Superb post. And, as for your description of the life they remember, doesn’t that actually sound incredibly attractive?
It’s the left’s failure that they’ve generally stopped talking in these terms. Most people don’t care about woke, about “institutional failures”, about “independent enquiries” or even “increasing inequality”.
They just want the receptionist at the doctor’s to pick up the phone.
It does sound very attractive! I read a book recently by Stuart Maconie, The Nanny State Made Me, and he says much the same thing. I'm probably subconsciously plagiarising him. He says something along the lines of 'I can understand why the 70s were terrible if you were a stockbroker in Surrey, but if you were a working class family life after the war was better than it ever had been', thanks to the welfare state, public facilities, the whole post-war consensus.
The Left is failing here. I'm not sure what the solution is. They need to start reaching these people, and their kids and grandkids.
There's a lot of it about. If you are vulnerable now is a good time to be prudent. And I'd suggest taking care if friends/colleagues say they have tested and the heavy cold is not covid - seems to only show on lateral flow a few days after onset of symptoms.
Two folk at my work are down with it for the second time in just a month. Both had cold-like symptoms and thought 'no - surely not again so soon' then tested positive a day or two later. One of them is proper knocked out for a second time too.
Some of my optimism about all this is wearing a little thin.
Yes the vaccine clearly isn't stopping transmission sadly
I think for most people it’s effects have worn off.
No, they haven't.
The issue is that the the vaccines were not stopping transmission before Omicron and are less effective at stopping transmission than Omicron.
The reductions in harm caused by COVID, by the vaccines, are still huge.
That being said, boosters are being considered for various groups - some vulnerable groups are getting them now.
We possibly overplay the "doesn't stop transmission" aspect - possibly due to binary thinking.
Given that Omicron has an R0 somewhere over 15, if there was no reduction [NB - "reduction" is not "total prevention"] due to immunity, the prevalence line (and hospitalisations line, given the existence of incidental admissions) would be near-vertical.
Instead, the effective transmission is an Rt of about 1.4, meaning a hell of a lot of what would have been infections (and onwards transmission) are effectively "bouncing off" of people.
But, as said - even a big reduction isn't total prevention, so doesn't actuall stop transmission. It just slows it. A lot.
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
Exactly. KevB pointed this out, everyone mocked him and whether he is a computer bank in Moscow or some bloke in his undies posting from his mother's basement it is a very good point.
It’s uncomfortable for me. I hate Boris, and am glad to see him go. I think it is right that he goes, chiefly for repeated lying to his colleagues, the House, and the country.
But those redwallers know he’s a liar. And they don’t care; from their perspective it’s part of the game. What’s important to them is that he was on their side, somehow. And now he’s gone, taken down by the same old forces the redwallers were voting against.
Perhaps the argument is that they know he is a liar, but think ALL politicians are liars, and that Johnson was their liar?
There is that, or maybe they follow the to make an omelette you must break a few eggs line.
And also. He was the first PM to actually point out that this is one of the most regionally unequal nations in the Western world. With dire levels of social mobility. And acknowledge this was a bad thing. And repeatedly promise to do something about it. (The fact he hadn't a clue what that was isn't really relevant. He spoke about it).
I watched the key Boris speech on this, and he understood the key issues very well, he literally repeated a lot of the academic analysis.
The problem is that he is so incredibly lazy that he couldn’t be bothered doing anything about it. He left it to Gove to fight it out with Sunak/Treasury (and other naysayers like Kwasi) and it essentially collapsed into a hanging-baskets fund.
If you want to level up you essentially needs to dedicate something like 4% of GDP for a generation to address it; although it would be well worth it.
He found a new tranche of voters. It didn't fail because he was too lazy (although he is), but because it was fundamentally at odds with the ideology of the majority of the Conservative Party, who have kittens at anything even scented with re-distribution. They won't get that tranche back anytime soon. They'll get most of those on this site back. The question is which group is bigger?
I don’t think so.
Boris actually had immense power because of his electoral appeal. He managed to turn the Tories into the “fuck business” party with the full support of supposed life-long conservatives.
He also had the loyalty within the party of the redwall MPs.
From a policy and operational perspective, his biggest mistake was probably not making Gove Chancellor and ceding effective control of domestic policy to him.
Yes but. His appeal within the Party itself was contingent on not actually carrying any of it through. Even the most "leftist" of the contenders, Tugendhadt, is first out of the blocks to call for tax cuts. It's no mystery that the Budget was the firing pistol for the internal unrest that did for him.
There's a lot of it about. If you are vulnerable now is a good time to be prudent. And I'd suggest taking care if friends/colleagues say they have tested and the heavy cold is not covid - seems to only show on lateral flow a few days after onset of symptoms.
Two folk at my work are down with it for the second time in just a month. Both had cold-like symptoms and thought 'no - surely not again so soon' then tested positive a day or two later. One of them is proper knocked out for a second time too.
Some of my optimism about all this is wearing a little thin.
Yes the vaccine clearly isn't stopping transmission sadly
I think for most people it’s effects have worn off.
Nope. Protection against serious illness is holding up, otherwise the hospital's would be swamped and we would be taking measures. Only around 30% of admissions are for COVID, the rest are with COVID. Omicron is good at making us I'll but the vaccination is keeping most of us from getting really I'll.
As an aside: we will truly (and finally) be over Covid when there are ample supplies of Paxlovid, so anyone who catches it can be pretty much guaranteed it will be little worse than a mild (and short lived) cold.
My guess is that we'll be in that position by the end of the year, maybe sooner.
Superb post. And, as for your description of the life they remember, doesn’t that actually sound incredibly attractive?
It’s the left’s failure that they’ve generally stopped talking in these terms. Most people don’t care about woke, about “institutional failures”, about “independent enquiries” or even “increasing inequality”.
They just want the receptionist at the doctor’s to pick up the phone.
It does sound very attractive! I read a book recently by Stuart Maconie, The Nanny State Made Me, and he says much the same thing. I'm probably subconsciously plagiarising him. He says something along the lines of 'I can understand why the 70s were terrible if you were a stockbroker in Surrey, but if you were a working class family life after the war was better than it ever had been', thanks to the welfare state, public facilities, the whole post-war consensus.
The Left is failing here. I'm not sure what the solution is. They need to start reaching these people, and their kids and grandkids.
I am slowly reading the Peter Hennessy books on post-war Britain, and it is very hard to suppress admiration for Bevin, Bevan, Griffiths, Wilkinson and others.
Even though, as a liberal, I recoil at some of what happened.
Irrelevant but if I were Sunak I would be spitting tacks. He turns up for a work meeting and ends up with a FPN. Starmer at a work event no FPN (correctly).
Far more events at No 10 seemingly should have been fined.
The whole thing stinks, but its time to forget it.
i. He accepted the fine. ii. Didn't lie about it in parliament iii. It was clearly Boris' fault inviting to the meeting. iv. The fine was a bit harsh. v. I doubt most of the public even know he got a fine (All the focus on Boris)
Many things might kill his leadership chances (Non Dom, immense wealth, tax raises whilst chancellor) but this isn't one of them.
Wasn't really talking about the leadership - I think the other things you've listed are far more detrimental. Its more the fairness of it. A bit like my speeding ticket at 27 mph in a 20 zone (which is only 200 yards long) while on the motorways right now thousands are driving over 80 mph.
A 200 yard 20 zone is presumably a school or similar?
What's more deadly, speeding in a residential or school area where young children might step onto the road, or doing 80 on the motorway?
No school. It's at the top of Bathwick hill in bath, two junctions, but no school. It's a shit bit of traffic control. Goes national speed limit to 30 then 40 then 30 then 20 then 30 in about a mile. It's unecessary. I know the physics around impact and speed. I just don't think this 20 is justified. Round schools I agree with them
Almost the entire centre of Bristol is now 20 - it feels unnaturally slow
So assuming you can’t nominate yourself, they have 358 with the whip. Divide by mine means 39 is the max number of candidates. What if no one is then prepared to switch their vote….?
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
I know tons of people like that. Older, poorly educated, always done hard physical, boring work. (I once had a friend from Oz visit me as art of a jaunt round the UK, and he had to sit and wait for me in Pontefract town centre for a bit while I got back from somewhere. When I get there he said 'God, everyone looks like a physical wreck. They've had hard lives, you can tell.')
If they haven't stopped, they smoke baccy now, or vape, cos packets of 20 cigs are too expensive. Spent their lives reading the sun and mail at chipped formica tables in scabby work canteens. Do the lottery every single week, probably as part of a syndicate. They'll be gutted. Nice people generally, backbone of this country in many ways.
I'm not sneering at these people. I've been there and done it myself, before finally getting my shit together and going to uni when I was 27. I still drink with them. They're funny, smart, self-deprecating, fatalistic, stoic, they don't suffer fools.
It is bonkers how they identify so strongly with Johnson. My take on it is that he embodies this idea of England as they remember it from their childhood, that he promises to resurrect, that Brexit will bring back. A place where everything worked. Everyone had a job. You could get a doctor's appointment by ringing up the surgery at ten past 8, and after three rings you would be speaking to a receptionist - a human! - and get your appointment for half 11 that morning. Households could live comfortably off one wage. There were park keepers. And dog wardens. And industry. Police would turn up when your shed got broken into, no such thing as a crime number. You could get a job by showing up somewhere and asking for one, didn't have to fill out a form or have an interview. They can't understand why the world doesn't work like that anymore. And can't see why it shouldn't again.
Driven by nostalgia.
And instead of having to think about all the complicated, interconnected reasons why that world has gone, the political decisions taken, the tax cuts, the underfunding, 'trickle down', they prefer to blame foreigners. Cos it's easier. And that's what's been shovelled into their brains for decades.
Shame really. They won't change their minds now.
What's quite interesting about much of that list, is that quite a lot of it is achievable.
Fun fact - the latest trend in IT jobs is not having code tests or x rounds of interviews. If you have a few years working for X, company Y hires you after a single interview. If you can't do the job, they bin you in the probationary period.
That’s not actually an illogical use of resource - hiring is time consuming and should be more about fit than anything else. It’s a reasonable assumption you can “do the job” if you have several years experience
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
I know tons of people like that. Older, poorly educated, always done hard physical, boring work. (I once had a friend from Oz visit me as art of a jaunt round the UK, and he had to sit and wait for me in Pontefract town centre for a bit while I got back from somewhere. When I get there he said 'God, everyone looks like a physical wreck. They've had hard lives, you can tell.')
If they haven't stopped, they smoke baccy now, or vape, cos packets of 20 cigs are too expensive. Spent their lives reading the sun and mail at chipped formica tables in scabby work canteens. Do the lottery every single week, probably as part of a syndicate. They'll be gutted. Nice people generally, backbone of this country in many ways.
I'm not sneering at these people. I've been there and done it myself, before finally getting my shit together and going to uni when I was 27. I still drink with them. They're funny, smart, self-deprecating, fatalistic, stoic, they don't suffer fools.
It is bonkers how they identify so strongly with Johnson. My take on it is that he embodies this idea of England as they remember it from their childhood, that he promises to resurrect, that Brexit will bring back. A place where everything worked. Everyone had a job. You could get a doctor's appointment by ringing up the surgery at ten past 8, and after three rings you would be speaking to a receptionist - a human! - and get your appointment for half 11 that morning. Households could live comfortably off one wage. There were park keepers. And dog wardens. And industry. Police would turn up when your shed got broken into, no such thing as a crime number. You could get a job by showing up somewhere and asking for one, didn't have to fill out a form or have an interview. They can't understand why the world doesn't work like that anymore. And can't see why it shouldn't again.
Driven by nostalgia.
And instead of having to think about all the complicated, interconnected reasons why that world has gone, the political decisions taken, the tax cuts, the underfunding, 'trickle down', they prefer to blame foreigners. Cos it's easier. And that's what's been shovelled into their brains for decades.
Shame really. They won't change their minds now.
I'm not sure your conclusion adequately addresses the points you've raised. Perhaps these people's dissatisfaction with the status quo has more to do with them not suffering fools than blaming foreigners.
If you tell people that despite the country being materially better off, they have to put up with things that don't work and quality of life getting worse because that's the just way the modern world works, they're liable to smell a rat.
"Collateral damage of lockdowns could be 'killing 1,000 people a week': non-Covid deaths rise in England and Wales as experts blame pandemic restrictions and backlogs
England logged 1,500 more weekly deaths than expected over last three weeks Experts say the increase may be the first signs of the effect of Covid restrictions Comes amid rising Covid infection rates which last week jumped to 1.8million"
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
Exactly. KevB pointed this out, everyone mocked him and whether he is a computer bank in Moscow or some bloke in his undies posting from his mother's basement it is a very good point.
It’s uncomfortable for me. I hate Boris, and am glad to see him go. I think it is right that he goes, chiefly for repeated lying to his colleagues, the House, and the country.
But those redwallers know he’s a liar. And they don’t care; from their perspective it’s part of the game. What’s important to them is that he was on their side, somehow. And now he’s gone, taken down by the same old forces the redwallers were voting against.
Perhaps the argument is that they know he is a liar, but think ALL politicians are liars, and that Johnson was their liar?
There is that, or maybe they follow the to make an omelette you must break a few eggs line.
And also. He was the first PM to actually point out that this is one of the most regionally unequal nations in the Western world. With dire levels of social mobility. And acknowledge this was a bad thing. And repeatedly promise to do something about it. (The fact he hadn't a clue what that was isn't really relevant. He spoke about it).
I watched the key Boris speech on this, and he understood the key issues very well, he literally repeated a lot of the academic analysis.
The problem is that he is so incredibly lazy that he couldn’t be bothered doing anything about it. He left it to Gove to fight it out with Sunak/Treasury (and other naysayers like Kwasi) and it essentially collapsed into a hanging-baskets fund.
If you want to level up you essentially needs to dedicate something like 4% of GDP for a generation to address it; although it would be well worth it.
He found a new tranche of voters. It didn't fail because he was too lazy (although he is), but because it was fundamentally at odds with the ideology of the majority of the Conservative Party, who have kittens at anything even scented with re-distribution. They won't get that tranche back anytime soon. They'll get most of those on this site back. The question is which group is bigger?
I don’t think so.
Boris actually had immense power because of his electoral appeal. He managed to turn the Tories into the “fuck business” party with the full support of supposed life-long conservatives.
He also had the loyalty within the party of the redwall MPs.
From a policy and operational perspective, his biggest mistake was probably not making Gove Chancellor and ceding effective control of domestic policy to him.
Yes but. His appeal within the Party itself was contingent on not actually carrying any of it through. Even the most "leftist" of the contenders, Tugendhadt, is first out of the blocks to call for tax cuts. It's no mystery that the Budget was the firing pistol for the internal unrest that did for him.
I still don’t agree.
It’s a great irony that Rishi is painted as a tax-hiker when he is also instinctively a tax-cutter. Rishi was basically sunk by events and captured by Treasury, and allowed a reputation to build of himself (and the government) as favouring high taxes.
What has been lacking is an overarching economic narrative to keep investors, the public - and indeed Tory backbenchers - onside.
I think he is a far better politician than many would give him credit for. As I have said before, he has single handedly destroyed Corbynism and the left from inside.
His talent was making it appear as though he was playing with fire when he knew all along that there was no chance of getting an FPN. As I said at the time it's well known to those who work on location -which is what they were doing - that you are OBLIGED to serve an evening meal.
In my profession failure to do so before 9.00PM means you have to pay for an extra day. Presumably that applies everywhere. Sir Keir was sure to have known that as the meal time was written on his 'call sheet'. So keeping people on tenterhooks was good politics. It added to the drama and made him look principled.
There's a lot of it about. If you are vulnerable now is a good time to be prudent. And I'd suggest taking care if friends/colleagues say they have tested and the heavy cold is not covid - seems to only show on lateral flow a few days after onset of symptoms.
Two folk at my work are down with it for the second time in just a month. Both had cold-like symptoms and thought 'no - surely not again so soon' then tested positive a day or two later. One of them is proper knocked out for a second time too.
Some of my optimism about all this is wearing a little thin.
Yes the vaccine clearly isn't stopping transmission sadly
I think for most people it’s effects have worn off.
Nope. Protection against serious illness is holding up, otherwise the hospital's would be swamped and we would be taking measures. Only around 30% of admissions are for COVID, the rest are with COVID. Omicron is good at making us I'll but the vaccination is keeping most of us from getting really I'll.
Covid is spreading through Mrs J's workplace like wildfire. Several people she was in a meeting with have come down with it - fortunately she was wearing a mask, and has (so far) avoided it. Two are fairly poorly with it; others are laughing it off.
''Just hearing Margaret Thatcher is considering a leadership bid, Yes, you read that right.....''
Was Uncle Tom Cobley not available?
Would that be Former Education Secretary and Cabinet Minister, Mrs Thatcher? Who spent the best part of a decade on the Front Benches.
As opposed to Rehman Chishti, who was ummm... ummm... one of several Vice Chairmen of the Conservative Party. Briefly. In 2018.
Or John Baron, who has managed to get to his mid-60s - and through three Conservative administrations - without managing to get himself any kind of Ministerial role.
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
If any of us or any of them had lied so continually and behaved so badly, where would it have got us?
The attachment is heavily emotional and powerful. Sadly I don't think the tories have realised what they have done. No-one else has his appeal in the red wall
The Tories may have got rid of Boris and hence also lost the support of the oiks in the redwall swing seats.
Never fear though, the next leader may win back Toffs like TSE and Nigel Foremain and pile up majorities in the Home counties again!
Treason now a core Tory and Christian value is it?
'Twas ever thus....
Treason doth never prosper - and here’s the reasons; for, if it prosper, none dare call it treason
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
I know tons of people like that. Older, poorly educated, always done hard physical, boring work. (I once had a friend from Oz visit me as art of a jaunt round the UK, and he had to sit and wait for me in Pontefract town centre for a bit while I got back from somewhere. When I get there he said 'God, everyone looks like a physical wreck. They've had hard lives, you can tell.')
If they haven't stopped, they smoke baccy now, or vape, cos packets of 20 cigs are too expensive. Spent their lives reading the sun and mail at chipped formica tables in scabby work canteens. Do the lottery every single week, probably as part of a syndicate. They'll be gutted. Nice people generally, backbone of this country in many ways.
I'm not sneering at these people. I've been there and done it myself, before finally getting my shit together and going to uni when I was 27. I still drink with them. They're funny, smart, self-deprecating, fatalistic, stoic, they don't suffer fools.
It is bonkers how they identify so strongly with Johnson. My take on it is that he embodies this idea of England as they remember it from their childhood, that he promises to resurrect, that Brexit will bring back. A place where everything worked. Everyone had a job. You could get a doctor's appointment by ringing up the surgery at ten past 8, and after three rings you would be speaking to a receptionist - a human! - and get your appointment for half 11 that morning. Households could live comfortably off one wage. There were park keepers. And dog wardens. And industry. Police would turn up when your shed got broken into, no such thing as a crime number. You could get a job by showing up somewhere and asking for one, didn't have to fill out a form or have an interview. They can't understand why the world doesn't work like that anymore. And can't see why it shouldn't again.
Driven by nostalgia.
And instead of having to think about all the complicated, interconnected reasons why that world has gone, the political decisions taken, the tax cuts, the underfunding, 'trickle down', they prefer to blame foreigners. Cos it's easier. And that's what's been shovelled into their brains for decades.
Shame really. They won't change their minds now.
What's quite interesting about much of that list, is that quite a lot of it is achievable.
Fun fact - the latest trend in IT jobs is not having code tests or x rounds of interviews. If you have a few years working for X, company Y hires you after a single interview. If you can't do the job, they bin you in the probationary period.
That’s not actually an illogical use of resource - hiring is time consuming and should be more about fit than anything else. It’s a reasonable assumption you can “do the job” if you have several years experience
''Just hearing Margaret Thatcher is considering a leadership bid, Yes, you read that right.....''
Was Uncle Tom Cobley not available?
Would that be Former Education Secretary and Cabinet Minister, Mrs Thatcher? Who spent the best part of a decade on the Front Benches.
As opposed to Rehman Chishti, who was ummm... ummm... one of several Vice Chairmen of the Conservative Party. Briefly. In 2018.
Or John Baron, who has managed to get to his mid-60s - and through three Conservative administrations - without managing to get himself any kind of Ministerial role.
My point is that Thatcher was something of a left field candidate. The tories can be funny like that. We shouldn't rule out the same sort of thing here.
''Just hearing Margaret Thatcher is considering a leadership bid, Yes, you read that right.....''
Was Uncle Tom Cobley not available?
Would that be Former Education Secretary and Cabinet Minister, Mrs Thatcher? Who spent the best part of a decade on the Front Benches.
As opposed to Rehman Chishti, who was ummm... ummm... one of several Vice Chairmen of the Conservative Party. Briefly. In 2018.
Or John Baron, who has managed to get to his mid-60s - and through three Conservative administrations - without managing to get himself any kind of Ministerial role.
"I didn't get where I am today by being a minister in any of these discredited Tory administrations."
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
If any of us or any of them had lied so continually and behaved so badly, where would it have got us?
The attachment is heavily emotional and powerful. Sadly I don't think the tories have realised what they have done. No-one else has his appeal in the red wall
The Tories may have got rid of Boris and hence also lost the support of the oiks in the redwall swing states.
Never fear though, the next leader may win back Toffs like TSE and Nigel Foremain and pile up majorities in the Home counties again!
I’m not a toff nor do I live in the Home Counties.
You are a privately educated, Cambridge educated toff who lives in Sheffield Hallam, basically a Home counties Remain seat up north
Home Counties? Geography isn't a specialist subject then.
Sheffield Hallam is 61% graduate, 77% ABC1 middle class and has an average house price above the GB average.
It has more in common with the Remain voting parts of the Home counties than the rest of the North
There's a lot of it about. If you are vulnerable now is a good time to be prudent. And I'd suggest taking care if friends/colleagues say they have tested and the heavy cold is not covid - seems to only show on lateral flow a few days after onset of symptoms.
Two folk at my work are down with it for the second time in just a month. Both had cold-like symptoms and thought 'no - surely not again so soon' then tested positive a day or two later. One of them is proper knocked out for a second time too.
Some of my optimism about all this is wearing a little thin.
Yes the vaccine clearly isn't stopping transmission sadly
I think for most people it’s effects have worn off.
Nope. Protection against serious illness is holding up, otherwise the hospital's would be swamped and we would be taking measures. Only around 30% of admissions are for COVID, the rest are with COVID. Omicron is good at making us I'll but the vaccination is keeping most of us from getting really I'll.
Covid is spreading through Mrs J's workplace like wildfire. Several people she was in a meeting with have come down with it - fortunately she was wearing a mask, and has (so far) avoided it. Two are fairly poorly with it; others are laughing it off.
The latest variants are really infectious...
I tempted to say that of course they are. We have challenged the virus, and one evolutionary response is to become more infectious. There will be a limit. It can't keep on getting more infectious, but right now we are watching viral evolution in action. In one sense it's awesome. In another it's feckin annoying.
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
I know tons of people like that. Older, poorly educated, always done hard physical, boring work. (I once had a friend from Oz visit me as art of a jaunt round the UK, and he had to sit and wait for me in Pontefract town centre for a bit while I got back from somewhere. When I get there he said 'God, everyone looks like a physical wreck. They've had hard lives, you can tell.')
If they haven't stopped, they smoke baccy now, or vape, cos packets of 20 cigs are too expensive. Spent their lives reading the sun and mail at chipped formica tables in scabby work canteens. Do the lottery every single week, probably as part of a syndicate. They'll be gutted. Nice people generally, backbone of this country in many ways.
I'm not sneering at these people. I've been there and done it myself, before finally getting my shit together and going to uni when I was 27. I still drink with them. They're funny, smart, self-deprecating, fatalistic, stoic, they don't suffer fools.
It is bonkers how they identify so strongly with Johnson. My take on it is that he embodies this idea of England as they remember it from their childhood, that he promises to resurrect, that Brexit will bring back. A place where everything worked. Everyone had a job. You could get a doctor's appointment by ringing up the surgery at ten past 8, and after three rings you would be speaking to a receptionist - a human! - and get your appointment for half 11 that morning. Households could live comfortably off one wage. There were park keepers. And dog wardens. And industry. Police would turn up when your shed got broken into, no such thing as a crime number. You could get a job by showing up somewhere and asking for one, didn't have to fill out a form or have an interview. They can't understand why the world doesn't work like that anymore. And can't see why it shouldn't again.
Driven by nostalgia.
And instead of having to think about all the complicated, interconnected reasons why that world has gone, the political decisions taken, the tax cuts, the underfunding, 'trickle down', they prefer to blame foreigners. Cos it's easier. And that's what's been shovelled into their brains for decades.
Shame really. They won't change their minds now.
What's quite interesting about much of that list, is that quite a lot of it is achievable.
Fun fact - the latest trend in IT jobs is not having code tests or x rounds of interviews. If you have a few years working for X, company Y hires you after a single interview. If you can't do the job, they bin you in the probationary period.
That’s not actually an illogical use of resource - hiring is time consuming and should be more about fit than anything else. It’s a reasonable assumption you can “do the job” if you have several years experience
It seems utterly reasonable to me - as long as company X has fair recruitment practices.
In the dim and distant past I used to recruit graduates for software engineering positions. It was difficult as so many of them had virtually identical resumes. The ones that stood out - and were therefore put near the top of the pile -were the ones who had some relevantish experience. Even if that was not in software.
And the quality of graduates varied massively - and the 'lesser' universities did not necessarily produce 'lesser' engineers.
You may be right that Mordaunt is too woke. I always find it tough to take an approach on Trans, because I am all for people being who they are, and I am happy for NHS support for that, but I also think that there is something fixed about gender too, and I certainly have concerns about shared spaces.
I have been impressed with Tugendhat out of the blocks - I have to say that I am underwhelmed by Wallace, but I think Mordaunt or Tugendhat have the right military background to still appeal in the red wall
The trans issue, about which I don't have strong personal views, has features of a problem which does not admit of satisfactory conclusions. When it comes to big life issues we generally find outcomes that are accepted, clear and reasonably simple. Like having men's and women's facilities in particular contexts. Understood. Universal.
Trans issues raises the problem of absolute rights for group X, giving intractable problem for groups A,B and C. Both X and some of ABC are generally liberal/progressive. A very modern problem.
Like the problem one day when some progressives realise that large scale abortion may be a problem for some feminists.
So Starmer survives to lead Labour at the next general election.
However I find it somewhat odd that he and Rayner avoided a fine by police but both Johnson and Sunak were fined by police
I do believe Sunak was "ambushed by a cake", a ludicrous decision, but Johnson, pull the other one. The question is how did the Met forget to investigate Abbagate and three other slam-dunk events?
The policies and ideas put forward so far look to appeal to the Blue Wall - but that will not be a big majority.
Tax cuts for big business aren't a policy winner - most current analysis shows that the additional profit won't be invested or used to increase staff / wages - it will be sent abroad.
And it's £16bn you are talking about here - it would be better to keep that and just remove fuel duty....
And yes Fuel duty is £24bn not £16bn but fuel duty is going to disappear anyway as we move to electric.
''Just hearing Margaret Thatcher is considering a leadership bid, Yes, you read that right.....''
Was Uncle Tom Cobley not available?
Would that be Former Education Secretary and Cabinet Minister, Mrs Thatcher? Who spent the best part of a decade on the Front Benches.
As opposed to Rehman Chishti, who was ummm... ummm... one of several Vice Chairmen of the Conservative Party. Briefly. In 2018.
Or John Baron, who has managed to get to his mid-60s - and through three Conservative administrations - without managing to get himself any kind of Ministerial role.
My point is that Thatcher was something of a left field candidate. The tories can be funny like that. We shouldn't rule out the same sort of thing here.
The left-field candidate makes much more sense in opposition than government. David Cameron in 2005, for example.
Superb post. And, as for your description of the life they remember, doesn’t that actually sound incredibly attractive?
It’s the left’s failure that they’ve generally stopped talking in these terms. Most people don’t care about woke, about “institutional failures”, about “independent enquiries” or even “increasing inequality”.
They just want the receptionist at the doctor’s to pick up the phone.
It does sound very attractive! I read a book recently by Stuart Maconie, The Nanny State Made Me, and he says much the same thing. I'm probably subconsciously plagiarising him. He says something along the lines of 'I can understand why the 70s were terrible if you were a stockbroker in Surrey, but if you were a working class family life after the war was better than it ever had been', thanks to the welfare state, public facilities, the whole post-war consensus.
The Left is failing here. I'm not sure what the solution is. They need to start reaching these people, and their kids and grandkids.
I think the Ostalgia prevalent in Germany has more than a few similarities with this.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment the no-conflict rule comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
I am not forgetting either.
Companies can have policies, even bad policies, I agree with that. Doesn't make those policies universal, or correct.
However Josias is acting as if the bad policies he knows are universal and appropriate. They're not universal. They're not the law. Many, many employers do not have such policies as has already been confirmed by many here.
Just because other companies have bad policies, doesn't mean Musk or anyone else needs to adopt such bad policies in their own business.
If there is no conflict there is no issue. Two of my friends at work got married. No problem.
As has been indicated below, it's also about the company protecting itself from claims in the future. Or even the bad atmosphere that can occur if a relationship goes sour.
It's also about the 'potential' for conflict, not just whether conflict occurs. If someone at my grade is promoted ahead of me, and they've been having an affair with the CEO, it would be fair for me to wonder if there was a connection between the promotion and the affair. And it would be the devil's job to prove there was no connection.
Bart's way has been tried for centuries, and it has led to lots of problems and abuse of power. I'm not talking about new laws (I don't think I've mentioned the law at all); just that institutions need to protect themselves and their employees.
Musk's behaviour will be noted by others further down the organisational chain. If the boss can do it, so can they. And his companies are not exactly free from strife atm...
Men and women haven't only had sex for centuries, they've had sex for as long as humanity has existed.
You might want to try to regulate away people's sex drives, but you're as puritanical and as doomed to failure as those who wish to pray away the gay.
Absolutely Musk's employees can have sex and get pregnant. That's kind of how humanity propagates itself you know?
"Men and women haven't only had sex for centuries, they've had sex for as long as humanity has existed."
Wow. I never knew that. Thanks for enlightening me! (/sarcasm)
I don't want to regulate away people's sex drives. Far from. And neither am I being puritanical, however many times you say it.
But if we're going to take such a tone: you're shouting for sexual and other abuses. Because the system you're promoting has been done, and abuse has occurred because of it. And you evidently don't care.
Abuse has always happened and will always happen. I evidently do care, but I care to tackle the abusers and systems that push abuse under the carpet - not people who consensually have sex with each other. 🤦♂️
(Snip)
If you do care, given abusive relationships between adults have happened for years in organisations, how do you stop it?
Your approach appears to be one of: "nothing to see here, move on..."
And that is to push abuse under the carpet (that's really not good imagery), and I don't think you've got any other solution to the problem.
To take an extreme example: say you run a company. A senior manager has had an affair with a staff member two ranks lower than him, and she got a promotion. The relationship has broken down, and she is now claiming he forced her to have sex on occasion, and later an abortion, and she got the promotion in return for keeping quiet.
It is a mess. As the boss, how can you tell how much the relationship was consensual? Is he lying? Is she lying? Is the truth somewhere in between? Was her promotion truly deserved, or was she promoted because of the affair? Do you protect him, as he's a darned good manager? Do you protect her? Do you sling both of them out?
These sorts of things happen (anecdotally something similar happened at a company here in Cambridge, which I won't name - and it's not one we've worked for).
This is the sort of absolute mess that organisations need to protect themselves from.
And worse, if workers lower down the organisation's hierarchy see the bosses shagging their juniors, they'll be more likely to do it as well. The fish rotting from the head. In the same way if they see a boss being racist or sexist, they'll be more likely to think that sort of behaviour is acceptable.
I'm not calling for a law on this. Just that if I was the boss of that company, I'd want that senior manager to be out on his ear: it's a clear-cut case to me (and hopefully the company's regs would back me up).
But many other cases are much less clear-cut.
Considering all we have here is that someone got pregnant and had twins, yes there is nothing to see here.
You stop it by investigating allegations of abuse on a case-by-case basis and treating them with the seriousness they deserve.
In your hypothetical, I would ask for evidence. If there were evidence that was forthcoming, eg a text message that put what you said in writing, then that could be gross misconduct. If there was no evidence, then innocent until proven guilty.
People shagging each other isn't anything "rotting" from the head, genitals or anywhere else, it is human nature and entirely acceptable behaviour.
But a woman having twins is not abuse. You didn't object to abuse, you objected to a new mother and father having twins.
"Ask for evidence."
Oh Jesus. You just don't get it, do you? The lady might be able to provide evidence of an abortion (and that's bit yucky). But it's perfectly possible that there is no evidence, either because it is very hard to prove, or the lady is lying, or the boss was very careful with what he did. Or because he has friends in the company.
*Your* attitude is exactly the sort of one that allowed this sort of thing to go on for so long, in all sorts of attitudes.
"People shagging each other isn't anything "rotting" from the head, genitals or anywhere else, it is human nature and entirely acceptable behaviour."
It is if it is abusive. And as we see with rape, it can be very hard to prove abuse. Organisations need to protect themselves, their staff, and in some cases their customers. That means strict (but fair) processes and openness.
If there's no evidence, then innocent until proven guilty applies.
So you're saying you are prepared to sack someone, with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing?
That to me is disgusting. The fact that something is hard to prove, doesn't mean you can do away with due process. It means you take investigations and allegations seriously instead.
What you're talking about is a carte blanche for bosses to abuse underlings - as has happened throughout history.
That has to change.
And yes, the relationship has caused disruption to the company, taken up valuable management time, and could potentially be open to lawsuits. For how can the company prove that the lady was given a promotion fairly, and not because of the affair? It's difficult. At best, he's been blooming stupid.
That's why I'm saying companies need proper processes for such things, and the greater the disparity between the parties - and the greater the potential for abuse - the stronger those processes need to be.
Those processes might be moving one or other party to other divisions (if possible). It may be changing lines of reporting. It may be something else. But all parties need to know that not following the processes might have serious consequences for their future in the organisation.
Openness is key.
No, what I am saying is take the matter seriously, and look for evidence.
What you are saying is that evidence doesn't matter, so throw the book at people even with no evidence of wrongdoing. What you are saying is that you are prepared to see people fired and their lives turned upside down with not a jot of evidence against them.
If so, how does that not get abused? What if someone turns around and says you slept with them, you abused your position, you coerced them etc - by your logic you should be fired, even though you know you've not only never abused them, but never had sex in the first place and never even kissed them.
That is not due process and it is not acceptable. Yes looking for evidence may be difficult, but that is not an excuse not to bother to do so. That is not an excuse to brush away claims of wrongdoing and let perpetrators get away with it, but nor is it an excuse to abolish due process and to punish the potentially innocent when there is literally no evidence of any wrongdoing at all.
Evidence matters. That principle matters. You wanting to get rid of due process, just because its all too difficult - where does that stop? Its madness.
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
I know tons of people like that. Older, poorly educated, always done hard physical, boring work. (I once had a friend from Oz visit me as art of a jaunt round the UK, and he had to sit and wait for me in Pontefract town centre for a bit while I got back from somewhere. When I get there he said 'God, everyone looks like a physical wreck. They've had hard lives, you can tell.')
If they haven't stopped, they smoke baccy now, or vape, cos packets of 20 cigs are too expensive. Spent their lives reading the sun and mail at chipped formica tables in scabby work canteens. Do the lottery every single week, probably as part of a syndicate. They'll be gutted. Nice people generally, backbone of this country in many ways.
I'm not sneering at these people. I've been there and done it myself, before finally getting my shit together and going to uni when I was 27. I still drink with them. They're funny, smart, self-deprecating, fatalistic, stoic, they don't suffer fools.
It is bonkers how they identify so strongly with Johnson. My take on it is that he embodies this idea of England as they remember it from their childhood, that he promises to resurrect, that Brexit will bring back. A place where everything worked. Everyone had a job. You could get a doctor's appointment by ringing up the surgery at ten past 8, and after three rings you would be speaking to a receptionist - a human! - and get your appointment for half 11 that morning. Households could live comfortably off one wage. There were park keepers. And dog wardens. And industry. Police would turn up when your shed got broken into, no such thing as a crime number. You could get a job by showing up somewhere and asking for one, didn't have to fill out a form or have an interview. They can't understand why the world doesn't work like that anymore. And can't see why it shouldn't again.
Driven by nostalgia.
And instead of having to think about all the complicated, interconnected reasons why that world has gone, the political decisions taken, the tax cuts, the underfunding, 'trickle down', they prefer to blame foreigners. Cos it's easier. And that's what's been shovelled into their brains for decades.
Shame really. They won't change their minds now.
I'm not sure your conclusion adequately addresses the points you've raised. Perhaps these people's dissatisfaction with the status quo has more to do with them not suffering fools than blaming foreigners.
If you tell people that despite the country being materially better off, they have to put up with things that don't work and quality of life getting worse because that's the just way the modern world works, they're liable to smell a rat.
I don't necessarily disagree with that but if that's the case why, of all people, would you think that Boris Johnson is your saviour? Truly any port in a storm.
I can only think it's something to do with 'watermelon smiles' and 'look like letter boxes'. Nudge nudge, wink wink.
''Just hearing Margaret Thatcher is considering a leadership bid, Yes, you read that right.....''
Was Uncle Tom Cobley not available?
However, it's one thing to become party leader and LOTO and another thing to become party leader and PM.
From memory the Labour rulebook says that in opposition the members vote for their leader, when in power it's just MPs.
That to me is a sane policy, letting the looney right (such as HYUFD) select the next PM from a choice of 2 means the more right wing candidate (ignoring suitability) will become PM...
It warms mine too but now they're government in waiting he'll have to make a few important decisions. The first is to keep Angela Rayner off the media. She was on this morning and she is not only inarticulate but almost incoherent. As deputy leader she makes Labours qualification to govern look suspect. In other words if shes one of the best Labour have to offer God help us.
''Just hearing Margaret Thatcher is considering a leadership bid, Yes, you read that right.....''
Was Uncle Tom Cobley not available?
Would that be Former Education Secretary and Cabinet Minister, Mrs Thatcher? Who spent the best part of a decade on the Front Benches.
As opposed to Rehman Chishti, who was ummm... ummm... one of several Vice Chairmen of the Conservative Party. Briefly. In 2018.
Or John Baron, who has managed to get to his mid-60s - and through three Conservative administrations - without managing to get himself any kind of Ministerial role.
My point is that Thatcher was something of a left field candidate. The tories can be funny like that. We shouldn't rule out the same sort of thing here.
The left-field candidate makes much more sense in opposition than government. David Cameron in 2005, for example.
Maybe, to avoid the taint of Johnson, they need to go really left-field. Invite Richard Foord to have a bash at it. He's an MP in a safe Tory seat, after all.
It's the tiny number of don't knows that is compelling. This is a settled view.
The question is - to what extent does it tarnish all those who supported him?
Yougov is to some extent a self selecting minority of the population. I would expect the number of Don't Knows there to be way less than the general public simply because they are interested enough in things to regularly do polls.
''Just hearing Margaret Thatcher is considering a leadership bid, Yes, you read that right.....''
Was Uncle Tom Cobley not available?
Would that be Former Education Secretary and Cabinet Minister, Mrs Thatcher? Who spent the best part of a decade on the Front Benches.
As opposed to Rehman Chishti, who was ummm... ummm... one of several Vice Chairmen of the Conservative Party. Briefly. In 2018.
Or John Baron, who has managed to get to his mid-60s - and through three Conservative administrations - without managing to get himself any kind of Ministerial role.
My point is that Thatcher was something of a left field candidate. The tories can be funny like that. We shouldn't rule out the same sort of thing here.
She'd been a senior Cabinet minister. Neither Chishti nor Baron have been anywhere near the cabinet.
That being said, you make a good point. Andrea Leadsom nearly made it all the way to Number Ten (and perhaps it would have been better if she had made it all the way), and she wasn't a Cabinet Minister. And Cameron had only been in Parliament for for four or five years when succeeded Howard as leader.
@HYUFD and @KevinB are bang on the money. For some reason the WWC in particular adopted Boris as their champion. He has the best would like to go for a drink rating of any leader and that includes Tone and Dave, whose ratings were pretty high. He could speak to people, laugh at himself, and make people feel positive.
There is probably no one in the Cons party who has such a skillset.
The tragedy of course is not that for all his blokiness he was a product of Eton and Oxford, it is that he was lying through his teeth the whole time. He talked about levelling up, the critical Cons policy of the age, and yet nothing has been done; he talked about new post-Brexit opportunities, but opportunities have there been none.
He made people believe him, and believe that he was on their side whereas he was only ever on his own side and that is the tragedy for the red wallers. And yes, as @HYUFD and @KevinB say, the Cons will likely become a more middle/upper class party as a result of him going.
Superb post. And, as for your description of the life they remember, doesn’t that actually sound incredibly attractive?
It’s the left’s failure that they’ve generally stopped talking in these terms. Most people don’t care about woke, about “institutional failures”, about “independent enquiries” or even “increasing inequality”.
They just want the receptionist at the doctor’s to pick up the phone.
It does sound very attractive! I read a book recently by Stuart Maconie, The Nanny State Made Me, and he says much the same thing. I'm probably subconsciously plagiarising him. He says something along the lines of 'I can understand why the 70s were terrible if you were a stockbroker in Surrey, but if you were a working class family life after the war was better than it ever had been', thanks to the welfare state, public facilities, the whole post-war consensus.
The Left is failing here. I'm not sure what the solution is. They need to start reaching these people, and their kids and grandkids.
I think the Ostalgia prevalent in Germany has more than a few similarities with this.
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
I know tons of people like that. Older, poorly educated, always done hard physical, boring work. (I once had a friend from Oz visit me as art of a jaunt round the UK, and he had to sit and wait for me in Pontefract town centre for a bit while I got back from somewhere. When I get there he said 'God, everyone looks like a physical wreck. They've had hard lives, you can tell.')
If they haven't stopped, they smoke baccy now, or vape, cos packets of 20 cigs are too expensive. Spent their lives reading the sun and mail at chipped formica tables in scabby work canteens. Do the lottery every single week, probably as part of a syndicate. They'll be gutted. Nice people generally, backbone of this country in many ways.
I'm not sneering at these people. I've been there and done it myself, before finally getting my shit together and going to uni when I was 27. I still drink with them. They're funny, smart, self-deprecating, fatalistic, stoic, they don't suffer fools.
It is bonkers how they identify so strongly with Johnson. My take on it is that he embodies this idea of England as they remember it from their childhood, that he promises to resurrect, that Brexit will bring back. A place where everything worked. Everyone had a job. You could get a doctor's appointment by ringing up the surgery at ten past 8, and after three rings you would be speaking to a receptionist - a human! - and get your appointment for half 11 that morning. Households could live comfortably off one wage. There were park keepers. And dog wardens. And industry. Police would turn up when your shed got broken into, no such thing as a crime number. You could get a job by showing up somewhere and asking for one, didn't have to fill out a form or have an interview. They can't understand why the world doesn't work like that anymore. And can't see why it shouldn't again.
Driven by nostalgia.
And instead of having to think about all the complicated, interconnected reasons why that world has gone, the political decisions taken, the tax cuts, the underfunding, 'trickle down', they prefer to blame foreigners. Cos it's easier. And that's what's been shovelled into their brains for decades.
Shame really. They won't change their minds now.
You say "bonkers" as if they're suffering from some sort of false consciousness. But maybe it isn't false consciousness at all and they genuinely support him and his policies and are entirely rational and logical to do so. The fact he went to Eton is irrelevant to any of that.
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
If any of us or any of them had lied so continually and behaved so badly, where would it have got us?
The attachment is heavily emotional and powerful. Sadly I don't think the tories have realised what they have done. No-one else has his appeal in the red wall
The Tories may have got rid of Boris and hence also lost the support of the oiks in the redwall swing states.
Never fear though, the next leader may win back Toffs like TSE and Nigel Foremain and pile up majorities in the Home counties again!
I’m not a toff nor do I live in the Home Counties.
You are a privately educated, Cambridge educated toff who lives in Sheffield Hallam, basically a Home counties Remain seat up north
Home Counties? Geography isn't a specialist subject then.
Sheffield Hallam is 61% graduate, 77% ABC1 middle class and has an average house price above the GB average.
It has more in common with the Remain voting parts of the Home counties than the rest of the North
It warms mine too but now they're government in waiting he'll have to make a few important decisions. The first is to keep Angela Rayner off the media. She was on this morning and she is not only inarticulate but almost incoherent. As deputy leader she makes Labours qualification to govern look suspect. In other words if shes one of the best Labour have to offer God help us.
Keep her at a safe distance from the great offices of state, like Prescott
Boo to boozy party curry arsehole Keir getting off. But the idea it will 'boost' him is for the birds. I'm not more popular today because i didnt litter the streets yesterday. Survation and their mahoosive lead is a July 6th teeth of the gale special. 31% prepared to vote for an imploding government and Starmer picking up the 'not part of the apocalypse' temporary support.
I think the Tories are in trouble, only one leader recently overturned such a lead.
Keir Starmer.
I mean, if you want to hubristically hang your hat on polls in a period where you know that polls are meaningless, I guess I shouldn't try to stop you.
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
If any of us or any of them had lied so continually and behaved so badly, where would it have got us?
The attachment is heavily emotional and powerful. Sadly I don't think the tories have realised what they have done. No-one else has his appeal in the red wall
The Tories may have got rid of Boris and hence also lost the support of the oiks in the redwall swing states.
Never fear though, the next leader may win back Toffs like TSE and Nigel Foremain and pile up majorities in the Home counties again!
I’m not a toff nor do I live in the Home Counties.
You are a privately educated, Cambridge educated toff who lives in Sheffield Hallam, basically a Home counties Remain seat up north
I have always said that Yorkshire isn't really the North.
Boo to boozy party curry arsehole Keir getting off. But the idea it will 'boost' him is for the birds. I'm not more popular today because i didnt litter the streets yesterday. Survation and their mahoosive lead is a July 6th teeth of the gale special. 31% prepared to vote for an imploding government and Starmer picking up the 'not part of the apocalypse' temporary support.
SKS survives at the very moment it becomes clear that he is dead weight.
It warms mine too but now they're government in waiting he'll have to make a few important decisions. The first is to keep Angela Rayner off the media. She was on this morning and she is not only inarticulate but almost incoherent. As deputy leader she makes Labours qualification to govern look suspect. In other words if shes one of the best Labour have to offer God help us.
Keep her at a safe distance from the great offices of state, like Prescott
There's a lot of it about. If you are vulnerable now is a good time to be prudent. And I'd suggest taking care if friends/colleagues say they have tested and the heavy cold is not covid - seems to only show on lateral flow a few days after onset of symptoms.
Two folk at my work are down with it for the second time in just a month. Both had cold-like symptoms and thought 'no - surely not again so soon' then tested positive a day or two later. One of them is proper knocked out for a second time too.
Some of my optimism about all this is wearing a little thin.
Yes the vaccine clearly isn't stopping transmission sadly
I think for most people it’s effects have worn off.
Nope. Protection against serious illness is holding up, otherwise the hospital's would be swamped and we would be taking measures. Only around 30% of admissions are for COVID, the rest are with COVID. Omicron is good at making us I'll but the vaccination is keeping most of us from getting really I'll.
Covid is spreading through Mrs J's workplace like wildfire. Several people she was in a meeting with have come down with it - fortunately she was wearing a mask, and has (so far) avoided it. Two are fairly poorly with it; others are laughing it off.
The latest variants are really infectious...
I tempted to say that of course they are. We have challenged the virus, and one evolutionary response is to become more infectious. There will be a limit. It can't keep on getting more infectious, but right now we are watching viral evolution in action. In one sense it's awesome. In another it's feckin annoying.
Pretty much the only constant in how the new variants have been described in simple terms is that each variant is "more infectious than the last". It's been the case from the outset, even when the early variants were described as being highly infectious, and we've been through a significant number of variants.
To what extent this is factually and statistically true (as opposed to just lazy descriptions in the media) I do not know. But I do find it fascinating that the trend is so supposedly consistent.
''Just hearing Margaret Thatcher is considering a leadership bid, Yes, you read that right.....''
Was Uncle Tom Cobley not available?
Would that be Former Education Secretary and Cabinet Minister, Mrs Thatcher? Who spent the best part of a decade on the Front Benches.
As opposed to Rehman Chishti, who was ummm... ummm... one of several Vice Chairmen of the Conservative Party. Briefly. In 2018.
Or John Baron, who has managed to get to his mid-60s - and through three Conservative administrations - without managing to get himself any kind of Ministerial role.
My point is that Thatcher was something of a left field candidate. The tories can be funny like that. We shouldn't rule out the same sort of thing here.
She'd been a senior Cabinet minister. Neither Chishti nor Baron have been anywhere near the cabinet.
That being said, you make a good point. Andrea Leadsom nearly made it all the way to Number Ten (and perhaps it would have been better if she had made it all the way), and she wasn't a Cabinet Minister. And Cameron had only been in Parliament for for four or five years when succeeded Howard as leader.
You are correct to point out that 'big hitter' experience is always important though....
I think the Tories are in trouble, only one leader recently overturned such a lead.
Keir Starmer.
If Lebedev explodes, the entire Conservative Party will be pulling shrapnel out of its collective a***. Now Johnson has nominally left, August 12th will have come early, it will be open season.
Boris Johnson's net approval slumped a further 9 points as he dug in this week, the contra effect of this was Keir Starmer turning from a slight net negative to a positive 7 point net approval, a whopping 48 points clear of the PM on this measure. https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1545407737990991872/photo/1
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment the no-conflict rule comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
I am not forgetting either.
Companies can have policies, even bad policies, I agree with that. Doesn't make those policies universal, or correct.
However Josias is acting as if the bad policies he knows are universal and appropriate. They're not universal. They're not the law. Many, many employers do not have such policies as has already been confirmed by many here.
Just because other companies have bad policies, doesn't mean Musk or anyone else needs to adopt such bad policies in their own business.
If there is no conflict there is no issue. Two of my friends at work got married. No problem.
As has been indicated below, it's also about the company protecting itself from claims in the future. Or even the bad atmosphere that can occur if a relationship goes sour.
It's also about the 'potential' for conflict, not just whether conflict occurs. If someone at my grade is promoted ahead of me, and they've been having an affair with the CEO, it would be fair for me to wonder if there was a connection between the promotion and the affair. And it would be the devil's job to prove there was no connection.
Bart's way has been tried for centuries, and it has led to lots of problems and abuse of power. I'm not talking about new laws (I don't think I've mentioned the law at all); just that institutions need to protect themselves and their employees.
Musk's behaviour will be noted by others further down the organisational chain. If the boss can do it, so can they. And his companies are not exactly free from strife atm...
Men and women haven't only had sex for centuries, they've had sex for as long as humanity has existed.
You might want to try to regulate away people's sex drives, but you're as puritanical and as doomed to failure as those who wish to pray away the gay.
Absolutely Musk's employees can have sex and get pregnant. That's kind of how humanity propagates itself you know?
"Men and women haven't only had sex for centuries, they've had sex for as long as humanity has existed."
Wow. I never knew that. Thanks for enlightening me! (/sarcasm)
I don't want to regulate away people's sex drives. Far from. And neither am I being puritanical, however many times you say it.
But if we're going to take such a tone: you're shouting for sexual and other abuses. Because the system you're promoting has been done, and abuse has occurred because of it. And you evidently don't care.
Abuse has always happened and will always happen. I evidently do care, but I care to tackle the abusers and systems that push abuse under the carpet - not people who consensually have sex with each other. 🤦♂️
(Snip)
If you do care, given abusive relationships between adults have happened for years in organisations, how do you stop it?
Your approach appears to be one of: "nothing to see here, move on..."
And that is to push abuse under the carpet (that's really not good imagery), and I don't think you've got any other solution to the problem.
To take an extreme example: say you run a company. A senior manager has had an affair with a staff member two ranks lower than him, and she got a promotion. The relationship has broken down, and she is now claiming he forced her to have sex on occasion, and later an abortion, and she got the promotion in return for keeping quiet.
It is a mess. As the boss, how can you tell how much the relationship was consensual? Is he lying? Is she lying? Is the truth somewhere in between? Was her promotion truly deserved, or was she promoted because of the affair? Do you protect him, as he's a darned good manager? Do you protect her? Do you sling both of them out?
These sorts of things happen (anecdotally something similar happened at a company here in Cambridge, which I won't name - and it's not one we've worked for).
This is the sort of absolute mess that organisations need to protect themselves from.
And worse, if workers lower down the organisation's hierarchy see the bosses shagging their juniors, they'll be more likely to do it as well. The fish rotting from the head. In the same way if they see a boss being racist or sexist, they'll be more likely to think that sort of behaviour is acceptable.
I'm not calling for a law on this. Just that if I was the boss of that company, I'd want that senior manager to be out on his ear: it's a clear-cut case to me (and hopefully the company's regs would back me up).
But many other cases are much less clear-cut.
Considering all we have here is that someone got pregnant and had twins, yes there is nothing to see here.
You stop it by investigating allegations of abuse on a case-by-case basis and treating them with the seriousness they deserve.
In your hypothetical, I would ask for evidence. If there were evidence that was forthcoming, eg a text message that put what you said in writing, then that could be gross misconduct. If there was no evidence, then innocent until proven guilty.
People shagging each other isn't anything "rotting" from the head, genitals or anywhere else, it is human nature and entirely acceptable behaviour.
But a woman having twins is not abuse. You didn't object to abuse, you objected to a new mother and father having twins.
"Ask for evidence."
Oh Jesus. You just don't get it, do you? The lady might be able to provide evidence of an abortion (and that's bit yucky). But it's perfectly possible that there is no evidence, either because it is very hard to prove, or the lady is lying, or the boss was very careful with what he did. Or because he has friends in the company.
*Your* attitude is exactly the sort of one that allowed this sort of thing to go on for so long, in all sorts of attitudes.
"People shagging each other isn't anything "rotting" from the head, genitals or anywhere else, it is human nature and entirely acceptable behaviour."
It is if it is abusive. And as we see with rape, it can be very hard to prove abuse. Organisations need to protect themselves, their staff, and in some cases their customers. That means strict (but fair) processes and openness.
If there's no evidence, then innocent until proven guilty applies.
So you're saying you are prepared to sack someone, with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing?
That to me is disgusting. The fact that something is hard to prove, doesn't mean you can do away with due process. It means you take investigations and allegations seriously instead.
What you're talking about is a carte blanche for bosses to abuse underlings - as has happened throughout history.
That has to change.
And yes, the relationship has caused disruption to the company, taken up valuable management time, and could potentially be open to lawsuits. For how can the company prove that the lady was given a promotion fairly, and not because of the affair? It's difficult. At best, he's been blooming stupid.
That's why I'm saying companies need proper processes for such things, and the greater the disparity between the parties - and the greater the potential for abuse - the stronger those processes need to be.
Those processes might be moving one or other party to other divisions (if possible). It may be changing lines of reporting. It may be something else. But all parties need to know that not following the processes might have serious consequences for their future in the organisation.
Openness is key.
No, what I am saying is take the matter seriously, and look for evidence.
What you are saying is that evidence doesn't matter, so throw the book at people even with no evidence of wrongdoing. What you are saying is that you are prepared to see people fired and their lives turned upside down with not a jot of evidence against them.
If so, how does that not get abused? What if someone turns around and says you slept with them, you abused your position, you coerced them etc - by your logic you should be fired, even though you know you've not only never abused them, but never had sex in the first place and never even kissed them.
That is not due process and it is not acceptable. Yes looking for evidence may be difficult, but that is not an excuse not to bother to do so. That is not an excuse to brush away claims of wrongdoing and let perpetrators get away with it, but nor is it an excuse to abolish due process and to punish the potentially innocent when there is literally no evidence of any wrongdoing at all.
Evidence matters. That principle matters. You wanting to get rid of due process, just because its all too difficult - where does that stop? Its madness.
Did you really have to drag this to this thread?
" and look for evidence."
That's the point. What 'evidence' is there? Most companies or organisations are not the police. They often do not have the ability or capability to work out the truth in these cases - especially where it is 'he said/she said'.
I am not saying 'evidence does not matter'. Stop making stuff up. I'm saying that it does matter, but in so many cases, there is no evidence that the organisation has a capability of finding. They cannot force someone to surrender their personal mobile phone, for instance. And in many cases in the past, organisations have not exactly looked for evidence. Abuses will go unanswered because there is no evidence.
That is one reason why such rules are good: the lines are written out and known by all. You not only do not cross the lines; you do not approach the lines. You do not get drunk and try to have a snog with the secretary. You do not flirt with the temps. And if you find yourself in a situation where you may be falling for someone, you make sure whatever processes the company has in place are followed.
I think the Tories are in trouble, only one leader recently overturned such a lead.
Keir Starmer.
If Lebedev explodes, the entire Conservative Party will be pulling shrapnel out of its collective a***. Now Johnson has nominally left, August 12th will have come early, it will be open season.
One user who claims they aren't a Tory is getting very wound up, it isn't it lovely to see
Boo to boozy party curry arsehole Keir getting off. But the idea it will 'boost' him is for the birds. I'm not more popular today because i didnt litter the streets yesterday. Survation and their mahoosive lead is a July 6th teeth of the gale special. 31% prepared to vote for an imploding government and Starmer picking up the 'not part of the apocalypse' temporary support.
SKS survives at the very moment it becomes clear that he is dead weight.
Rat smellers nostrils are positively flaring at Durham Polices timing today. SKS survives to get a mild ticking off for late declaration of footy tickets.
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
I know tons of people like that. Older, poorly educated, always done hard physical, boring work. (I once had a friend from Oz visit me as art of a jaunt round the UK, and he had to sit and wait for me in Pontefract town centre for a bit while I got back from somewhere. When I get there he said 'God, everyone looks like a physical wreck. They've had hard lives, you can tell.')
If they haven't stopped, they smoke baccy now, or vape, cos packets of 20 cigs are too expensive. Spent their lives reading the sun and mail at chipped formica tables in scabby work canteens. Do the lottery every single week, probably as part of a syndicate. They'll be gutted. Nice people generally, backbone of this country in many ways.
I'm not sneering at these people. I've been there and done it myself, before finally getting my shit together and going to uni when I was 27. I still drink with them. They're funny, smart, self-deprecating, fatalistic, stoic, they don't suffer fools.
It is bonkers how they identify so strongly with Johnson. My take on it is that he embodies this idea of England as they remember it from their childhood, that he promises to resurrect, that Brexit will bring back. A place where everything worked. Everyone had a job. You could get a doctor's appointment by ringing up the surgery at ten past 8, and after three rings you would be speaking to a receptionist - a human! - and get your appointment for half 11 that morning. Households could live comfortably off one wage. There were park keepers. And
dog wardens. And industry. Police would turn up when your shed got broken into, no such thing as a crime number. You could get a job by showing up somewhere and asking for one, didn't have to fill out a form or have an interview. They can't understand why the world doesn't work like that anymore. And can't see why it shouldn't again.
Driven by nostalgia.
And instead of having to think about all the complicated, interconnected reasons why that world has gone, the political decisions taken, the tax cuts, the underfunding, 'trickle down', they prefer to blame foreigners. Cos it's easier. And that's what's been shovelled into their brains for decades.
Shame really. They won't change their minds now.
Don't think they hate foreigners but many of these people don't have the financial resources to escape diversity unlike many of the woke middle class who bleat about how they love it but live well away from it
The diversity on Pontefract high street, I'd vouch is not massive (I've done the 3pm weekday shop run plenty of times in various down at heel northern towns, some diverse, some not, and neighbouring Normanton amongst them. And Featherstone once!!). And worked summers in factories juxtaposed with posh uni.
The old Common People thing northern monkey invokes here is absolutely still true and real - very many people with everyday wherewithal but a narrow horizon of what they feel is relevant to them. The flip side, ignoramuses best avoided, as per Misshapes is also present. Like humanity anywhere, really, merely adapted to one particular circumstance.
You're right. Well done for surviving Fev! I worked there for a bit, at the Linpac factory, sticking in the absorbent pads you find at the bottom of polystyrene trays and plastic containers you get meat and chicken in. Stood at a table, four of us, one dabbing glue on the trays, three of us picking them up and sticking a pad in.
Keir Starmer has a 17pt lead over Boris Johnson in our ‘best PM tracker’ (37% vs 20%)
But 70% of those who see him as the better PM say this is more because of Johnson’s weaknesses than Starmer’s strengths (63% among Lab voters who say Starmer is best)
Funny how until yesterday the TV media couldn't find anyone who supported Boris Johnson. Now most of the people they're interviewing are fans of the PM.
Vox pops are absolute nonsense.
There's no attempt to represent what they're hearing. They just present two views from either side sometimes presented by the political party on request from the researcher.
I have a feeling they're going to throw such an amount of shit at Johnson over the next few months it's going to make what Trump's facing seem benign. They've just had someone on WATO suggesting some pretty heavy stuff about his Russian dealings.
As a matter of interest, do we know what the various parties finances are like at the moment? I'd expect them to be fairly low this far from a planned election?
There's a lot of it about. If you are vulnerable now is a good time to be prudent. And I'd suggest taking care if friends/colleagues say they have tested and the heavy cold is not covid - seems to only show on lateral flow a few days after onset of symptoms.
Two folk at my work are down with it for the second time in just a month. Both had cold-like symptoms and thought 'no - surely not again so soon' then tested positive a day or two later. One of them is proper knocked out for a second time too.
Some of my optimism about all this is wearing a little thin.
Yes the vaccine clearly isn't stopping transmission sadly
I think for most people it’s effects have worn off.
Nope. Protection against serious illness is holding up, otherwise the hospital's would be swamped and we would be taking measures. Only around 30% of admissions are for COVID, the rest are with COVID. Omicron is good at making us I'll but the vaccination is keeping most of us from getting really I'll.
Covid is spreading through Mrs J's workplace like wildfire. Several people she was in a meeting with have come down with it - fortunately she was wearing a mask, and has (so far) avoided it. Two are fairly poorly with it; others are laughing it off.
The latest variants are really infectious...
I tempted to say that of course they are. We have challenged the virus, and one evolutionary response is to become more infectious. There will be a limit. It can't keep on getting more infectious, but right now we are watching viral evolution in action. In one sense it's awesome. In another it's feckin annoying.
Pretty much the only constant in how the new variants have been described in simple terms is that each variant is "more infectious than the last". It's been the case from the outset, even when the early variants were described as being highly infectious, and we've been through a significant number of variants.
To what extent this is factually and statistically true (as opposed to just lazy descriptions in the media) I do not know. But I do find it fascinating that the trend is so supposedly consistent.
Its a function of 'winning'. If you have an infectious virus that introduces some degree of protection after a patient recovers, a variant needs something extra to out-compete the existing virus. One way is to be different enough that the protection after infection is not effective or is reduced (and this includes vaccine induced protection). This is the case for the omicrons, hence people who were hit with delta then getting omicron fairly soon after. Eventually the pool of people available to infect runs low and the first variant runs out of new targets, while the second one, especially if it is more infectious, or able to infect those who have had the first variant, starts to win out.
But ultimately, each variant peaks as it runs out of new hosts.
There is a limit to changes that a virus can make and still retain its function. Think of all the breeds of dogs we have created - at heart they are all still dogs. It might seem like covid is never ending but it will gradually subside into endemicity. We are just not there yet.
The nightmare is if one of the really infectious ones flips back to more serious again. Fingers crossed that doesn't happen.
@CorrectHorseBattery - curious about your assertion that Keir turning around midterm polls before other polls is somehow unprecedented.
Jeremy Corbyn overturned a 22% lead at his trough, registering a 2% lead a few weeks later (and years later a 10% lead).
Boris Johnson took over where the Tories had recently polled 10% behind Corbyn's Labour and soon turned that into 15% leads.
David Cameron went from 13% behind Brown's Labour to 13% in front in a couple of weeks.
David Cameron also went from 15% behind Miliband's Labour, to winning a majority on an increased share and lead in the vote.
Oh and relatedly Miliband turned around from Cameron's Tories being 14% ahead of Labour, to 15% behind them.
And Brown turned an 11% deficit into a 13% lead.
25-30% net turnarounds in the polling has been the default in recent years.
So by my reckoning in recent years Boris, Corbyn, Miliband, Cameron and Brown have all turned around similarly significant poll leads. The only leader I can think of who hasn't is Theresa May, and that's only because she started with the lead and squandered it, every single other leader including even Corbyn has done what Keir has "done".
Irrelevant but if I were Sunak I would be spitting tacks. He turns up for a work meeting and ends up with a FPN. Starmer at a work event no FPN (correctly).
Far more events at No 10 seemingly should have been fined.
The whole thing stinks, but its time to forget it.
I don't know what the Met and Durham Police were thinking. I don't have that much confidence that their reasoning is correct. However, we can note that everyone at the Durham event was there for work purposes, whereas not everyone at the cake event was there for the purpose of having that work meeting. That is a difference, and maybe that was the crucial difference.
Sunak claims he didn't know what was going to happen when he turned up, but presumably the appropriate response according to the law at the time was for him to immediately turn around and walk away when he realised that there were people gathered for a non-work purpose... which he didn't do.
That said, it remains baffling why Sunak and some others got FPNs for this event, while others at the same event didn't get FPNs, and why others at other Downing Street gatherings that seem way more dubious didn't get FPNs.
However, given Sunak's creative approach to paying tax hopefully renders him unsuitable for the top job anyway, none of this really matters.
It warms mine too but now they're government in waiting he'll have to make a few important decisions. The first is to keep Angela Rayner off the media. She was on this morning and she is not only inarticulate but almost incoherent. As deputy leader she makes Labours qualification to govern look suspect. In other words if shes one of the best Labour have to offer God help us.
While Starmer speaks to muesli munchers like your good self, Rayner speaks to the lads in the Working Mens Clubs across the red wall. Having different messages and different voices for different audiences - sounds like the sort of thing that might be done in the advertising industry.
The video of disappointed Boris voters in the red wall posted on the last thread by MickG or whatever his name is, was very very interesting.
The media / Tories / establishment have removed “their Boris”, who they voted for “knowing full well he made mistakes, like all of us”.
They do have a point.
I know tons of people like that. Older, poorly educated, always done hard physical, boring work. (I once had a friend from Oz visit me as art of a jaunt round the UK, and he had to sit and wait for me in Pontefract town centre for a bit while I got back from somewhere. When I get there he said 'God, everyone looks like a physical wreck. They've had hard lives, you can tell.')
If they haven't stopped, they smoke baccy now, or vape, cos packets of 20 cigs are too expensive. Spent their lives reading the sun and mail at chipped formica tables in scabby work canteens. Do the lottery every single week, probably as part of a syndicate. They'll be gutted. Nice people generally, backbone of this country in many ways.
I'm not sneering at these people. I've been there and done it myself, before finally getting my shit together and going to uni when I was 27. I still drink with them. They're funny, smart, self-deprecating, fatalistic, stoic, they don't suffer fools.
It is bonkers how they identify so strongly with Johnson. My take on it is that he embodies this idea of England as they remember it from their childhood, that he promises to resurrect, that Brexit will bring back. A place where everything worked. Everyone had a job. You could get a doctor's appointment by ringing up the surgery at ten past 8, and after three rings you would be speaking to a receptionist - a human! - and get your appointment for half 11 that morning. Households could live comfortably off one wage. There were park keepers. And dog wardens. And industry. Police would turn up when your shed got broken into, no such thing as a crime number. You could get a job by showing up somewhere and asking for one, didn't have to fill out a form or have an interview. They can't understand why the world doesn't work like that anymore. And can't see why it shouldn't again.
Driven by nostalgia.
And instead of having to think about all the complicated, interconnected reasons why that world has gone, the political decisions taken, the tax cuts, the underfunding, 'trickle down', they prefer to blame foreigners. Cos it's easier. And that's what's been shovelled into their brains for decades.
Shame really. They won't change their minds now.
You say "bonkers" as if they're suffering from some sort of false consciousness. But maybe it isn't false consciousness at all and they genuinely support him and his policies and are entirely rational and logical to do so. The fact he went to Eton is irrelevant to any of that.
Yeah, cos Johnson gives a damn about them and what they want. And his policies would deliver them their wishes. Right.
1. Housing, with communities. Lots. Turn on the taps, public (with RTB), social, private - attack all the bottlenecks one by one be that planning (tweak what you get), finance etc. Building is the most progressive route to intergenerational fairness. 2. Essential infrastructure, the same. That build and fund some horses public with one eye on future privatisation where appropriate, parallels RTB. 3. The road to Universal Basic Income. Lower tax allowances and link tax rates to accessing the UBI. Low cost elements first, roll out to pensioners, students as rework of pensions, student loans, but the whole proposal should be small net cost to government. 4. Services and systems for people: little money to make the state more generous, but front facing public sector workers to all be registered to a professional body and with a professional obligation to fairness, to avoid the perverse incentive, from the doctors receptionist answering the phone to the Home Office 5. Get tax, borrowing, wealth creation and the scope of the state into proper long term balance, treat it all as one.
[snipped] It is bonkers how they identify so strongly with Johnson. My take on it is that he embodies this idea of England as they remember it from their childhood, that he promises to resurrect, that Brexit will bring back. A place where everything worked. Everyone had a job. You could get a doctor's appointment by ringing up the surgery at ten past 8, and after three rings you would be speaking to a receptionist - a human! - and get your appointment for half 11 that morning. Households could live comfortably off one wage. There were park keepers. And dog wardens. And industry. Police would turn up when your shed got broken into, no such thing as a crime number. You could get a job by showing up somewhere and asking for one, didn't have to fill out a form or have an interview. They can't understand why the world doesn't work like that anymore. And can't see why it shouldn't again.
Driven by nostalgia.
And instead of having to think about all the complicated, interconnected reasons why that world has gone, the political decisions taken, the tax cuts, the underfunding, 'trickle down', they prefer to blame foreigners. Cos it's easier. And that's what's been shovelled into their brains for decades.
Shame really. They won't change their minds now.
Superb post.
I've long argued (on here inter alia) that you can explain the Brexit vote by a lack of "agency". It's horrible sociological jargon, but basically many people - correctly - don't think they're in control of their lives any more.
Johnson, Cummings and their fellow travellers successfully convinced them this was the fault of the EU. Spoiler: it wasn't. But as you say, the alternative is getting into stuff about regulatory capture and redistribution and all that. Saying "there's a man in Brussels who wants to take your bananas away" is a much more immediately understandable proposition. And that's precisely what Cummings promised with his three-word slogan: "Take back control." Not just over the country, but over your own life.
Understanding agency was the genius of Thatcher, and to some extent Blair. Thatcher's message was "work hard and you can make a success of yourself" - in other words, "it's up to you". Both of them offered incentives to help you along your way, whether that be tax cuts and BT shares (Thatcher), or SureStart centres and a muscular public sector with shiny PFI hospitals (Blair). I won't get into which was more effective but the message was the same.
Starmer hasn't yet shown that he gets this. I see two schools of thought in Labour at the moment. There's Starmerism, which is competence without a message: we will make things better for you through managing the country better. The end. The other is Labour populism: we will just do what our core voters want right now, a bit like Henry Ford's "If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
Labour - in my view - needs to articulate a simple, compelling vision for how they'll help people to regain control over their lives.
@CorrectHorseBattery - curious about your assertion that Keir turning around midterm polls before other polls is somehow unprecedented.
Jeremy Corbyn overturned a 22% lead at his trough, registering a 2% lead a few weeks later (and years later a 10% lead).
Boris Johnson took over where the Tories had recently polled 10% behind Corbyn's Labour and soon turned that into 15% leads.
David Cameron went from 13% behind Brown's Labour to 13% in front in a couple of weeks.
David Cameron also went from 15% behind Miliband's Labour, to winning a majority on an increased share and lead in the vote.
Oh and relatedly Miliband turned around from Cameron's Tories being 14% ahead of Labour, to 15% behind them.
And Brown turned an 11% deficit into a 13% lead.
25-30% net turnarounds in the polling has been the default in recent years.
So by my reckoning in recent years Boris, Corbyn, Miliband, Cameron and Brown have all turned around similarly significant poll leads. The only leader I can think of who hasn't is Theresa May, and that's only because she started with the lead and squandered it, every single other leader including even Corbyn has done what Keir has "done".
Even May managed to turn an 8 point deficit into consistent leads prior to the deal meltdown during 2017 to 2018. 8 point deficit to Jeremy fucking Corbyn
Labour leads will inevitably be inflated during the Tory leadership contest as the remaining Boris supporters shift to "don't know" until the new leader is chosen.
If you are lucky BJO! But your current crop of Tory runners and riders aren't working class heroes like Boris, they are all silver-spooners like Starmer. Which way to turn eh?
Comments
The Left is failing here. I'm not sure what the solution is. They need to start reaching these people, and their kids and grandkids.
Was Uncle Tom Cobley not available?
Do these people have no sense of self knowledge? They'be lucky to garner their own vote, let alone anyone else's.
https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/1545374658991628288
''Just hearing Margaret Thatcher is considering a leadership bid, Yes, you read that right.....''
Was Uncle Tom Cobley not available?
Even the most "leftist" of the contenders, Tugendhadt, is first out of the blocks to call for tax cuts.
It's no mystery that the Budget was the firing pistol for the internal unrest that did for him.
My guess is that we'll be in that position by the end of the year, maybe sooner.
Even though, as a liberal, I recoil at some of what happened.
If you tell people that despite the country being materially better off, they have to put up with things that don't work and quality of life getting worse because that's the just way the modern world works, they're liable to smell a rat.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/07/07/3ad59/2
Keir Starmer.
England logged 1,500 more weekly deaths than expected over last three weeks
Experts say the increase may be the first signs of the effect of Covid restrictions
Comes amid rising Covid infection rates which last week jumped to 1.8million"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10994179/Lockdowns-killing-1-000-people-week-Excess-deaths-England-Wales.html
It’s a great irony that Rishi is painted as a tax-hiker when he is also instinctively a tax-cutter. Rishi was basically sunk by events and captured by Treasury, and allowed a reputation to build of himself (and the government) as favouring high taxes.
What has been lacking is an overarching economic narrative to keep investors, the public - and indeed Tory backbenchers - onside.
In my profession failure to do so before 9.00PM means you have to pay for an extra day. Presumably that applies everywhere. Sir Keir was sure to have known that as the meal time was written on his 'call sheet'. So keeping people on tenterhooks was good politics. It added to the drama and made him look principled.
The latest variants are really infectious...
As opposed to Rehman Chishti, who was ummm... ummm... one of several Vice Chairmen of the Conservative Party. Briefly. In 2018.
Or John Baron, who has managed to get to his mid-60s - and through three Conservative administrations - without managing to get himself any kind of Ministerial role.
Serious. Seriously?
No drama. Drama.
New schools. Old school.
Looking forward. The past.
This election writes itself.
The usual suspects....please explain?
My point is that Thatcher was something of a left field candidate. The tories can be funny like that. We shouldn't rule out the same sort of thing here.
The policies and ideas put forward so far look to appeal to the Blue Wall - but that will not be a big majority.
Oh, hang on, that's John Barron.
It has more in common with the Remain voting parts of the Home counties than the rest of the North
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Sheffield Hallam
In the dim and distant past I used to recruit graduates for software engineering positions. It was difficult as so many of them had virtually identical resumes. The ones that stood out - and were therefore put near the top of the pile -were the ones who had some relevantish experience. Even if that was not in software.
And the quality of graduates varied massively - and the 'lesser' universities did not necessarily produce 'lesser' engineers.
The question is - to what extent does it tarnish all those who supported him?
Trans issues raises the problem of absolute rights for group X, giving intractable problem for groups A,B and C. Both X and some of ABC are generally liberal/progressive. A very modern problem.
Like the problem one day when some progressives realise that large scale abortion may be a problem for some feminists.
And it's £16bn you are talking about here - it would be better to keep that and just remove fuel duty....
And yes Fuel duty is £24bn not £16bn but fuel duty is going to disappear anyway as we move to electric.
What you are saying is that evidence doesn't matter, so throw the book at people even with no evidence of wrongdoing. What you are saying is that you are prepared to see people fired and their lives turned upside down with not a jot of evidence against them.
If so, how does that not get abused? What if someone turns around and says you slept with them, you abused your position, you coerced them etc - by your logic you should be fired, even though you know you've not only never abused them, but never had sex in the first place and never even kissed them.
That is not due process and it is not acceptable. Yes looking for evidence may be difficult, but that is not an excuse not to bother to do so. That is not an excuse to brush away claims of wrongdoing and let perpetrators get away with it, but nor is it an excuse to abolish due process and to punish the potentially innocent when there is literally no evidence of any wrongdoing at all.
Evidence matters. That principle matters. You wanting to get rid of due process, just because its all too difficult - where does that stop? Its madness.
I can only think it's something to do with 'watermelon smiles' and 'look like letter boxes'. Nudge nudge, wink wink.
That to me is a sane policy, letting the looney right (such as HYUFD) select the next PM from a choice of 2 means the more right wing candidate (ignoring suitability) will become PM...
That being said, you make a good point. Andrea Leadsom nearly made it all the way to Number Ten (and perhaps it would have been better if she had made it all the way), and she wasn't a Cabinet Minister. And Cameron had only been in Parliament for for four or five years when succeeded Howard as leader.
There is probably no one in the Cons party who has such a skillset.
The tragedy of course is not that for all his blokiness he was a product of Eton and Oxford, it is that he was lying through his teeth the whole time. He talked about levelling up, the critical Cons policy of the age, and yet nothing has been done; he talked about new post-Brexit opportunities, but opportunities have there been none.
He made people believe him, and believe that he was on their side whereas he was only ever on his own side and that is the tragedy for the red wallers. And yes, as @HYUFD and @KevinB say, the Cons will likely become a more middle/upper class party as a result of him going.
Do the red wall want open door immigration? Dothe red wall want citical race theory teaching in every school?
People are p8ssed off, sure. Ready to usher in a majority labour government? hmmn.
Four members of the 1922 committee approach nervously.
Stewart (eyes still closed): I’ve been expecting you.
https://twitter.com/TomEaston/status/1544992016173514752
Survation and their mahoosive lead is a July 6th teeth of the gale special. 31% prepared to vote for an imploding government and Starmer picking up the 'not part of the apocalypse' temporary support.
David Cameron and Jeremy frigging Corbyn overturned bigger leads.
Oh and you could make a case that Boris Johnson did too.
To what extent this is factually and statistically true (as opposed to just lazy descriptions in the media) I do not know. But I do find it fascinating that the trend is so supposedly consistent.
You are correct to point out that 'big hitter' experience is always important though....
" and look for evidence."
That's the point. What 'evidence' is there? Most companies or organisations are not the police. They often do not have the ability or capability to work out the truth in these cases - especially where it is 'he said/she said'.
I am not saying 'evidence does not matter'. Stop making stuff up. I'm saying that it does matter, but in so many cases, there is no evidence that the organisation has a capability of finding. They cannot force someone to surrender their personal mobile phone, for instance. And in many cases in the past, organisations have not exactly looked for evidence. Abuses will go unanswered because there is no evidence.
That is one reason why such rules are good: the lines are written out and known by all. You not only do not cross the lines; you do not approach the lines. You do not get drunk and try to have a snog with the secretary. You do not flirt with the temps. And if you find yourself in a situation where you may be falling for someone, you make sure whatever processes the company has in place are followed.
In short: you act professionally.
Angela Rayner should be Party Chair or something; I agree that she’s not really senior Cabinet material.
(Mind you, neither are Raab, Truss etc)
Horses for courses. Stewart would make a cracking tory candidate for London Mayor....
SKS survives to get a mild ticking off for late declaration of footy tickets.
Happy days.
But 70% of those who see him as the better PM say this is more because of Johnson’s weaknesses than Starmer’s strengths (63% among Lab voters who say Starmer is best)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/08/70-those-who-say-starmer-would-be-best-pm-say-more?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=daily_question&utm_content=starmer_vs_johnson https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1545408346324434944/photo/1
I have a feeling they're going to throw such an amount of shit at Johnson over the next few months it's going to make what Trump's facing seem benign. They've just had someone on WATO suggesting some pretty heavy stuff about his Russian dealings.
Edit: Although this is MD, not Leon, so probably not...
But ultimately, each variant peaks as it runs out of new hosts.
There is a limit to changes that a virus can make and still retain its function. Think of all the breeds of dogs we have created - at heart they are all still dogs. It might seem like covid is never ending but it will gradually subside into endemicity. We are just not there yet.
The nightmare is if one of the really infectious ones flips back to more serious again. Fingers crossed that doesn't happen.
Jeremy Corbyn overturned a 22% lead at his trough, registering a 2% lead a few weeks later (and years later a 10% lead).
Boris Johnson took over where the Tories had recently polled 10% behind Corbyn's Labour and soon turned that into 15% leads.
David Cameron went from 13% behind Brown's Labour to 13% in front in a couple of weeks.
David Cameron also went from 15% behind Miliband's Labour, to winning a majority on an increased share and lead in the vote.
Oh and relatedly Miliband turned around from Cameron's Tories being 14% ahead of Labour, to 15% behind them.
And Brown turned an 11% deficit into a 13% lead.
25-30% net turnarounds in the polling has been the default in recent years.
So by my reckoning in recent years Boris, Corbyn, Miliband, Cameron and Brown have all turned around similarly significant poll leads. The only leader I can think of who hasn't is Theresa May, and that's only because she started with the lead and squandered it, every single other leader including even Corbyn has done what Keir has "done".
Sunak claims he didn't know what was going to happen when he turned up, but presumably the appropriate response according to the law at the time was for him to immediately turn around and walk away when he realised that there were people gathered for a non-work purpose... which he didn't do.
That said, it remains baffling why Sunak and some others got FPNs for this event, while others at the same event didn't get FPNs, and why others at other Downing Street gatherings that seem way more dubious didn't get FPNs.
However, given Sunak's creative approach to paying tax hopefully renders him unsuitable for the top job anyway, none of this really matters.
They're like poor Americans voting for Trump.
1. Housing, with communities. Lots. Turn on the taps, public (with RTB), social, private - attack all the bottlenecks one by one be that planning (tweak what you get), finance etc. Building is the most progressive route to intergenerational fairness.
2. Essential infrastructure, the same. That build and fund some horses public with one eye on future privatisation where appropriate, parallels RTB.
3. The road to Universal Basic Income. Lower tax allowances and link tax rates to accessing the UBI. Low cost elements first, roll out to pensioners, students as rework of pensions, student loans, but the whole proposal should be small net cost to government.
4. Services and systems for people: little money to make the state more generous, but front facing public sector workers to all be registered to a professional body and with a professional obligation to fairness, to avoid the perverse incentive, from the doctors receptionist answering the phone to the Home Office
5. Get tax, borrowing, wealth creation and the scope of the state into proper long term balance, treat it all as one.
I've long argued (on here inter alia) that you can explain the Brexit vote by a lack of "agency". It's horrible sociological jargon, but basically many people - correctly - don't think they're in control of their lives any more.
Johnson, Cummings and their fellow travellers successfully convinced them this was the fault of the EU. Spoiler: it wasn't. But as you say, the alternative is getting into stuff about regulatory capture and redistribution and all that. Saying "there's a man in Brussels who wants to take your bananas away" is a much more immediately understandable proposition. And that's precisely what Cummings promised with his three-word slogan: "Take back control." Not just over the country, but over your own life.
Understanding agency was the genius of Thatcher, and to some extent Blair. Thatcher's message was "work hard and you can make a success of yourself" - in other words, "it's up to you". Both of them offered incentives to help you along your way, whether that be tax cuts and BT shares (Thatcher), or SureStart centres and a muscular public sector with shiny PFI hospitals (Blair). I won't get into which was more effective but the message was the same.
Starmer hasn't yet shown that he gets this. I see two schools of thought in Labour at the moment. There's Starmerism, which is competence without a message: we will make things better for you through managing the country better. The end. The other is Labour populism: we will just do what our core voters want right now, a bit like Henry Ford's "If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
Labour - in my view - needs to articulate a simple, compelling vision for how they'll help people to regain control over their lives.
By Jonn Elledge"
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/07/waiting-for-the-downfall-of-boris-johnson
The key will be what happens next.