I agree that Labour will go for a woman to succeed Corbyn - I rate Thornberry highly but harbour a pet theory that women leaders are only elected when then they come from the political right - Thatcher OK, May OK, Clinton not - so disagree with Don`s headline about a subsequent Labour polling breakthrough. My hunch is that the choosing of a female Labour leader will enhance Tory chances at the next election rather than the other way round.
Gillard, Gandhi, Kurchner, Ardern, Sturgeon, Peloisi were all/are all from the political left
I think the explanation must be that Kippers have noticed that Labour did really well after descending into chaos, with most of the Shadow Cabinet resigning saying that their leader was rubbish, and have decided to follow the same strategy.
For those PBers who think that Richard Leonard seems to be doing a decent job as SLab leader, he's having difficulty in keeping even staunchly Labour papers onside (also nsf anyone who reveres the memory of the blessed Thatch).
'Comparing Nicola Sturgeon to Margret Thatcher is just not credible'
So how come the Tories lost their majority in June when 43.5% backed them?
To reiterate, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them
It was far from ideal, but we didn't lose.
Not that old chestnut. Everyone* lost the 2017 election.
You lost, because you lost your hard-won majority. Corbyn lost because he stayed in opposition. The Lib Dems lost, because they lost two leaders and didn't make any progress.
Above all, we lost.
* Apart from maybe the DUP who hit a million dollar jackpot.
That's like saying a football team that needed to win 2-0 for goal difference reasons and only won 1-0 lost the game.
May's team screwed up in 2017. They didn't lose in the sense of it leading to a change of government, but it wasn't exactly kittens and rainbows either.
Yup. Tories rarely lose an election when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them.
Theresa May doesn't agree with you – she said she lost the election (by her own definition). The fact that an anonymous Tory cheerleader on a internet forum says she won is immaterial.
Forming a government is a zero sum game. No-one else won, therefore by default we didn't lose.
It wasn't glorious, and wasn't expected. But it was not a loss.
So, yet again I suggest, the Tories rarely lose an election when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them.
Heath lost in 1966 with more than 40% of the vote, as did Home in 1964 and Churchill in 1950 but the Liberals were even weaker than they are now and there were no SNP or Plaid MPs and the Greens and UKIP were not yet formed
So how come the Tories lost their majority in June when 43.5% backed them?
To reiterate, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them
It was far from ideal, but we didn't lose.
Not that old chestnut. Everyone* lost the 2017 election.
You lost, because you lost your hard-won majority. Corbyn lost because he stayed in opposition. The Lib Dems lost, because they lost two leaders and didn't make any progress.
Above all, we lost.
* Apart from maybe the DUP who hit a million dollar jackpot.
That's like saying a football team that needed to win 2-0 for goal difference reasons and only won 1-0 lost the game.
May's team screwed up in 2017. They didn't lose in the sense of it leading to a change of government, but it wasn't exactly kittens and rainbows either.
Yup. Tories rarely lose an election when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them.
Theresa May doesn't agree with you – she said she lost the election (by her own definition). The fact that an anonymous Tory cheerleader on a internet forum says she won is immaterial.
Forming a government is a zero sum game. No-one else won, therefore by default we didn't lose.
It wasn't glorious, and wasn't expected. But it was not a loss.
So, yet again I suggest, the Tories rarely lose an election when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them.
Regarding women, I suspect if and when John McDonnell's comments about Esther McVey get a wider airing they'll take a hit with women voters.
A female Shadow Chancellor might make sense.
The BBC bottled the chance to confront McDonnell with the audio of his comments yesterday. They asked him if he wanted them to play it, he said no, so they didn't.
Not a good day for that editor
It's very noticeable that the BBC - on the Marr show especially - tends to give right wing Brexiteers and left wing Corbynites a pretty easy ride in interviews. My theory is that this is because its producers, editors and presenters are very conscious of the fact that their own views are diametrically opposed to both varieties and so they overcompensate to avoid accusations of bias. They do this because it is right wing Brexiteers and left wing Corbynites who are quickest to shout bias. And that goes to show that doing it works. So it is not going to stop.
Marr is a weird and totally unconvincing mix of politics and entertainment. Why it has to be part South Bank Show is a mystery - unless it is something to do with arcane BBC budgeting rules?
I think the idea is to make it the Sunday papers on the telly. But I agree that it doesn't work at all. Not least because Marr is such a poor interviewer.
Marr doesn't do his research on topics so is unable to come back with follow up questions or able to contradict the anwers he is given.
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Regarding women, I suspect if and when John McDonnell's comments about Esther McVey get a wider airing they'll take a hit with women voters.
A female Shadow Chancellor might make sense.
The BBC bottled the chance to confront McDonnell with the audio of his comments yesterday. They asked him if he wanted them to play it, he said no, so they didn't.
Not a good day for that editor
It's very noticeable that the BBC - on the Marr show especially - tends to give right wing Brexiteers and left wing Corbynites a pretty easy ride in interviews. My theory is that this is because its producers, editors and presenters are very conscious of the fact that their own views are diametrically opposed to both varieties and so they overcompensate to avoid accusations of bias. They do this because it is right wing Brexiteers and left wing Corbynites who are quickest to shout bias. And that goes to show that doing it works. So it is not going to stop.
Eddie Mair when covering for Andrew Marr gave Boris a difficult interview.
So how come the Tories lost their majority in June when 43.5% backed them?
To reiterate, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them
It was far from ideal, but we didn't lose.
Not that old chestnut. Everyone* lost the 2017 election.
You lost, because you lost your hard-won majority. Corbyn lost because he stayed in opposition. The Lib Dems lost, because they lost two leaders and didn't make any progress.
Above all, we lost.
* Apart from maybe the DUP who hit a million dollar jackpot.
That's like saying a football team that needed to win 2-0 for goal difference reasons and only won 1-0 lost the game.
May's team screwed up in 2017. They didn't lose in the sense of it leading to a change of government, but it wasn't exactly kittens and rainbows either.
Yup. Tories rarely lose an election when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them.
Theresa May doesn't agree with you – she said she lost the election (by her own definition). The fact that an anonymous Tory cheerleader on a internet forum says she won is immaterial.
Forming a government is a zero sum game. No-one else won, therefore by default we didn't lose.
It wasn't glorious, and wasn't expected. But it was not a loss.
So, yet again I suggest, the Tories rarely lose an election when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them.
I'll take May's own view over that of 'Mortimer'.
Cheers.
The breadth of TSE's interests is staggering. I never knew he kept parrots.
Regarding women, I suspect if and when John McDonnell's comments about Esther McVey get a wider airing they'll take a hit with women voters.
A female Shadow Chancellor might make sense.
The BBC bottled the chance to confront McDonnell with the audio of his comments yesterday. They asked him if he wanted them to play it, he said no, so they didn't.
Not a good day for that editor
It's very noticeable that the BBC - on the Marr show especially - tends to give right wing Brexiteers and left wing Corbynites a pretty easy ride in interviews. My theory is that this is because its producers, editors and presenters are very conscious of the fact that their own views are diametrically opposed to both varieties and so they overcompensate to avoid accusations of bias. They do this because it is right wing Brexiteers and left wing Corbynites who are quickest to shout bias. And that goes to show that doing it works. So it is not going to stop.
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Forgetting about my own partisan interests for a moment, I think Thornberry would be fine as a Labour leader. Macron (or Blair!!) she may not be, but in this era of pygmies she is at least a relative giant.
UKIP have got through six leaders / temporary leaders since the Brexit vote (including Farage twice). At that rate, they'll work through another 17 before the next general election.
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Thornberry would fail to inspire the Left and young as much as Corbyn while still being too Left wing for most current Tory voters
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
The next Labour leadership election isn't likely to be until 2022 at the earliest. The runners and riders then will look quite different from now. Some who look over-promoted may grow into their role (as Thornberry has after a tricky start); others could get stale or just never achieve the potential some see in them.
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Thornberry would fail to inspire the Left and young as much as Corbyn while still being too Left wing for most current Tory voters
I disagree. You are again presenting your own opinion as fact, your MO. *I think* Thornberry would be one of the few candidates to unify both wings of the party while luring soft-right Remain Tories on board.
Well he would have to get elected first and I doubt he will match Attlee's landslide. Though from a leftwinger's perspective Corbyn is probably the best Labour leader since Attlee. Foot was ideologically similar to Corbyn but did not get anywhere near as close to Thatcher as Corbyn got to May (albeit in part because of the SDP)
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Thornberry would fail to inspire the Left and young as much as Corbyn while still being too Left wing for most current Tory voters
Plus her property deals/behaviour as a landlord will come under greater scrutiny than it is had to date.
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Forgetting about my own partisan interests for a moment, I think Thornberry would be fine as a Labour leader. Macron (or Blair!!) she may not be, but in this era of pygmies she is at least a relative giant.
Attlee was from a posh background but became popular with voters of the type who might shut the door on Corbyn in Mansfield or Walsall. They certainly said no to David Winnick in Walsall N (by 3,000).
In 1945, Labour won Spelthorne by 8,000. Has 'Labour wins Surrey seat' ever been a plausible headline since?!
If anyone wishes to bet £10 on a Corbyn landslide (majority 100 or more) at odds of 10.0 I'll gladly lay the bet. Any takers ...
I'd welcome a Corbyn majority of 3-5, not 50. 5 might keep him in check because the SDP wing would rebel at anything too silly. In fact, 3 might dwindle to 0 or -2 with byelections, giving a Lib-Lab pact. IMO that would start to give a chance of good government, although we'd need PR to complete the picture.
If we stick to FPTP, which is currently a fact of political life, a female leader akin to Barbara Castle - also sharp-witted - would be one of the best things they could do. So I agree ... they probably won't do it.
We’re one of the top nations when it comes to LGBTI rights.
I think it gnaws at some that the evil Tories introduced same sex marriage.
(With Lib Dem assistance)
And, indeed, we were well ahead of most of the EU on that - so it can hardly be said that the EU was a real driving force when it comes to marriage equality.
It is a dreadfully shallow article - based on what-if scaremongering. There is no scenario in the medium to long term that I can see where current rights are under threat of removal. None at all. And if we were in the EU when such a threat were made, then I can't see such an extreme government giving a flying f*ck as to the niceties of EU rules!
Quite. The EU had nothing to do with the decriminalisation of homosexuality or the introduction of civil partnerships or gay marriage.
And Keith Vaz assured us that the Charter of Rights has no more legal standing than the Beano.
It has had no impact here at all but to be fair to the EU its membership conditions have forced many Eastern European nations and other applicant members to legalise homosexuality and more liberal laws on gay rights.
It's also notable that the only majority Islamic nations which offer both some legal protections for gay people and where being gay is not s criminal offence or worse - are EU applicants - Bosnia, Albania and Turkey,
But it certainly had no impact here.
Reminds me of that young remainer protestor asked what the 3 best things about the EU were - her first best thing was the NHS!
The far left of which Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne, Williamson and co are a part has always hated Attlee - he was a patriotic, pragmatic leader who showed that you can achieve fundamental change through Parliament. The far left sees Parliament as a tool of the bourgeoisie and as a result has opposed every Labour government there has ever been.
I'd argue Attlee and his Labour Party were more patriotic than the Conservatives in the late 1930s, which came to a head in the Norway debate in 1940.
Post war, that continued with Attlee's administration all the way until he lost office in 1951.
Wow. This is becoming a torrent. I wonder if something else is going on here - namely a load of wrinkly middle-aged reactionaries consumed with envy because he's dating a nubile lovely half his age and they're not. When you consider the antics of previous UKIP leaders, the reaction this time seems unprecedented.
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Forgetting about my own partisan interests for a moment, I think Thornberry would be fine as a Labour leader. Macron (or Blair!!) she may not be, but in this era of pygmies she is at least a relative giant.
Attlee was from a posh background but became popular with voters of the type who might shut the door on Corbyn in Mansfield or Walsall. They certainly said no to David Winnick in Walsall N (by 3,000).
In 1945, Labour won Spelthorne by 8,000. Has 'Labour wins Surrey seat' ever been a plausible headline since?!
If anyone wishes to bet £10 on a Corbyn landslide (majority 100 or more) at odds of 10.0 I'll gladly lay the bet. Any takers ...
I'd welcome a Corbyn majority of 3-5, not 50. 5 might keep him in check because the SDP wing would rebel at anything too silly. In fact, 3 might dwindle to 0 or -2 with byelections, giving a Lib-Lab pact. IMO that would start to give a chance of good government, although we'd need PR to complete the picture.
If we stick to FPTP, which is currently a fact of political life, a female leader akin to Barbara Castle - also sharp-witted - would be one of the best things they could do. So I agree ... they probably won't do it.
"There were few who thought him a starter,. There were many who thought themselves smarter,. But he ended PM, CH, and OM,. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter". . As the man himself put it.
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Very much agree.Does she have ambitions to be leader ?
Wow. This is becoming a torrent. I wonder if something else is going on here - namely a load of wrinkly middle-aged reactionaries consumed with envy because he's dating a nubile lovely half his age and they're not. When you consider the antics of previous UKIP leaders, the reaction this time seems unprecedented.
I agree with the something else going on, but I'm guessing that's not it. Maybe more scandal to come? Or everyone just hates him
@GuidoFawkes: Henry Bolton to make a statement to camera at his hotel in Folkestone at 4pm
He could at least make it more dramatic... Try to make a getaway from the hotel and lead the press pack on a car chase up the M20 culminating in an impromptu resignation speech from Maidstone services.
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Very much agree.Does she have ambitions to be leader ?
Ask Shadsy. But I'd have thought way into double figures, probably higher.
Bolton will very likely be gone this afternoon. Even if there was a VoNC announced today in TMay, it wouldn't happen until tomorrow, and it'd take at least a week to appoint someone else - and that's if it was a coronation.
But I don't see the urgency in replacing May - nor taking the risk that the MPs would accept in launching the inherently unpredictable process of a leadership election. In reality, a leadership election would take two months and would likely become embroiled in bitter arguments about Brexit (which may include promising things that are undeliverable; such being the nature of leadership auctions). I stick to my view that she'll see out 2018.
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Thornberry would fail to inspire the Left and young as much as Corbyn while still being too Left wing for most current Tory voters
I disagree. You are again presenting your own opinion as fact, your MO. *I think* Thornberry would be one of the few candidates to unify both wings of the party while luring soft-right Remain Tories on board.
Absolutely agree, HYUFD is just repeating what people said about JC a year ago and presenting it as fact about Thornberry instead.
Wow. This is becoming a torrent. I wonder if something else is going on here - namely a load of wrinkly middle-aged reactionaries consumed with envy because he's dating a nubile lovely half his age and they're not. When you consider the antics of previous UKIP leaders, the reaction this time seems unprecedented.
I agree with the something else going on, but I'm guessing that's not it. Maybe more scandal to come? Or everyone just hates him
There's also the dynamics to consider. So many have resigned now that to not do so could be considered an explicit endorsement of Bolton and his behaviour - so those who might have had no intention of resigning feel forced into it for fear of being tainted.
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Thornberry would fail to inspire the Left and young as much as Corbyn while still being too Left wing for most current Tory voters
I disagree. You are again presenting your own opinion as fact, your MO. *I think* Thornberry would be one of the few candidates to unify both wings of the party while luring soft-right Remain Tories on board.
Thornberry would fail to win over virtually any of the current Tory voters who voted for Blair then switched to Cameron and stuck with May Labour need for a majority, nor would she inspire left-wing voter turnout behind Labour as much as Corbyn while she also has less appeal to the white working class than Corbyn does, see her St George's flag comments.
Emily Thornberry is Ed Miliband in a skirt and with a slightly more powerful voice
Well he would have to get elected first and I doubt he will match Attlee's landslide. Though from a leftwinger's perspective Corbyn is probably the best Labour leader since Attlee. Foot was ideologically similar to Corbyn but did not get anywhere near as close to Thatcher as Corbyn got to May (albeit in part because of the SDP)
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Thornberry would fail to inspire the Left and young as much as Corbyn while still being too Left wing for most current Tory voters
Plus her property deals/behaviour as a landlord will come under greater scrutiny than it is had to date.
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Thornberry would fail to inspire the Left and young as much as Corbyn while still being too Left wing for most current Tory voters
I disagree. You are again presenting your own opinion as fact, your MO. *I think* Thornberry would be one of the few candidates to unify both wings of the party while luring soft-right Remain Tories on board.
Thornberry would fail to win over virtually any of the current Tory voters who voted for Blair then switched to Cameron and stuck with May Labour need for a majority, nor would she inspire left-wing voter turnout behind Labour as much as Corbyn while she also has less appeal to the white working class than Corbyn does, see her St George's flag comments.
Emily Thornberry is Ed Miliband is a skirt and with a slightly more powerful voice
Tory voters who once voted for Blair are all 30+ by definition. Are you writing off anyone younger than that?
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Thornberry would fail to inspire the Left and young as much as Corbyn while still being too Left wing for most current Tory voters
I disagree. You are again presenting your own opinion as fact, your MO. *I think* Thornberry would be one of the few candidates to unify both wings of the party while luring soft-right Remain Tories on board.
Absolutely agree, HYUFD is just repeating what people said about JC a year ago and presenting it as fact about Thornberry instead.
Except Thornberry is closer to Ed Miliband than JC
Wow. This is becoming a torrent. I wonder if something else is going on here - namely a load of wrinkly middle-aged reactionaries consumed with envy because he's dating a nubile lovely half his age and they're not. When you consider the antics of previous UKIP leaders, the reaction this time seems unprecedented.
I agree with the something else going on, but I'm guessing that's not it. Maybe more scandal to come? Or everyone just hates him
There's also the dynamics to consider. So many have resigned now that to not do so could be considered an explicit endorsement of Bolton and his behaviour - so those who might have had no intention of resigning feel forced into it for fear of being tainted.
10/28 have resigned according to Christopher Hope.
Afternoon all. In a world where the Tories are embracing so much of the UKIP agenda, it strikes me that loonies fruitcakes and closet racists have a perfectly good alternative should UKIP go to the ballot box in the sky. Will exacerbate the culture divide in both the country and the Tory party.
I think Henry Bolton lives in Folkestone so no great surprise that he's there at present; but if UKIP had any pretensions of being taken seriously this would be taking place in London. Another small sign of decline.
Guess I'm a pretty poor progressive in still having doubts about gay marriage - it does seem to be that what was a passionate debate less than 5 years ago has now become accepted to the point of dissenters being ostracised. On the same card, I hate how Henry Bolton has left his wife and 2 young kids. I've no problems asking whether someone who manages his personal affairs in this way can be trusted with public office and it looks like many Kippers feel the same.
I also agree with those saying Thornberry would be an effective opposition leader. If she can deal with the occasional outbreak of smugness she could be a very powerful advocate of the Britain left behind by the current Government and a cannier tactician than we've seen recently.
Depends on who the female leader is, Don. For example, with the best will in the world, Rebecca Long Bailey or Dianne Abbott will not deliver anything but defeat.
Thornberry is clearly the best candidate. Just a fantastic TV performer, sassy and sharp-witted. Would show up May daily. So obvious is the succession that the leaden-brained Corbynites won't do it.
Thornberry would fail to inspire the Left and young as much as Corbyn while still being too Left wing for most current Tory voters
I disagree. You are again presenting your own opinion as fact, your MO. *I think* Thornberry would be one of the few candidates to unify both wings of the party while luring soft-right Remain Tories on board.
Thornberry would fail to win over virtually any of the current Tory voters who voted for Blair then switched to Cameron and stuck with May Labour need for a majority, nor would she inspire left-wing voter turnout behind Labour as much as Corbyn while she also has less appeal to the white working class than Corbyn does, see her St George's flag comments.
Emily Thornberry is Ed Miliband is a skirt and with a slightly more powerful voice
Tory voters who once voted for Blair are all 30+ by definition. Are you writing off anyone younger than that?
Even if the Tories win a majority next time they will not win the under 30 demographic, even Ed Miliband won them
Guess I'm a pretty poor progressive in still having doubts about gay marriage - it does seem to be that what was a passionate debate less than 5 years ago has now become accepted to the point of dissenters being ostracised.
Presumably all the people who passionately opposed it on the grounds of not wanting to change the definition of marriage now passionately support it for the same reason
Guess I'm a pretty poor progressive in still having doubts about gay marriage - it does seem to be that what was a passionate debate less than 5 years ago has now become accepted to the point of dissenters being ostracised.
Presumably all the people who passionately opposed it on the grounds of not wanting to change the definition of marriage now passionately support it for the same reason
I think the truth is, a big chunk of people don't understand same sex relationships and/or why they would want to get married, but don't really care, and that group of people was largely against then and in favour now.
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
In any case, I doubt if the Labour leadership would be interested in any cross-party agreement.
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
In any case, I doubt if the Labour leadership would be interested in any cross-party agreement.
Exactly. They have too much vested in using the NHS as their chief weapon.
Guess I'm a pretty poor progressive in still having doubts about gay marriage - it does seem to be that what was a passionate debate less than 5 years ago has now become accepted to the point of dissenters being ostracised.
Presumably all the people who passionately opposed it on the grounds of not wanting to change the definition of marriage now passionately support it for the same reason
I think the truth is, a big chunk of people don't understand same sex relationships and/or why they would want to get married, but don't really care, and that group of people was largely against then and in favour now.
There was a chunk of religious voters who supported civil partnerships but not gay marriage, although now gay marriages can be performed in civil ceremonies but churches, mosques, synagogues and temples are still exempt from having to perform them in practical terms there is little difference
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
She's not making a mistake. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of Labour taking a non-partisan approach to the NHS. They consider it, probably correctly, as their single most important party-political weapon. Why on earth would they agree to any sensible proposal which might risk neutralising it?
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
In any case, I doubt if the Labour leadership would be interested in any cross-party agreement.
Exactly. They have too much vested in using the NHS as their chief weapon.
Wouldn't a better prime minister realise this and be able to trap Labour into supporting something that falls a long way short of what the Corbynistas are expecting?
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
Additionally can Liz Kendall deliver the Labour Party...
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
In any case, I doubt if the Labour leadership would be interested in any cross-party agreement.
It depends what was proposed I am sure. But Labour I imagine would be keen on tax rises to make up a funding shortfall - the Tories would prefer something else - maybe an insurance contribution, maybe out of pocket payments, maybe some new form of cost control.
Perfectly legitimate for us to disagree - I don’t see why people get squeamish about the fact that there are differences of opinion on NHS funding.
The far left of which Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne, Williamson and co are a part has always hated Attlee - he was a patriotic, pragmatic leader who showed that you can achieve fundamental change through Parliament. The far left sees Parliament as a tool of the bourgeoisie and as a result has opposed every Labour government there has ever been.
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
Additionally can Liz Kendall deliver the Labour Party...
Loving the "Chicken Coup" in UKIP - a party that has become such a parody that it needs to copy the Monster Raving Loony Party and split in twain. One party for Racists, another party for Fruitcakes.
As for the Labour leadership its purely hypothetical. Unless he chooses to retire Jezbollah will lead Labour into the next election, and will continue to lead the party afterwards win or lose. Its entirely his decision whether to be leader or not - a job for life.
Most people who have been inspired by him and have joined the party will stay - its the ethos and policy hope platform they buy into. Providing the next leader has some forthright charisma I'd expect most people to stay on board. And Thornberry is the most obvious contender. And she knows it.
Guess I'm a pretty poor progressive in still having doubts about gay marriage - it does seem to be that what was a passionate debate less than 5 years ago has now become accepted to the point of dissenters being ostracised.
Presumably all the people who passionately opposed it on the grounds of not wanting to change the definition of marriage now passionately support it for the same reason
I think the truth is, a big chunk of people don't understand same sex relationships and/or why they would want to get married, but don't really care, and that group of people was largely against then and in favour now.
There was a chunk of religious voters who supported civil partnerships but not gay marriage, although now gay marriages can be performed in civil ceremonies but churches, mosques, synagogues and temples are still exempt from having to perform them in practical terms there is little difference
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
Additionally can Liz Kendall deliver the Labour Party...
Pretty unlikely I’d have thought. I doubt Wollaston could deliver the Tories either.
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
Additionally can Liz Kendall deliver the Labour Party...
The problem is that these cross-party things very rarely work, unless it's on a specific, narrow issue with no obvious room for politicisation.
So, you could see a cross party working party on the best way to deal with drug addiction, or on mental health issues. But you're not going to get something working on the NHS, because someone will have to "betray" their party.
Loving the "Chicken Coup" in UKIP - a party that has become such a parody that it needs to copy the Monster Raving Loony Party and split in twain. One party for Racists, another party for Fruitcakes.
As for the Labour leadership its purely hypothetical. Unless he chooses to retire Jezbollah will lead Labour into the next election, and will continue to lead the party afterwards win or lose. Its entirely his decision whether to be leader or not - a job for life.
Most people who have been inspired by him and have joined the party will stay - its the ethos and policy hope platform they buy into. Providing the next leader has some forthright charisma I'd expect most people to stay on board. And Thornberry is the most obvious contender. And she knows it.
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
Additionally can Liz Kendall deliver the Labour Party...
Pretty unlikely I’d have thought. I doubt Wollaston could deliver the Tories either.
Be careful. Otherwise you’ll start @HYUFD on his “she’s not a Tory, she’s a LibDem” mantra again
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
Additionally can Liz Kendall deliver the Labour Party...
The problem is that these cross-party things very rarely work, unless it's on a specific, narrow issue with no obvious room for politicisation.
So, you could see a cross party working party on the best way to deal with drug addiction, or on mental health issues. But you're not going to get something working on the NHS, because someone will have to "betray" their party.
There must be a play for May here. Not sure ignoring it completely was the best course of action.
Guess I'm a pretty poor progressive in still having doubts about gay marriage - it does seem to be that what was a passionate debate less than 5 years ago has now become accepted to the point of dissenters being ostracised.
Presumably all the people who passionately opposed it on the grounds of not wanting to change the definition of marriage now passionately support it for the same reason
I think the truth is, a big chunk of people don't understand same sex relationships and/or why they would want to get married, but don't really care, and that group of people was largely against then and in favour now.
There was a chunk of religious voters who supported civil partnerships but not gay marriage, although now gay marriages can be performed in civil ceremonies but churches, mosques, synagogues and temples are still exempt from having to perform them in practical terms there is little difference
The far left of which Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne, Williamson and co are a part has always hated Attlee - he was a patriotic, pragmatic leader who showed that you can achieve fundamental change through Parliament. The far left sees Parliament as a tool of the bourgeoisie and as a result has opposed every Labour government there has ever been.
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
Additionally can Liz Kendall deliver the Labour Party...
The problem is that these cross-party things very rarely work, unless it's on a specific, narrow issue with no obvious room for politicisation.
So, you could see a cross party working party on the best way to deal with drug addiction, or on mental health issues. But you're not going to get something working on the NHS, because someone will have to "betray" their party.
There must be a play for May here. Not sure ignoring it completely was the best course of action.
You would have thought that there was an opportunity to set the centrist dads against the Corbynites.
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
Additionally can Liz Kendall deliver the Labour Party...
The problem is that these cross-party things very rarely work, unless it's on a specific, narrow issue with no obvious room for politicisation.
So, you could see a cross party working party on the best way to deal with drug addiction, or on mental health issues. But you're not going to get something working on the NHS, because someone will have to "betray" their party.
I agree - but I think it’s fine for parties to disagree on political issues. That’s a feature not a bug.
I quite like Thornberry. I also like Angela Rayner. What I have seen of her. She may crash and burn but give her a chance. Jess Phillips, Stella Creasey. They both have potential. My impression - and it is only an impression - is that there are some potentially good female MPs amongst the junior ranks in Labour. The same might also be said of the Tories.
But they need to be tested and trained and mentored. Putting them forward as the new Messiah is catastrophic for them: too much exposure too soon, too many basic mistakes and not enough time for them to do the hard thinking about what it is they want to do and, much more importantly, how to get to whatever goal they have in mind.
The successful politicians of the past had a much longer and more extensive apprenticeship - though I appreciate that Cameron was one of the exceptions - and I think the lack of such an apprenticeship shows. They make some basic political errors and do not appear to have learned even the basics of how to deal with even the most minor of tough questions let alone more difficult stuff. (Example no. 1 - Tulip Siddiq unable to deflect a pretty easy and basic question and going all nasty and personal instead.)
Guess I'm a pretty poor progressive in still having doubts about gay marriage - it does seem to be that what was a passionate debate less than 5 years ago has now become accepted to the point of dissenters being ostracised.
Presumably all the people who passionately opposed it on the grounds of not wanting to change the definition of marriage now passionately support it for the same reason
I think the truth is, a big chunk of people don't understand same sex relationships and/or why they would want to get married, but don't really care, and that group of people was largely against then and in favour now.
There was a chunk of religious voters who supported civil partnerships but not gay marriage, although now gay marriages can be performed in civil ceremonies but churches, mosques, synagogues and temples are still exempt from having to perform them in practical terms there is little difference
The slope is not quite as slippery as feared.
Nor the extremes of weather.....
Always an opportunity to remind ourselves of this story:
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
Additionally can Liz Kendall deliver the Labour Party...
The problem is that these cross-party things very rarely work, unless it's on a specific, narrow issue with no obvious room for politicisation.
So, you could see a cross party working party on the best way to deal with drug addiction, or on mental health issues. But you're not going to get something working on the NHS, because someone will have to "betray" their party.
There must be a play for May here. Not sure ignoring it completely was the best course of action.
Let's say you have a Royal Commission that says "The NHS needs £30 billion per annum extra funding." It wouldn't take the NHS out of politics. There would be
a) a huge political fight on whose budget got cut/what taxes got raised to pay for it, that would essentially be no different to today;
b) a medical profession saying "We are the experts. It needs to be £50 billion..."
c) a Labour Party that would offer that £50 billion.
We would be no further forward in terms of taking the NHS out of politics. You never will. It is the most political thing in Britain.
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
Additionally can Liz Kendall deliver the Labour Party...
The problem is that these cross-party things very rarely work, unless it's on a specific, narrow issue with no obvious room for politicisation.
So, you could see a cross party working party on the best way to deal with drug addiction, or on mental health issues. But you're not going to get something working on the NHS, because someone will have to "betray" their party.
There must be a play for May here. Not sure ignoring it completely was the best course of action.
You would have thought that there was an opportunity to set the centrist dads against the Corbynites.
There's that Corbynista binaryism again: its either Corbynism or Blairism and nothing in between. But there is an alternative which is neither hard left Corbynism or "centrist" Blairism. Its the mainstream -the Labour of John Smith, Harold Wilsonj and indeed Clement Attlee.
The far left of which Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne, Williamson and co are a part has always hated Attlee - he was a patriotic, pragmatic leader who showed that you can achieve fundamental change through Parliament. The far left sees Parliament as a tool of the bourgeoisie and as a result has opposed every Labour government there has ever been.
Atlee also fought for his country.
He also became PM.
Attlee was not on the hard left like Corbyn, nor was he a forerunner of Blair. He was mainstream Labour. Corbynites like to present the future of the Labour party in binary terms : either hard left Corbynism or "right wing Blairism. The fact is there is a mainstream in between -and that is what Labour needs to return to
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
Additionally can Liz Kendall deliver the Labour Party...
The problem is that these cross-party things very rarely work, unless it's on a specific, narrow issue with no obvious room for politicisation.
So, you could see a cross party working party on the best way to deal with drug addiction, or on mental health issues. But you're not going to get something working on the NHS, because someone will have to "betray" their party.
There must be a play for May here. Not sure ignoring it completely was the best course of action.
You would have thought that there was an opportunity to set the centrist dads against the Corbynites.
There's that Corbynista binaryism again: its either Corbynism or Blairism and nothing in between. But there is an alternative which is neither hard left Corbynism or "centrist" Blairism. Its the mainstream -the Labour of John Smith, Harold Wilsonj and indeed Clement Attlee.
What would its policies be, its USP? How would it differ from Blairism or Corbynism?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just trying to understand what it would amount to. When people like Yvette Cooper and others stood for the Labour leadership a few years ago they seemed quite incapable of putting forward a social democratic style Labour position that appealed. What is different now? And who would present the case?
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
Additionally can Liz Kendall deliver the Labour Party...
The problem is that these cross-party things very rarely work, unless it's on a specific, narrow issue with no obvious room for politicisation.
So, you could see a cross party working party on the best way to deal with drug addiction, or on mental health issues. But you're not going to get something working on the NHS, because someone will have to "betray" their party.
There must be a play for May here. Not sure ignoring it completely was the best course of action.
Let's say you have a Royal Commission that says "The NHS needs £30 billion per annum extra funding." It wouldn't take the NHS out of politics. There would be
a) a huge political fight on whose budget got cut/what taxes got raised to pay for it, that would essentially be no different to today;
b) a medical profession saying "We are the experts. It needs to be £50 billion..."
c) a Labour Party that would offer that £50 billion.
We would be no further forward in terms of taking the NHS out of politics. You never will. It is the most political thing in Britain.
There is no sum of additional money that would be enough for the NHS. We cannot construct a system with enough spare capacity for any emergency/situation/peak in demand. £50 billion more would see demands for £100 billion more and so on. We have to manage our resources as effectively as possible and that means at times it will fall short of expectations because we can't have empty beds and medical staff who are just hanging around just in case they are needed.
Unless we are honest about the fact that the NHS will always be a flawed organisation, we will never move forward. No country will ever be able to afford unlimited healthcare on demand - and that is what too many people think the NHS is there to provide.
While clearly UKIP provides much sport, this little tweet has been overlooked.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
TBH I don’t blame her. For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
Additionally can Liz Kendall deliver the Labour Party...
The problem is that these cross-party things very rarely work, unless it's on a specific, narrow issue with no obvious room for politicisation.
So, you could see a cross party working party on the best way to deal with drug addiction, or on mental health issues. But you're not going to get something working on the NHS, because someone will have to "betray" their party.
There must be a play for May here. Not sure ignoring it completely was the best course of action.
You would have thought that there was an opportunity to set the centrist dads against the Corbynites.
There's that Corbynista binaryism again: its either Corbynism or Blairism and nothing in between. But there is an alternative which is neither hard left Corbynism or "centrist" Blairism. Its the mainstream -the Labour of John Smith, Harold Wilsonj and indeed Clement Attlee.
What would its policies be, its USP? How would it differ from Blairism or Corbynism?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just trying to understand what it would amount to. When people like Yvette Cooper and others stood for the Labour leadership a few years ago they seemed quite incapable of putting forward a social democratic style Labour position that appealed. What is different now? And who would present the case?
I think ed Miliband could have done well standing on the 2017 manifesto more or less. But he made the mistake of watering down his radicalism and so wasn’t really able to cut through with the public.
Comments
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/955407005996519425
Cheers.
When you think about it, no other party has the depth of UKIP when it comes to potential comedy leaders.
Marr doesn't do his research on topics so is unable to come back with follow up questions or able to contradict the anwers he is given.
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/955401029184573446
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/scotland.html
In 1945, Labour won Spelthorne by 8,000. Has 'Labour wins Surrey seat' ever been a plausible headline since?!
If anyone wishes to bet £10 on a Corbyn landslide (majority 100 or more) at odds of 10.0 I'll gladly lay the bet. Any takers ...
I'd welcome a Corbyn majority of 3-5, not 50. 5 might keep him in check because the SDP wing would rebel at anything too silly. In fact, 3 might dwindle to 0 or -2 with byelections, giving a Lib-Lab pact. IMO that would start to give a chance of good government, although we'd need PR to complete the picture.
If we stick to FPTP, which is currently a fact of political life, a female leader akin to Barbara Castle - also sharp-witted - would be one of the best things they could do. So I agree ... they probably won't do it.
It's also notable that the only majority Islamic nations which offer both some legal protections for gay people and where being gay is not s criminal offence or worse - are EU applicants - Bosnia, Albania and Turkey,
But it certainly had no impact here.
Reminds me of that young remainer protestor asked what the 3 best things about the EU were - her first best thing was the NHS!
Post war, that continued with Attlee's administration all the way until he lost office in 1951.
I can just imagine the joy of the news crews having to head down there in January!
There were many who thought themselves smarter,.
But he ended PM,
CH, and OM,.
An Earl and a Knight of the Garter".
.
As the man himself put it.
Bolton will very likely be gone this afternoon. Even if there was a VoNC announced today in TMay, it wouldn't happen until tomorrow, and it'd take at least a week to appoint someone else - and that's if it was a coronation.
But I don't see the urgency in replacing May - nor taking the risk that the MPs would accept in launching the inherently unpredictable process of a leadership election. In reality, a leadership election would take two months and would likely become embroiled in bitter arguments about Brexit (which may include promising things that are undeliverable; such being the nature of leadership auctions). I stick to my view that she'll see out 2018.
Kendall, Wollaston, and Lamb's proposal for a tripartite approach to the NHS has cold water poured on it by May. She never misses an opportunity to make a mistake.
https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/955087657926844417
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eL8_wtS-0I
Emily Thornberry is Ed Miliband in a skirt and with a slightly more powerful voice
I think Henry Bolton lives in Folkestone so no great surprise that he's there at present; but if UKIP had any pretensions of being taken seriously this would be taking place in London. Another small sign of decline.
Guess I'm a pretty poor progressive in still having doubts about gay marriage - it does seem to be that what was a passionate debate less than 5 years ago has now become accepted to the point of dissenters being ostracised. On the same card, I hate how Henry Bolton has left his wife and 2 young kids. I've no problems asking whether someone who manages his personal affairs in this way can be trusted with public office and it looks like many Kippers feel the same.
I also agree with those saying Thornberry would be an effective opposition leader. If she can deal with the occasional outbreak of smugness she could be a very powerful advocate of the Britain left behind by the current Government and a cannier tactician than we've seen recently.
For one thing - I don’t see that a cross party working group is the right way to deal with such a political issue. For another - she has rather a lot on keeping her party together and delivering Brexit and can hardly afford to invest political capital in another charged policy area.
But Labour I imagine would be keen on tax rises to make up a funding shortfall - the Tories would prefer something else - maybe an insurance contribution, maybe out of pocket payments, maybe some new form of cost control.
Perfectly legitimate for us to disagree - I don’t see why people get squeamish about the fact that there are differences of opinion on NHS funding.
As for the Labour leadership its purely hypothetical. Unless he chooses to retire Jezbollah will lead Labour into the next election, and will continue to lead the party afterwards win or lose. Its entirely his decision whether to be leader or not - a job for life.
Most people who have been inspired by him and have joined the party will stay - its the ethos and policy hope platform they buy into. Providing the next leader has some forthright charisma I'd expect most people to stay on board. And Thornberry is the most obvious contender. And she knows it.
I doubt Wollaston could deliver the Tories either.
So, you could see a cross party working party on the best way to deal with drug addiction, or on mental health issues. But you're not going to get something working on the NHS, because someone will have to "betray" their party.
But they need to be tested and trained and mentored. Putting them forward as the new Messiah is catastrophic for them: too much exposure too soon, too many basic mistakes and not enough time for them to do the hard thinking about what it is they want to do and, much more importantly, how to get to whatever goal they have in mind.
The successful politicians of the past had a much longer and more extensive apprenticeship - though I appreciate that Cameron was one of the exceptions - and I think the lack of such an apprenticeship shows. They make some basic political errors and do not appear to have learned even the basics of how to deal with even the most minor of tough questions let alone more difficult stuff. (Example no. 1 - Tulip Siddiq unable to deflect a pretty easy and basic question and going all nasty and personal instead.)
https://order-order.com/2018/01/22/labour-trans-activists-circulate-radical-feminist-hit-list/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/18/tony-perkins-floods-louisiana-gay-christian-conservative
a) a huge political fight on whose budget got cut/what taxes got raised to pay for it, that would essentially be no different to today;
b) a medical profession saying "We are the experts. It needs to be £50 billion..."
c) a Labour Party that would offer that £50 billion.
We would be no further forward in terms of taking the NHS out of politics. You never will. It is the most political thing in Britain.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just trying to understand what it would amount to. When people like Yvette Cooper and others stood for the Labour leadership a few years ago they seemed quite incapable of putting forward a social democratic style Labour position that appealed. What is different now? And who would present the case?
Unless we are honest about the fact that the NHS will always be a flawed organisation, we will never move forward. No country will ever be able to afford unlimited healthcare on demand - and that is what too many people think the NHS is there to provide.
But he made the mistake of watering down his radicalism and so wasn’t really able to cut through with the public.