Not sure Lord Adonis has quite got the hang of this 'democracy' thing:
Brexit is a dangerous populist and nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump. After the narrow referendum vote for an undefined proposition to ‘leave the EU,’ it could have been attempted without rupturing our essential European trade and political relations. However, by becoming the voice of UKIP and the extreme nationalist right-wing of your party, you have taken a different course, for which you have no parliamentary or popular mandate.
A responsible government should be seeking to persuade the British people to stay in Europe while also tackling, with massive vigour, the social and economic problems within Britain which led to the narrow referendum result of eighteen months ago, particularly in our many desperately poor towns, cities and regions.
Funnily enough, the drop in the value of Sterling is helping some of these poorer Leave-voting areas, by boosting manufacturing exports (helping industrial towns ) and tourism and hospitality (helping Coastal resorts). But, I doubt if Lord Adonis is happy with that.
Read some of the comments on here with its "one more heave" mentality. Look at some of the videos on Youtube of the hubristic Labour conference. Listen to the songs to Corbyn.
Your last sentence bears me out. 2017 saw Labour lose its third successive general election defeat with a tally of seats little higher than when it lost power under Gordon Brown in 2010. It saw the Tory vote rise to Margaret Thatcher levels in 1987. The voters did that.
Today's Corbynistas may well see exceeding the rock bottom expectations as being a cause of celebration (and lets not forget Corbyn himself believed he was leading Labour to catastrophic defeat but was prepared to continue over the abyss). But in my day we celebrated Labour victories and did not go into a state of hubris at yet another defeat.
I suppose one person's hubris is another's surprise and relief. You compare apples with oranges in your example. Just as easy to say the Labour vote rose to 2001 levels, while the Tory seat share fell to only just exceed 2010 levels. And, yes, the voters did that, too. I still see no "celebration". I see a Government utterly bereft of ideas beyond Brexit. Once that is done what will they do then? Even they don't seem to know.
What do you suggest by the way? Ditch Corbyn you will say. How? When? Who instead?
If you scroll to the bottom and hit "344 days", you can see what previous presidents were on at the same point: Obama +6% (and that after the worst crash since the depression), Bush Jr +70% (post 9/11), Clinton +17%, etc etc. Going back as far as Truman, no other President was in the negative at this stage.
If he was as preternaturally useless in that role as he was when Tony Blair's education guru, he won't be any loss.
He is correct about how the East Coast main line has been dealt with.
He wasn't a bad Sec of State for Transport, in fairness.
But when it came to education he was more clueless than Michael Gove and his influence was only less disastrous because for all his ego he couldn't actually do much.
Osborne has been known to splash the paper on a minor story criticising the prime minister rather than a more newsworthy alternative. Take the Standard's exclusive interview with the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, which delivered the arresting headline "Don't expect police to come out after a crime if you're healthy, middle-aged and speak good English." Osborne buried it on page six and used "Boris jibe at May's election blunder" on the front page. The next day, competing papers led with the policing story.
I see a Government utterly bereft of ideas beyond Brexit. Once that is done what will they do then? Even they don't seem to know.
What are Labour's ideas to improve matters? Serious question. Just to look at some of their key ideas from the last manifesto:
1) massive increases in borrowing to pay for capital expenditure - the latter not defined;
2) Free school meals for every child - this to be paid for by extra taxes on private schools. In another part of the manifesto, they outlined further taxes that would have instantly closed almost every private school;
3) Renationalising of key industries, without compensation, which would have royally buggered every pension fund in the land;
4) Free university tuition, and some unspecified mechanism to 'deal with' student debt - neither having been costed, Corbyn later (conveniently, after the election) admitted neither was affordable.
So we are stuck with a government with an idee fixee and a few domestic crumbs, or voting for a bunch of people who obviously have no clue what they are talking about but who admit their own policies are unworkable and would crash the economy.
I know sometimes how poor old Hobson felt when Mossop delivered his ultimatum.
If anyone got onto any bet for May outlasting Mugabe and Merkel earlier in the year, they deserve to be PB Nostradamus of the year! Who would have thought that in July?
Not sure Lord Adonis has quite got the hang of this 'democracy' thing:
Brexit is a dangerous populist and nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump. After the narrow referendum vote for an undefined proposition to ‘leave the EU,’ it could have been attempted without rupturing our essential European trade and political relations. However, by becoming the voice of UKIP and the extreme nationalist right-wing of your party, you have taken a different course, for which you have no parliamentary or popular mandate.
A responsible government should be seeking to persuade the British people to stay in Europe while also tackling, with massive vigour, the social and economic problems within Britain which led to the narrow referendum result of eighteen months ago, particularly in our many desperately poor towns, cities and regions.
Adonis favours the Platonic government of a wise aristocracy.
One of the nastiest elitist members of the last Labour cabal. Why any Tory (or any future Corbyn government in their right minds would let him anywhere near any government job is beyond me.
I doubt it will happen but my hope is that he now sinks into a well deserved obscurity.
So what view are we taking of the cricket now? I think I saw someone (Sandpit?) on the previous thread saying to back the draw but I'm not so sure. Hot day expected in Brisbane. They may well get a full day's play in, and then some because of the time lost already. Fifth day wicket, and Smith/Warner aside the Aussie batting isn't that great.
Read some of the comments on here with its "one more heave" mentality. Look at some of the videos on Youtube of the hubristic Labour conference. Listen to the songs to Corbyn.
Your last sentence bears me out. 2017 saw Labour lose its third successive general election defeat with a tally of seats little higher than when it lost power under Gordon Brown in 2010. It saw the Tory vote rise to Margaret Thatcher levels in 1987. The voters did that.
Today's Corbynistas may well see exceeding the rock bottom expectations as being a cause of celebration (and lets not forget Corbyn himself believed he was leading Labour to catastrophic defeat but was prepared to continue over the abyss). But in my day we celebrated Labour victories and did not go into a state of hubris at yet another defeat.
I suppose one person's hubris is another's surprise and relief. You compare apples with oranges in your example. Just as easy to say the Labour vote rose to 2001 levels, while the Tory seat share fell to only just exceed 2010 levels. And, yes, the voters did that, too. I still see no "celebration". I see a Government utterly bereft of ideas beyond Brexit. Once that is done what will they do then? Even they don't seem to know.
What do you suggest by the way? Ditch Corbyn you will say. How? When? Who instead?
Politics is not about relief at losing, it is about winning.
The Labour precentage rose but we do not elect governments by percentage of the vote -we need PR for that. We elect governments by the number of seats won and Corbyn did not even come close.Corbyn's % rose because he piled up votes uselessly in seats Labour already held, and because he won a handful of seats mainly in university towns.
I see a Tory government full of vile ideas. But I also see a Corbyn opposition which is nothing but postures, which promises the Earth but hasnt a clue how to economically deliver them, and I see a Labour leader of the hard left, with no real ability, good at organising protests but quite unfit to be prime minister and with no appeal to moderate voters necessary to win marginal seats in middle England crucial for victory. I do not see an Attlee, a Wilson, a Blair or a Smith in Jeremy Corbyn. I see a army of Corbyn fanatics who chant slogans and sing songs and I look at their faces and see something ugly and dangerous, something from long ago.......
Ditch Corbyn. Now. Replace him not with a Blairite, but with someone from the mainstream, someone in the tradition of Wilson and Smith. I prefer Emily Thornberry because although Corbynistas think she is one of themselves, she is not. She is not of the hard left, but a moderate traditionalist, and under her leadership I believe that Labour win those extra marginal seats.
I believe that under Jeremy Corbyn, defeat is inevitable.
So what view are we taking of the cricket now? I think I saw someone (Sandpit?) on the previous thread saying to back the draw but I'm not so sure. Hot day expected in Brisbane. They may well get a full day's play in, and then some because of the time lost already. Fifth day wicket, and Smith/Warner aside the Aussie batting isn't that great.
I think 3/1 England looks worth taking.
If we can get Warner and/or Smith out inside the first half an hour, and the other before lunch, we should win. There are only two batsmen to come - the Marsh brothers - and neither is especially good. The tail is very long and looks longer without Starc, who can at least hold a bat.
However, nobody has got rich in recent years by betting on Smith being out cheaply.
I see a Government utterly bereft of ideas beyond Brexit. Once that is done what will they do then? Even they don't seem to know.
What are Labour's ideas to improve matters? Serious question. Just to look at some of their key ideas from the last manifesto:
1) massive increases in borrowing to pay for capital expenditure - the latter not defined;
2) Free school meals for every child - this to be paid for by extra taxes on private schools. In another part of the manifesto, they outlined further taxes that would have instantly closed almost every private school;
3) Renationalising of key industries, without compensation, which would have royally buggered every pension fund in the land;
4) Free university tuition, and some unspecified mechanism to 'deal with' student debt - neither having been costed, Corbyn later (conveniently, after the election) admitted neither was affordable.
So we are stuck with a government with an idee fixee and a few domestic crumbs, or voting for a bunch of people who obviously have no clue what they are talking about but who admit their own policies are unworkable and would crash the economy.
I know sometimes how poor old Hobson felt when Mossop delivered his ultimatum.
All fair questions. My opinion FWIW is the old maxim holds true. Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Had Corbyn squeaked over the line, and he was not very far from a minority, it would have been because of A piss-poor Con manifesto. A robotic and tin-eared PM. A refusal to recognise as issues, let alone do anything about, the problems of wages, student debt and Housing. Various idiotic ideas such as fox-hunting.
For as long as Jeremy Their real problems will not begin until the UK has left the EU and Labour has a new leader.
I think you are correct.However every call you have made on Corbyn from winning the Labour leadership in 2015, to the GE result in June 17 you and the great and good have
I admit so did I.Could hardly believe the exit poll.It makes me very wary of predicting any result.Especially if the people who say they are Labour actually turnout in large numbers.
That exit poll was my political highlight of the last 10 years. I could not believe it and the joy it brought me as it turned out to be true was immense. What a night it was to see the electorate reject May's Brexit vision.
Except Corbyn's Brexit 'vision' is now little different from May's
Thanks to the election May has certainly had to change tack and will no doubt continue to do so as we move towards the softest and fluffiest of Brexits.
Not the softest no. The softest would require the UK to accept freedom of movement. Neither party would dare do that. But a Norway minus freedom of movement deal with the UK aligned to EU regulations, but which allows us to make separate trade deals with other countries is the most likely outcome. If Remoaners want to call that "soft", so be it.
Ending freedom of movement covers a multitude of sins. We could restrict it tomorrow while remaining inside the EU, for example.
How?
I find it fascinating how many now argue that what we want to do post Brexit (blue passports and immigration restrictions) could have been done had we remained anyway.
If there was a way David Cameron would have bitten your hand off in the final month of the campaign when Remain was heavily losing on that line. Precisely no-one argued this prior to the vote.
The problem was that it is difficult to restrict access to benefits for UK natives in the way this is commonly done in other EU countries and which makes them less attractive to EU immigrants - among other things. The EU must take a lot of the blame as they gave Cameron nada to work with as they, like he, did not believe they'd lose the vote.
Not sure Lord Adonis has quite got the hang of this 'democracy' thing:
Brexit is a dangerous populist and nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump. After the narrow referendum vote for an undefined proposition to ‘leave the EU,’ it could have been attempted without rupturing our essential European trade and political relations. However, by becoming the voice of UKIP and the extreme nationalist right-wing of your party, you have taken a different course, for which you have no parliamentary or popular mandate.
A responsible government should be seeking to persuade the British people to stay in Europe while also tackling, with massive vigour, the social and economic problems within Britain which led to the narrow referendum result of eighteen months ago, particularly in our many desperately poor towns, cities and regions.
I see a Government utterly bereft of ideas beyond Brexit. Once that is done what will they do then? Even they don't seem to know.
What are Labour's ideas to improve matters? Serious question. Just to look at some of their key ideas from the last manifesto:
1) massive increases in borrowing to pay for capital expenditure - the latter not defined;
2) Free school meals for every child - this to be paid for by extra taxes on private schools. In another part of the manifesto, they outlined further taxes that would have instantly closed almost every private school;
3) Renationalising of key industries, without compensation, which would have royally buggered every pension fund in the land;
4) Free university tuition, and some unspecified mechanism to 'deal with' student debt - neither having been costed, Corbyn later (conveniently, after the election) admitted neither was affordable.
So we are stuck with a government with an idee fixee and a few domestic crumbs, or voting for a bunch of people who obviously have no clue what they are talking about but who admit their own policies are unworkable and would crash the economy.
I know sometimes how poor old Hobson felt when Mossop delivered his ultimatum.
All fair questions. My opinion FWIW is the old maxim holds true. Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Had Corbyn squeaked over the line, and he was not very far from a minority, it would have been because of A piss-poor Con manifesto. A robotic and tin-eared PM. A refusal to recognise as issues, let alone do anything about, the problems of wages, student debt and Housing. Various idiotic ideas such as fox-hunting.
Rather than anything Labour said or did.
Good answer.
My worry is however that if Labour win by default, having fed (a) extremism and (b) wholly unrealistic expectations, something really nasty could happen. I would like, as with stevef, to see a really good Labour Opposition emerge to capitalise on the government's weakness (although I have to say Thornberry, who has many of Corbyn's drawbacks but few of his strengths, would not be my answer).
I do think that oppositions have to be ready to take power before governments lose elections - for example, this year, 1992 and 2005 should have been open goals for the opposition if government ineptitude was the only criteria. Instead it was 1979, 1997 and 2010 (just) after years of painful and difficult choices by the opposition to steer to the centre that saw changes of government. At the moment Labour are industriously doing the opposite.
Politics is not about relief at losing, it is about winning.
The Labour precentage rose but we do not elect governments by percentage of the vote -we need PR for that. We elect governments by the number of seats won and Corbyn did not even come close.Corbyn's % rose because he piled up votes uselessly in seats Labour already held, and because he won a handful of seats mainly in university towns.
I see a Tory government full of vile ideas. But I also see a Corbyn opposition which is nothing but postures, which promises the Earth but hasnt a clue how to economically deliver them, and I see a Labour leader of the hard left, with no real ability, good at organising protests but quite unfit to be prime minister and with no appeal to moderate voters necessary to win marginal seats in middle England crucial for victory. I do not see an Attlee, a Wilson, a Blair or a Smith in Jeremy Corbyn. I see a army of Corbyn fanatics who chant slogans and sing songs and I look at their faces and see something ugly and dangerous, something from long ago.......
Ditch Corbyn. Now. Replace him not with a Blairite, but with someone from the mainstream, someone in the tradition of Wilson and Smith. I prefer Emily Thornberry because although Corbynistas think she is one of themselves, she is not. She is not of the hard left, but a moderate traditionalist, and under her leadership I believe that Labour win those extra marginal seats.
I believe that under Jeremy Corbyn, defeat is inevitable
So what view are we taking of the cricket now? I think I saw someone (Sandpit?) on the previous thread saying to back the draw but I'm not so sure. Hot day expected in Brisbane. They may well get a full day's play in, and then some because of the time lost already. Fifth day wicket, and Smith/Warner aside the Aussie batting isn't that great.
I see a Government utterly bereft of ideas beyond Brexit. Once that is done what will they do then? Even they don't seem to know.
What are Labour's ideas to improve matters? Serious question. Just to look at some of their key ideas from the last manifesto:
1) massive increases in borrowing to pay for capital expenditure - the latter not defined;
2) Free school meals for every child - this to be paid for by extra taxes on private schools. In another part of the manifesto, they outlined further taxes that would have instantly closed almost every private school;
3) Renationalising of key industries, without compensation, which would have royally buggered every pension fund in the land;
4) Free university tuition, and some unspecified mechanism to 'deal with' student debt - neither having been costed, Corbyn later (conveniently, after the election) admitted neither was affordable.
So we are stuck with a government with an idee fixee and a few domestic crumbs, or voting for a bunch of people who obviously have no clue what they are talking about but who admit their own policies are unworkable and would crash the economy.
I know sometimes how poor old Hobson felt when Mossop delivered his ultimatum.
All fair questions. My opinion FWIW is the old maxim holds true. Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Had Corbyn squeaked over the line, and he was not very far from a minority, it would have been because of A piss-poor Con manifesto. A robotic and tin-eared PM. A refusal to recognise as issues, let alone do anything about, the problems of wages, student debt and Housing. Various idiotic ideas such as fox-hunting.
Rather than anything Labour said or did.
Good answer.
My worry is however that if Labour win by default, having fed (a) extremism and (b) wholly unrealistic expectations, something really nasty could happen. I would like, as with stevef, to see a really good Labour Opposition emerge to capitalise on the government's weakness (although I have to say Thornberry, who has many of Corbyn's drawbacks but few of his strengths, would not be my answer).
I do think that oppositions have to be ready to take power before governments lose elections - for example, this year, 1992 and 2005 should have been open goals for the opposition if government ineptitude was the only criteria. Instead it was 1979, 1997 and 2010 (just) after years of painful and difficult choices by the opposition to steer to the centre that saw changes of government. At the moment Labour are industriously doing the opposite.
Well we'll see. Labour are not the only ones who could be accused of feeding unrealistic expectations...
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
My worry is however that if Labour win by default, having fed (a) extremism and (b) wholly unrealistic expectations, something really nasty could happen. I would like, as with stevef, to see a really good Labour Opposition emerge to capitalise on the government's weakness (although I have to say Thornberry, who has many of Corbyn's drawbacks but few of his strengths, would not be my answer).
I do think that oppositions have to be ready to take power before governments lose elections - for example, this year, 1992 and 2005 should have been open goals for the opposition if government ineptitude was the only criteria. Instead it was 1979, 1997 and 2010 (just) after years of painful and difficult choices by the opposition to steer to the centre that saw changes of government. At the moment Labour are industriously doing the opposite.
Well we'll see. Labour are not the only ones who could be accused of feeding unrealistic expectations...
Indeed yes. One reason why May and Corbyn are such utterly inappropriate leaders for their parties at this time is that they both appeal to the flanks of their parties. As a result they are increasing fissures in the country rather than making any meaningful attempt to draw them together.
Sadly this is the moment where I must admit I can't think of any politician who wouldn't be at least as divisive in either party.
So what view are we taking of the cricket now? I think I saw someone (Sandpit?) on the previous thread saying to back the draw but I'm not so sure. Hot day expected in Brisbane. They may well get a full day's play in, and then some because of the time lost already. Fifth day wicket, and Smith/Warner aside the Aussie batting isn't that great.
I think 3/1 England looks worth taking.
I thought the test was at Melbourne
Which might explain why the weather isn't so good as I thought it would be. Cough. Sorry folks.
But still pretty good in Mebourne, and I fancy England's chances if they get a full day's play in.
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
I find it very difficult to believe he has only just found this out. Given that, I am struggling with the idea he has genuinely quit over Brexit.
So what view are we taking of the cricket now? I think I saw someone (Sandpit?) on the previous thread saying to back the draw but I'm not so sure. Hot day expected in Brisbane. They may well get a full day's play in, and then some because of the time lost already. Fifth day wicket, and Smith/Warner aside the Aussie batting isn't that great.
I think 3/1 England looks worth taking.
I thought the test was at Melbourne
Which might explain why the weather isn't so good as I thought it would be. Cough. Sorry folks.
But still pretty good in Mebourne, and I fancy England's chances if they get a full day's play in.
Melbourne is a great City to visit but it's weather depends on whether it is blowing hot air from the interior or cold from the Antarctica
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
I find it very difficult to believe he has only just found this out. Given that, I am struggling with the idea he has genuinely quit over Brexit.
Oh I'm sure his flexible opinions have not suddenly found their breaking point. Even a careerist can be right though.
I see a Government utterly bereft of ideas beyond Brexit. Once that is done what will they do then? Even they don't seem to know.
What are Labour's ideas to improve matters? Serious question. Just to look at some of their key ideas from the last manifesto:
1) massive increases in borrowing to pay for capital expenditure - the latter not defined;
2) Free school meals for every child - this to be paid for by extra taxes on private schools. In another part of the manifesto, they outlined further taxes that would have instantly closed almost every private school;
3) Renationalising of key industries, without compensation, which would have royally buggered every pension fund in the land;
4) Free university tuition, and some unspecified mechanism to 'deal with' student debt - neither having been costed, Corbyn later (conveniently, after the election) admitted neither was affordable.
So we are stuck with a government with an idee fixee and a few domestic crumbs, or voting for a bunch of people who obviously have no clue what they are talking about but who admit their own policies are unworkable and would crash the economy.
I know sometimes how poor old Hobson felt when Mossop delivered his ultimatum.
What was the Conservatives' key policy in the general election? Brexit. Let us know how they costed it in their manifesto, and how they proposed to pay for it.
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
No he is not - he is an EU fanatic just as objectionable as Farage but on opposite ends of the argument
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
No he is not - he is an EU fanatic just as objectionable as Farage but on opposite ends of the argument
Ironically, they are, but only because UKIP's 2015 manifesto's headline commitments were not really the core of the party's support:
• Invest an extra £12 billion into the NHS; put £5.2 billion more into social care; build a dedicated military hospital and abolish hospital parking charges • End income tax on the minimum wage; cut income taxes for middle earners; scrap inheritance tax; abolish the ‘bedroom tax’ and increase the transferable personal tax allowance for married couples and civil partners • Fund 6,000 additional posts spread between the police service, the prison service andthe Border Agency • Cut business rates for small businesses • Waive tuition fees for students taking a degree in science; technology; engineering; maths or medicine • Increase defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP to honour our NATO obligations • Invest £1.5 billion into mental health and dementia services • Pay carers an extra £572 a year • Build 500 affordable rent homes every year and eight halfway house hostels for homeless veterans • Remove stamp duty on the first £250,000 for new homes built on brownfield sites.
Interesting resignation broadside from Adonis. By attempting to out Theresa as a Kipper and Trumpite, he's clearly reviving the New Labour tactic of painting the Tories as part of the lunatic fringe. The problem for the Tories is that - with Rees-Mogg, Boris etc. on the loose - this accusation seems far from fantastic.
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
No he is not - he is an EU fanatic just as objectionable as Farage but on opposite ends of the argument
So does anybody here have the inside track on the weather in Melbourne tomorrow? The BBC Site suggests there will a a full day's play or close to it, but I don't trust it. They've been known to get the weather wrong outside their own front door.
So we are stuck with a government with an idee fixee and a few domestic crumbs, or voting for a bunch of people who obviously have no clue what they are talking about but who admit their own policies are unworkable and would crash the economy.
I know sometimes how poor old Hobson felt when Mossop delivered his ultimatum.
What was the Conservatives' key policy in the general election? Brexit. Let us know how they costed it in their manifesto, and how they proposed to pay for it.
John
Please expand that comment and read the bit in bold.
Interesting resignation broadside from Adonis. By attempting to out Theresa as a Kipper and Trumpite, he's clearly reviving the New Labour tactic of painting the Tories as part of the lunatic fringe. The problem for the Tories is that - with Rees-Mogg, Boris etc. on the loose - this accusation seems far from fantastic.
Interesting resignation broadside from Adonis. By attempting to out Theresa as a Kipper and Trumpite, he's clearly reviving the New Labour tactic of painting the Tories as part of the lunatic fringe. The problem for the Tories is that - with Rees-Mogg, Boris etc. on the loose - this accusation seems far from fantastic.
New Labour could pose as the sane and responsible contrast - whether it was true or not.
Corbyn can't do that. In fact, in a choice between Rees-Mogg and Corbyn the former would probably still win.
Interesting resignation broadside from Adonis. By attempting to out Theresa as a Kipper and Trumpite, he's clearly reviving the New Labour tactic of painting the Tories as part of the lunatic fringe. The problem for the Tories is that - with Rees-Mogg, Boris etc. on the loose - this accusation seems far from fantastic.
All it does is polarise the argument and strengthen conservative support in the non Metropolitan and City areas
Edit - Mind you no one will know who Adonis is and it will not make any real difference anyway
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
I find it very difficult to believe he has only just found this out. Given that, I am struggling with the idea he has genuinely quit over Brexit.
Oh I'm sure his flexible opinions have not suddenly found their breaking point. Even a careerist can be right though.
Looking at his letter it seems clear the real issue is a profound disagreement with Chris Grayling. There seem to be a number of very worrying aspects to the bail-out decision the minister took and these deserve serious scrutiny. In leading on Brexit, though, Adonis has made a serious mistake and given the government all the material it needs to portray him as nothing more than a malcontent. He has made a fool of himself and ensured that Grayling will probably ride out what could have been a very difficult period - and that the taxpayer will end up heavily subsidising private companies who have proved themselves incapable of running efficient businesses.
Interesting resignation broadside from Adonis. By attempting to out Theresa as a Kipper and Trumpite, he's clearly reviving the New Labour tactic of painting the Tories as part of the lunatic fringe. The problem for the Tories is that - with Rees-Mogg, Boris etc. on the loose - this accusation seems far from fantastic.
It doesn't matter. Nobody is listening to New Labour, or following their playbook, these days.
Adonis could'a been a contender, but his future is behind him.
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
I find it very difficult to believe he has only just found this out. Given that, I am struggling with the idea he has genuinely quit over Brexit.
Oh I'm sure his flexible opinions have not suddenly found their breaking point. Even a careerist can be right though.
Looking at his letter it seems clear the real issue is a profound disagreement with Chris Grayling. There seem to be a number of very worrying aspects to the bail-out decision the minister took and these deserve serious scrutiny. In leading on Brexit, though, Adonis has made a serious mistake and given the government all the material it needs to portray him as nothing more than a malcontent. He has made a fool of himself and ensured that Grayling will probably ride out what could have been a very difficult period - and that the taxpayer will end up heavily subsidising private companies who have proved themselves incapable of running efficient businesses.
The government (in the widest sense) have lost too many good people. Adonis though has always struck me as someone happiest when, perhaps metaphorically, sucking his own c**k. He would see that as flexibility, intellectual or otherwise....
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
No he is not - he is an EU fanatic just as objectionable as Farage but on opposite ends of the argument
So does anybody here have the inside track on the weather in Melbourne tomorrow? The BBC Site suggests there will a a full day's play or close to it, but I don't trust it. They've been known to get the weather wrong outside their own front door.
As I commented earlier Melbourne is unpredictable weather wise, can have all four seasons in one day.
Hope though that most of the days play should be OK
Interesting resignation broadside from Adonis. By attempting to out Theresa as a Kipper and Trumpite, he's clearly reviving the New Labour tactic of painting the Tories as part of the lunatic fringe. The problem for the Tories is that - with Rees-Mogg, Boris etc. on the loose - this accusation seems far from fantastic.
The problem is that the Blairites have somehow allowed Corbyn and McDonnell to take over the party they controlled for so many years. I'm still not sure how they allowed it to happen. Ed's decision to allow almost anyone to vote in the leadership contest was obviously a big factor.
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
No he is not - he is an EU fanatic just as objectionable as Farage but on opposite ends of the argument
Ironically, they are, but only because UKIP's 2015 manifesto's headline commitments were not really the core of the party's support:
• Invest an extra £12 billion into the NHS; put £5.2 billion more into social care; build a dedicated military hospital and abolish hospital parking charges • End income tax on the minimum wage; cut income taxes for middle earners; scrap inheritance tax; abolish the ‘bedroom tax’ and increase the transferable personal tax allowance for married couples and civil partners • Fund 6,000 additional posts spread between the police service, the prison service andthe Border Agency • Cut business rates for small businesses • Waive tuition fees for students taking a degree in science; technology; engineering; maths or medicine • Increase defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP to honour our NATO obligations • Invest £1.5 billion into mental health and dementia services • Pay carers an extra £572 a year • Build 500 affordable rent homes every year and eight halfway house hostels for homeless veterans • Remove stamp duty on the first £250,000 for new homes built on brownfield sites.
Actually that is not a long way of a conservative manifesto should look like
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
I find it very difficult to believe he has only just found this out. Given that, I am struggling with the idea he has genuinely quit over Brexit.
Oh I'm sure his flexible opinions have not suddenly found their breaking point. Even a careerist can be right though.
Looking at his letter it seems clear the real issue is a profound disagreement with Chris Grayling. There seem to be a number of very worrying aspects to the bail-out decision the minister took and these deserve serious scrutiny. In leading on Brexit, though, Adonis has made a serious mistake and given the government all the material it needs to portray him as nothing more than a malcontent. He has made a fool of himself and ensured that Grayling will probably ride out what could have been a very difficult period - and that the taxpayer will end up heavily subsidising private companies who have proved themselves incapable of running efficient businesses.
The government (in the widest sense) have lost too many good people. Adonis though has always struck me as someone happiest when, perhaps metaphorically, sucking his own c**k. He would see that as flexibility, intellectual or otherwise....
He's a very smart bloke with a sharp eye for good policy and an ability to implement. He is clearly utterly abysmal at politics, though.
Interesting resignation broadside from Adonis. By attempting to out Theresa as a Kipper and Trumpite, he's clearly reviving the New Labour tactic of painting the Tories as part of the lunatic fringe. The problem for the Tories is that - with Rees-Mogg, Boris etc. on the loose - this accusation seems far from fantastic.
The problem is that the Blairites have somehow allowed Corbyn and McDonnell to take over the party they controlled for so many years. I'm still not sure how they allowed it to happen. Ed's decision to allow almost anyone to vote in the leadership contest was obviously a big factor.
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
I find it very difficult to believe he has only just found this out. Given that, I am struggling with the idea he has genuinely quit over Brexit.
Oh I'm sure his flexible opinions have not suddenly found their breaking point. Even a careerist can be right though.
Looking at his letter it seems clear the real issue is a profound disagreement with Chris Grayling. There seem to be a number of very worrying aspects to the bail-out decision the minister took and these deserve serious scrutiny. In leading on Brexit, though, Adonis has made a serious mistake and given the government all the material it needs to portray him as nothing more than a malcontent. He has made a fool of himself and ensured that Grayling will probably ride out what could have been a very difficult period - and that the taxpayer will end up heavily subsidising private companies who have proved themselves incapable of running efficient businesses.
Yes - that had passed me by before - but as you observe as its buried in a scream of consciousness rant about Brexit (and whatever May's faults to describe her as UKIP is hysterically over the top) - it will get lost as the ripples close over his head for the final time....
Is it really the case that all of these restaurants that say they are Halal are in fact enforcing a Muslim-only restriction on their supplying butchers?
edit: not currently going anywhere with this, but just want to know
My worry is however that if Labour win by default, having fed (a) extremism and (b) wholly unrealistic expectations, something really nasty could happen. I would like, as with stevef, to see a really good Labour Opposition emerge to capitalise on the government's weakness (although I have to say Thornberry, who has many of Corbyn's drawbacks but few of his strengths, would not be my answer).
I do think that oppositions have to be ready to take power before governments lose elections - for example, this year, 1992 and 2005 should have been open goals for the opposition if government ineptitude was the only criteria. Instead it was 1979, 1997 and 2010 (just) after years of painful and difficult choices by the opposition to steer to the centre that saw changes of government. At the moment Labour are industriously doing the opposite.
Well we'll see. Labour are not the only ones who could be accused of feeding unrealistic expectations...
Indeed yes. One reason why May and Corbyn are such utterly inappropriate leaders for their parties at this time is that they both appeal to the flanks of their parties. As a result they are increasing fissures in the country rather than making any meaningful attempt to draw them together.
Sadly this is the moment where I must admit I can't think of any politician who wouldn't be at least as divisive in either party.
For 80s music fans, the final Top of the Pops of 1984 is about to be shown on BBC4 at 8pm, presented by Lenny Henry.
"Lenny Henry" is perhaps even worse than say "knitting evenings with the Vicar's wife" in conveying 'uncool'. Not sure how he managed that, but it is what it is.
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
I find it very difficult to believe he has only just found this out. Given that, I am struggling with the idea he has genuinely quit over Brexit.
Oh I'm sure his flexible opinions have not suddenly found their breaking point. Even a careerist can be right though.
Looking at his letter it seems clear the real issue is a profound disagreement with Chris Grayling. There seem to be a number of very worrying aspects to the bail-out decision the minister took and these deserve serious scrutiny. In leading on Brexit, though, Adonis has made a serious mistake and given the government all the material it needs to portray him as nothing more than a malcontent. He has made a fool of himself and ensured that Grayling will probably ride out what could have been a very difficult period - and that the taxpayer will end up heavily subsidising private companies who have proved themselves incapable of running efficient businesses.
Yes - that had passed me by before - but as you observe as its buried in a scream of consciousness rant about Brexit (and whatever May's faults to describe her as UKIP is hysterically over the top) - it will get lost as the ripples close over his head for the final time....
Although his main complaint seems to be "Chris Grayling didn't use my blueprint which would have allowed me to seem more important than I really am"
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
I find it very difficult to believe he has only just found this out. Given that, I am struggling with the idea he has genuinely quit over Brexit.
Oh I'm sure his flexible opinions have not suddenly found their breaking point. Even a careerist can be right though.
Looking at his letter it seems clear the real issue is a profound disagreement with Chris Grayling. There seem to be a number of very worrying aspects to the bail-out decision the minister took and these deserve serious scrutiny. In leading on Brexit, though, Adonis has made a serious mistake and given the government all the material it needs to portray him as nothing more than a malcontent. He has made a fool of himself and ensured that Grayling will probably ride out what could have been a very difficult period - and that the taxpayer will end up heavily subsidising private companies who have proved themselves incapable of running efficient businesses.
I'm sorry, but I think that's an ignorant statement on the VTEC situation. Passengers on VTEC are one of only two sets who are actually net contributors to the exchequer (the other being South Western Railway).
VTEC are running an efficient business (tbf, so did Directly Operated Railways). The problem is that passenger numbers are not increasing at anything like the rate expected by VTEC. So the premium payments (otherwise known as tax on rail passengers) promised by VTEC are looking rather high.
Now, you might well argue, tough luck. You bid to pay the government X amount, suck it up. But VTEC are arguing that the railway isn't what they were expecting (i.e. some enhancements have not been made). Personally I think it's a poor argument.
I'd actually be quite interested to hear what Lord Adonis now thinks about HS2. There is a lot of nervousness about passenger growth leveling off. Capacity. That's what we're told HS2 is all about.
So what view are we taking of the cricket now? I think I saw someone (Sandpit?) on the previous thread saying to back the draw but I'm not so sure. Hot day expected in Brisbane. They may well get a full day's play in, and then some because of the time lost already. Fifth day wicket, and Smith/Warner aside the Aussie batting isn't that great.
I think 3/1 England looks worth taking.
3/1 is probably worth taking at this stage if it balances your book. What I said earlier was that if you’d laid the draw blindly then maybe it was time to think about getting out. I’d have thought about 5/2 England and 2/5 the draw from here.
My worry is however that if Labour win by default, having fed (a) extremism and (b) wholly unrealistic expectations, something really nasty could happen. I would like, as with stevef, to see a really good Labour Opposition emerge to capitalise on the government's weakness (although I have to say Thornberry, who has many of Corbyn's drawbacks but few of his strengths, would not be my answer).
I do think that oppositions have to be ready to take power before governments lose elections - for example, this year, 1992 and 2005 should have been open goals for the opposition if government ineptitude was the only criteria. Instead it was 1979, 1997 and 2010 (just) after years of painful and difficult choices by the opposition to steer to the centre that saw changes of government. At the moment Labour are industriously doing the opposite.
Well we'll see. Labour are not the only ones who could be accused of feeding unrealistic expectations...
Indeed yes. One reason why May and Corbyn are such utterly inappropriate leaders for their parties at this time is that they both appeal to the flanks of their parties. As a result they are increasing fissures in the country rather than making any meaningful attempt to draw them together.
Sadly this is the moment where I must admit I can't think of any politician who wouldn't be at least as divisive in either party.
Which flank is Theresa appealing to?
Grammar Schools Fox hunting Anti-EU If you could name any more touchstone issues than that for the Tory Right I would be intrigued to hear them.
Admittedly she has tried to leaven the lump in other ways, but it's pretty clear where her sympathies lie.
So what view are we taking of the cricket now? I think I saw someone (Sandpit?) on the previous thread saying to back the draw but I'm not so sure. Hot day expected in Brisbane. They may well get a full day's play in, and then some because of the time lost already. Fifth day wicket, and Smith/Warner aside the Aussie batting isn't that great.
My worry is however that if Labour win by default, having fed (a) extremism and (b) wholly unrealistic expectations, something really nasty could happen. I would like, as with stevef, to see a really good Labour Opposition emerge to capitalise on the government's weakness (although I have to say Thornberry, who has many of Corbyn's drawbacks but few of his strengths, would not be my answer).
I do think that oppositions have to be ready to take power before governments lose elections - for example, this year, 1992 and 2005 should have been open goals for the opposition if government ineptitude was the only criteria. Instead it was 1979, 1997 and 2010 (just) after years of painful and difficult choices by the opposition to steer to the centre that saw changes of government. At the moment Labour are industriously doing the opposite.
Well we'll see. Labour are not the only ones who could be accused of feeding unrealistic expectations...
Indeed yes. One reason why May and Corbyn are such utterly inappropriate leaders for their parties at this time is that they both appeal to the flanks of their parties. As a result they are increasing fissures in the country rather than making any meaningful attempt to draw them together.
Sadly this is the moment where I must admit I can't think of any politician who wouldn't be at least as divisive in either party.
Which flank is Theresa appealing to?
Grammar Schools Fox hunting Anti-EU If you could name any more touchstone issues than that for the Tory Right I would be intrigued to hear them.
Admittedly she has tried to leaven the lump in other ways, but it's pretty clear where her sympathies lie.
Backed Remain, promoted Rudd, legacy of massive immigration failure in the Home Office. I can only imagine she's as repulsive to the Tory left as she is to the right.
For 80s music fans, the final Top of the Pops of 1984 is about to be shown on BBC4 at 8pm, presented by Lenny Henry.
"Lenny Henry" is perhaps even worse than say "knitting evenings with the Vicar's wife" in conveying 'uncool'. Not sure how he managed that, but it is what it is.
For 80s music fans, the final Top of the Pops of 1984 is about to be shown on BBC4 at 8pm, presented by Lenny Henry.
"Lenny Henry" is perhaps even worse than say "knitting evenings with the Vicar's wife" in conveying 'uncool'. Not sure how he managed that, but it is what it is.
Well his then wife did play a vicar.
I quite like him (hard to dislike someone with that grin), but I feel that in admitting that it's entirely the end of my cool pretensions. I imagine one could contrast his fortunes against those of someone like Richard Pryor. There are worse things than being uncool.
I'm sorry, but I think that's an ignorant statement on the VTEC situation. Passengers on VTEC are one of only two sets who are actually net contributors to the exchequer (the other being South Western Railway).
VTEC are running an efficient business (tbf, so did Directly Operated Railways). The problem is that passenger numbers are not increasing at anything like the rate expected by VTEC. So the premium payments (otherwise known as tax on rail passengers) promised by VTEC are looking rather high.
Now, you might well argue, tough luck. You bid to pay the government X amount, suck it up. But VTEC are arguing that the railway isn't what they were expecting (i.e. some enhancements have not been made). Personally I think it's a poor argument.
I'd actually be quite interested to hear what Lord Adonis now thinks about HS2. There is a lot of nervousness about passenger growth leveling off. Capacity. That's what we're told HS2 is all about.
Capacity. Especially freight capacity, which disagrees with high speed trains on the same tracks and slows the HSTs down. A new line needs to be built, the only question is if we go with the high speed line or a 125 speed line for not a lot less cost.
We also need runways 3 and 4 at LHR, yet despite all the talk that’s not going to happen any time soon either.
If we want to be a global trading country post-Brexit then this major infrastructure stuff needs to be happening yesterday. Elsewhere in the world streamlined processes exist for building national infrastructure. My favourite anecdote is that Dubai airport built their Terminal 3 in the same time as Heathrow’s T5’s planning enquiry. The projects were of similar scope, new buildings within the existing airfield boundary, with access roads. This sh!t needs to be sorted out, and quickly. It’s already costing London money that people going to U.K. regional airports all fly through Amsterdam as it’s easier and quicker than going through Heathrow.
Capacity. Especially freight capacity, which disagrees with high speed trains on the same tracks and slows the HSTs down. A new line needs to be built, the only question is if we go with the high speed line or a 125 speed line for not a lot less cost.
We also need runways 3 and 4 at LHR, yet despite all the talk that’s not going to happen any time soon either.
If we want to be a global trading country post-Brexit then this major infrastructure stuff needs to be happening yesterday. Elsewhere in the world streamlined processes exist for building national infrastructure. My favourite anecdote is that Dubai airport built their Terminal 3 in the same time as Heathrow’s T5’s planning enquiry. The projects were of similar scope, new buildings within the existing airfield boundary, with access roads. This sh!t needs to be sorted out, and quickly. It’s already costing London money that people going to U.K. regional airports all fly through Amsterdam as it’s easier and quicker than going through Heathrow.
Yet there's plenty of capacity at Stanstead and Luton and perfectly good train services into Central and East London - I'd build the Stanstead Express to Stratford rather than Liverpool Street.
It doesn't have to be all about LHR or even LGW but it needs some joined-up thinking.
So what view are we taking of the cricket now? I think I saw someone (Sandpit?) on the previous thread saying to back the draw but I'm not so sure. Hot day expected in Brisbane. They may well get a full day's play in, and then some because of the time lost already. Fifth day wicket, and Smith/Warner aside the Aussie batting isn't that great.
I think 3/1 England looks worth taking.
3/1 is probably worth taking at this stage if it balances your book. What I said earlier was that if you’d laid the draw blindly then maybe it was time to think about getting out. I’d have thought about 5/2 England and 2/5 the draw from here.
Edit: Oh, and there’s also the chance that they go hung-ho in the morning and we end up going in three overs before tea with a target of something like 170 from 40 - and royally f*** it up. 10/1 on that outcome, but should be 100/1.
I'm sorry, but I think that's an ignorant statement on the VTEC situation. Passengers on VTEC are one of only two sets who are actually net contributors to the exchequer (the other being South Western Railway).
VTEC are running an efficient business (tbf, so did Directly Operated Railways). The problem is that passenger numbers are not increasing at anything like the rate expected by VTEC. So the premium payments (otherwise known as tax on rail passengers) promised by VTEC are looking rather high.
Now, you might well argue, tough luck. You bid to pay the government X amount, suck it up. But VTEC are arguing that the railway isn't what they were expecting (i.e. some enhancements have not been made). Personally I think it's a poor argument.
I'd actually be quite interested to hear what Lord Adonis now thinks about HS2. There is a lot of nervousness about passenger growth leveling off. Capacity. That's what we're told HS2 is all about.
Capacity. Especially freight capacity, which disagrees with high speed trains on the same tracks and slows the HSTs down. A new line needs to be built, the only question is if we go with the high speed line or a 125 speed line for not a lot less cost.
We also need runways 3 and 4 at LHR, yet despite all the talk that’s not going to happen any time soon either.
If we want to be a global trading country post-Brexit then this major infrastructure stuff needs to be happening yesterday. Elsewhere in the world streamlined processes exist for building national infrastructure. My favourite anecdote is that Dubai airport built their Terminal 3 in the same time as Heathrow’s T5’s planning enquiry. The projects were of similar scope, new buildings within the existing airfield boundary, with access roads. This sh!t needs to be sorted out, and quickly. It’s already costing London money that people going to U.K. regional airports all fly through Amsterdam as it’s easier and quicker than going through Heathrow.
I'm not convinced. If railways are that important, then we need to make sure the existing ones are up to scratch. And quite frankly, they're not.
And don't get me started on road infrastructure.
Interestingly, on rail freight, I didn't realise until recently that Eurotunnel has a right to 35 paths per day between the tunnel and London until 2052. Sadly, only a few paths are actually used due to all the trouble there has been on the French side.
Read some of the comments on here with its "one more heave" mentality. Look at some of the videos on Youtube of the hubristic Labour conference. Listen to the songs to Corbyn.
Your last sentence bears me out. 2017 saw Labour lose its third successive general election defeat with a tally of seats little higher than when it lost power under Gordon Brown in 2010. It saw the Tory vote rise to Margaret Thatcher levels in defeat.
I suppose one person's hubris is another's surprise and relief. You compare apples with oranges in your example. Just as easy to say the Labour vote rose to 2001 levels, while the Tory seat share fell to only just exceed 2010 levels. And, yes, the voters did that, too. I still see no "celebration". I see a Government utterly bereft of ideas beyond Brexit. Once that is done what will they do then? Even they don't seem to know.
What do you suggest by the way? Ditch Corbyn you will say. How? When? Who instead?
Politics is not about relief at losing, it is about winning.
The Labour precentage rose but we do not elect governments by percentage of the vote -we need PR for that. We elect governments by the number of seats won and Corbyn did not even come close.Corbyn's % rose because he piled up votes uselessly in seats Labour already held, and because he won a handful of seats mainly in university towns.
I see a Tory government full of vile ideas. But I also see a Corbyn opposition which is nothing but postures, which promises the Earth but hasnt a clue how to economically deliver them, and I see a Labour leader of the hard left, with no real ability, good at organising protests but quite unfit to be prime minister and with no appeal to moderate voters necessary to win marginal seats in middle England crucial for victory. I do not see an Attlee, a Wilson, a Blair or a Smith in Jeremy Corbyn. I see a army of Corbyn fanatics who chant slogans and sing songs and I look at their faces and see something ugly and dangerous, something from long ago.......
Ditch Corbyn. Now. Replace him not with a Blairite, but with someone from the mainstream, someone in the tradition of Wilson and Smith. I prefer Emily Thornberry because although Corbynistas think she is one of themselves, she is not. She is not of the hard left, but a moderate traditionalist, and under her leadership I believe that Labour win those extra marginal seats.
I believe that under Jeremy Corbyn, defeat is inevitable.
I enjoyed the opening chapter on Jeremy Corbyn's leadership bid in Betting The House:
For 80s music fans, the final Top of the Pops of 1984 is about to be shown on BBC4 at 8pm, presented by Lenny Henry.
"Lenny Henry" is perhaps even worse than say "knitting evenings with the Vicar's wife" in conveying 'uncool'. Not sure how he managed that, but it is what it is.
I'd suggest '80s music fans' runs him pretty close for uncoolness. So a marriage made in heaven (hell).
For 80s music fans, the final Top of the Pops of 1984 is about to be shown on BBC4 at 8pm, presented by Lenny Henry.
"Lenny Henry" is perhaps even worse than say "knitting evenings with the Vicar's wife" in conveying 'uncool'. Not sure how he managed that, but it is what it is.
My worry is however that if Labour win by default, having fed (a) extremism and (b) wholly unrealistic expectations, something really nasty could happen. I would like, as with stevef, to see a really good Labour Opposition emerge to capitalise on the government's weakness (although I have to say Thornberry, who has many of Corbyn's drawbacks but few of his strengths, would not be my answer).
I do think that oppositions have to be ready to take power before governments lose elections - for example, this year, 1992 and 2005 should have been open goals for the opposition if government ineptitude was the only criteria. Instead it was 1979, 1997 and 2010 (just) after years of painful and difficult choices by the opposition to steer to the centre that saw changes of government. At the moment Labour are industriously doing the opposite.
Well we'll see. Labour are not the only ones who could be accused of feeding unrealistic expectations...
Indeed yes. One reason why May and Corbyn are such utterly inappropriate leaders for their parties at this time is that they both appeal to the flanks of their parties. As a result they are increasing fissures in the country rather than making any meaningful attempt to draw them together.
Sadly this is the moment where I must admit I can't think of any politician who wouldn't be at least as divisive in either party.
Which flank is Theresa appealing to?
Grammar Schools Fox hunting Anti-EU If you could name any more touchstone issues than that for the Tory Right I would be intrigued to hear them.
Admittedly she has tried to leaven the lump in other ways, but it's pretty clear where her sympathies lie.
Fox hunting ban repeal was policy in the GE2010 and GE2015 manifestos as well.
The problem is that the Blairites have somehow allowed Corbyn and McDonnell to take over the party they controlled for so many years. I'm still not sure how they allowed it to happen. Ed's decision to allow almost anyone to vote in the leadership contest was obviously a big factor.
They had run out of road.
Indeed, Butskellism was finished by 1979, Thatcherism by 1997 and the Third Way/social democracy was killed off by the financial crisis of 2008.
In response to the events of 2008, the Right came up with austerity - let's cut the State back to control the public finances rather than raise taxes. In some countries, public sector wages were cut and jobs lost by the bucket-load but we did austerity a little different and some argue we didn't do it at all.
The Left has always had its response which is what we see from McDonnell and Corbyn now. It's, I think, analogous to the response of the Mitterrand Government in 1981.
The centre-left (and arguably the centre right) has not formulated a coherent response and is out of the argument and that's why Blairite thinking is in the wilderness. It's blamed (unfairly I think) for the end of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset prices.
The side which is able to best communicate a vision of 2020s Britain will deserve to win the next GE - at the moment neither side has anything approaching a convincing argument.
Adonis is one of several Metropolitan elite anti Brexit crusaders including Osborne, Clegg, Umunna, Blair, Mandelson etc and their views are at the opposite extreme of Farage.
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
I nearly made the point in this article that the Conservatives are currently implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. Lord Adonis is correct in substance.
I find it very difficult to believe he has only just found this out. Given that, I am struggling with the idea he has genuinely quit over Brexit.
Oh I'm sure his flexible opinions have not suddenly found their breaking point. Even a careerist can be right though.
Looking at his letter it seems clear the real issue is a profound disagreement with Chris Grayling. There seem to be a number of very worrying aspects to the bail-out decision the minister took and these deserve serious scrutiny. In leading on Brexit, though, Adonis has made a serious mistake and given the government all the material it needs to portray him as nothing more than a malcontent. He has made a fool of himself and ensured that Grayling will probably ride out what could have been a very difficult period - and that the taxpayer will end up heavily subsidising private companies who have proved themselves incapable of running efficient businesses.
Yes - that had passed me by before - but as you observe as its buried in a scream of consciousness rant about Brexit (and whatever May's faults to describe her as UKIP is hysterically over the top) - it will get lost as the ripples close over his head for the final time....
Although his main complaint seems to be "Chris Grayling didn't use my blueprint which would have allowed me to seem more important than I really am"
FWIW, I think there is personal animosity between Grayling and Adonis.
Interesting resignation broadside from Adonis. By attempting to out Theresa as a Kipper and Trumpite, he's clearly reviving the New Labour tactic of painting the Tories as part of the lunatic fringe. The problem for the Tories is that - with Rees-Mogg, Boris etc. on the loose - this accusation seems far from fantastic.
The problem is that the Blairites have somehow allowed Corbyn and McDonnell to take over the party they controlled for so many years. I'm still not sure how they allowed it to happen. Ed's decision to allow almost anyone to vote in the leadership contest was obviously a big factor.
That was a symptom not a cause.
The real reason is that the political landscape has changed since the 1990s, where a liberal centrist pro-european, corporatist, globalist party could be a mass movement winning nationwide mandates.
People are far more concerned now with things like democratic accountability, community, identity and mass migration, but the educated urban upper-middle classes can't see what the problem is.
The problem is that the Blairites have somehow allowed Corbyn and McDonnell to take over the party they controlled for so many years. I'm still not sure how they allowed it to happen. Ed's decision to allow almost anyone to vote in the leadership contest was obviously a big factor.
They had run out of road.
Indeed, Butskellism was finished by 1979, Thatcherism by 1997 and the Third Way/social democracy was killed off by the financial crisis of 2008.
In response to the events of 2008, the Right came up with austerity - let's cut the State back to control the public finances rather than raise taxes. In some countries, public sector wages were cut and jobs lost by the bucket-load but we did austerity a little different and some argue we didn't do it at all.
The Left has always had its response which is what we see from McDonnell and Corbyn now. It's, I think, analogous to the response of the Mitterrand Government in 1981.
The centre-left (and arguably the centre right) has not formulated a coherent response and is out of the argument and that's why Blairite thinking is in the wilderness. It's blamed (unfairly I think) for the end of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset prices.
The side which is able to best communicate a vision of 2020s Britain will deserve to win the next GE - at the moment neither side has anything approaching a convincing argument.
My French cousins had their business nationalised by Mitterand.
Read some of the comments on here with its "one more heave" mentality. Look at some of the videos on Youtube of the hubristic Labour conference. Listen to the songs to Corbyn.
Your last sentence bears me out. 2017 saw Labour lose its third successive general election defeat with a tally of seats little higher than when it lost power under Gordon Brown in 2010. It saw the Tory vote rise to Margaret Thatcher levels in defeat.
I suppose one person's hubris is another's surprise and relief. You compare apples with oranges in your example. Just as easy to say the Labour vote rose to 2001 levels, while the Tory seat share fell to only just exceed 2010 levels. And, yes, the voters did that, too. I still see no "celebration". I see a Government utterly bereft of ideas beyond Brexit. Once that is done what will they do then? Even they don't seem to know.
What do you suggest by the way? Ditch Corbyn you will say. How? When? Who instead?
Politics is not about relief at losing, it is about winning.
The Labour precentage rose but we do not elect governments by percentage of the vote -we need PR for that. We elect governments by the number of seats won and Corbyn did not even come close.Corbyn's % rose because he piled up votes uselessly in seats Labour already held, and because he won a handful of seats mainly in university towns.
I see a Tory government full of vile ideas. But I also see a Corbyn opposition which is nothing but postures, which promises the Earth but hasnt a clue how to economically deliver them, and I see a Labour leader of the hard left, with no real ability, good at organising protests but quite unfit to be prime minister and with no appeal to moderate voters necessary to win marginal seats in middle England crucial for victory. I do not see an Attlee, a Wilson, a Blair or a Smith in Jeremy Corbyn. I see a army of Corbyn fanatics who chant slogans and sing songs and I look at their faces and see something ugly and dangerous, something from long ago.......
Ditch Corbyn. Now. Replace him not with a Blairite, but with someone from the mainstream, someone in the tradition of Wilson and Smith. I prefer Emily Thornberry because although Corbynistas think she is one of themselves, she is not. She is not of the hard left, but a moderate traditionalist, and under her leadership I believe that Labour win those extra marginal seats.
I believe that under Jeremy Corbyn, defeat is inevitable.
'I enjoyed the opening chapter on Jeremy Corbyn's leadership bid in Betting The House:
"You'd better make sure I don't fucking win." '
Thornberry would not rally the left and the young as Corbyn has nor will she appeal to current Tory voters who previously voted for Blair
Interesting resignation broadside from Adonis. By attempting to out Theresa as a Kipper and Trumpite, he's clearly reviving the New Labour tactic of painting the Tories as part of the lunatic fringe. The problem for the Tories is that - with Rees-Mogg, Boris etc. on the loose - this accusation seems far from fantastic.
The problem is that the Blairites have somehow allowed Corbyn and McDonnell to take over the party they controlled for so many years. I'm still not sure how they allowed it to happen. Ed's decision to allow almost anyone to vote in the leadership contest was obviously a big factor.
That was a symptom not a cause.
The real reason is that the political landscape has changed since the 1990s, where a liberal centrist pro-european, corporatist, globalist party could be a mass movement winning nationwide mandates.
People are far more concerned now with things like democratic accountability, community, identity and mass migration, but the educated urban upper-middle classes can't see what the problem is.
Perhaps the reason New Labour were able to win commanding majorities was that the Conservatives of that era were obsessed with issues of identity, sovereignty and migration? No party has ever won majority on a nationalist anti-EU platform, and if the Tories couldn’t do it in 2017, it’s doubtful that it is ever going to be possible.
My worry is however that if Labour win by default, having fed (a) extremism and (b) wholly unrealistic expectations, something really nasty could happen. I would like, as with stevef, to see a really good Labour Opposition emerge to capitalise on the government's weakness (although I have to say Thornberry, who has many of Corbyn's drawbacks but few of his strengths, would not be my answer).
I do think that oppositions have to be ready to take power before governments lose elections - for example, this year, 1992 and 2005 should have been open goals for the opposition if government ineptitude was the only criteria. Instead it was 1979, 1997 and 2010 (just) after years of painful and difficult choices by the opposition to steer to the centre that saw changes of government. At the moment Labour are industriously doing the opposite.
Well we'll see. Labour are not the only ones who could be accused of feeding unrealistic expectations...
Indeed yes. One reason why May and Corbyn are such utterly inappropriate leaders for their parties at this time is that they both appeal to the flanks of their parties. As a result they are increasing fissures in the country rather than making any meaningful attempt to draw them together.
Sadly this is the moment where I must admit I can't think of any politician who wouldn't be at least as divisive in either party.
Which flank is Theresa appealing to?
Grammar Schools Fox hunting Anti-EU If you could name any more touchstone issues than that for the Tory Right I would be intrigued to hear them.
Admittedly she has tried to leaven the lump in other ways, but it's pretty clear where her sympathies lie.
Backed Remain, promoted Rudd, legacy of massive immigration failure in the Home Office. I can only imagine she's as repulsive to the Tory left as she is to the right.
I don't think there's a huge amount of difference in May's true beliefs to those of Cameron.
The difference is her social background, which means she gets the concerns of JAMs more readily, and she really does own and fight for her policies once she decides.
Not sure Lord Adonis has quite got the hang of this 'democracy' thing:
Brexit is a dangerous populist and nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump. After the narrow referendum vote for an undefined proposition to ‘leave the EU,’ it could have been attempted without rupturing our essential European trade and political relations. However, by becoming the voice of UKIP and the extreme nationalist right-wing of your party, you have taken a different course, for which you have no parliamentary or popular mandate.
A responsible government should be seeking to persuade the British people to stay in Europe while also tackling, with massive vigour, the social and economic problems within Britain which led to the narrow referendum result of eighteen months ago, particularly in our many desperately poor towns, cities and regions.
So Adonis is basically resigning because the government is not keeping free movement in place and staying permanently in the single market, he is a Blairite equally despised by Corbynites as he is by Brexiteers, if he is lucky Cable might make him his deputy policy adviser I suppose
Interesting resignation broadside from Adonis. By attempting to out Theresa as a Kipper and Trumpite, he's clearly reviving the New Labour tactic of painting the Tories as part of the lunatic fringe. The problem for the Tories is that - with Rees-Mogg, Boris etc. on the loose - this accusation seems far from fantastic.
The problem is that the Blairites have somehow allowed Corbyn and McDonnell to take over the party they controlled for so many years. I'm still not sure how they allowed it to happen. Ed's decision to allow almost anyone to vote in the leadership contest was obviously a big factor.
That was a symptom not a cause.
The real reason is that the political landscape has changed since the 1990s, where a liberal centrist pro-european, corporatist, globalist party could be a mass movement winning nationwide mandates.
People are far more concerned now with things like democratic accountability, community, identity and mass migration, but the educated urban upper-middle classes can't see what the problem is.
Perhaps the reason New Labour were able to win commanding majorities was that the Conservatives of that era were obsessed with issues of identity, sovereignty and migration? No party has ever won majority on a nationalist anti-EU platform, and if the Tories couldn’t do it in 2017, it’s doubtful that it is ever going to be possible.
Yet, parties supporting EU withdrawal currently command a majority in the House of Commons.
I'm sorry, but I think that's an ignorant statement on the VTEC situation. Passengers on VTEC are one of only two sets who are actually net contributors to the exchequer (the other being South Western Railway).
VTEC are running an efficient business (tbf, so did Directly Operated Railways). The problem is that passenger numbers are not increasing at anything like the rate expected by VTEC. So the premium payments (otherwise known as tax on rail passengers) promised by VTEC are looking rather high.
Now, you might well argue, tough luck. You bid to pay the government X amount, suck it up. But VTEC are arguing that the railway isn't what they were expecting (i.e. some enhancements have not been made). Personally I think it's a poor argument.
I'd actually be quite interested to hear what Lord Adonis now thinks about HS2. There is a lot of nervousness about passenger growth leveling off. Capacity. That's what we're told HS2 is all about.
Capacity. Especially freight capacity, which disagrees with high speed trains on the same tracks and slows the HSTs down. A new line needs to be built, the only question is if we go with the high speed line or a 125 speed line for not a lot less cost.
We also need runways 3 and 4 at LHR, yet despite all the talk that’s not going to happen any time soon either.
If we want to be a global trading country post-Brexit then this major infrastructure stuff needs to be happening yesterday. Elsewhere in the world streamlined processes exist for building national infrastructure. My favourite anecdote is that Dubai airport built their Terminal 3 in the same time as Heathrow’s T5’s planning enquiry. The projects were of similar scope, new buildings within the existing airfield boundary, with access roads. This sh!t needs to be sorted out, and quickly. It’s already costing London money that people going to U.K. regional airports all fly through Amsterdam as it’s easier and quicker than going through Heathrow.
Dubai is a venal, quasi-despotic state. Does this help your analysis of planning constraints?
Good to see that so many people, especially the young, were so ecstatic at Labour's third successive defeat with a tally of seats about the same as Gordon Brown in 2010, with the Tory share of the vote the highest in 30 years, and May getting more seats than Cameron in 2010.
In 2022, these people I suspect will be breaking open the champagne and doing another lap of honour as the exit poll reveals Labour's fourth successive defea as a result of the dire Mr Corbyn.
I have to say however as a Labour supporter of 40 years, that in my day, you celebrated when Labour actually won general elections. Corbyn did not even come close to winningin seats in 2017, and will not do so in 2022 because his extremism makes him unattractive to marginal voters in middle England. And believe me, those older voters who abstained in 2017 because of the dementia tax will be queueing round the corner to vote next time. And the number of older voters who did not vote in 2017 far exceeds the number of new younger voters.
Enjoy the lap of honour to celebrate Labour's defeat in 2017, you have a hard lesson to learn in 2022.
Who exactly were these people ecstatic at defeat? I haven't met any. There were many who were pleased that the result exceeded pretty much everyone's expectations. But I saw no laps of honour. I do see a lot of people continuing to fundamentally underestimate the effects of falling real wages and the ludicrous cost of housing, and how that, rather than Corbyn or the minutiae of Brexit negotiations drives voting behaviour. I also see many who believe 2017 was an error by the voters, who will, in due course, see sense.
Read some of the comments on here with its "one more heave" mentality. Look at some of the videos on Youtube of the hubristic Labour conference. Listen to the songs to Corbyn.
Your last sentence bears me out. 2017 saw Labour lose its third successive general election defeat with a tally of seats little higher than when it lost power under Gordon Brown in 2010. It saw the Tory vote rise to Margaret Thatcher levels in 1987. The voters did that.
That is not true of England though where Labour did a lot better than in 2010. Labour appears well placed to end up with in excess of 300 seats next time - 20 gains from the SNP plus 20 - 25 from the Tories.
The problem is that the Blairites have somehow allowed Corbyn and McDonnell to take over the party they controlled for so many years. I'm still not sure how they allowed it to happen. Ed's decision to allow almost anyone to vote in the leadership contest was obviously a big factor.
They had run out of road.
Indeed, Butskellism was finished by 1979, Thatcherism by 1997 and the Third Way/social democracy was killed off by the financial crisis of 2008.
In response to the events of 2008, the Right came up with austerity - let's cut the State back to control the public finances rather than raise taxes. In some countries, public sector wages were cut and jobs lost by the bucket-load but we did austerity a little different and some argue we didn't do it at all.
The Left has always had its response which is what we see from McDonnell and Corbyn now. It's, I think, analogous to the response of the Mitterrand Government in 1981.
The centre-left (and arguably the centre right) has not formulated a coherent response and is out of the argument and that's why Blairite thinking is in the wilderness. It's blamed (unfairly I think) for the end of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset prices.
The side which is able to best communicate a vision of 2020s Britain will deserve to win the next GE - at the moment neither side has anything approaching a convincing argument.
EDIT - BLOCKQUOTE ERROR. MY COMMENT STARTS HERE.
Good post.
Labour post 2010 were different from other centre left parties in Europe because the FPTP system secured them in place as the official opposition. But had Corbyn not won, it is likely that they would have ultimately suffered the same fate as other centre left parties around Europe ie decline, and loss of votes to more radical parties.
I'm sorry, but I think that's an ignorant statement on the VTEC situation. Passengers on VTEC are one of only two sets who are actually net contributors to the exchequer (the other being South Western Railway).
VTEC are running an efficient business (tbf, so did Directly Operated Railways). The problem is that passenger numbers are not increasing at anything like the rate expected by VTEC. So the premium payments (otherwise known as tax on rail passengers) promised by VTEC are looking rather high.
Now, you might well argue, tough luck. You bid to pay the government X amount, suck it up. But VTEC are arguing that the railway isn't what they were expecting (i.e. some enhancements have not been made). Personally I think it's a poor argument.
I'd actually be quite interested to hear what Lord Adonis now thinks about HS2. There is a lot of nervousness about passenger growth leveling off. Capacity. That's what we're told HS2 is all about.
Capacity. Especially freight capacity, which disagrees with high speed trains on the same tracks and slows the HSTs down. A new line needs to be built, the only question is if we go with the high speed line or a 125 speed line for not a lot less cost.
We also need runways 3 and 4 at LHR, yet despite all the talk that’s not going to happen any time soon either.
If we want to be a global trading country post-Brexit then this major infrastructure stuff needs to be happening yesterday. Elsewhere in the world streamlined processes exist for building national infrastructure. My favourite anecdote is that Dubai airport built their Terminal 3 in the same time as Heathrow’s T5’s planning enquiry. The projects were of similar scope, new buildings within the existing airfield boundary, with access roads. This sh!t needs to be sorted out, and quickly. It’s already costing London money that people going to U.K. regional airports all fly through Amsterdam as it’s easier and quicker than going through Heathrow.
Dubai is a venal, quasi-despotic state. Does this help your analysis of planning constraints?
It seems pretty much okay from where I’m looking. Why should it take five years to hold a planning enquiry about a building and access road on an existing airfield? Does Britain want to be overtaken by places where planning laws mean that stuff gets done rather than talked about?
Not sure Lord Adonis has quite got the hang of this 'democracy' thing:
Brexit is a dangerous populist and nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump. After the narrow referendum vote for an undefined proposition to ‘leave the EU,’ it could have been attempted without rupturing our essential European trade and political relations. However, by becoming the voice of UKIP and the extreme nationalist right-wing of your party, you have taken a different course, for which you have no parliamentary or popular mandate.
A responsible government should be seeking to persuade the British people to stay in Europe while also tackling, with massive vigour, the social and economic problems within Britain which led to the narrow referendum result of eighteen months ago, particularly in our many desperately poor towns, cities and regions.
So Adonis is basically resigning because the government is not keeping free movement in place and staying permanently in the single market, he is a Blairite equally despised by Corbynites as he is by Brexiteers, if he is lucky Cable might make him his deputy policy adviser I suppose
Adonis is Labour, so it is really quite significant, that like Milburn, he is quitting his government quango. He may well wind up back in the Labour team. Power drives politics. The reason the Blairites didn't like Corbyn is they thought him a loser. Now that he has them in pole position they are more sympathetic.
Not sure Lord Adonis has quite got the hang of this 'democracy' thing:
Brexit is a dangerous populist and nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump. After the narrow referendum vote for an undefined proposition to ‘leave the EU,’ it could have been attempted without rupturing our essential European trade and political relations. However, by becoming the voice of UKIP and the extreme nationalist right-wing of your party, you have taken a different course, for which you have no parliamentary or popular mandate.
A responsible government should be seeking to persuade the British people to stay in Europe while also tackling, with massive vigour, the social and economic problems within Britain which led to the narrow referendum result of eighteen months ago, particularly in our many desperately poor towns, cities and regions.
So Adonis is basically resigning because the government is not keeping free movement in place and staying permanently in the single market, he is a Blairite equally despised by Corbynites as he is by Brexiteers, if he is lucky Cable might make him his deputy policy adviser I suppose
Adonis is Labour, so it is really quite significant, that like Milburn, he is quitting his government quango. He may well wind up back in the Labour team. Power drives politics. The reason the Blairites didn't like Corbyn is they thought him a loser. Now that he has them in pole position they are more sympathetic.
No, it is ideological opposition. Even Blair himself has said a Corbyn government would be bad for Britain and you do not get more Blairite than Adonis
Read some of the comments on here with its "one more heave" mentality. Look at some of the videos on Youtube of the hubristic Labour conference. Listen to the songs to Corbyn.
Your last sentence bears me out. 2017 saw Labour lose its third successive general election defeat with a tally of seats little higher than when it lost power under Gordon Brown in 2010. It saw the Tory vote rise to Margaret Thatcher levels in 1987. The voters did that.
That is not true of England though where Labour did a lot better than in 2010. Labour appears well placed to end up with in excess of 300 seats next time - 20 gains from the SNP plus 20 - 25 from the Tories.
It's net gains from the Conservatives that matter, and for that, they need to close them down on vote share. So far there's little sign of that. It is easily possible that Labour could go backwards overall in England next time given what they have to defend and where, although if they pick up seats in Scotland that may hide it.
Remember, while Labour are moving forwards in England the Conservatives are not moving backwards significantly at the moment - they are just one seat down on 2010, following shifts in voting patterns that have allowed them to pick up seats in the north and West Country to compensate for losses in the South-east. Corbyn needs to reach out to his northern voters and to middle-class voters in the Midlands and so far there's little sign he can do that either.
Not sure Lord Adonis has quite got the hang of this 'democracy' thing:
Brexit is a dangerous populist and nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump. After the narrow referendum vote for an undefined proposition to ‘leave the EU,’ it could have been attempted without rupturing our essential European trade and political relations. However, by becoming the voice of UKIP and the extreme nationalist right-wing of your party, you have taken a different course, for which you have no parliamentary or popular mandate.
A responsible government should be seeking to persuade the British people to stay in Europe while also tackling, with massive vigour, the social and economic problems within Britain which led to the narrow referendum result of eighteen months ago, particularly in our many desperately poor towns, cities and regions.
So Adonis is basically resigning because the government is not keeping free movement in place and staying permanently in the single market, he is a Blairite equally despised by Corbynites as he is by Brexiteers, if he is lucky Cable might make him his deputy policy adviser I suppose
Adonis is Labour, so it is really quite significant, that like Milburn, he is quitting his government quango. He may well wind up back in the Labour team. Power drives politics. The reason the Blairites didn't like Corbyn is they thought him a loser. Now that he has them in pole position they are more sympathetic.
Ah, don’t be modest. Remember, Adonis was SDP and then LibDem originally.
The only elected position he has ever held is as a LibDem,
Interesting resignation broadside from Adonis. By attempting to out Theresa as a Kipper and Trumpite, he's clearly reviving the New Labour tactic of painting the Tories as part of the lunatic fringe. The problem for the Tories is that - with Rees-Mogg, Boris etc. on the loose - this accusation seems far from fantastic.
The problem is that the Blairites have somehow allowed Corbyn and McDonnell to take over the party they controlled for so many years. I'm still not sure how they allowed it to happen. Ed's decision to allow almost anyone to vote in the leadership contest was obviously a big factor.
That was a symptom not a cause.
The real reason is that the political landscape has changed since the 1990s, where a liberal centrist pro-european, corporatist, globalist party could be a mass movement winning nationwide mandates.
People are far more concerned now with things like democratic accountability, community, identity and mass migration, but the educated urban upper-middle classes can't see what the problem is.
Perhaps the reason New Labour were able to win commanding majorities was that the Conservatives of that era were obsessed with issues of identity, sovereignty and migration? No party has ever won majority on a nationalist anti-EU platform, and if the Tories couldn’t do it in 2017, it’s doubtful that it is ever going to be possible.
But the Conservatives still won twice as many seats in 2017 as in 1997 and 2001, and the pro EU cause has failed.
Read some of the comments on here with its "one more heave" mentality. Look at some of the videos on Youtube of the hubristic Labour conference. Listen to the songs to Corbyn.
Your last sentence bears me out. 2017 saw Labour lose its third successive general election defeat with a tally of seats little higher than when it lost power under Gordon Brown in 2010. It saw the Tory vote rise to Margaret Thatcher levels in 1987. The voters did that.
That is not true of England though where Labour did a lot better than in 2010. Labour appears well placed to end up with in excess of 300 seats next time - 20 gains from the SNP plus 20 - 25 from the Tories.
It's net gains from the Conservatives that matter, and for that, they need to close them down on vote share. So far there's little sign of that. It is easily possible that Labour could go backwards overall in England next time given what they have to defend and where, although if they pick up seats in Scotland that may hide it.
Remember, while Labour are moving forwards in England the Conservatives are not moving backwards significantly at the moment - they are just one seat down on 2010, following shifts in voting patterns that have allowed them to pick up seats in the north and West Country to compensate for losses in the South-east. Corbyn needs to reach out to his northern voters and to middle-class voters in the Midlands and so far there's little sign he can do that either.
It is possible that Labour could go backwards in England next time but at the moment it does not look particularly likely.After 12 years of Tory -led Government , it is quite probable that Labour will recoup some of its working class losses and win back seats such as Walsall North, Copeland and Morley & Outwood. In Wales, Labour looks very well placed to gain Preseli Pembrokeshire and Aberconway - and has a fair chance in Vale of Glamorgan. I am not going to list all the possibilities, but there are a lot of them - including both seats in Milton Keynes as examples.Watford too could easily fall next time.
Read some of the comments on here with its "one more heave" mentality. Look at some of the videos on Youtube of the hubristic Labour conference. Listen to the songs to Corbyn.
Your last sentence bears me out. 2017 saw Labour lose its third successive general election defeat with a tally of seats little higher than when it lost power under Gordon Brown in 2010. It saw the Tory vote rise to Margaret Thatcher levels in 1987. The voters did that.
That is not true of England though where Labour did a lot better than in 2010. Labour appears well placed to end up with in excess of 300 seats next time - 20 gains from the SNP plus 20 - 25 from the Tories.
It's net gains from the Conservatives that matter, and for that, they need to close them down on vote share. So far there's little sign of that. It is easily possible that Labour could go backwards overall in England next time given what they have to defend and where, although if they pick up seats in Scotland that may hide it.
Remember, while Labour are moving forwards in England the Conservatives are not moving backwards significantly at the moment - they are just one seat down on 2010, following shifts in voting patterns that have allowed them to pick up seats in the north and West Country to compensate for losses in the South-east. Corbyn needs to reach out to his northern voters and to middle-class voters in the Midlands and so far there's little sign he can do that either.
It is possible that Labour could go backwards in England next time but at the moment it does not look particularly likely.After 12 years of Tory -led Government , it is quite probable that Labour will recoup some of its working class losses and win back seats such as Walsall North, Copeland and Morley & Outwood. In Wales, Labour looks very well placed to gain Preseli Pembrokeshire and Aberconway - and has a fair chance in Vale of Glamorgan. I am not going to list all the possibilities, but there are a lot of them - including both seats in Milton Keynes as examples.Watford too could easily fall next time.
I can see Labour doing extremely well next time and getting around 40% once again, but it's difficult to envisage them getting more than about 280 to 290 seats. They might just be able to scrape into government with the help of the SNP, Plaid, Greens, etc.
Gone Girl on BBC1, one of my favourite films from the last couple of years or so.
Brilliant performance from Rosamund Pike. I was once fortunate enough to meet her and I can tell you see is as superb in person as she is on the screen.
Comments
Read some of the comments on here with its "one more heave" mentality. Look at some of the videos on Youtube of the hubristic Labour conference. Listen to the songs to Corbyn.
Your last sentence bears me out. 2017 saw Labour lose its third successive general election defeat with a tally of seats little higher than when it lost power under Gordon Brown in 2010. It saw the Tory vote rise to Margaret Thatcher levels in 1987. The voters did that.
Today's Corbynistas may well see exceeding the rock bottom expectations as being a cause of celebration (and lets not forget Corbyn himself believed he was leading Labour to catastrophic defeat but was prepared to continue over the abyss). But in my day we celebrated Labour victories and did not go into a state of hubris at yet another defeat.
@dixiedean:
I suppose one person's hubris is another's surprise and relief.
You compare apples with oranges in your example.
Just as easy to say the Labour vote rose to 2001 levels, while the Tory seat share fell to only just exceed 2010 levels. And, yes, the voters did that, too.
I still see no "celebration".
I see a Government utterly bereft of ideas beyond Brexit. Once that is done what will they do then? Even they don't seem to know.
What do you suggest by the way?
Ditch Corbyn you will say.
How? When? Who instead?
For comparison, there's a poll of polls here that has Trump on -19%:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
If you scroll to the bottom and hit "344 days", you can see what previous presidents were on at the same point: Obama +6% (and that after the worst crash since the depression), Bush Jr +70% (post 9/11), Clinton +17%, etc etc. Going back as far as Truman, no other President was in the negative at this stage.
But when it came to education he was more clueless than Michael Gove and his influence was only less disastrous because for all his ego he couldn't actually do much.
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/george-osborne-westminster-comeback
1) massive increases in borrowing to pay for capital expenditure - the latter not defined;
2) Free school meals for every child - this to be paid for by extra taxes on private schools. In another part of the manifesto, they outlined further taxes that would have instantly closed almost every private school;
3) Renationalising of key industries, without compensation, which would have royally buggered every pension fund in the land;
4) Free university tuition, and some unspecified mechanism to 'deal with' student debt - neither having been costed, Corbyn later (conveniently, after the election) admitted neither was affordable.
So we are stuck with a government with an idee fixee and a few domestic crumbs, or voting for a bunch of people who obviously have no clue what they are talking about but who admit their own policies are unworkable and would crash the economy.
I know sometimes how poor old Hobson felt when Mossop delivered his ultimatum.
https://twitter.com/HandelsblattGE/status/946441148230496262
I doubt it will happen but my hope is that he now sinks into a well deserved obscurity.
I think 3/1 England looks worth taking.
I suppose one person's hubris is another's surprise and relief.
You compare apples with oranges in your example.
Just as easy to say the Labour vote rose to 2001 levels, while the Tory seat share fell to only just exceed 2010 levels. And, yes, the voters did that, too.
I still see no "celebration".
I see a Government utterly bereft of ideas beyond Brexit. Once that is done what will they do then? Even they don't seem to know.
What do you suggest by the way?
Ditch Corbyn you will say.
How? When? Who instead?
Politics is not about relief at losing, it is about winning.
The Labour precentage rose but we do not elect governments by percentage of the vote -we need PR for that. We elect governments by the number of seats won and Corbyn did not even come close.Corbyn's % rose because he piled up votes uselessly in seats Labour already held, and because he won a handful of seats mainly in university towns.
I see a Tory government full of vile ideas. But I also see a Corbyn opposition which is nothing but postures, which promises the Earth but hasnt a clue how to economically deliver them, and I see a Labour leader of the hard left, with no real ability, good at organising protests but quite unfit to be prime minister and with no appeal to moderate voters necessary to win marginal seats in middle England crucial for victory. I do not see an Attlee, a Wilson, a Blair or a Smith in Jeremy Corbyn. I see a army of Corbyn fanatics who chant slogans and sing songs and I look at their faces and see something ugly and dangerous, something from long ago.......
Ditch Corbyn. Now. Replace him not with a Blairite, but with someone from the mainstream, someone in the tradition of Wilson and Smith. I prefer Emily Thornberry because although Corbynistas think she is one of themselves, she is not. She is not of the hard left, but a moderate traditionalist, and under her leadership I believe that Labour win those extra marginal seats.
I believe that under Jeremy Corbyn, defeat is inevitable.
However, nobody has got rich in recent years by betting on Smith being out cheaply.
Had Corbyn squeaked over the line, and he was not very far from a minority, it would have been because of
A piss-poor Con manifesto.
A robotic and tin-eared PM.
A refusal to recognise as issues, let alone do anything about, the problems of wages, student debt and Housing.
Various idiotic ideas such as fox-hunting.
Rather than anything Labour said or did.
My worry is however that if Labour win by default, having fed (a) extremism and (b) wholly unrealistic expectations, something really nasty could happen. I would like, as with stevef, to see a really good Labour Opposition emerge to capitalise on the government's weakness (although I have to say Thornberry, who has many of Corbyn's drawbacks but few of his strengths, would not be my answer).
I do think that oppositions have to be ready to take power before governments lose elections - for example, this year, 1992 and 2005 should have been open goals for the opposition if government ineptitude was the only criteria. Instead it was 1979, 1997 and 2010 (just) after years of painful and difficult choices by the opposition to steer to the centre that saw changes of government. At the moment Labour are industriously doing the opposite.
Politics is not about relief at losing, it is about winning.
The Labour precentage rose but we do not elect governments by percentage of the vote -we need PR for that. We elect governments by the number of seats won and Corbyn did not even come close.Corbyn's % rose because he piled up votes uselessly in seats Labour already held, and because he won a handful of seats mainly in university towns.
I see a Tory government full of vile ideas. But I also see a Corbyn opposition which is nothing but postures, which promises the Earth but hasnt a clue how to economically deliver them, and I see a Labour leader of the hard left, with no real ability, good at organising protests but quite unfit to be prime minister and with no appeal to moderate voters necessary to win marginal seats in middle England crucial for victory. I do not see an Attlee, a Wilson, a Blair or a Smith in Jeremy Corbyn. I see a army of Corbyn fanatics who chant slogans and sing songs and I look at their faces and see something ugly and dangerous, something from long ago.......
Ditch Corbyn. Now. Replace him not with a Blairite, but with someone from the mainstream, someone in the tradition of Wilson and Smith. I prefer Emily Thornberry because although Corbynistas think she is one of themselves, she is not. She is not of the hard left, but a moderate traditionalist, and under her leadership I believe that Labour win those extra marginal seats.
I believe that under Jeremy Corbyn, defeat is inevitable
@dixiedean:
That is fair enough as an opinion.
Does not deal with the how, though.
It isn't going to happen, at least in the short-term.
An interesting story combining gaming and (probably) American police incompetence:
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/innocent-man-instantly-shot-by-police-after-gamer-feud-over-2-results-in-swatting-prank-at-kansas-home/
To accuse TM of being a Ukipper is just hysterical and as far as I am concerned a plague on all of them
Sadly this is the moment where I must admit I can't think of any politician who wouldn't be at least as divisive in either party.
But still pretty good in Mebourne, and I fancy England's chances if they get a full day's play in.
MI5 urged UVF to kill Irish PM, claim newly released state papers
• Invest an extra £12 billion into the NHS; put £5.2 billion more into social care; build a
dedicated military hospital and abolish hospital parking charges
• End income tax on the minimum wage; cut income taxes for middle earners; scrap inheritance tax; abolish the ‘bedroom tax’ and increase the transferable personal tax allowance for married couples and civil partners
• Fund 6,000 additional posts spread between the police service, the prison service andthe Border Agency
• Cut business rates for small businesses
• Waive tuition fees for students taking a degree in science; technology; engineering; maths or medicine
• Increase defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP to honour our NATO obligations
• Invest £1.5 billion into mental health and dementia services
• Pay carers an extra £572 a year
• Build 500 affordable rent homes every year and eight halfway house hostels for homeless veterans
• Remove stamp duty on the first £250,000 for new homes built on brownfield sites.
Please expand that comment and read the bit in bold.
Corbyn can't do that. In fact, in a choice between Rees-Mogg and Corbyn the former would probably still win.
Edit - Mind you no one will know who Adonis is and it will not make any real difference anyway
Adonis could'a been a contender, but his future is behind him.
Hope though that most of the days play should be OK
Thought I might ask a question this evening.
Is it really the case that all of these restaurants that say they are Halal are in fact enforcing a Muslim-only restriction on their supplying butchers?
edit: not currently going anywhere with this, but just want to know
VTEC are running an efficient business (tbf, so did Directly Operated Railways). The problem is that passenger numbers are not increasing at anything like the rate expected by VTEC. So the premium payments (otherwise known as tax on rail passengers) promised by VTEC are looking rather high.
Now, you might well argue, tough luck. You bid to pay the government X amount, suck it up. But VTEC are arguing that the railway isn't what they were expecting (i.e. some enhancements have not been made). Personally I think it's a poor argument.
I'd actually be quite interested to hear what Lord Adonis now thinks about HS2. There is a lot of nervousness about passenger growth leveling off. Capacity. That's what we're told HS2 is all about.
Fox hunting
Anti-EU
If you could name any more touchstone issues than that for the Tory Right I would be intrigued to hear them.
Admittedly she has tried to leaven the lump in other ways, but it's pretty clear where her sympathies lie.
https://weather.com/weather/hourbyhour/l/ASXX0075:1:AS
We also need runways 3 and 4 at LHR, yet despite all the talk that’s not going to happen any time soon either.
If we want to be a global trading country post-Brexit then this major infrastructure stuff needs to be happening yesterday. Elsewhere in the world streamlined processes exist for building national infrastructure. My favourite anecdote is that Dubai airport built their Terminal 3 in the same time as Heathrow’s T5’s planning enquiry. The projects were of similar scope, new buildings within the existing airfield boundary, with access roads. This sh!t needs to be sorted out, and quickly. It’s already costing London money that people going to U.K. regional airports all fly through Amsterdam as it’s easier and quicker than going through Heathrow.
It doesn't have to be all about LHR or even LGW but it needs some joined-up thinking.
And don't get me started on road infrastructure.
Interestingly, on rail freight, I didn't realise until recently that Eurotunnel has a right to 35 paths per day between the tunnel and London until 2052. Sadly, only a few paths are actually used due to all the trouble there has been on the French side.
The Labour precentage rose but we do not elect governments by percentage of the vote -we need PR for that. We elect governments by the number of seats won and Corbyn did not even come close.Corbyn's % rose because he piled up votes uselessly in seats Labour already held, and because he won a handful of seats mainly in university towns.
I see a Tory government full of vile ideas. But I also see a Corbyn opposition which is nothing but postures, which promises the Earth but hasnt a clue how to economically deliver them, and I see a Labour leader of the hard left, with no real ability, good at organising protests but quite unfit to be prime minister and with no appeal to moderate voters necessary to win marginal seats in middle England crucial for victory. I do not see an Attlee, a Wilson, a Blair or a Smith in Jeremy Corbyn. I see a army of Corbyn fanatics who chant slogans and sing songs and I look at their faces and see something ugly and dangerous, something from long ago.......
Ditch Corbyn. Now. Replace him not with a Blairite, but with someone from the mainstream, someone in the tradition of Wilson and Smith. I prefer Emily Thornberry because although Corbynistas think she is one of themselves, she is not. She is not of the hard left, but a moderate traditionalist, and under her leadership I believe that Labour win those extra marginal seats.
I believe that under Jeremy Corbyn, defeat is inevitable.
I enjoyed the opening chapter on Jeremy Corbyn's leadership bid in Betting The House:
"You'd better make sure I don't fucking win."
Indeed, Butskellism was finished by 1979, Thatcherism by 1997 and the Third Way/social democracy was killed off by the financial crisis of 2008.
In response to the events of 2008, the Right came up with austerity - let's cut the State back to control the public finances rather than raise taxes. In some countries, public sector wages were cut and jobs lost by the bucket-load but we did austerity a little different and some argue we didn't do it at all.
The Left has always had its response which is what we see from McDonnell and Corbyn now. It's, I think, analogous to the response of the Mitterrand Government in 1981.
The centre-left (and arguably the centre right) has not formulated a coherent response and is out of the argument and that's why Blairite thinking is in the wilderness. It's blamed (unfairly I think) for the end of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset prices.
The side which is able to best communicate a vision of 2020s Britain will deserve to win the next GE - at the moment neither side has anything approaching a convincing argument.
The real reason is that the political landscape has changed since the 1990s, where a liberal centrist pro-european, corporatist, globalist party could be a mass movement winning nationwide mandates.
People are far more concerned now with things like democratic accountability, community, identity and mass migration, but the educated urban upper-middle classes can't see what the problem is.
In response to the events of 2008, the Right came up with austerity - let's cut the State back to control the public finances rather than raise taxes. In some countries, public sector wages were cut and jobs lost by the bucket-load but we did austerity a little different and some argue we didn't do it at all.
The Left has always had its response which is what we see from McDonnell and Corbyn now. It's, I think, analogous to the response of the Mitterrand Government in 1981.
The centre-left (and arguably the centre right) has not formulated a coherent response and is out of the argument and that's why Blairite thinking is in the wilderness. It's blamed (unfairly I think) for the end of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset prices.
The side which is able to best communicate a vision of 2020s Britain will deserve to win the next GE - at the moment neither side has anything approaching a convincing argument.
My French cousins had their business nationalised by Mitterand.
"You'd better make sure I don't fucking win." '
Thornberry would not rally the left and the young as Corbyn has nor will she appeal to current Tory voters who previously voted for Blair
The difference is her social background, which means she gets the concerns of JAMs more readily, and she really does own and fight for her policies once she decides.
In response to the events of 2008, the Right came up with austerity - let's cut the State back to control the public finances rather than raise taxes. In some countries, public sector wages were cut and jobs lost by the bucket-load but we did austerity a little different and some argue we didn't do it at all.
The Left has always had its response which is what we see from McDonnell and Corbyn now. It's, I think, analogous to the response of the Mitterrand Government in 1981.
The centre-left (and arguably the centre right) has not formulated a coherent response and is out of the argument and that's why Blairite thinking is in the wilderness. It's blamed (unfairly I think) for the end of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset prices.
The side which is able to best communicate a vision of 2020s Britain will deserve to win the next GE - at the moment neither side has anything approaching a convincing argument.
EDIT - BLOCKQUOTE ERROR. MY COMMENT STARTS HERE.
Good post.
Labour post 2010 were different from other centre left parties in Europe because the FPTP system secured them in place as the official opposition. But had Corbyn not won, it is likely that they would have ultimately suffered the same fate as other centre left parties around Europe ie decline, and loss of votes to more radical parties.
Remember, while Labour are moving forwards in England the Conservatives are not moving backwards significantly at the moment - they are just one seat down on 2010, following shifts in voting patterns that have allowed them to pick up seats in the north and West Country to compensate for losses in the South-east. Corbyn needs to reach out to his northern voters and to middle-class voters in the Midlands and so far there's little sign he can do that either.
The only elected position he has ever held is as a LibDem,
Mrs May is also trying to buy off the 1922.