need to be real reform. What that is I don't know. But, the BBC won't accept any reform.
Subscription, product placement & sponsorship should replace the TV tax.
The BBC is an anachronism belonging to an age when it was the single broadcaster & funding via the taxpayer was justified. It seems to be the only organisation where consumer choice is prohibited. Consequently it has grown into a bloated unaccountable blob.
Actually I think Labour lost in 2015, because the Tories ran a highly effective campaign that started way before the GE. They had already shaped the debate before we even got to election.
The Tories spent five years telling people it was the "last Labour Government" that caused the problems - and so I think you're right.
But the Tories really can't use that anymore, in five years time that will really have ceased to be a potent argument.
But Labour can now use that argument quite effectively, if they are prepared to have a decent, credible alternative to offer.
Actually Osborne approach was more nuanced than that. He took a leaf out of the New Labour playbook. He made sure whenever Labour pitched a new idea that they aggressively countered it with a whole range of potential issues. And they kept up that narrative week in, week out.
So by the time of the GE, there was a narrative that Ed keeps coming up with these policies that aren't very good. They had him painted as this bookworm that comes up with ideas that sound good in textbooks, but won't work in the real world.
Labour have forgotten that their role is to represent the voters, not their membership.
They do, just a very niche subsection of voters mainly located in urban areas.
I was totally struck by McDonnell saying the number one issue is the Climate Emergency. You think that Flat Cap Fred gets up in the morning, with shit infrastructure, poor opportunity, low life expectancy, high crime, worried about globalization, technology, immigration, and think yes John you are right the Climate Emergency is #1 priority, I really need to get down to London and glue myself to a bus.
Downing Street boycotts Radio 4's Today programme in a bust-up over election bias as a Number 10 source slams the BBC for 'speaking to pro-Remain Islington, not the real world of Wakefield and Workington'
Last night, a No 10 source called on the BBC to mount an internal investigation into its performance during the campaign, saying: 'The BBC speaks to a pro-Remain metropolitan bubble in Islington, not the real world represented by Wakefield and Workington. There has been a failure by senior management at the BBC, and we expect them to launch an internal review of their performance.'
I simply don't understand how you can think it is a great idea? And I have provided my reasons for that. Why not refute them?
I'm not going to hide my views and having seen some of the posts on this thread and many others I am no more partisan than the majority of posters and far less than some.
Well, my comment was quite rude and unpleasant, and you no more deserved it than anyone else.
But I can only reiterate what I've already said. This project has been investigated, and costed more than once, and is still 'live'. Clearly it is a viable project of some description. So it's silly for people who know less than those who have studied it to dismiss it.
As for good reasons for doing it. -It will stimulate economic activity in two sites that could use economic development -It will make travel to Northern Ireland, and by extension the Republic of Ireland, easier, cheaper and more reliable - enabling more people from the mainland to explore the province, and vice versa -NI is the new borderland between the EU and the UK. This would link that into Scotland and Northern England in what I think would be a very powerful way -It would demonstrate that the Government has not abandoned its commitment to the Union, and that large scale infrastructure is not solely aimed at feeding London with more commuters -A project of this size and scale requires the resources of the Union and amply demonstrates its vibrancy and its value
I suppose i see it as a white elephant. I cannot see the argument for connecting two already under-developed, rural areas of the UK. It's not like the ferry service or air routes are under huge strain?
Plugging £15+ billion into NI in readiness for it as a juncture between a newly brexited UK and the customs union I can see value in. And i would support (as if it matters). But the costs of simply constructing and maintaining a steel structure in the Irish sea at a glance, seem completely disproportionate to the benefits it would bring.
I really hope the Tories don't spend the next five years attacking the BBC and Channel 4. And I also hope this "anonymous source" briefing stuff is taken a bit more seriously, as it has given Cummings the ability to easily lie and get away with it.
They need to make sure their houses are in order, especially Channel 4.
Why does the state need to own this ? Surely a prime candidate for privatization?
I broadly agree with your point but Guido is just as trash as some of the leftie outlets, I really wish people wouldn't post it.
Final thought on Guido's crew. I think they're a whole bunch of four and five letter words I'm far too polite to type on here, but when they're on form they're very sharp (albeit weirdly/suspiciously credulous of some of the most thinly-sourced tripe they post) and when they're being mischievous they can be side-splittingly funny or complete ****s or both (depending on whether you're on the wrong side of it). Their leftie equivalents in the mid-2000s political BritBlog world were simply far too earnest and never cracked me up as much, even if I was more likely to agree with their underlying point. For whatever reason, Guido's formula seems to have worked out better and had greater staying power. I hope they've profited enough from it that they'll have enough cash for if/when the lawsuits finally catch up with them!
Reminds me a bit of Private Eye. At least historically that combined some much-needed reportage on poorly served issues (esp boring stuff like failure and corruption in local government that most of the Fourth Estate had given up on) and very juicy Westminster rumours the man on the street couldn't hear anywhere else in pre-social media days, with the problem you couldn't work out which of them were actually on the money versus which were just going to end up costing the paper money! Private Eye and Guido alike are not really to my taste but unless something superior supplants them in the meanwhile, I think we'll be poorer for it when they pass.
I want more Silly Samuel on my TV, Harry was doing the papers the other day.
I really hope the Tories don't spend the next five years attacking the BBC and Channel 4. And I also hope this "anonymous source" briefing stuff is taken a bit more seriously, as it has given Cummings the ability to easily lie and get away with it.
The most ugly part of the Tories (or at least some of them) is attacking the BBC and the Courts.
I'm under no illusions the Conservatives have many fans within either institution, but they've both been broadly fair and balanced. I don't like the licence fee particularly, and I really don't like the bullying aggressive behaviour of the TV licencing authority - a state-sanctioned bully.
I do think Channel 4 is a different matter, and have thought that should be privatised for over 20 years.
My issue with the telly tax is that is actually totally unenforceable these days, and that watching this large moving picture box in your living room via an aerial is dying.
There does need to be real reform. What that is I don't know. But, the BBC won't accept any reform.
End the license fee, let them reform themselves however they like.
Oh good. They won the argument. He knows this because IN HIS HEAD he won the argument. The fact that he got millions less actual votes is a mere bagatelle. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Oh good. They won the argument. He knows this because IN HIS HEAD he won the argument. The fact that he got millions less actual votes is a mere bagatelle. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Its because he believes it. It is why he gets so angry when he is challenged, because it is a personal assault on what he knows to be the truth.
I love looking at big spreads of all the different newspaper front pages and what different angles they are taking on the day. Oddly I especially like the slow news days where they prioritise completely different stories and you can really see the different interests and worldviews of the readerships ("immigrants/Diana/house prices/football/random celeb/new nursing contracts/pharmamegacorp merger"). The day after the election is usually less interesting than the day itself, when the papers make their final pitch to their readers - the tabloids often especially witty on the front pages, "please turn out the lights" and all that - and the best thing is you know how ridiculous at least half of those headlines are going to look in the wake of the results that night, but can't be certain which ones it is. The result day headlines and photos tend to be quite samey which takes some of the interest out of it though, and always suffer from necessary vagueness due to being printed before the final results are out.
What I would love to see, though, is a big spread of all the "almost" results day front pages that they prepared before the exit poll but didn't run with!
Funnily enough, all those h’s and g’s are a rough approximation to the noise I’d have been making as I slowly rocked backwards and forwards if the exit poll had shown a Corbyn victory..
On your second question, building HS2 from the north is a non-starter. The capacity constraints are into London, so it would just be a white elephant: the trains couldn't decant anywhere.
Makes sense. Could be a long wait for them then.
Any idea of whether HS3 is only viable once HS2 is done and dusted?
The issue is more a decent trans-pennine link.
I'm not sure the 'high speed' bit matters too much at that length; it just needs a decent modern new main-line.
Cheers. I have heard apparently well-informed people argue Britain as a whole is "too small" for high speed to be worthwhile for its own sake (so can certainly believe that for an east-west link!) but that at least in HS2's case, there was a need for new capacity anyway and the cost differential between "high speed" and not was sufficiently small that you might as well go the whole hog. Not sure if this is broad-brush accurate.
I thought Japan lead the way with high speed rail? And itsn't their island about the same size as ours?
I think it's a great idea. Great for the Borders, which is a much overlooked and beautiful part of Scotland, and great for Northern Ireland.
Any idea how much that might cost, what sort of toll could be charged?
Quite a lot of detail in this Wiki article. Costs in the region of £20 billion, if we apply the rule of "and you probably need to double the initial estimate when someone's trying to stoke up interest" then it's still not completely infeasible. Certainly the engineering is possible (will mean spending a lot of money cleaning up WW2 munitions!). May not make actual economic sense, but that's a different issue. The symbolism is important here.
Interestingly it's something that the DUP and Sturgeon are in agreement on! And I do wonder if Boris is tempted.
Bread and circuses?
Actually, no. I'm a big fan of grandiose schemes like this - see also Boris Island, Trump buying Greenland, the late 90's plan to buy Siberia. These things really make a difference in historical terms
Oh good. They won the argument. He knows this because IN HIS HEAD he won the argument. The fact that he got millions less actual votes is a mere bagatelle. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Its because he believes it. It is why he gets so angry when he is challenged, because it is a personal assault on what he knows to be the truth.
Regardless if you like or dislike corbyn, he'll be talked about for years to come and as the saying goes "all publicity is good publicity".
Oh good. They won the argument. He knows this because IN HIS HEAD he won the argument. The fact that he got millions less actual votes is a mere bagatelle. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Its because he believes it. It is why he gets so angry when he is challenged, because it is a personal assault on what he knows to be the truth.
Regardless if you like or dislike corbyn, he'll be talked about for years to come and as the saying goes "all publicity is good publicity".
Not sure if this has been noted before. But as well as beating one of Blair's score in 2017, he also quite easily beat Ed (is Crap) Milliband this time round. [all in percentage terms]
Oh good. They won the argument. He knows this because IN HIS HEAD he won the argument. The fact that he got millions less actual votes is a mere bagatelle. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Its because he believes it. It is why he gets so angry when he is challenged, because it is a personal assault on what he knows to be the truth.
Regardless if you like or dislike corbyn, he'll be talked about for years to come and as the saying goes "all publicity is good publicity".
Not sure if this has been noted before. But as well as beating one of Blair's score in 2017, he also quite easily beat Ed (is Crap) Milliband this time round. [all in percentage terms]
Yes but percentages matter little, seats is what ultimately matters.
Oh good. They won the argument. He knows this because IN HIS HEAD he won the argument. The fact that he got millions less actual votes is a mere bagatelle. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Its because he believes it. It is why he gets so angry when he is challenged, because it is a personal assault on what he knows to be the truth.
Regardless if you like or dislike corbyn, he'll be talked about for years to come and as the saying goes "all publicity is good publicity".
As a warning.
That's certainly the vibe i'm getting when watching foreign media. He's just discredited the hard left in a way none of its opponents could ever do.
Oh good. They won the argument. He knows this because IN HIS HEAD he won the argument. The fact that he got millions less actual votes is a mere bagatelle. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Its because he believes it. It is why he gets so angry when he is challenged, because it is a personal assault on what he knows to be the truth.
Regardless if you like or dislike corbyn, he'll be talked about for years to come and as the saying goes "all publicity is good publicity".
Not sure if this has been noted before. But as well as beating one of Blair's score in 2017, he also quite easily beat Ed (is Crap) Milliband this time round. [all in percentage terms]
Yes but percentages matter little, seats is what ultimately matters.
There are various metrics to use - I'm not saying Hillary beat Trump but us on this website should surely dig deeper than "worst since 1935"
Oh good. They won the argument. He knows this because IN HIS HEAD he won the argument. The fact that he got millions less actual votes is a mere bagatelle. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Its because he believes it. It is why he gets so angry when he is challenged, because it is a personal assault on what he knows to be the truth.
Regardless if you like or dislike corbyn, he'll be talked about for years to come and as the saying goes "all publicity is good publicity".
Not sure if this has been noted before. But as well as beating one of Blair's score in 2017, he also quite easily beat Ed (is Crap) Milliband this time round. [all in percentage terms]
Yes but percentages matter little, seats is what ultimately matters.
There are various metrics to use - I'm not saying Hillary beat Trump but us on this website should surely dig deeper than "worst since 1935"
And personally I prefer the Party List voting system where percentages would very much matter.
Oh good. They won the argument. He knows this because IN HIS HEAD he won the argument. The fact that he got millions less actual votes is a mere bagatelle. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Its because he believes it. It is why he gets so angry when he is challenged, because it is a personal assault on what he knows to be the truth.
Regardless if you like or dislike corbyn, he'll be talked about for years to come and as the saying goes "all publicity is good publicity".
Not sure if this has been noted before. But as well as beating one of Blair's score in 2017, he also quite easily beat Ed (is Crap) Milliband this time round. [all in percentage terms]
Yes but percentages matter little, seats is what ultimately matters.
There are various metrics to use - I'm not saying Hillary beat Trump but us on this website should surely dig deeper than "worst since 1935"
And personally I prefer the Party List voting system where percentages would very much matter.
Your in favour of the p.r voting system.
It could work but it would be bad for us political betters.
Oh good. They won the argument. He knows this because IN HIS HEAD he won the argument. The fact that he got millions less actual votes is a mere bagatelle. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Its because he believes it. It is why he gets so angry when he is challenged, because it is a personal assault on what he knows to be the truth.
Regardless if you like or dislike corbyn, he'll be talked about for years to come and as the saying goes "all publicity is good publicity".
Not sure if this has been noted before. But as well as beating one of Blair's score in 2017, he also quite easily beat Ed (is Crap) Milliband this time round. [all in percentage terms]
Yes but percentages matter little, seats is what ultimately matters.
There are various metrics to use - I'm not saying Hillary beat Trump but us on this website should surely dig deeper than "worst since 1935"
And personally I prefer the Party List voting system where percentages would very much matter.
Your in favour of the p.r voting system.
It could work but it would be bad for us political betters.
I said I'm in favour of Party List system. Personally I don't regard STV and it's ilk as PR ; but heh, I'm an eccentric
That's ironic coming from a guy who's clearly middle class.
That's not really the point though, the right isn't interested in fomenting class war. He's claiming to be a middle class person who's willing to listen to what his constituents want where modern Labour doesn't care.
That's ironic coming from a guy who's clearly middle class.
That's not really the point though, the right isn't interested in fostering class war. He's claiming to be a middle class person who's willing to listen to what his constituents want where modern Labour doesn't care.
It's always good to listen, whether he does anything for Wakefield is another matter, time will only tell.
So we start day three of the Labocalyse and Jeremy Corbyn is still Labour leader. 🤡
Yes but he is going to stay for a few more months apparently.
He's going to stay until after May 7th 2020 and then he's going to report back to CCHQ and say 'I've completed my 40 year mission, can I have my pension now'
These days it seems quite fashionable to call for revotes when you don't get the answer you want the first time. Sturgeon is doing it in Scotland and Remainers started doing it about five seconds after the EU referendum.
Has anybody yet called for the GE to be rerun? Some deluded Momentum freak or something? I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
So we start day three of the Labocalyse and Jeremy Corbyn is still Labour leader. 🤡
Yes but he is going to stay for a few more months apparently.
He's going to stay until after May 7th 2020 and then he's going to report back to CCHQ and say 'I've completed my 40 year mission, can I have my pension now'
One thing you can be sure about, is that he'll get a pretty hefty pension.
Comments
The Tory focus on Get Brexit Done and Stop Corbyn was by contrast easily memorable, a bit like Blair's 6 points (and even they weren't especially memorable, but they highlighted that we were about education+health+crime+sensible economics).
I'm wary about attributing too much to the leader issue (although Corbyn had obvious weaknesses whch certainly got cited on the doorstep0, because the Labour leader is always a press target - too weak (Blair, initially), too dictatorial (Brown, later Blair), too intellectual (Miliband), too thick (Prescott), too windbaggy (Kinnock), etc. Whoever we choose will have weaknesses on which people hesitant to vote Labour will hang their reluctance.
I'm not sure the 'high speed' bit matters too much at that length; it just needs a decent modern new main-line.
At the very least, it doesn't involve purchasing everyone's back gardens, felling ancient woodland, causing massive transport delays, ruining picturesque villages etc.
And there were only 5 of them-
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=jDWLW6Ek&id=DA3E155C378D5A62398CDF0B7FFDCA0DF473B9B3&thid=OIP.jDWLW6EkoNMrqBzG7aZt0wHaE_&mediaurl=https://picturingpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/labour-pledge-card.jpg&exph=404&expw=600&q=labour+pledge+card+1997&simid=608019630129942149&selectedIndex=0&qpvt=labour+pledge+card+1997&ajaxhist=0
I judge the content of your posts on their own merit.
Last night, a No 10 source called on the BBC to mount an internal investigation into its performance during the campaign, saying: 'The BBC speaks to a pro-Remain metropolitan bubble in Islington, not the real world represented by Wakefield and Workington. There has been a failure by senior management at the BBC, and we expect them to launch an internal review of their performance.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7793107/Downing-Street-boycotts-Radio-4s-Today-programme-bust-election-bias.html
I think we can all guess who gave this comment....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/14/we-won-the-argument-but-i-regret-we-didnt-convert-that-into-a-majority-for-change
You would have thought the Conservatives would have been quite pleased. If they had reported more from Workington and Wakefield people might have cottoned on to what was happening
More chance of Watford staying up than your lot ever winning a GE again!
😀😀😀😀😀😀😀
Is this the start of rationalising the removal of the licence fee?
We also picked one big enough and mature enough to let flowers shine, which directly led to Cameron's election in 2005.
That was just over 8 years in. Labour are rapidly coming up to ten years out of power with no sign of a Howard or Kinnock, let alone a Cameron or Blair.
And better still introduce one for the NHS too!!
I think the problem for Corbyn was he almost made it too easy for people to not like him and I have to conclude that is down to his media profile. It just was never any good.
Miliband failed because he could not articulate a good enough alternative vision to the Tories and people wondered why they'd bother to vote for Labour at all when they could just get the Tories instead who'd been doing it for five years already successfully. I also think that the collapse of the Lib Dems somewhat overexaggerated the problem because that's where the Tory majority pretty much came from. Miliband was somewhat unlucky in timing. I am quite sure that had he run this year Labour would have done a lot better.
Brown was never going to have it easy after so many years of Government, again I think he was somewhat unfortunate in his timing. And again I think media profile played a part with that.
Blair was Blair.
Corbyn basically had a rubbish media profile, decent-ish policies (at least in 2017) but a woeful leadership style and an inability to lead. The anti-Semitism crisis and failure to deal with Brexit will be what he is remembered for.
Labour needs to take some of the more popular policies, the anti-austerity, the bus services, the NHS funding and then tack those onto competent leadership and the ability to listen. That means not going back to the spin days of Blair but equally not maintaining the media apathy of Corbyn.
The real mark of the new leader will be getting on top of the anti-Semitism issue and dealing with it competently. If they're able to regain the trust of the Jewish community (and that via the JLM), I expect a lot of people will support them again.
And Labour really needs to spend the whole five years looking like a credible alternative Government. That means opposing but also supporting where necessary. I think Corbyn spent far too long telling people how everything the Tories did was awful but never about any of the good things about our country that were already there.
And for god sake, stay away from Israel and Palestine. And prioritise defence.
It's a remarkable display of cognitive dissonance.
He's one of the more intelligent Corbyn supporters. If that's where the bulk of them are at, now, they're going to be out of power an awfully long time.
1. Westminster will never consider it, because a functioning federation requires an English Parliament, and that in turn would break up the Government. No British Prime Minister will do that. They want to play with the whole train set, not be forced to choose a half
2. Being part of a federal Britain is not independence. At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, the 45% who want independence want independence, not a federal system. It won't do anything to stabilise the situation or make the arguments go away
The situation that currently prevails is unsustainable. Trying to get around the tough decision that needs to be made by offering up imaginary constitutional non-solutions won't work.
Ed on 2017 manifesto = a win or a minority Government. At least Ed looked vaguely competent.
I'm under no illusions the Conservatives have many fans within either institution, but they've both been broadly fair and balanced. I don't like the licence fee particularly, and I really don't like the bullying aggressive behaviour of the TV licencing authority - a state-sanctioned bully.
I do think Channel 4 is a different matter, and have thought that should be privatised for over 20 years.
Blair is Blair is a total copout. He was just not a very nice human being and yet he was our PM for a decade. Maybe democracy just doesn't work? Also worth noting that Corbyn out preformed Blair in percentage terms in 2017
But I can only reiterate what I've already said. This project has been investigated, and costed more than once, and is still 'live'. Clearly it is a viable project of some description. So it's silly for people who know less than those who have studied it to dismiss it.
As for good reasons for doing it.
-It will stimulate economic activity in two sites that could use economic development
-It will make travel to Northern Ireland, and by extension the Republic of Ireland, easier, cheaper and more reliable - enabling more people from the mainland to explore the province, and vice versa
-NI is the new borderland between the EU and the UK. This would link that into Scotland and Northern England in what I think would be a very powerful way
-It would demonstrate that the Government has not abandoned its commitment to the Union, and that large scale infrastructure is not solely aimed at feeding London with more commuters
-A project of this size and scale requires the resources of the Union and amply demonstrates its vibrancy and its value
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1205931357785985024?s=20
There does need to be real reform. What that is I don't know. But, the BBC won't accept any reform.
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1205893838709174274?s=20
Fucking hell, the state of this
BBC News is subdivided into regional chunks, and although I rarely watched it I thought 'Look North' produced high quality out put that did factually cover the region whilst following national trends. You can find local BBC radio in the majority of cities staffed with people from the surrounding area. What more can the BBC do?
I saw more vox-pops from the North and Midlands accurately showing the strength of feeling for brexit and against Labour than those in the shires for disenfranchised ex-Conservatives.
#10 will now openly criticise the output of a public broadcasting company. To me this sounds like whispers of Trumpian rhetoric against perceived bias.
Seize to exist
But the Tories really can't use that anymore, in five years time that will really have ceased to be a potent argument.
But Labour can now use that argument quite effectively, if they are prepared to have a decent, credible alternative to offer.
The swing in Bassetlaw was the biggest LAB to CON swing in a seat in a GE of all time
Subscription, product placement & sponsorship should replace the TV tax.
The BBC is an anachronism belonging to an age when it was the single broadcaster & funding via the taxpayer was justified.
It seems to be the only organisation where consumer choice is prohibited. Consequently it has grown into a bloated unaccountable blob.
Words are like bullets and all I hear is machine gun fire when I tune to it.
(I said that to Ms Briskin the other day and she like it so I hope some of you will too)
So by the time of the GE, there was a narrative that Ed keeps coming up with these policies that aren't very good. They had him painted as this bookworm that comes up with ideas that sound good in textbooks, but won't work in the real world.
I was totally struck by McDonnell saying the number one issue is the Climate Emergency. You think that Flat Cap Fred gets up in the morning, with shit infrastructure, poor opportunity, low life expectancy, high crime, worried about globalization, technology, immigration, and think yes John you are right the Climate Emergency is #1 priority, I really need to get down to London and glue myself to a bus.
Plugging £15+ billion into NI in readiness for it as a juncture between a newly brexited UK and the customs union I can see value in. And i would support (as if it matters). But the costs of simply constructing and maintaining a steel structure in the Irish sea at a glance, seem completely disproportionate to the benefits it would bring.
Surely a prime candidate for privatization?
HS2+ Aberdeen to London
Who's with me?
That's certainly the vibe i'm getting when watching foreign media. He's just discredited the hard left in a way none of its opponents could ever do.
It could work but it would be bad for us political betters.
I'm sure that some of you (i.e none of you) will be concerned about my interactions with the Scottish NHS mental health department.
Well I'm I delighted to tell you that they're no longer injecting me every month to keep me sane.
Back on the pills.
Great Success!
Has anybody yet called for the GE to be rerun? Some deluded Momentum freak or something? I'm sure it's only a matter of time.