politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » “Never again” means nothing if we recite the words while forge

Why?

VE Day is so over. Today is all about Europe Day:

https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1259009019559075842?s=21

squareroot2 said:

Why?

Why what ?

The public, internationally, don’t believe you. They think they can get their way without any serious harm to the way the world works.

They’re wrong but they are going to need to be proved wrong first. That will be painful.

Casino_Royale said:

An excellent post.

The West will no longer be top dog in 10-20 years time (arguably it isnt really unchallenged anymore even today) and I suspect we'll find out the hard way just how much global security and prosperity was dependent upon the realpolitik: our economic domination and being part of a nuclear-armed defensive alliance.

Rather than tackle that now though, we all know where the challenges come from, we seem to be more interested in squabbling amongst ourselves over identity politics and handwringing over our past.

It is an excellent post.

Our current crisis demonstrates the current benefits as well as the limits of international cooperation.

Casino_Royale said:

An excellent post.

The West will no longer be top dog in 10-20 years time (arguably it isnt really unchallenged anymore even today) and I suspect we'll find out the hard way just how much global security and prosperity was dependent upon the realpolitik: our economic domination and being part of a nuclear-armed defensive alliance.

Rather than tackle that now though, we all know where the challenges come from, we seem to be more interested in squabbling amongst ourselves over identity politics and handwringing over our past.

Spot on

I've been to Katchanaburi, the Death Railway and the bridge over the river 'Kwai.'

The museum and cemetery at Katchanaburi is one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever seen. I wept at graves of people I never knew who lie buried an awfully long way from home.

Interesting piece by David and to be honest, covid 19 has resulted in the worst of everyone for themselves with countries only acting in their own interests

America First was always going to be a challenge to the international community and now in a few short months covid has turned Trump into a real threat to the pre covid order and actively seeking to denigrate China into a rogue state

Countries thoughout Europe are acting in their self interest and largely ignoring the EU, and even when the EU tries to intervene we see the extraordinary situation of Germany's courts rejecting the EU and ECJ.

I just cannot see any immediate change to countries relationship until post covid and maybe then, maybe with Trump long gone, a similar post war coming together of the worlds countries may happen, but it will not be quick nor easy

Excellent. Confidence that liberalism, democracy and the free market are superior (to what BTW?) is a great starting point. But in themselves each of them is a procedure for general action not a set of beliefs about how we should act within them. Unless these three deliver a second tier of great qualities - the sort of world we want to live in - as well then they will be (and are) increasingly open to challenge. And they can be challenged from within, because nothing about liberalism and democracy prevents their excellent shell being filled with bad things. In themselves they place no limits on how bad the outcomes will be.

Mysticrose said:

I've been to Katchanaburi, the Death Railway and the bridge over the river 'Kwai.'

The museum and cemetery at Katchanaburi is one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever seen. I wept at graves of people I never knew who lie buried an awfully long way from home.

My geography teacher survived the death railway and was a great teacher but never spoke about it even though it had only been 10 years since the end of WW11

Happy Liberation Day! Lovely story about the Liberation of Guernsey - when HMS Bulldog sailed into St Peter Port a 23 year old ardent Nazi was sent out to “negotiate” an “armistice”. Given the unconditional surrender of the Nazi regime throughout Europe it was explained to him that this was not on the table. When he threatened to fire on HMS Bulldog if it approached the wharf he was told “You shell us today, we hang you tomorrow”. The grown ups shortly thereafter signed the surrender instrument. German troops on Guernsey after the invasion of mainland Europe had cut off the Channel Islands called themselves the “Canada Division” because they reckoned that’s where they’d end up as POWs - which many of them did.

As usual from Mr Herdson an interesting and thought provoking piece. Much as I’d never wish ill health on anyone, the news that Trump staffers are coming down with COVID has me sorely tempted.

But Trump isn’t the root of the problem - his eventual departure will still leave a lot of disenchanted Americans who feel the system is against them - and “Trump 2” might be even worse.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?

Why not

I do believe he has started well but he and labour have a long road ahead but nothing wrong with hoping he will become a real election winner

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1259024794797912069

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1259027416015671296

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?

What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.

Casino_Royale said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

There is an assumption in this piece that international agreements are always a good thing in heading off the risks of nationalism. The problem with that comes when you have international agreements that turn out to eventually frustrate the ability of nation states to tackle their own problems without having put place in put a functioning alternative. That just stokes bad feeling between nations and leads to precisely the sort of outcomes this thread is warning against. Witness the impact of the Euro in neutering the ability of some EU nations to deal independently with their debt crises, past and present, combined with an unwillingness of other EU nations to gift them what are in effect the massive fiscal transfers necessary to deliver an alternative solution within a monetary union.

It's also true that the EU is still obsessed with WWII and eclipsing the USA too. Maybe its secretly ashamed it had to be liberated by them and so 'never again' etc?

It's sensed an opportunity to get in bed with China as the US shuns it so is now censoring its own letters and diplomatic missives accordingly, as reported in the Times before.

It's shameful. It's not fighting the last war. It's fighting for winning the peace following the last war.

That's so short-sighted. Those battles are over 30 years out of date.

I think your misreading the EU's attitude to China. This exchange between a former leader of the German Green Party and a pro-CCP journalist is more indicative.

https://twitter.com/bueti/status/1258357035219013633

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?

What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.

He’s more a younger Smith than Blair. That’s no bad thing given the state of the world and the party. Success will come from the team he forms around him.

BoZo's speech has been leaked

Clinically weak and exposed: As someone awaiting a brain transplant, Priti Patel is among those most at risk. The home secretary is to remain shielded from the public for months, until a reshuffle can be found. Until then she must stay at home office, protect IDS and save lies.

Gatherings: Rules banning gatherings of more than two people to be extended to a dozen, allowing the Lib Dem conference to go ahead.

Weddings: Couples will be allowed to tie the knot but the ceremony must be organised by Matt Hancock. The guest list can be up to 100,000 but he will only put the invites in the post on the morning of the wedding.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/priti-patel-will-have-to-keep-shielding-until-a-brain-donor-is-available-5hxt63wqs

Mysticrose said:

I've been to Katchanaburi, the Death Railway and the bridge over the river 'Kwai.'

The museum and cemetery at Katchanaburi is one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever seen. I wept at graves of people I never knew who lie buried an awfully long way from home.

I've been to a few military cemeteries but Katchanburi's the most harrowing. Dying in battle is one thing but dying of maltreatment and neglect because your captors believe that surrender is dishonourable seems different. And, as my wife said, they were, with one exception, all so young.

Otherwise the grave which I recall is someone in Germany who died on May 6th 1945. I have no idea who he was, or anything about him, but I always think of his family when there are 'end of the war' celebrations.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?

Well, yes.

But the bar isn’t high. Blair was a magnificent LOTO, indeed arguably too good. He never quite made the transition in his own mind to the different demands of government which meant a solid government was never an inspired one.

Since then we’ve had the following embarrassments: Hague, Duncan Smith, Corbyn, Harman.

The following who were solid without being inspired: Miliband, Howard.

And one who was capable but ultimately was also somewhat casual and complacent: Cameron.

Starmer has many of the qualities that remind me of Howard, who was intelligent, probing and tenacious. He also has the advantages over Howard of a neutral voice, a calm manner and the ability to get on with a wide variety of people. Whether he will put forward a more sensible programme for government remains to be seen.

He has the advantages over Cameron of being a hard worker and clearly out to take nothing for granted.

So yes, on this evidence he would be the best since Blair, but again, we come back to how rubbish some of them were.

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

There is an assumption in this piece that international agreements are always a good thing in heading off the risks of nationalism. The problem with that comes when you have international agreements that turn out to eventually frustrate the ability of nation states to tackle their own problems without having put place in put a functioning alternative. That just stokes bad feeling between nations and leads to precisely the sort of outcomes this thread is warning against. Witness the impact of the Euro in neutering the ability of some EU nations to deal independently with their debt crises, past and present, combined with an unwillingness of other EU nations to gift them what are in effect the massive fiscal transfers necessary to deliver an alternative solution within a monetary union.

It's also true that the EU is still obsessed with WWII and eclipsing the USA too. Maybe its secretly ashamed it had to be liberated by them and so 'never again' etc?

It's sensed an opportunity to get in bed with China as the US shuns it so is now censoring its own letters and diplomatic missives accordingly, as reported in the Times before.

It's shameful. It's not fighting the last war. It's fighting for winning the peace following the last war.

That's so short-sighted. Those battles are over 30 years out of date.

I think your misreading the EU's attitude to China. This exchange between a former leader of the German Green Party and a pro-CCP journalist is more indicative.

https://twitter.com/bueti/status/1258357035219013633

There was considerable undiplomatic blow back from member states on the EU China ambassador’s self censorship - while some in the Commission may be “soft” I doubt that will survive contact with the Member States.

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

There is an assumption in this piece that international agreements are always a good thing in heading off the risks of nationalism. The problem with that comes when you have international agreements that turn out to eventually frustrate the ability of nation states to tackle their own problems without having put place in put a functioning alternative. That just stokes bad feeling between nations and leads to precisely the sort of outcomes this thread is warning against. Witness the impact of the Euro in neutering the ability of some EU nations to deal independently with their debt crises, past and present, combined with an unwillingness of other EU nations to gift them what are in effect the massive fiscal transfers necessary to deliver an alternative solution within a monetary union.

It's also true that the EU is still obsessed with WWII and eclipsing the USA too. Maybe its secretly ashamed it had to be liberated by them and so 'never again' etc?

It's sensed an opportunity to get in bed with China as the US shuns it so is now censoring its own letters and diplomatic missives accordingly, as reported in the Times before.

It's shameful. It's not fighting the last war. It's fighting for winning the peace following the last war.

That's so short-sighted. Those battles are over 30 years out of date.

I think your misreading the EU's attitude to China. This exchange between a former leader of the German Green Party and a pro-CCP journalist is more indicative.

https://twitter.com/bueti/status/1258357035219013633

We can all selectively quote from those who disagree.

I'm describing what the EU itself decided to do.

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?

What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.

what made Blair effective was the government had run out of ideas and was divided. He had an open goal every week to shoot at.

Starmer should do well then, but there was more to Blair than that. There was a first class team, clarity of vision and precise positioning. Take ‘tough on crime, and the causes of crime’ as an example, That phrase was Gordon Brown’s, it disarmed one major attack on Labour and set a clear direction.

Alistair said:

Shadsy looking to upgrade the holiday villa

https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1259028368059699200?s=19

Is this due to the 'Becoming' documentary which is shortly out?

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1259027416015671296

On the contrary. Boris does detail badly. His address will be a sales pitch, "general direction" type of thing, with details in writing published simultaneously

not_on_fire said:

An idiotic lack of social distancing going on in that bottom right photo

Is there?

It's hard to tell from the angle which doesn't show perspective very well but it looks like family units (who needn't distance) being distanced from each other. An overhead image might give a very different impression.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Had a look at this: http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

The Tories are currently on 365 seats, Labour 202, Lib Dems 11.

On a 5.5% swing in 2024, Labour would make 61 gains, 56 of which would be Tory seats, putting the Tories on 309. Labour would be on 263.

5 of the 61 gains are SNP seats, so likely Labour won't take those. But really that's net negative for Labour since the SNP would presumably support them.

If the SNP therefore hold around 40 seats, that is Labour + SNP = 303. Lib Dems hold 11 say and that's 314.

Green MP is one more.

SDLP is two more.

So that's Labour alliance thingy on 317, Tories + DUP on 316.

Imagine how buggered a Parliament that would be!

If Remainer (or Rejoiner!) Tories are prepared to vote LD next time, because to do so 'won't be letting Corbyn' in, the the LD's will have more than 11 seats. And could be many more.

JohnLilburne said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1259027416015671296

On the contrary. Boris does detail badly.

I disagree entirely.

He doesn’t do it at all.

That’s not necessarily a fatal objection. Macmillan was not a details man, but he was also a capable delegator with a cabinet that included a former acting PM, two future PMs and a man who was very nearly PM.

But Johnson has a cabinet with maybe two ministers who would not look out of their depth as Clerk to Ceredigion County Council.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1259027416015671296

Yeah, Johnson is famously good at detail.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

OldKingCole said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Had a look at this: http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

The Tories are currently on 365 seats, Labour 202, Lib Dems 11.

On a 5.5% swing in 2024, Labour would make 61 gains, 56 of which would be Tory seats, putting the Tories on 309. Labour would be on 263.

5 of the 61 gains are SNP seats, so likely Labour won't take those. But really that's net negative for Labour since the SNP would presumably support them.

If the SNP therefore hold around 40 seats, that is Labour + SNP = 303. Lib Dems hold 11 say and that's 314.

Green MP is one more.

SDLP is two more.

So that's Labour alliance thingy on 317, Tories + DUP on 316.

Imagine how buggered a Parliament that would be!

If Remainer (or Rejoiner!) Tories are prepared to vote LD next time, because to do so 'won't be letting Corbyn' in, the the LD's will have more than 11 seats. And could be many more.

I've been of the view for sometime the way back to Number 10 for Labour isn't first the heartlands, it's the 100 Lib Dem target seats from the Tories, which even if you assume the Lib Dems only take 30 of them (not even a high water mark for the Lib Dems), that sends the Tory majority down significantly. Another 40 seats for Labour is possible on a less than 4% swing, which any decent leader must surely aim to achieve.

It also helps LAB that LAB and LD are not really competing for the same seats. I think that only about 2 of LAB top 200 targets are LD? I might be wrong!

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?

What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.

By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.

Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.

Pulpstar said:

Mysticrose said:

I've been to Katchanaburi, the Death Railway and the bridge over the river 'Kwai.'

The museum and cemetery at Katchanaburi is one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever seen. I wept at graves of people I never knew who lie buried an awfully long way from home.

Arnhem is a good visit if you're ever round that part of the Netherlands as a reminder that the war was not a forgone conclusion.

Yes absolutely.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?

What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.

Starmer is a refreshing change from the toxicity of Corbyn but he has to gain 123 seats at least to govern and that is a huge task

It's more like 90 if you assume Labour will govern with the SNP. Personally I don't think Labour will ever win a majority again without Scotland.

If Labour and the Lib Dems get together, a lot of damage can be done.

I don't see any reason the Lib Dems and Labour can't form a Gov't together if the death toll and economic fallout is as bad as I think it might be.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mysticrose said:

I've been to Katchanaburi, the Death Railway and the bridge over the river 'Kwai.'

The museum and cemetery at Katchanaburi is one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever seen. I wept at graves of people I never knew who lie buried an awfully long way from home.

My geography teacher survived the death railway and was a great teacher but never spoke about it even though it had only been 10 years since the end of WW11

Crikey.

John Craven was speaking on one of the VE day programmes yesterday about his father surviving and returning from the Death Railway. Even with the long sea voyage he returned in skeletal shape.

Adjectives and adverbs don't work with something like that. I could only stand out there and weep.

Scott_xP said:

FPT

Mysticrose said:

Mike has long championed 'approval ratings' as the best indicator of voter intention and I think this is correct. The steady erosion of the Government's credibility is not good for the Conservatives. I think we all (myself included) had hoped the return of Boris would see us leap ahead but instead we have continued to experience misinformation, leaks, confusing signals, bluster and a general sense that they don't know what they are doing.

Well, here he is at prime minister’s questions this week. I quote at length and include the ums and ers because the halting prolixity, waffle and intellectual confusion need to be flagged up. An increasingly formidable Sir Keir Starmer had asked why Britain had abandoned its testing programme in March, only to resume it now.

The prime minister: “A-a-as I think is readily apparent, Mr Speaker, to everybody who has studied the, er, the situation, and I think the scientists would, er, confirm, the difficulty in mid-March was that, er, the, er, tracing capacity that we had — it had been useful … in the containment phase of the epidemic er, that capacity was no longer useful or relevant, since the, er, transmission from individuals within the UK um meant that it exceeded our capacity. … [A]as we get the new cases down, er, we will have a team that will genuinely be able to track and, er, trace hundreds of thousands of people across the country, and thereby to drive down the epidemic. And so, er, I mean, to put it in a nutshell, it is easier, er, to do now — now that we have built up the team on the, on the way out — than it was as er, the epidemic took off …”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/boris-johnson-needs-to-take-control-of-the-cockpit-25t0tw7ck

One thing that really struck me yesterday is that Boris Johnson is no Winston Churchill.

OldKingCole said:

Mysticrose said:

I've been to Katchanaburi, the Death Railway and the bridge over the river 'Kwai.'

The museum and cemetery at Katchanaburi is one of the most harrowing experiences I've ever seen. I wept at graves of people I never knew who lie buried an awfully long way from home.

I've been to a few military cemeteries but Katchanburi's the most harrowing. Dying in battle is one thing but dying of maltreatment and neglect because your captors believe that surrender is dishonourable seems different. And, as my wife said, they were, with one exception, all so young.

Otherwise the grave which I recall is someone in Germany who died on May 6th 1945. I have no idea who he was, or anything about him, but I always think of his family when there are 'end of the war' celebrations.

I'd reply with a love heart emoji if it existed on here. Great post. x

JohnLilburne said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1259027416015671296

On the contrary. Boris does detail badly. His address will be a sales pitch, "general direction" type of thing, with details in writing published simultaneously

Or the other way at looking at it is that he does sales pitches well - which is what we need right now, to take the nation together.

There needs to be balance.

There's no point a sales pitch without detail.
There's equally no point putting out an inordinate amount of detail that people choose to disregard.

And it needs to be remembered that whatever detail he puts out there will be people who wanted more and less - and there will be people who do more and less. If you want people to drive at or below 40 then set the speed limit to 30. If you genuinely want people to drive at or below 30 then set the speed limit to 20.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Jonathan said:

One similarity between Starmer path to power and Smith/Blair’s In he 90s is that the Lib Dem’s are starting fro an anaemic position and some recovery there is useful to chip away soft Tory votes in places Labour cannot reach. The LDs need to find a decent leader who can work with Labour and create a bit of anti Tory momentum.

The key difference is Scotland. Unless Starmer can find a way to attack the flabby soft blue underbelly in the south (which is entirely possible) he has to fight two fronts.

Or just give up on Scotland and let the SNP stop the Tories?

He doesn't need to get Sturgeon in the cabinet, just dare her to vote down a Labour budget and explain to her country why she let the Tories back in.

Literally giving up on Scotland and supporting independence might be a good strategy to win over England.

LostPassword said:

The hope, from Johnson's days as Mayor of London, was that he would have competent details people serving under him, as with his cycling commissioner. Thus far the evidence on that is not good.

When he was Mayor, nobody who worked for him was a threat to his job, and none of them had previously "betrayed" him so he could appoint on merit.

Neither is true now

CorrectHorseBattery said:

@Mysticrose I'm surprised you're surprised Johnson's Government has turned out to be a bit shit when he stuffed his cabinet full of rubbish people and did nothing (for me) to prove he knew what he was doing before the election either?

I'm shocked, genuinely shocked that you don't like Johnson's Government. From your pre-election comments I'm amazed that you don't like him.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

LostPassword said:

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?

What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.

For all that I can criticise Johnson he proved during the election campaign that he could win support for a vision of the future. Optimistically you might say we have two halves of a good political leader.

The hope, from Johnson's days as Mayor of London, was that he would have competent details people serving under him, as with his cycling commissioner. Thus far the evidence on that is not good.

In time we will come to see if Johnson won that election, or Corbyn lost it.

I maintain the view that Johnson isn't popular, he was just less unpopular than his opponent (albeit, a lot).

If tgat was the case May would have won in 2017 over Corbyn.

Boris is popular and charismatic, the most electorally successful Tory leader since Thatcher in terms of size of majority as well as having twice
won the Mayoralty of London and led the winning Leave campaign.

Boris also has an appeal to blue collar, working class voters no Tory leader has had since Thatcher too. In fact even more so in the North and Midlands

Mexicanpete said:

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?

What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.

By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.

Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.

It is however unlikely that the government will collapse in acrimonious factionalism and parliamentary chaos as Major’s did. There is no equivalent of Lamont or Duncan Smith stirring up trouble on the backbenches because he has purged them all. There is nobody of status or principle left in the party anyway.

Even if there were, there is limited risk of disciplinary implosion because he has a substantial majority (ironically, the sort Major would have had in 1992 on a UNS) so even if there were rebels they could not hold the government to ransom - and therefore, paradoxically, there are less likely to be rebels.

At the same time, Starmer does have a small, enfeebled party behind him and a potential focus for discontent in Macdonald and Burgon on the backbenches, who have not got the message yet. Hopefully, however, everyone else has and will back any changes Starmer makes.

So Starmer’s obstacles are more formidable. That is not to say they are insurmountable. If he is no Blair, Johnson is no Major. He has neither his intelligence nor his determination.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Mexicanpete said:

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?

What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.

By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.

Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.

It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.

If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.

Mysticrose said:

Scott_xP said:

FPT

Mysticrose said:

Mike has long championed 'approval ratings' as the best indicator of voter intention and I think this is correct. The steady erosion of the Government's credibility is not good for the Conservatives. I think we all (myself included) had hoped the return of Boris would see us leap ahead but instead we have continued to experience misinformation, leaks, confusing signals, bluster and a general sense that they don't know what they are doing.

Well, here he is at prime minister’s questions this week. I quote at length and include the ums and ers because the halting prolixity, waffle and intellectual confusion need to be flagged up. An increasingly formidable Sir Keir Starmer had asked why Britain had abandoned its testing programme in March, only to resume it now.

The prime minister: “A-a-as I think is readily apparent, Mr Speaker, to everybody who has studied the, er, the situation, and I think the scientists would, er, confirm, the difficulty in mid-March was that, er, the, er, tracing capacity that we had — it had been useful … in the containment phase of the epidemic er, that capacity was no longer useful or relevant, since the, er, transmission from individuals within the UK um meant that it exceeded our capacity. … [A]as we get the new cases down, er, we will have a team that will genuinely be able to track and, er, trace hundreds of thousands of people across the country, and thereby to drive down the epidemic. And so, er, I mean, to put it in a nutshell, it is easier, er, to do now — now that we have built up the team on the, on the way out — than it was as er, the epidemic took off …”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/boris-johnson-needs-to-take-control-of-the-cockpit-25t0tw7ck

One thing that really struck me yesterday is that Boris Johnson is no Winston Churchill.

Winston Churchill was also no Boris, at least in terms of electoral appeal, Churchill never won a majority as big as Boris has.

Churchill was the better statesman of course

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Mexicanpete said:

SouthamObserver said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Is it okay to think that Starmer might genuinely be a very good LOTO and the best one since Blair?

What made Blair so effective was that he opposed surgically, but also that he could compellingly spell out an alternative. I am very confident Starmer can do the first, much less convinced he can do the latter. But given what Labour has offered for the last decade, I’m happy to take that. I suspect it’s not enough to win a majority, though.

By 1997 Major's government was universally detested and Major himself derided as a joke. That quite possibly might be the view of Johnson and his government by 2024. I can't envision Covid-19 and its aftershock playing well for incumbent governments across the globe.

Starmer looks and sounds the part which may be all it needs. Johnson did not offer a vision save for 'get Brexit done'. Remember Jeremy had an alternative, it was just an alternative vision no one else shared.

It can't be understated also how in 2024, the Government won't be able to play the "new and fresh" card again. 13 years of Government will be eating into them, people will be ready for a change, IMHO.

If that change isn't perceived as bats**t crazy like last time its a real risk yes.

Also, it is often forgotten, but Starmer gaining a majority is almost inconceivable without some kind of revival in Scotland.