Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
Those are great questions. Is there somewhere where the other contestents answer them?
We need more quickfire questions like these. It's a great way to narrow the field. The ECHR question is pivotal and Rwanda would be another. Separates the sane from the fruitcakes.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
Yeah. No different to anyone else. Except with less money. For more likely to hold "outdated" views the older they are. Which is logical after all.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
No. He's repeating long-standing FO Policy.
So the FO won’t allow us to help Taiwan? And not one of these candidates interested in changing this position?
Even Bomber Blair gets this one, and the Tory’s don’t?
No. It's a policy of studied ambiguity.
To be decided only once we have consulted and discussed the situation with our global allies (i.e. when the US tells us what we will do).
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
If Starmer cannot win back Leave voters in the redwall for Labour he won't win no matter how many tactical votes he gets
so like CHB you think Keir has done brilliantly throwing himself in with Brexit?
I’m with Mike Smithson, I think he has made a terrible mistake, you are focussing on a few red wall voters, who could have come back even without Starmer making his mistake - Mike and myself looking how he is shredding himself with 85% of his own Party members and 66% of the country who want action on the half baked, unfinished, and **** business Brexit deal - not a do nothing approach to it.
My position is better than dopey Starmer’s. Fishing folk voted for Brexit. Fishing folk are now screwed by brexit. I just want to throw my arms around them, and help them. That is the only sane thing for opposition to say, not approach it as in or out.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
Well this chap had certainly rolled double 1s when he started out, followed by a succession of 1s. "I bet you had decent parents, didn't you?", he said to me. Well, yes, as it happens. But every single person I know had parents who were clearly far better suited to being parents than this fella did. Despite all this, he still appeared to love her. As you say, the roll of a dice. Some are very very lucky, most of us do ok. Some get a really really shitty one.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
Those are great questions. Is there somewhere where the other contestents answer them?
We need more quickfire questions like these. It's a great way to narrow the field. The ECHR question is pivotal and Rwanda would be another. Separates the sane from the fruitcakes.
Trouble is, it identifies the 'cakes for those Party members who like lots of fruit and nut in their politics.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
Yeah. No different to anyone else. Except with less money. For more likely to hold "outdated" views the older they are. Which is logical after all.
To be clear, the left can be guilty of dehumanising the poor.
Historically, solutions were focussed on big government programmes delivered through faceless (often unaccountable) institutions with one size fits all approach.
The view that the poor need to be pitied and saved is something that I have a bit of a problem with. That patrician view is not the worst sentiment in the world (and far better than doing nothing and has delivered some great progress), but it is another form of us vs. them.
People who are poor and in the gutter are just the same as you and me. They need help and respect. They do not need to be looked down on. We are all the same and should help each other.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
Those are great questions. Is there somewhere where the other contestents answer them?
We need more quickfire questions like these. It's a great way to narrow the field. The ECHR question is pivotal and Rwanda would be another. Separates the sane from the fruitcakes.
I agree with you Roger. Tom’s answer to Net Zero 50, effectively “how can any sane person be against Net Zero 50, there isn’t any detail on policy to achieve it yet” is absolutely perfect answer at smashing his opponents in this issue.
I don’t know if he can become PM from here this time, but there is no doubt at all Tom Tugendhat has won the actual campaign hands down.
I mean, how could TSE and HY both have called it wrong to start with?
I get the impression Liz Truss decided decades ago that tax cuts were the solution. I suspect she hasn't given much thought recently as to which taxes, or why, or the downsides, or what they might achieve for your ordinary person? It's not dissimilar to those who say what we need is Socialism.
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
Quite a few hills here in Scotland, lots in Wales too.
But it's not just about having 'hills': it's about having the right conditions, both in terms of height and geology. Then wait until the environmentalists complain that the upper pond's are going to destroy the environment (and I do have some sympathy with that...)
Cruachan is another dam that can do the storage thing, I think? Huge height difference (as anyone who has done the Munros will tell you). Other dams like Monar, Clunie etc have bigger reservoirs but less drop.
An engineer friend told me that Cruachan could be used to kick-start the entire UK grid in the event of nuclear war or a big cyber attack. Used to have MoD types guarding it.
Yes, Cruachan is another one as far as I'm aware - I'm slightly surprised it was not on the wiki list. I also believe Dinorwig could be used to kick-start the grid.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
In more Bonkers News (real or imagined) from the Tory war-room Kemi Badenoch has hit out at Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever for focusing on 'social justice at the expense of profits'.
As Bernard Manning (or similar) once said. 'You Couldn't Make it Up!'
This is a Priti Patel battle. KB strikes me more and more as a PP mini me. Not in a good way.
Do we really believe B&J are focussing on social justice at expense of profits, or it’s a glib marketing campaign.
Cummings will be revealed as the Brains behind Badenoch success. As Boris exits number 10, Gove and Cummings will be entering it. Dom will probably carry the same box through the front door much like Hitler used the same rail carriage for French surrender.
Cummings is a dead duck. Utterly ineffectual trolling campaign against Johnson which contributed exactly zero to actually getting rid of him. Gove may be a different matter
I would like some data on whether the vastly Labour supporting young (say those who are 35 or younger) are moving to vote Conservative at a lesser rate than their parents as they age?
If the answer to that question is no, then Labour's task is a lot easier considering the age/party affiliation disparity that now exists.
It's easy to talk of "ordinary voters" but what this actually means is "middle aged voters".
We must always apply the Bonkers Tory Party Member overlay to any analysis of potential next leader.
As I keep reading (and posted yesterday an example of) there is a substantial number of such folk who viscerally despise Sunak.
I still don't understand how he has ceased to be a hard Brexiteer in their eyes. An original Brexiteer who was content with no deal. What did he do wrong? Not bonkers enough compared to your typical "hard Brexiteer"? Sounds a bit too much like Cameron and Osborne? Toppled the Brexit God?
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
If Starmer cannot win back Leave voters in the redwall for Labour he won't win no matter how many tactical votes he gets
so like CHB you think Keir has done brilliantly throwing himself in with Brexit?
I’m with Mike Smithson, I think he has made a terrible mistake, you are focussing on a few red wall voters, who could have come back even without Starmer making his mistake - Mike and myself looking how he is shredding himself with 85% of his own Party members and 66% of the country who want action on the half baked, unfinished, and **** business Brexit deal - not a do nothing approach to it.
My position is better than dopey Starmer’s. Fishing folk voted for Brexit. Fishing folk are now screwed by brexit. I just want to throw my arms around them, and help them. That is the only sane thing for opposition to say, not approach it as in or out.
New Labour-style triangulation only works when TINA, but often there is. That said, there is also something to be said for avoiding the B-word.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
Those are great questions. Is there somewhere where the other contestents answer them?
We need more quickfire questions like these. It's a great way to narrow the field. The ECHR question is pivotal and Rwanda would be another. Separates the sane from the fruitcakes.
I agree with you Roger. Tom’s answer to Net Zero 50, effectively “how can any sane person be against Net Zero 50, there isn’t any detail on policy to achieve it yet” is absolutely perfect answer at smashing his opponents in this issue.
I don’t know if he can become PM from here this time, but there is no doubt at all Tom Tugendhat has won the actual campaign hands down.
I mean, how could TSE and HY both have called it wrong to start with?
Never mind them, he has had MY endorsement since day 1
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
Those are great questions. Is there somewhere where the other contestents answer them?
We need more quickfire questions like these. It's a great way to narrow the field. The ECHR question is pivotal and Rwanda would be another. Separates the sane from the fruitcakes.
In fairness to broadcasters they ask what could be quickfire questions often, politicians simply won't answer them in such a fashion. Presumably they are only doing so here because they see value in setting out their stalls to party members on those points.
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
If Starmer cannot win back Leave voters in the redwall for Labour he won't win no matter how many tactical votes he gets
so like CHB you think Keir has done brilliantly throwing himself in with Brexit?
I’m with Mike Smithson, I think he has made a terrible mistake, you are focussing on a few red wall voters, who could have come back even without Starmer making his mistake - Mike and myself looking how he is shredding himself with 85% of his own Party members and 66% of the country who want action on the half baked, unfinished, and **** business Brexit deal - not a do nothing approach to it.
My position is better than dopey Starmer’s. Fishing folk voted for Brexit. Fishing folk are now screwed by brexit. I just want to throw my arms around them, and help them. That is the only sane thing for opposition to say, not approach it as in or out.
No. Starmer's limited, technical approach is the correct one. Europe is a priority for fringe nuts of both persuasions, not for the bulk of the electorate. Most people are sick of the subject, and not does it do him any good to start proposing significant integrationist measures which will allow a betrayal narrative to take root.
The Tories, especially of the more loopy variety, would like nothing more than an excuse to use Brexit as a campaign theme yet again, and Starmer knows it.
I get the impression Liz Truss decided decades ago that tax cuts were the solution. I suspect she hasn't given much thought recently as to which taxes, or why, or the downsides, or what they might achieve for your ordinary person? It's not dissimilar to those who say what we need is Socialism.
This! Covid was the first time in my lifetime nearly all politicians were willing to look at the current problems and work out what the best solutions were.
Instead they are much more comfortable with a single toolkit and applying it to each and every economic, social, technological and demographic scenario for their whole lifetime. It is madness.
We must always apply the Bonkers Tory Party Member overlay to any analysis of potential next leader.
As I keep reading (and posted yesterday an example of) there is a substantial number of such folk who viscerally despise Sunak.
I still don't understand how he has ceased to be a hard Brexiteer in their eyes. An original Brexiteer who was content with no deal. What did he do wrong? Not bonkers enough compared to your typical "hard Brexiteer"? Sounds a bit too much like Cameron and Osborne? Toppled the Brexit God?
Maybe, being Chancellor he found out it was complicated? So decided not to bang on about it incessantly. "What we need is more Brexit. It hasn't been tried yet" type thing.
You seriously think people like that matter to Labour? As far as the modern Labour party are concerned, they are at the bottom of the pile - white (I'm guessing) very low economic status who probably hold some very 'outdated' views when it comes to race, gay rights and trans issues.
I agree modern capitalism has been awful at this (and I blame a lot of it on economics dressing itself up as an empirical science and pushing theories that don't work in practice) but the idea Labour cares about these people is laughable.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
I find the idea that someone northern and poor is automatically a knee-jerk bigot doesn't fit with my experience in the slightest.
I think it was commentator Sunder Katwala who referenced something referred to as imputed racism. For example, where selectors who are mainly white might take a view that whilst they are not racist and wouldn't discriminate against black and asian candidates, their fear was that some voters would and so would play safe and shy away from such candidates in marginal seats, yet that fear was actually unfounded.
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
If Starmer cannot win back Leave voters in the redwall for Labour he won't win no matter how many tactical votes he gets
so like CHB you think Keir has done brilliantly throwing himself in with Brexit?
I’m with Mike Smithson, I think he has made a terrible mistake, you are focussing on a few red wall voters, who could have come back even without Starmer making his mistake - Mike and myself looking how he is shredding himself with 85% of his own Party members and 66% of the country who want action on the half baked, unfinished, and **** business Brexit deal - not a do nothing approach to it.
My position is better than dopey Starmer’s. Fishing folk voted for Brexit. Fishing folk are now screwed by brexit. I just want to throw my arms around them, and help them. That is the only sane thing for opposition to say, not approach it as in or out.
New Labour-style triangulation only works when TINA, but often there is. That said, there is also something to be said for avoiding the B-word.
Labour should embrace the B-word - Make Brexit Work. Its clear to all sides that it has been a catastrofuck, we can't keep what we have and we can't rejoin. So we need something new.
That way they highlight the stupidity of the people saying it's been a great success or that it hasn't and its all the fault of EU red tape. And of the people saying FBPE just rejoin. And engages the majority in the middle who just want to get on with their lives.
My only problem with his position is saying no to the Single Market and the Customs Union. Whether we join these or not we will need a working relationship with them - which may yet be the nuanced approach but we're just guessing.
We must always apply the Bonkers Tory Party Member overlay to any analysis of potential next leader.
As I keep reading (and posted yesterday an example of) there is a substantial number of such folk who viscerally despise Sunak.
I still don't understand how he has ceased to be a hard Brexiteer in their eyes. An original Brexiteer who was content with no deal. What did he do wrong? Not bonkers enough compared to your typical "hard Brexiteer"? Sounds a bit too much like Cameron and Osborne? Toppled the Brexit God?
I suspect for a set of fanatics Brexit isn't about Brexit but about having a permanent conflict with the EU.
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
If Starmer cannot win back Leave voters in the redwall for Labour he won't win no matter how many tactical votes he gets
Firstly there are considerably less Brexiteers in the Red Wall than there were. When they voted the national figures were 52/49 now the polls suggest 40/60. What's more even Leavers now know there is no 'Leave Dividend'. No hangings or floggings or deportations. A damp squib really. Starmer has made a serious error of judgement though by not taking them on. It wa a fight he could have won
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
Yeah. No different to anyone else. Except with less money. For more likely to hold "outdated" views the older they are. Which is logical after all.
To be clear, the left can be guilty of dehumanising the poor.
Historically, solutions were focussed on big government programmes delivered through faceless (often unaccountable) institutions with one size fits all approach.
The view that the poor need to be pitied and saved is something that I have a bit of a problem with. That patrician view is not the worst sentiment in the world (and far better than doing nothing and has delivered some great progress), but it is another form of us vs. them.
People who are poor and in the gutter are just the same as you and me. They need help and respect. They do not need to be looked down on. We are all the same and should help each other.
Sometimes I surprise myself with how much I agree with you, and you're certainly patriotic.
To get more growth we need to improve productivity. That is the key. It reduces inflation, increases wages, makes domestic production more competitive, reduces the pressure on the supply of labour. What do the candidates have to say about that?
I can honestly say I don't recall ever hearing any British politician say something substantive about the issue. Identifying a problem is easy peasy. Fixing it, that's what we want to hear ideas about.
Yes, I try to be fair on politicians, but I feel like I've been hearing about bloody productivity all my life and it is apparently as big a problem as it ever was, so apparently not one of them has any idea on how to improve it.
Someone here last time this was discussed said quite sensibly that you can just use excess wind power to push water up a hill, then let it roll down and generate power when the wind stops. That sounded fairly sensible. Not sure how much excess there is at present.
Isn't the problem with that that we don't actually have very many suitable sites to do that in this country? We do it at Dinorwig and maybe one or two other places, but you need quite a bit of height difference and the ability to have a reservoir of water at top and bottom.
Quite a few hills here in Scotland, lots in Wales too.
But it's not just about having 'hills': it's about having the right conditions, both in terms of height and geology. Then wait until the environmentalists complain that the upper pond's are going to destroy the environment (and I do have some sympathy with that...)
Well, clearly I don't have the information to say that's untrue, but the environment at the top of a lot of these hills is pretty bleak. Not much flora and fauna up there.
The wild moorlands have an amazing biodiversity. Maybe not as much as the valleys, but a very different character. Then there's the aspect that peat in particular is a massive CO2 sink, and disturbing it can release that CO2.
We've made a massive mistake sine WW2 in converting lots of these upland areas into monoculture forestry. If you want 'not muc flora or fauna', walk through an upland coniferous woodland. Rows of closely-packed trees, and underfoot a thick carpet of brown pine needles, with only the occasional fern and red mushroom to add colour.
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
If Starmer cannot win back Leave voters in the redwall for Labour he won't win no matter how many tactical votes he gets
so like CHB you think Keir has done brilliantly throwing himself in with Brexit?
I’m with Mike Smithson, I think he has made a terrible mistake, you are focussing on a few red wall voters, who could have come back even without Starmer making his mistake - Mike and myself looking how he is shredding himself with 85% of his own Party members and 66% of the country who want action on the half baked, unfinished, and **** business Brexit deal - not a do nothing approach to it.
My position is better than dopey Starmer’s. Fishing folk voted for Brexit. Fishing folk are now screwed by brexit. I just want to throw my arms around them, and help them. That is the only sane thing for opposition to say, not approach it as in or out.
New Labour-style triangulation only works when TINA, but often there is. That said, there is also something to be said for avoiding the B-word.
Labour should embrace the B-word - Make Brexit Work. Its clear to all sides that it has been a catastrofuck, we can't keep what we have and we can't rejoin. So we need something new.
That way they highlight the stupidity of the people saying it's been a great success or that it hasn't and its all the fault of EU red tape. And of the people saying FBPE just rejoin. And engages the majority in the middle who just want to get on with their lives.
My only problem with his position is saying no to the Single Market and the Customs Union. Whether we join these or not we will need a working relationship with them - which may yet be the nuanced approach but we're just guessing.
I'd quibble with "it's clear to all sides it's been a catastrophe" - to me it still seems preferable to the alternative - but I'd be very interested to hear a Labour offer of making Brexit work.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
Those are great questions. Is there somewhere where the other contestents answer them?
We need more quickfire questions like these. It's a great way to narrow the field. The ECHR question is pivotal and Rwanda would be another. Separates the sane from the fruitcakes.
I agree with you Roger. Tom’s answer to Net Zero 50, effectively “how can any sane person be against Net Zero 50, there isn’t any detail on policy to achieve it yet” is absolutely perfect answer at smashing his opponents in this issue.
I don’t know if he can become PM from here this time, but there is no doubt at all Tom Tugendhat has won the actual campaign hands down.
I mean, how could TSE and HY both have called it wrong to start with?
Tom is the most Cameron like candidate and TSE and I are right, he is most electable of the 5 as long as he doesn't leak too much to RefUK. However that is also probably why he won't win in a Conservative Party increasingly moving right
We must always apply the Bonkers Tory Party Member overlay to any analysis of potential next leader.
As I keep reading (and posted yesterday an example of) there is a substantial number of such folk who viscerally despise Sunak.
I still don't understand how he has ceased to be a hard Brexiteer in their eyes. An original Brexiteer who was content with no deal. What did he do wrong? Not bonkers enough compared to your typical "hard Brexiteer"? Sounds a bit too much like Cameron and Osborne? Toppled the Brexit God?
Probably thinking that he's not enthusiastic enough about cutting their taxes, then inventing other excuses not to like him. Out of thin air if necessary.
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
If Starmer cannot win back Leave voters in the redwall for Labour he won't win no matter how many tactical votes he gets
so like CHB you think Keir has done brilliantly throwing himself in with Brexit?
I’m with Mike Smithson, I think he has made a terrible mistake, you are focussing on a few red wall voters, who could have come back even without Starmer making his mistake - Mike and myself looking how he is shredding himself with 85% of his own Party members and 66% of the country who want action on the half baked, unfinished, and **** business Brexit deal - not a do nothing approach to it.
My position is better than dopey Starmer’s. Fishing folk voted for Brexit. Fishing folk are now screwed by brexit. I just want to throw my arms around them, and help them. That is the only sane thing for opposition to say, not approach it as in or out.
New Labour-style triangulation only works when TINA, but often there is. That said, there is also something to be said for avoiding the B-word.
Labour should embrace the B-word - Make Brexit Work. Its clear to all sides that it has been a catastrofuck, we can't keep what we have and we can't rejoin. So we need something new.
That way they highlight the stupidity of the people saying it's been a great success or that it hasn't and its all the fault of EU red tape. And of the people saying FBPE just rejoin. And engages the majority in the middle who just want to get on with their lives.
My only problem with his position is saying no to the Single Market and the Customs Union. Whether we join these or not we will need a working relationship with them - which may yet be the nuanced approach but we're just guessing.
I refer you to my post on this the other day.
Strategically Starmer has placed himself in the right place on Brexit for floating voters.
But it's political: even if we were full members of the EU right now we'd still have exactly the same problems, including high inflation and depressed sterling.
Kensington is going Red whatever happens, it went Red under Corbyn in 2017 it will go red again under Starmer. I don't think HYUFD has a clue about the makeup of this seat.
Only certain if the boundary changes go through and even then Kensington voters will not want to cancel ballet as it becomes the latest Woke target
What an utter load of nonsense, you've clearly spent very little time in this seat.
Kensington cares about a few things: CoL, economic competence, honesty and trust. Your party is failing on all fronts.
They are not interested in culture wars. You do not know your own voters any more.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
Yeah. No different to anyone else. Except with less money. For more likely to hold "outdated" views the older they are. Which is logical after all.
To be clear, the left can be guilty of dehumanising the poor.
Historically, solutions were focussed on big government programmes delivered through faceless (often unaccountable) institutions with one size fits all approach.
The view that the poor need to be pitied and saved is something that I have a bit of a problem with. That patrician view is not the worst sentiment in the world (and far better than doing nothing and has delivered some great progress), but it is another form of us vs. them.
People who are poor and in the gutter are just the same as you and me. They need help and respect. They do not need to be looked down on. We are all the same and should help each other.
I live my life mostly with Terry Pratchett quotes
'You are in favour of the common people?’ said Dragon mildly. ‘The common people?’ said Vimes. ‘They’re nothing special. They’re no different from the rich and powerful except they’ve got no money or power. But the law should be there to balance things up a bit.'
There was no difference at all between the richest man and the poorest beggar, apart from the fact that the former had lots of money, food, power, fine clothes, and good health. But at least he wasn’t any better.
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
If Starmer cannot win back Leave voters in the redwall for Labour he won't win no matter how many tactical votes he gets
so like CHB you think Keir has done brilliantly throwing himself in with Brexit?
I’m with Mike Smithson, I think he has made a terrible mistake, you are focussing on a few red wall voters, who could have come back even without Starmer making his mistake - Mike and myself looking how he is shredding himself with 85% of his own Party members and 66% of the country who want action on the half baked, unfinished, and **** business Brexit deal - not a do nothing approach to it.
My position is better than dopey Starmer’s. Fishing folk voted for Brexit. Fishing folk are now screwed by brexit. I just want to throw my arms around them, and help them. That is the only sane thing for opposition to say, not approach it as in or out.
New Labour-style triangulation only works when TINA, but often there is. That said, there is also something to be said for avoiding the B-word.
Labour should embrace the B-word - Make Brexit Work. Its clear to all sides that it has been a catastrofuck, we can't keep what we have and we can't rejoin. So we need something new.
That way they highlight the stupidity of the people saying it's been a great success or that it hasn't and its all the fault of EU red tape. And of the people saying FBPE just rejoin. And engages the majority in the middle who just want to get on with their lives.
My only problem with his position is saying no to the Single Market and the Customs Union. Whether we join these or not we will need a working relationship with them - which may yet be the nuanced approach but we're just guessing.
I'd quibble with "it's clear to all sides it's been a catastrophe" - to me it still seems preferable to the alternative - but I'd be very interested to hear a Labour offer of making Brexit work.
I think people think Brexit was wrong but they do not want it reversed, or to rejoin the EU. I especially do not.
Making Brexit work is Labour's best chance, let's have some state aid policies to get renewables going, for example.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
Yeah. No different to anyone else. Except with less money. For more likely to hold "outdated" views the older they are. Which is logical after all.
To be clear, the left can be guilty of dehumanising the poor.
Historically, solutions were focussed on big government programmes delivered through faceless (often unaccountable) institutions with one size fits all approach.
The view that the poor need to be pitied and saved is something that I have a bit of a problem with. That patrician view is not the worst sentiment in the world (and far better than doing nothing and has delivered some great progress), but it is another form of us vs. them.
People who are poor and in the gutter are just the same as you and me. They need help and respect. They do not need to be looked down on. We are all the same and should help each other.
Sometimes I surprise myself with how much I agree with you, and you're certainly patriotic.
Maybe you and I should be a tad less partisan?
More in common.
Its not that far back that Supermac campaigned successfully on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his government had built. The hyper-partisan aggro only really started in the 1970s. Yes, the extremes of policy and ideology have always been there. But making them mainstream is a reasonably new phenomenon.
We must always apply the Bonkers Tory Party Member overlay to any analysis of potential next leader.
As I keep reading (and posted yesterday an example of) there is a substantial number of such folk who viscerally despise Sunak.
I still don't understand how he has ceased to be a hard Brexiteer in their eyes. An original Brexiteer who was content with no deal. What did he do wrong? Not bonkers enough compared to your typical "hard Brexiteer"? Sounds a bit too much like Cameron and Osborne? Toppled the Brexit God?
Probably thinking that he's not enthusiastic enough about cutting their taxes, then inventing other excuses not to like him. Out of thin air if necessary.
Sure I can see why prefer another candidate for other reasons, but in the right wing press he is being portrayed as soft as Brexit whereas Liz Truss who voted remain, is now seen as a proper Brexiteer. One table where they ranked their Brexitness had Sunak in the least Brexity group with Tugenhat.
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
If Starmer cannot win back Leave voters in the redwall for Labour he won't win no matter how many tactical votes he gets
so like CHB you think Keir has done brilliantly throwing himself in with Brexit?
I’m with Mike Smithson, I think he has made a terrible mistake, you are focussing on a few red wall voters, who could have come back even without Starmer making his mistake - Mike and myself looking how he is shredding himself with 85% of his own Party members and 66% of the country who want action on the half baked, unfinished, and **** business Brexit deal - not a do nothing approach to it.
My position is better than dopey Starmer’s. Fishing folk voted for Brexit. Fishing folk are now screwed by brexit. I just want to throw my arms around them, and help them. That is the only sane thing for opposition to say, not approach it as in or out.
No. Starmer's limited, technical approach is the correct one. Europe is a priority for fringe nuts of both persuasions, not for the bulk of the electorate. Most people are sick of the subject, and not does it do him any good to start proposing significant integrationist measures which will allow a betrayal narrative to take root.
The Tories, especially of the more loopy variety, would like nothing more than an excuse to use Brexit as a campaign theme yet again, and Starmer knows it.
Indeed. Brexit being at 'risk' as a central campaign theme would be a sign of the Tories being in real trouble, in my opinion.
I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but cannot understand how Johnson's dealings with Lebedev are not in breach of the Treason Act 1351, and in particular 'adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere'. The article in yesterday's Guardian by Carole Cadwaledr gives full details
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
If Starmer cannot win back Leave voters in the redwall for Labour he won't win no matter how many tactical votes he gets
so like CHB you think Keir has done brilliantly throwing himself in with Brexit?
I’m with Mike Smithson, I think he has made a terrible mistake, you are focussing on a few red wall voters, who could have come back even without Starmer making his mistake - Mike and myself looking how he is shredding himself with 85% of his own Party members and 66% of the country who want action on the half baked, unfinished, and **** business Brexit deal - not a do nothing approach to it.
My position is better than dopey Starmer’s. Fishing folk voted for Brexit. Fishing folk are now screwed by brexit. I just want to throw my arms around them, and help them. That is the only sane thing for opposition to say, not approach it as in or out.
New Labour-style triangulation only works when TINA, but often there is. That said, there is also something to be said for avoiding the B-word.
Labour should embrace the B-word - Make Brexit Work. Its clear to all sides that it has been a catastrofuck, we can't keep what we have and we can't rejoin. So we need something new.
That way they highlight the stupidity of the people saying it's been a great success or that it hasn't and its all the fault of EU red tape. And of the people saying FBPE just rejoin. And engages the majority in the middle who just want to get on with their lives.
My only problem with his position is saying no to the Single Market and the Customs Union. Whether we join these or not we will need a working relationship with them - which may yet be the nuanced approach but we're just guessing.
I refer you to my post on this the other day.
Strategically Starmer has placed himself in the right place on Brexit for floating voters.
But it's political: even if we were full members of the EU right now we'd still have exactly the same problems, including high inflation and depressed sterling.
Although we would have our continued membership of the EU to blame it all on.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
In more Bonkers News (real or imagined) from the Tory war-room Kemi Badenoch has hit out at Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever for focusing on 'social justice at the expense of profits'.
As Bernard Manning (or similar) once said. 'You Couldn't Make it Up!'
This is a Priti Patel battle. KB strikes me more and more as a PP mini me. Not in a good way.
Do we really believe B&J are focussing on social justice at expense of profits, or it’s a glib marketing campaign.
Cummings will be revealed as the Brains behind Badenoch success. As Boris exits number 10, Gove and Cummings will be entering it. Dom will probably carry the same box through the front door much like Hitler used the same rail carriage for French surrender.
Cummings is a dead duck. Utterly ineffectual trolling campaign against Johnson which contributed exactly zero to actually getting rid of him. Gove may be a different matter
Gove is such an interesting figure. Kind of a mixture of Peter Mandelson, Keith Joseph and Ken Dodd.
Is he playing 7d chess on this one? His Badenoch move certainly looks strong right now. Perhaps he'll emerge as Chancellor to whoever wins.
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
If Starmer cannot win back Leave voters in the redwall for Labour he won't win no matter how many tactical votes he gets
so like CHB you think Keir has done brilliantly throwing himself in with Brexit?
I’m with Mike Smithson, I think he has made a terrible mistake, you are focussing on a few red wall voters, who could have come back even without Starmer making his mistake - Mike and myself looking how he is shredding himself with 85% of his own Party members and 66% of the country who want action on the half baked, unfinished, and **** business Brexit deal - not a do nothing approach to it.
My position is better than dopey Starmer’s. Fishing folk voted for Brexit. Fishing folk are now screwed by brexit. I just want to throw my arms around them, and help them. That is the only sane thing for opposition to say, not approach it as in or out.
New Labour-style triangulation only works when TINA, but often there is. That said, there is also something to be said for avoiding the B-word.
Labour should embrace the B-word - Make Brexit Work. Its clear to all sides that it has been a catastrofuck, we can't keep what we have and we can't rejoin. So we need something new.
That way they highlight the stupidity of the people saying it's been a great success or that it hasn't and its all the fault of EU red tape. And of the people saying FBPE just rejoin. And engages the majority in the middle who just want to get on with their lives.
My only problem with his position is saying no to the Single Market and the Customs Union. Whether we join these or not we will need a working relationship with them - which may yet be the nuanced approach but we're just guessing.
I refer you to my post on this the other day.
Strategically Starmer has placed himself in the right place on Brexit for floating voters.
But it's political: even if we were full members of the EU right now we'd still have exactly the same problems, including high inflation and depressed sterling.
Although we would have our continued membership of the EU to blame it all on.
Exactly. We're looking for a scapegoat.
We're not too interested in (difficult) solutions.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
In more Bonkers News (real or imagined) from the Tory war-room Kemi Badenoch has hit out at Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever for focusing on 'social justice at the expense of profits'.
As Bernard Manning (or similar) once said. 'You Couldn't Make it Up!'
This is a Priti Patel battle. KB strikes me more and more as a PP mini me. Not in a good way.
Do we really believe B&J are focussing on social justice at expense of profits, or it’s a glib marketing campaign.
Cummings will be revealed as the Brains behind Badenoch success. As Boris exits number 10, Gove and Cummings will be entering it. Dom will probably carry the same box through the front door much like Hitler used the same rail carriage for French surrender.
Cummings is a dead duck. Utterly ineffectual trolling campaign against Johnson which contributed exactly zero to actually getting rid of him. Gove may be a different matter
Gove is such an interesting figure. Kind of a mixture of Peter Mandelson, Keith Joseph and Ken Dodd.
Apart from maybe the word 'interesting', which I would substitute for 'puzzling', that has to be one of the best sentences ever written on PB. Well done.
I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but cannot understand how Johnson's dealings with Lebedev are not in breach of the Treason Act 1351, and in particular 'adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere'. The article in yesterday's Guardian by Carole Cadwaledr gives full details
Yet another day on PB when I learn something new. When you posted this my first thought was that surely this must have been repealed/superseded long ago. But a quick Wiki (with apologies) shows it is still in force today.
I wonder what the oldest act of Parliament still in force today is?
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
Yeah. No different to anyone else. Except with less money. For more likely to hold "outdated" views the older they are. Which is logical after all.
To be clear, the left can be guilty of dehumanising the poor.
Historically, solutions were focussed on big government programmes delivered through faceless (often unaccountable) institutions with one size fits all approach.
The view that the poor need to be pitied and saved is something that I have a bit of a problem with. That patrician view is not the worst sentiment in the world (and far better than doing nothing and has delivered some great progress), but it is another form of us vs. them.
People who are poor and in the gutter are just the same as you and me. They need help and respect. They do not need to be looked down on. We are all the same and should help each other.
Sometimes I surprise myself with how much I agree with you, and you're certainly patriotic.
Maybe you and I should be a tad less partisan?
More in common.
Suspect most of us could find far more to agree on than to disagree.
Almost all of us want a better future. We just disagree about certain details of how we get there.
Tugendhat faces a round of quickfire questions. Would you intervene if China invade Taiwan? I would definitely support our Japanese, Indonesian and Philippine allies. Would you leave the European Convention on Human Rights? No. Will you build the whole of HS2? Yes. Are you fully committed by net zero by 2050? Fully committed. What I need now is the policy and the planning, and nobody has set it up yet. Would you privatise Channel 4? No Would you allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a generational decision - a generation hasn't passed. Would you work for a prime minster who has broken the law? Well I haven't worked for this one. Does the next PM have to come from outside Johnson's cabinet? We need a clean start.
It's Mordaunt's turn for a round of quickfire questions. Are there any circumstances under which you would allow another referendum on Scottish independence? It's a settled question. No. Are you committed to net zero by 2050? Yes - but it has to not clobber people and must support levelling up . Will you privatise Channel 4? Not a priority for me. Would you give Boris Johnson a cabinet position? I don't think he'd be around to serve. Will you withdraw the UK from the ECHR? No.
Tom’s answers may have been a tad stronger? But to what extent is this the candidate themself solely to blame, or the team around them can help them prepare better - rational thought through policy and strong forms of words?
Was the HS2 question not asked for Penny?
I have lifted this off of Sky, I was in a service when it was live, but it looks like they had tailored questions.
Tom is actually saying, no, I won’t help Taiwan?
The give Boris cabinet job is interesting. If he thought it was his best chance of a comeback, and Truss offered him Foreign Secretary, Boris would take it wouldn’t he? In fact right now it would sort of suit him and the Conservatives?
Foreign Secretary Boris cannot be ruled out imo.
In more Bonkers News (real or imagined) from the Tory war-room Kemi Badenoch has hit out at Ben & Jerry's owner Unilever for focusing on 'social justice at the expense of profits'.
As Bernard Manning (or similar) once said. 'You Couldn't Make it Up!'
This is a Priti Patel battle. KB strikes me more and more as a PP mini me. Not in a good way.
Do we really believe B&J are focussing on social justice at expense of profits, or it’s a glib marketing campaign.
Cummings will be revealed as the Brains behind Badenoch success. As Boris exits number 10, Gove and Cummings will be entering it. Dom will probably carry the same box through the front door much like Hitler used the same rail carriage for French surrender.
Cummings is a dead duck. Utterly ineffectual trolling campaign against Johnson which contributed exactly zero to actually getting rid of him. Gove may be a different matter
The problem with Cummings' opinions, as opposed to any revelations, is that he so clearly despises particular people it is impossible to not view his opinions on them as suspect. That applies to a degree in reverse, but he doesn't even attempt any kind of persuasiveness.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
Yeah. No different to anyone else. Except with less money. For more likely to hold "outdated" views the older they are. Which is logical after all.
To be clear, the left can be guilty of dehumanising the poor.
Historically, solutions were focussed on big government programmes delivered through faceless (often unaccountable) institutions with one size fits all approach.
The view that the poor need to be pitied and saved is something that I have a bit of a problem with. That patrician view is not the worst sentiment in the world (and far better than doing nothing and has delivered some great progress), but it is another form of us vs. them.
People who are poor and in the gutter are just the same as you and me. They need help and respect. They do not need to be looked down on. We are all the same and should help each other.
Sometimes I surprise myself with how much I agree with you, and you're certainly patriotic.
Maybe you and I should be a tad less partisan?
More in common.
Its not that far back that Supermac campaigned successfully on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his government had built. The hyper-partisan aggro only really started in the 1970s. Yes, the extremes of policy and ideology have always been there. But making them mainstream is a reasonably new phenomenon.
I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but cannot understand how Johnson's dealings with Lebedev are not in breach of the Treason Act 1351, and in particular 'adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere'. The article in yesterday's Guardian by Carole Cadwaledr gives full details
Yet another day on PB when I learn something new. When you posted this my first thought was that surely this must have been repealed/superseded long ago. But a quick Wiki (with apologies) shows it is still in force today.
I wonder what the oldest act of Parliament still in force today is?
Oo. Another quick Google. The Statute of Malborough 1267.
I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but cannot understand how Johnson's dealings with Lebedev are not in breach of the Treason Act 1351, and in particular 'adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere'. The article in yesterday's Guardian by Carole Cadwaledr gives full details
Yet another day on PB when I learn something new. When you posted this my first thought was that surely this must have been repealed/superseded long ago. But a quick Wiki (with apologies) shows it is still in force today.
I wonder what the oldest act of Parliament still in force today is?
Google states it is the Statute of Marlborough (1267), and its bits around the recovery of damages.
Kensington is going Red whatever happens, it went Red under Corbyn in 2017 it will go red again under Starmer. I don't think HYUFD has a clue about the makeup of this seat.
Only certain if the boundary changes go through and even then Kensington voters will not want to cancel ballet as it becomes the latest Woke target
What an utter load of nonsense, you've clearly spent very little time in this seat.
Kensington cares about a few things: CoL, economic competence, honesty and trust. Your party is failing on all fronts.
They are not interested in culture wars. You do not know your own voters any more.
They do care about Ballet. Voters who live in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have amongst the highest average earnings and highest education levels in the country and plenty of Tory voters there are strong supporters of high arts and cultue. Indeed that is more important for most of them than cost of living as most of them are very rich. Boris now going, dislike of his personality will also be less of an issue with the new leader.
They will not take kindly to the news that the The Northern School of Contemporary Dance (NSCD) has dropped ballet from auditions as it is rooted in “white European ideas” and "division of roles along gender lines", especially if that spreads even to the Royal Ballet School and affects their beloved Royal Opera House.
I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but cannot understand how Johnson's dealings with Lebedev are not in breach of the Treason Act 1351, and in particular 'adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere'. The article in yesterday's Guardian by Carole Cadwaledr gives full details
Yet another day on PB when I learn something new. When you posted this my first thought was that surely this must have been repealed/superseded long ago. But a quick Wiki (with apologies) shows it is still in force today.
I wonder what the oldest act of Parliament still in force today is?
Google states it is the Statute of Marlborough (1267), and its bits around the recovery of damages.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
Yeah. No different to anyone else. Except with less money. For more likely to hold "outdated" views the older they are. Which is logical after all.
To be clear, the left can be guilty of dehumanising the poor.
Historically, solutions were focussed on big government programmes delivered through faceless (often unaccountable) institutions with one size fits all approach.
The view that the poor need to be pitied and saved is something that I have a bit of a problem with. That patrician view is not the worst sentiment in the world (and far better than doing nothing and has delivered some great progress), but it is another form of us vs. them.
People who are poor and in the gutter are just the same as you and me. They need help and respect. They do not need to be looked down on. We are all the same and should help each other.
Sometimes I surprise myself with how much I agree with you, and you're certainly patriotic.
Maybe you and I should be a tad less partisan?
More in common.
Suspect most of us could find far more to agree on than to disagree.
Almost all of us want a better future. We just disagree about certain details of how we get there.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
Yeah. No different to anyone else. Except with less money. For more likely to hold "outdated" views the older they are. Which is logical after all.
To be clear, the left can be guilty of dehumanising the poor.
Historically, solutions were focussed on big government programmes delivered through faceless (often unaccountable) institutions with one size fits all approach.
The view that the poor need to be pitied and saved is something that I have a bit of a problem with. That patrician view is not the worst sentiment in the world (and far better than doing nothing and has delivered some great progress), but it is another form of us vs. them.
People who are poor and in the gutter are just the same as you and me. They need help and respect. They do not need to be looked down on. We are all the same and should help each other.
Sometimes I surprise myself with how much I agree with you, and you're certainly patriotic.
Maybe you and I should be a tad less partisan?
More in common.
Suspect most of us could find far more to agree on than to disagree.
Almost all of us want a better future. We just disagree about certain details of how we get there.
Who's the stroker who marked this 'off topic'?
You couldn't fricking get more on-topic.
It's why we're all here FFS.
Probably somebody fat fingering. Easy done on a phone.
God that is so, so strange a comment. Eerie. Dreamt last night that I was talking with Stanley Johnson. I asked him what his son was thinking of doing now he was leaving Downing Street? Regaining his place as an all-rounder in the England side in time for the Ashes was his response.
Kensington is going Red whatever happens, it went Red under Corbyn in 2017 it will go red again under Starmer. I don't think HYUFD has a clue about the makeup of this seat.
Only certain if the boundary changes go through and even then Kensington voters will not want to cancel ballet as it becomes the latest Woke target
What an utter load of nonsense, you've clearly spent very little time in this seat.
Kensington cares about a few things: CoL, economic competence, honesty and trust. Your party is failing on all fronts.
They are not interested in culture wars. You do not know your own voters any more.
They do care about Ballet. Voters who live in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have amongst the highest average earnings and highest education levels in the country and plenty of Tory voters there are strong supporters of high arts and cultue. Indeed that is more important for most of them than cost of living as most of them are very rich. Boris now going, dislike of his personality will also be less of an issue with the new leader.
They will not take kindly to the news that the The Northern School of Contemporary Dance (NSCD) has dropped ballet from auditions as it is rooted in “white European ideas” and division of roles along gender lines, especially if that spreads even to the Royal Ballet School.
Why would they care - dancers have talent regardless of the particular form they express it in. And your article says nothing about 'cancelling' ballet performances.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
Yeah. No different to anyone else. Except with less money. For more likely to hold "outdated" views the older they are. Which is logical after all.
To be clear, the left can be guilty of dehumanising the poor.
Historically, solutions were focussed on big government programmes delivered through faceless (often unaccountable) institutions with one size fits all approach.
The view that the poor need to be pitied and saved is something that I have a bit of a problem with. That patrician view is not the worst sentiment in the world (and far better than doing nothing and has delivered some great progress), but it is another form of us vs. them.
People who are poor and in the gutter are just the same as you and me. They need help and respect. They do not need to be looked down on. We are all the same and should help each other.
Sometimes I surprise myself with how much I agree with you, and you're certainly patriotic.
Maybe you and I should be a tad less partisan?
More in common.
Suspect most of us could find far more to agree on than to disagree.
Almost all of us want a better future. We just disagree about certain details of how we get there.
Labour has probably been presented here with its best chance to win an election in about 10 years. A Tory Party with no strategy and no ideas and no sense of where the country is and where it is going.
It really is judgment time for Keir Starmer, if he can emulate Wilson he will win and win big. But otherwise he will lose.
Keir I ❤️ Brexit I do Starmer - who has already blown his chance of being PM by now getting ZERO tactical votes from Lib Dems and Greens At the next election. That Keir Starmer?
If Starmer cannot win back Leave voters in the redwall for Labour he won't win no matter how many tactical votes he gets
so like CHB you think Keir has done brilliantly throwing himself in with Brexit?
I’m with Mike Smithson, I think he has made a terrible mistake, you are focussing on a few red wall voters, who could have come back even without Starmer making his mistake - Mike and myself looking how he is shredding himself with 85% of his own Party members and 66% of the country who want action on the half baked, unfinished, and **** business Brexit deal - not a do nothing approach to it.
My position is better than dopey Starmer’s. Fishing folk voted for Brexit. Fishing folk are now screwed by brexit. I just want to throw my arms around them, and help them. That is the only sane thing for opposition to say, not approach it as in or out.
New Labour-style triangulation only works when TINA, but often there is. That said, there is also something to be said for avoiding the B-word.
Labour should embrace the B-word - Make Brexit Work. Its clear to all sides that it has been a catastrofuck, we can't keep what we have and we can't rejoin. So we need something new.
That way they highlight the stupidity of the people saying it's been a great success or that it hasn't and its all the fault of EU red tape. And of the people saying FBPE just rejoin. And engages the majority in the middle who just want to get on with their lives.
My only problem with his position is saying no to the Single Market and the Customs Union. Whether we join these or not we will need a working relationship with them - which may yet be the nuanced approach but we're just guessing.
I refer you to my post on this the other day.
Strategically Starmer has placed himself in the right place on Brexit for floating voters.
But it's political: even if we were full members of the EU right now we'd still have exactly the same problems, including high inflation and depressed sterling.
Whilst I take your point about floating voters, there is a simple reality that we can't ignore - Brexit doesn't work. We first need to accept the reality of what has gone wrong with the "oven-ready deal" and then make changes.
The problem for Labour is that too many of said floating voters have been persuaded that despite the self-evident failures, any attempt to even admit these exist is seen as a "threat to Brexit", that somehow we would rejoin the EU.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
Yeah. No different to anyone else. Except with less money. For more likely to hold "outdated" views the older they are. Which is logical after all.
To be clear, the left can be guilty of dehumanising the poor.
Historically, solutions were focussed on big government programmes delivered through faceless (often unaccountable) institutions with one size fits all approach.
The view that the poor need to be pitied and saved is something that I have a bit of a problem with. That patrician view is not the worst sentiment in the world (and far better than doing nothing and has delivered some great progress), but it is another form of us vs. them.
People who are poor and in the gutter are just the same as you and me. They need help and respect. They do not need to be looked down on. We are all the same and should help each other.
Sometimes I surprise myself with how much I agree with you, and you're certainly patriotic.
Maybe you and I should be a tad less partisan?
More in common.
Suspect most of us could find far more to agree on than to disagree.
Almost all of us want a better future. We just disagree about certain details of how we get there.
Who's the stroker who marked this 'off topic'?
You couldn't fricking get more on-topic.
It's why we're all here FFS.
Fat fingers I expect.
I've been trying to pull that excuse for my posts for years.
I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but cannot understand how Johnson's dealings with Lebedev are not in breach of the Treason Act 1351, and in particular 'adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere'. The article in yesterday's Guardian by Carole Cadwaledr gives full details
Yet another day on PB when I learn something new. When you posted this my first thought was that surely this must have been repealed/superseded long ago. But a quick Wiki (with apologies) shows it is still in force today.
I wonder what the oldest act of Parliament still in force today is?
Google states it is the Statute of Marlborough (1267), and its bits around the recovery of damages.
Apparently the first statute was not passed until 1235, and Ireland has us beat with The Fairs Act 1204.
I wonder what qualifies as 'damages'? Fines for parking on private land?
I love finding out about really mundane laws from a long time ago, a reminder that even with less of a state there was still plenty of minor concerns.
I was reading a book on medieval London, and there was mention of laws against ovens (people would apparently make their dough and bring it to baker, and some were prosecuted for having a device to pinch bits of the dough), or how there were repeated laws against football, which demonstrate the law clearly wasn't being adhered to since later kings had to keep reissuing.
Kensington is going Red whatever happens, it went Red under Corbyn in 2017 it will go red again under Starmer. I don't think HYUFD has a clue about the makeup of this seat.
Only certain if the boundary changes go through and even then Kensington voters will not want to cancel ballet as it becomes the latest Woke target
What an utter load of nonsense, you've clearly spent very little time in this seat.
Kensington cares about a few things: CoL, economic competence, honesty and trust. Your party is failing on all fronts.
They are not interested in culture wars. You do not know your own voters any more.
They do care about Ballet. Voters who live in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have amongst the highest average earnings and highest education levels in the country and plenty of Tory voters there are strong supporters of high arts and cultue. Indeed that is more important for most of them than cost of living as most of them are very rich. Boris now going, dislike of his personality will also be less of an issue with the new leader.
They will not take kindly to the news that the The Northern School of Contemporary Dance (NSCD) has dropped ballet from auditions as it is rooted in “white European ideas” and "division of roles along gender lines", especially if that spreads even to the Royal Ballet School and affects their beloved Royal Opera House.
They are not going to forget about CoL and economic competence because you droned on about ballet. I can tell you for a categorical fact that this is rubbish.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
Scandinavia and Holland would beg to differ. There people's life chsnces are tilted in their favour.
Despite the rhetoric, you're much less likely to be lucky in terms of social mobility in the U.S., because in fact most of the time, it's not actually luck.
I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but cannot understand how Johnson's dealings with Lebedev are not in breach of the Treason Act 1351, and in particular 'adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere'. The article in yesterday's Guardian by Carole Cadwaledr gives full details
Yet another day on PB when I learn something new. When you posted this my first thought was that surely this must have been repealed/superseded long ago. But a quick Wiki (with apologies) shows it is still in force today.
I wonder what the oldest act of Parliament still in force today is?
Google states it is the Statute of Marlborough (1267), and its bits around the recovery of damages.
Apparently the first statute was not passed until 1235, and Ireland has us beat with The Fairs Act 1204.
I wonder what qualifies as 'damages'? Fines for parking on private land?
I love finding out about really mundane laws from a long time ago, a reminder that even with less of a state there was still plenty of minor concerns.
I was reading a book on medieval London, and there was mention of laws against ovens (people would apparently make their dough and bring it to baker, and some were prosecuted for having a device to pinch bits of the dough), or how there were repeated laws against football, which demonstrate the law clearly wasn't being adhered to since later kings had to keep reissuing.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
Scandinavia and Holland would beg to differ. There people's life chsnces are tilted in their favour.
The problem in this instance stemmed from hard drug addiction in the family, not pure capitalism (and we aren't a pure capitalist society anyway given almost 40% of gdp goes to the state).
The Netherlands taxes a laxer approach to sale of drugs than we do, Sweden's drugs policy is similar to ours and more hardline with rehabilitation too
Kensington is going Red whatever happens, it went Red under Corbyn in 2017 it will go red again under Starmer. I don't think HYUFD has a clue about the makeup of this seat.
Only certain if the boundary changes go through and even then Kensington voters will not want to cancel ballet as it becomes the latest Woke target
What an utter load of nonsense, you've clearly spent very little time in this seat.
Kensington cares about a few things: CoL, economic competence, honesty and trust. Your party is failing on all fronts.
They are not interested in culture wars. You do not know your own voters any more.
They do care about Ballet. Voters who live in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have amongst the highest average earnings and highest education levels in the country and plenty of Tory voters there are strong supporters of high arts and cultue. Indeed that is more important for most of them than cost of living as most of them are very rich. Boris now going, dislike of his personality will also be less of an issue with the new leader.
They will not take kindly to the news that the The Northern School of Contemporary Dance (NSCD) has dropped ballet from auditions as it is rooted in “white European ideas” and "division of roles along gender lines", especially if that spreads even to the Royal Ballet School and affects their beloved Royal Opera House.
We must always apply the Bonkers Tory Party Member overlay to any analysis of potential next leader.
As I keep reading (and posted yesterday an example of) there is a substantial number of such folk who viscerally despise Sunak.
I still don't understand how he has ceased to be a hard Brexiteer in their eyes. An original Brexiteer who was content with no deal. What did he do wrong? Not bonkers enough compared to your typical "hard Brexiteer"? Sounds a bit too much like Cameron and Osborne? Toppled the Brexit God?
He's in that unpleasant place one should always avoid if at all possible - between 2 stools. Stayed with Johnson so unclean to people who want to wish that whole episode away. Knifed him eventually so a sneaky traitor to those who either still like Johnson or who fetishize loyalty.
But he's in with a great chance. Gun to head he's my prediction as we speak.
Kensington is going Red whatever happens, it went Red under Corbyn in 2017 it will go red again under Starmer. I don't think HYUFD has a clue about the makeup of this seat.
Only certain if the boundary changes go through and even then Kensington voters will not want to cancel ballet as it becomes the latest Woke target
What an utter load of nonsense, you've clearly spent very little time in this seat.
Kensington cares about a few things: CoL, economic competence, honesty and trust. Your party is failing on all fronts.
They are not interested in culture wars. You do not know your own voters any more.
They do care about Ballet. Voters who live in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have amongst the highest average earnings and highest education levels in the country and plenty of Tory voters there are strong supporters of high arts and cultue. Indeed that is more important for most of them than cost of living as most of them are very rich. Boris now going, dislike of his personality will also be less of an issue with the new leader.
They will not take kindly to the news that the The Northern School of Contemporary Dance (NSCD) has dropped ballet from auditions as it is rooted in “white European ideas” and "division of roles along gender lines", especially if that spreads even to the Royal Ballet School and affects their beloved Royal Opera House.
We must always apply the Bonkers Tory Party Member overlay to any analysis of potential next leader.
As I keep reading (and posted yesterday an example of) there is a substantial number of such folk who viscerally despise Sunak.
I still don't understand how he has ceased to be a hard Brexiteer in their eyes. An original Brexiteer who was content with no deal. What did he do wrong? Not bonkers enough compared to your typical "hard Brexiteer"? Sounds a bit too much like Cameron and Osborne? Toppled the Brexit God?
He's in that unpleasant place one should always avoid if at all possible - between 2 stools. Stayed with Johnson so unclean to people who want to wish that whole episode away. Knifed him eventually so a sneaky traitor to those who either still like Johnson or who fetishize loyalty.
I think that is right, but it is still weird that that dislike has transformed into pretending he is a remainer traitor (as seen on here).
I am not a lawyer (thank goodness), but cannot understand how Johnson's dealings with Lebedev are not in breach of the Treason Act 1351, and in particular 'adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere'. The article in yesterday's Guardian by Carole Cadwaledr gives full details
Yet another day on PB when I learn something new. When you posted this my first thought was that surely this must have been repealed/superseded long ago. But a quick Wiki (with apologies) shows it is still in force today.
I wonder what the oldest act of Parliament still in force today is?
The 907 "Boris Johnson Immunity" law passed by Edward the Elder.
We must always apply the Bonkers Tory Party Member overlay to any analysis of potential next leader.
As I keep reading (and posted yesterday an example of) there is a substantial number of such folk who viscerally despise Sunak.
I still don't understand how he has ceased to be a hard Brexiteer in their eyes. An original Brexiteer who was content with no deal. What did he do wrong? Not bonkers enough compared to your typical "hard Brexiteer"? Sounds a bit too much like Cameron and Osborne? Toppled the Brexit God?
He's in that unpleasant place one should always avoid if at all possible - between 2 stools. Stayed with Johnson so unclean to people who want to wish that whole episode away. Knifed him eventually so a sneaky traitor to those who either still like Johnson or who fetishize loyalty.
I think that is right, but it is still weird that that dislike has transformed into pretending he is a remainer traitor (as seen on here).
Boris is both Borilicious in his own right, and the one true parfit embodiment of Brexit. You cannot knife the man without knifing the creed.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
Thanks. I was trying to reflect on the politics of it, and what I would loosely term as 'my side' of politics doesn't have much of an answer to this situation. We can discourage it from arising by criminalising drugs and disincentivising the likes of his mother from having children, but that's never going to be wholly successful and isn't much consolation for the likes of this fella. But I don't think the left have a solution for this either apart from providing more resources for looking after the discarded pieces. Ultimately, politics mainly deals with the middle 96% and cases like this are perhaps more properly the domain of charity. (In Mamchester, we have a number of organisations dealing with matters of the bottom 2%, one of which is Big Change Manchester, which I think does a good job - I'm sure other cities have their equivalents. ) One cheerier note, I have just bought a birthday card for my Dad from WHSmith. It featured a Matt cartoon. The assistant behind the counter was an antithesis of daily Telegraph reader - young, male, vaguely gothic, sparkly nail varnish - but enthusiastically announced that that was his favourite range and he absolutloves those cartoons. So perhaps the UK does still have something to hold us together: Matt cartoons.
I would say that the first step is to avoid any politics that uses the poor as a scapegoat or dehumanises them. The poor are not scroungers or lazy. They are us. We are not where they are because of the roll of the dice.
Once you establish that, you can move forward.
Yeah. No different to anyone else. Except with less money. For more likely to hold "outdated" views the older they are. Which is logical after all.
To be clear, the left can be guilty of dehumanising the poor.
Historically, solutions were focussed on big government programmes delivered through faceless (often unaccountable) institutions with one size fits all approach.
The view that the poor need to be pitied and saved is something that I have a bit of a problem with. That patrician view is not the worst sentiment in the world (and far better than doing nothing and has delivered some great progress), but it is another form of us vs. them.
People who are poor and in the gutter are just the same as you and me. They need help and respect. They do not need to be looked down on. We are all the same and should help each other.
Sometimes I surprise myself with how much I agree with you, and you're certainly patriotic.
Maybe you and I should be a tad less partisan?
More in common.
Its not that far back that Supermac campaigned successfully on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his government had built. The hyper-partisan aggro only really started in the 1970s. Yes, the extremes of policy and ideology have always been there. But making them mainstream is a reasonably new phenomenon.
Zinoviev Letter? General Strike?
I was talking post-war modern period. But you could argue that there was a consensus pre-WWII as well - Labour couldn't be trusted. A couple of brief periods in office surrounded by Lib/Con/National governments who all agreed that Labour were mentalists.
Jesus Christ. In case anyone was feeling unduly chipper, let me relate a conversation I just had. Walking down Great Ducie Street, Manchester, I saw an altercation between a gaunt looking fella in a tracksuit and a shabby looking old woman. I caught the eye of the fella, who apologised, and, in step, going in the same direction, explained himself: that was his mum, she was on heroin and couldn't sort himself out, and he was looking like being made homeless because she kept going round to his flat and causing trouble. And he was almost totally blind, as was his sister, having been born to a woman on heroin. And he had almost no teeth, since being hit in the face with a tire iron six months ago. And just one thing after another. Here was a fella who life took one gigantic shit on at the start followed by a succession of smaller but still substantial ones regularly along the way. I say this not to make any particular point but just to reflect on how unbelievably awful some people have it.
A terrible tale. When I hear it, it reminds me why I vote Labour, that capitalism is not enough and that socialism would make a big difference. Capitalism is not kind to people who have bad luck.
However, I also remember that history shows us that no single political ideology or that government has all the answers. So it's not as simple as voting left and all will be well. We need balance.
So I really hope, somehow miraculously, our overall political culture manages to extract the best of right and left and maybe some new ideas and finds a way to make a better life for people with terrible luck.
It's not really possible to make life better for people who don't have any luck. The best that can be done for those people is to believe that their luck can change.
Scandinavia and Holland would beg to differ. There people's life chsnces are tilted in their favour.
Despite the rhetoric, you're much less likely to be lucky in terms of social mobility in the U.S., because in fact most of the time, it's not actually luck.
It is good to want to uplift people, but sometimes you can't. All you can really do is offer assistance and cooperation in their own decision to improve their life.
Kensington is going Red whatever happens, it went Red under Corbyn in 2017 it will go red again under Starmer. I don't think HYUFD has a clue about the makeup of this seat.
Only certain if the boundary changes go through and even then Kensington voters will not want to cancel ballet as it becomes the latest Woke target
What an utter load of nonsense, you've clearly spent very little time in this seat.
Kensington cares about a few things: CoL, economic competence, honesty and trust. Your party is failing on all fronts.
They are not interested in culture wars. You do not know your own voters any more.
They do care about Ballet. Voters who live in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have amongst the highest average earnings and highest education levels in the country and plenty of Tory voters there are strong supporters of high arts and cultue. Indeed that is more important for most of them than cost of living as most of them are very rich. Boris now going, dislike of his personality will also be less of an issue with the new leader.
They will not take kindly to the news that the The Northern School of Contemporary Dance (NSCD) has dropped ballet from auditions as it is rooted in “white European ideas” and "division of roles along gender lines", especially if that spreads even to the Royal Ballet School and affects their beloved Royal Opera House.
They are not going to forget about CoL and economic competence because you droned on about ballet. I can tell you for a categorical fact that this is rubbish.
Most 2019 Tory voters there will, for them CoL is not much of an issue as they are very rich, Brexit is an issue as most of them were Remainers admittedly but they also like the high arts and want to protect them.
Remember the Tories kept control of Kensington and Chelsea council even in this year's local elections when they suffered lost councils elsewhere in London and the South
Yes. Places in the West, like Bath, will be a touch cooler, but still very hot on Tuesday, whereas places in the East will be even hotter on Tuesday.
Fairly decent chance that the UK temperature record will be broken tomorrow, and then broken again on Tuesday, the second time over 40C
Cornwall's the place to be. Although the lucky holidaymakers who chose now to go there won't have done it in the expectation that it would be the coldest place in England, of course, it will nonetheless come as a blessed relief.
Comments
We need more quickfire questions like these. It's a great way to narrow the field. The ECHR question is pivotal and Rwanda would be another. Separates the sane from the fruitcakes.
I’m with Mike Smithson, I think he has made a terrible mistake, you are focussing on a few red wall voters, who could have come back even without Starmer making his mistake - Mike and myself looking how he is shredding himself with 85% of his own Party members and 66% of the country who want action on the half baked, unfinished, and **** business Brexit deal - not a do nothing approach to it.
My position is better than dopey Starmer’s. Fishing folk voted for Brexit. Fishing folk are now screwed by brexit. I just want to throw my arms around them, and help them. That is the only sane thing for opposition to say, not approach it as in or out.
"I bet you had decent parents, didn't you?", he said to me. Well, yes, as it happens. But every single person I know had parents who were clearly far better suited to being parents than this fella did. Despite all this, he still appeared to love her.
As you say, the roll of a dice. Some are very very lucky, most of us do ok. Some get a really really shitty one.
This is a massive faux pas in Germany
https://twitter.com/derjamesjackson/status/1548622017267630081
As I keep reading (and posted yesterday an example of) there is a substantial number of such folk who viscerally despise Sunak.
Historically, solutions were focussed on big government programmes delivered through faceless (often unaccountable) institutions with one size fits all approach.
The view that the poor need to be pitied and saved is something that I have a bit of a problem with. That patrician view is not the worst sentiment in the world (and far better than doing nothing and has delivered some great progress), but it is another form of us vs. them.
People who are poor and in the gutter are just the same as you and me. They need help and respect. They do not need to be looked down on. We are all the same and should help each other.
I don’t know if he can become PM from here this time, but there is no doubt at all Tom Tugendhat has won the actual campaign hands down.
I mean, how could TSE and HY both have called it wrong to start with?
I suspect she hasn't given much thought recently as to which taxes, or why, or the downsides, or what they might achieve for your ordinary person?
It's not dissimilar to those who say what we need is Socialism.
If the answer to that question is no, then Labour's task is a lot easier considering the age/party affiliation disparity that now exists.
It's easy to talk of "ordinary voters" but what this actually means is "middle aged voters".
Stupidity at Old Trafford. All the scoreboards say "drinks" so no-one knows what the score is.
The Tories, especially of the more loopy variety, would like nothing more than an excuse to use Brexit as a campaign theme yet again, and Starmer knows it.
Instead they are much more comfortable with a single toolkit and applying it to each and every economic, social, technological and demographic scenario for their whole lifetime. It is madness.
So decided not to bang on about it incessantly.
"What we need is more Brexit. It hasn't been tried yet" type thing.
That way they highlight the stupidity of the people saying it's been a great success or that it hasn't and its all the fault of EU red tape. And of the people saying FBPE just rejoin. And engages the majority in the middle who just want to get on with their lives.
My only problem with his position is saying no to the Single Market and the Customs Union. Whether we join these or not we will need a working relationship with them - which may yet be the nuanced approach but we're just guessing.
Maybe you and I should be a tad less partisan?
More in common.
We've made a massive mistake sine WW2 in converting lots of these upland areas into monoculture forestry. If you want 'not muc flora or fauna', walk through an upland coniferous woodland. Rows of closely-packed trees, and underfoot a thick carpet of brown pine needles, with only the occasional fern and red mushroom to add colour.
Strategically Starmer has placed himself in the right place on Brexit for floating voters.
But it's political: even if we were full members of the EU right now we'd still have exactly the same problems, including high inflation and depressed sterling.
Kensington cares about a few things: CoL, economic competence, honesty and trust. Your party is failing on all fronts.
They are not interested in culture wars. You do not know your own voters any more.
'You are in favour of the common people?’ said Dragon mildly.
‘The common people?’ said Vimes. ‘They’re nothing special. They’re no different from the rich and powerful except they’ve got no money or power. But the law should be there to balance things up a bit.'
There was no difference at all between the richest man and the poorest beggar, apart from the fact that the former had lots of money, food, power, fine clothes, and good health. But at least he wasn’t any better.
Making Brexit work is Labour's best chance, let's have some state aid policies to get renewables going, for example.
The article in yesterday's Guardian by Carole Cadwaledr gives full details
Is he playing 7d chess on this one? His Badenoch move certainly looks strong right now. Perhaps he'll emerge as Chancellor to whoever wins.
Must be a record.
We're not too interested in (difficult) solutions.
Fairly decent chance that the UK temperature record will be broken tomorrow, and then broken again on Tuesday, the second time over 40C
I wonder what the oldest act of Parliament still in force today is?
Almost all of us want a better future. We just disagree about certain details of how we get there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Marlborough
BorisEoin Morgan.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Marlborough#1,_4,_and_15_(Distress_Act_1267)
Apparently the first statute was not passed until 1235, and Ireland has us beat with The Fairs Act 1204.
They will not take kindly to the news that the The Northern School of Contemporary Dance (NSCD) has dropped ballet from auditions as it is rooted in “white European ideas” and "division of roles along gender lines", especially if that spreads even to the Royal Ballet School and affects their beloved Royal Opera House.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/16/woke-dance-school-drops-ballet-auditions-white-elitist/
You couldn't fricking get more on-topic.
It's why we're all here FFS.
30C and a light breeze is bloody lovely.
Dreamt last night that I was talking with Stanley Johnson. I asked him what his son was thinking of doing now he was leaving Downing Street?
Regaining his place as an all-rounder in the England side in time for the Ashes was his response.
The problem for Labour is that too many of said floating voters have been persuaded that despite the self-evident failures, any attempt to even admit these exist is seen as a "threat to Brexit", that somehow we would rejoin the EU.
I was reading a book on medieval London, and there was mention of laws against ovens (people would apparently make their dough and bring it to baker, and some were prosecuted for having a device to pinch bits of the dough), or how there were repeated laws against football, which demonstrate the law clearly wasn't being adhered to since later kings had to keep reissuing.
Despite the rhetoric, you're much less likely to be lucky in terms of social mobility in the U.S., because in fact most of the time, it's not actually luck.
https://co-curate.ncl.ac.uk/hearse-house-and-kings-oven-corbridge/
The Netherlands taxes a laxer approach to sale of drugs than we do, Sweden's drugs policy is similar to ours and more hardline with rehabilitation too
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GCunS_5nXkYmzxOkCOXQN3xzOt8gTCyIEpUClP7VjwY/edit#gid=0
But he's in with a great chance. Gun to head he's my prediction as we speak.
Remember the Tories kept control of Kensington and Chelsea council even in this year's local elections when they suffered lost councils elsewhere in London and the South
Sunak 2.88
Mordaunt 2.94
Truss 6.8
Badenoch 8.4
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.160663234