I apologise for contributing to the longevity of the reaction. Unfortunately it was new to me, and I didn't know how much people had been going on about it.
No problem at all. But, yes, they have been "going on about it" forever. Whenever Pidcock is mentioned that remark of hers - "I won't be friends with a tory" - crops up with the same inevitability as the featured couple on Escape To The Country saying that they don't want a separate dining room ,they want a large kitchen diner which will be the "heart of the home" where everyone can sit and chat.
Or indeed The Sainted Margaret's no such thing as society quote taken out of context as it usually is by leftist types; I'm delighted we can put that behind us and no longer use it to prove any kind of point.
What context was it it taken out of as a matter of interest?
“they never quoted the rest. I went on to say: There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour. My meaning, clear at the time but subsequently distorted beyond recognition, was that society was not an abstraction, separate from the men and women who composed it, but a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours and voluntary associations.“
Yes, she was clearly saying the exact, diametric opposite of what the Left, with spectacular dishonesty, accuse her of having meant. Yet, despite this being incontrovertibly the case, I don't think I have seen a single person apologise for misrepresenting her, or indeed acknowledge that they did so. Instead they keep repeating the lie.
Or indeed The Sainted Margaret's no such thing as society quote taken out of context as it usually is by leftist types; I'm delighted we can put that behind us and no longer use it to prove any kind of point.
Funnily enough that one sprang to mind. It's not a heinous or ridiculous sentiment, it's just the standard "small state" aspiration of the standard Tory mindset expressed in a striking way. But not so sure about "out of context". The remark can validly be used to attack Thatcher and Toryism without distortion.
"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."
I apologise for contributing to the longevity of the reaction. Unfortunately it was new to me, and I didn't know how much people had been going on about it.
No problem at all. But, yes, they have been "going on about it" forever. Whenever Pidcock is mentioned that remark of hers - "I won't be friends with a tory" - crops up with the same inevitability as the featured couple on Escape To The Country saying that they don't want a separate dining room ,they want a large kitchen diner which will be the "heart of the home" where everyone can sit and chat.
Or indeed The Sainted Margaret's no such thing as society quote taken out of context as it usually is by leftist types; I'm delighted we can put that behind us and no longer use it to prove any kind of point.
What context was it it taken out of as a matter of interest?
“they never quoted the rest. I went on to say: There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour. My meaning, clear at the time but subsequently distorted beyond recognition, was that society was not an abstraction, separate from the men and women who composed it, but a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours and voluntary associations.“
Wd for allowing Magrit some post hoc fudging from beyond the grave.
'People must look to themselves first' and 'It’s our duty to look after ourselves' are really putting 'And, you know, there's no such thing as society' into context.
I apologise for contributing to the longevity of the reaction. Unfortunately it was new to me, and I didn't know how much people had been going on about it.
No problem at all. But, yes, they have been "going on about it" forever. Whenever Pidcock is mentioned that remark of hers - "I won't be friends with a tory" - crops up with the same inevitability as the featured couple on Escape To The Country saying that they don't want a separate dining room ,they want a large kitchen diner which will be the "heart of the home" where everyone can sit and chat.
Or indeed The Sainted Margaret's no such thing as society quote taken out of context as it usually is by leftist types; I'm delighted we can put that behind us and no longer use it to prove any kind of point.
What context was it it taken out of as a matter of interest?
“they never quoted the rest. I went on to say: There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour. My meaning, clear at the time but subsequently distorted beyond recognition, was that society was not an abstraction, separate from the men and women who composed it, but a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours and voluntary associations.“
Wd for allowing Magrit some post hoc fudging from beyond the grave.
'People must look to themselves first' and 'It’s our duty to look after ourselves' are really putting 'And, you know, there's no such thing as society' into context.
A perfect example of the misrepresentation. I find it staggering that anyone has the gall to be so unambiguously dishonest, when the full text is available for anyone to find.
Or indeed The Sainted Margaret's no such thing as society quote taken out of context as it usually is by leftist types; I'm delighted we can put that behind us and no longer use it to prove any kind of point.
Funnily enough that one sprang to mind. It's not a heinous or ridiculous sentiment, it's just the standard "small state" aspiration of the standard Tory mindset expressed in a striking way. But not so sure about "out of context". The remark can validly be used to attack Thatcher and Toryism without distortion.
"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."
See? It's very very debatable.
No it's not. She was saying that the abstract concept of society was just that. Whereas people exist.
What totally wrong-footed Long Bailey I think was the scale of the defeat. The assumption among Corbynistas was that even on a bad night they'd lose at most 20-30 seats and could largely (if wrongly) blame defeat on Brexit, and run a campaign that was largely based on loyalty to Corbyn and support for policies in the manifesto, while only really differentiating on style and criticising indirectly in ways that implicitly placed blame elsewhere - tougher on antisemitism processes, promising to take on the dreaded media better. However, losing 60 seats in the way they did made that approach pretty laughable, even to many Corbyn supporters. Unless you're a fully paid up crank, or genuinely don't care about the risk the party is in existential trouble, you know some pretty big things need to change. Starmer being the early beneficiary being the most ready made and cost free change for floating left-wingers.
I think Pidcock would likely have been in the same boat. The scale of defeat would've totally undercut her likely message of saying the same things, but louder in the voice of a northern woman and hoping Brexit would fade as an issue.
What totally wrong-footed Long Bailey I think was the scale of the defeat. The assumption among Corbynistas was that even on a bad night they'd lose at most 20-30 seats and could largely (if wrongly) blame defeat on Brexit, and run a campaign that was largely based on loyalty to Corbyn and support for policies in the manifesto, while only really differentiating on style and criticising indirectly in ways that implicitly placed blame elsewhere - tougher on antisemitism processes, promising to take on the dreaded media better. However, losing 60 seats in the way they did made that approach pretty laughable, even to many Corbyn supporters. Unless you're a fully paid up crank, or genuinely don't care about the risk the party is in existential trouble, you know some pretty big things need to change. Starmer being the early beneficiary being the most ready made and cost free change for floating left-wingers.
I think Pidcock would likely have been in the same boat. The scale of defeat would've totally undercut her likely message of saying the same things, but louder in the voice of a northern woman and hoping Brexit would fade as an issue.
That's probably right.
Mind you, there's still a long way to go. It's a long process and perhaps Momentum and others of a similar persuasion, and RLB herself, will recover their mojo and get organised.
“they never quoted the rest. I went on to say: There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour. My meaning, clear at the time but subsequently distorted beyond recognition, was that society was not an abstraction, separate from the men and women who composed it, but a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours and voluntary associations.“
Wd for allowing Magrit some post hoc fudging from beyond the grave.
'People must look to themselves first' and 'It’s our duty to look after ourselves' are really putting 'And, you know, there's no such thing as society' into context.
Yeah, that context is fairly consistent with what I always assumed "there's no such thing as society" meant.
I can see how you could try to spin it as a sort of communitarian "charity begins at home" message, but the phrase "people must look to themselves first" is at best a truism, and is at worst a justification for prioritising a tiny increment in your own wellbeing over a life-and-death issue affecting someone else.
I apologise for contributing to the longevity of the reaction. Unfortunately it was new to me, and I didn't know how much people had been going on about it.
No problem at all. But, yes, they have been "going on about it" forever. Whenever Pidcock is mentioned that remark of hers - "I won't be friends with a tory" - crops up with the same inevitability as the featured couple on Escape To The Country saying that they don't want a separate dining room ,they want a large kitchen diner which will be the "heart of the home" where everyone can sit and chat.
Or indeed The Sainted Margaret's no such thing as society quote taken out of context as it usually is by leftist types; I'm delighted we can put that behind us and no longer use it to prove any kind of point.
What context was it it taken out of as a matter of interest?
“they never quoted the rest. I went on to say: There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour. My meaning, clear at the time but subsequently distorted beyond recognition, was that society was not an abstraction, separate from the men and women who composed it, but a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours and voluntary associations.“
Wd for allowing Magrit some post hoc fudging from beyond the grave.
'People must look to themselves first' and 'It’s our duty to look after ourselves' are really putting 'And, you know, there's no such thing as society' into context.
A perfect example of the misrepresentation. I find it staggering that anyone has the gall to be so unambiguously dishonest, when the full text is available for anyone to find.
I'm perfectly aware of the full quote (below) from where those snippets came, however that wasn't what was offered, instead a mealy mouthed defence from Magrit. 'I know I said that but it didn't come out right, what I really meant was' said no one with zinger of a point ever.
"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."
There is no need to apologise. Many people aren't able to understand the concepts behind the quote and hence take it out of context.
It's not that they can't understand it, it's that they refuse to understand that she wasn't saying what they insist she must have been saying. (And in almost all cases they haven't actually read the full interview anyway, which of course makes it easier to wilfully misrepresent it).
I'm perfectly aware of the full quote (below) from where those snippets came, however that wasn't what was offered, instead a mealy mouthed defence from Magrit. 'I know I said that but it didn't come out right, what I really meant was' said no one with zinger of a point ever.
"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."
That is very far from the 'full quote'. The full quote is quite long, so I won't repeat it, but you missed some crucial bits, such as "There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate." - as you will admit, if you are vaguely honest, the exact opposite of what she is accused of saying.
I'm perfectly aware of the full quote (below) from where those snippets came, however that wasn't what was offered, instead a mealy mouthed defence from Magrit. 'I know I said that but it didn't come out right, what I really meant was' said no one with zinger of a point ever.
"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."
That is very far from the 'full quote'. The full quote is quite long, so I won't repeat it, but you missed some crucial bits, such as "There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate." - as you will admit, if you are vaguely honest, the exact opposite of what she is accused of saying.
It says precisely nothing about the size of the state.
It says nothing about very much at all unless you extrapolate to what you think she was driving at. And what EYE think she was driving at is that people are first and foremost responsible for themselves and their families. And also the reverse, that the person most responsible for the welfare of a person and their family is that person. Do not look to "society" for answers to questions, for help with hardship, for solutions to problems. Part of "society" in this context is government. It therefore maps to small state. The only way it doesn't is if all she was really bemoaning is the tendency of a certain type of person to "blame society" for their woes rather than get on their bike and improve their lot. In which case her comment is one of extreme banality. Pub bore talk. Which it might be, but I suspect not, given who we are talking about.
I'm perfectly aware of the full quote (below) from where those snippets came, however that wasn't what was offered, instead a mealy mouthed defence from Magrit. 'I know I said that but it didn't come out right, what I really meant was' said no one with zinger of a point ever.
"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."
That is very far from the 'full quote'. The full quote is quite long, so I won't repeat it, but you missed some crucial bits, such as "There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate." - as you will admit, if you are vaguely honest, the exact opposite of what she is accused of saying.
I'm perfectly aware of the full quote (below) from where those snippets came, however that wasn't what was offered, instead a mealy mouthed defence from Magrit. 'I know I said that but it didn't come out right, what I really meant was' said no one with zinger of a point ever.
"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."
That is very far from the 'full quote'. The full quote is quite long, so I won't repeat it, but you missed some crucial bits, such as "There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate." - as you will admit, if you are vaguely honest, the exact opposite of what she is accused of saying.
Removal of a child from their parents and into the loving arms of a state nursery then school seems the logical way to ensure absolute fairness. Not sure that would lead to the most well-adjusted generation, however.
Given the outrage at the "class war" notion of private schools being not charities, I would give this proposal very little chance indeed.
Are they really 'private' if they are operated on a not for profit basis? The whole concept of the status of charitable organisations historically in law come from the provision of education. The act of teaching was in itself a charitable and noble endeavour.
What totally wrong-footed Long Bailey I think was the scale of the defeat. The assumption among Corbynistas was that even on a bad night they'd lose at most 20-30 seats and could largely (if wrongly) blame defeat on Brexit, and run a campaign that was largely based on loyalty to Corbyn and support for policies in the manifesto, while only really differentiating on style and criticising indirectly in ways that implicitly placed blame elsewhere - tougher on antisemitism processes, promising to take on the dreaded media better. However, losing 60 seats in the way they did made that approach pretty laughable, even to many Corbyn supporters. Unless you're a fully paid up crank, or genuinely don't care about the risk the party is in existential trouble, you know some pretty big things need to change. Starmer being the early beneficiary being the most ready made and cost free change for floating left-wingers.
I think Pidcock would likely have been in the same boat. The scale of defeat would've totally undercut her likely message of saying the same things, but louder in the voice of a northern woman and hoping Brexit would fade as an issue.
That's probably right.
Mind you, there's still a long way to go. It's a long process and perhaps Momentum and others of a similar persuasion, and RLB herself, will recover their mojo and get organised.
Oh yes, certainly. I might even be a buy on Long Bailey given how far she's drifted. But it does mean they will have to regroup and be more creative rather than re-running a version of Corbyn's 2016 campaign of blaming any failures on external factors and the disloyal, sticking hard to Corbynism and attacking rivals as nefarious Blairites only adopting any left-wing rhetoric or positions to trick them. She will have to come up with a pitch that explains how she and her politics differ from his, and what it'll mean next time.
Just that any candidate from the left would have this issue, including Pidcock if she'd clung on, and probably wouldn't have been able to come flying out of the traps as happened when their control of the party was last under threat.
Not surprising given polling numbers, though I am a bit surprised he never had a moment. His debate performances, when he was making the debates, were solid, and he looked like a credible candidate.
I wonder if he might yet be on the ticket in November, though. Towards the end, he did look a bit like he was running for VP.
Not sure on that one. 21st century socialism sounds as oxymoronic as compassionate fascism.
Socialism is a highly outdated and discredited creed. It is a word that Labour politicians would best remember was greatly favoured by the team that brought them the worst ever defeat against a highly flawed and divided Tory Party. They should quietly drop it again.
The single biggest determinant of life outcome is birth circumstances. This has always been true and will forever be true. Of all the roles of government the most important is to enact policy which mitigates against this. Makes it less true than it otherwise would be - even though still true. Such policy to reflect the times we live in not times gone by. This is "socialism" and as such it will never be outdated.
I was born in a homeless shelter.... Get the hankies everyone...
Not surprising given polling numbers, though I am a bit surprised he never had a moment. His debate performances, when he was making the debates, were solid, and he looked like a credible candidate.
I wonder if he might yet be on the ticket in November, though. Towards the end, he did look a bit like he was running for VP.
Booker had a lot of establishment endorsements, so be careful about using these as a metric.
Not surprising given polling numbers, though I am a bit surprised he never had a moment. His debate performances, when he was making the debates, were solid, and he looked like a credible candidate.
I wonder if he might yet be on the ticket in November, though. Towards the end, he did look a bit like he was running for VP.
Booker had a lot of establishment endorsements, so be careful about using these as a metric.
He didn't have many at all outside his home state of New Jersey (a big state with a large Democratic establishment). That sort of thing just says there are quite a few people who might benefit from his endorsement in future.
Similarly, Klobuchar has a fair number of endorsements in Minnesota, but little if any outside.
I'd not overstate endorsements, but they do potentially help in terms of building organisation for primaries if they are scattered around the country. However, Booker's problem wasn't lack of a healthy number of potential helpers in New Jersey; it was everywhere else.
If they win: Starmer - Uninteresting, boring, will foresniscally examine the government, no one will care or take heed. Will overtake the cons at some time in the next year, will hold lead and then will trail off, conservatives will bounce back up as future GE called. Success will be measured by halfing tory majority. Will stabilise the ship and act as a second stage to take charge in 2030. RLB - Will be even more Corbyn but will get next to no media coverage, labour will just trundle along at 30-35% for most of the parliament and will end up with a result in that range at the GE. Labour will end up in no better place in 2024/5 than now. Lady Nugee- will rally her troops in Remania. Will probably through perpetual angry denouncement peg up labour support. Will make good urban gains at the GE and eat into once safe southern seats, will lose even more seats in the north, and lose remaining scottish seats, and do badly in wales Nandy - Thought of as nice and pleasant but loses even more northern seats and keeps her own at the next GE with only three figures. Philips - Shes the unknown. Shes the one that probably wont win, probably wont do any better than all the others. But she could. People seem to like the hooker hoops and the 'aufentic' working class brummie stuff. How true it is doesnt matter, it matters only she can pull it off.
She could learn all the other stuff. She has plenty of time. If you have already got a bit of va va voom (and she has), mix in some intense NLP and speech training you can go far.
That does not prove he lied. Your thread states that no checks NI to GB is true and they there will be some checks GB to NI (the extent to be decided).
On thread, just a moment to think how sick as a parrot Pidcock must be feeling about now....
*singing*
"Should have been me........"
She has the consolation of being able to blame Blair for the loss of her seat.
Apparently that is what she was hearing on the doorsteps...
What did Blair do ?
I think a lot of doorstep conversations went I could vote for Blair but can't vote for Corbyn.
And she took it to mean the exact opposite.
I suspect Labour canvassers do get adverse mentions of Blair on the doorstep sometimes. "You're all the same - look at Blair" is, I'm sure, said.
But the idea that's the reason for the loss more than a decade after he left Number 10 is ludicrous. Ex-PMs have some fans and some detractors - that's the way it goes.
That does not prove he lied. Your thread states that no checks NI to GB is true and they there will be some checks GB to NI (the extent to be decided).
But didn't Johnson say that there wouldn't be any checks at all? I admit I'm not exactly following his every word very closely, so I might be wrong.
If they win: Starmer - Uninteresting, boring, will foresniscally examine the government, no one will care or take heed. Will overtake the cons at some time in the next year, will hold lead and then will trail off, conservatives will bounce back up as future GE called. Success will be measured by halfing tory majority. Will stabilise the ship and act as a second stage to take charge in 2030. RLB - Will be even more Corbyn but will get next to no media coverage, labour will just trundle along at 30-35% for most of the parliament and will end up with a result in that range at the GE. Labour will end up in no better place in 2024/5 than now. Lady Nugee- will rally her troops in Remania. Will probably through perpetual angry denouncement peg up labour support. Will make good urban gains at the GE and eat into once safe southern seats, will lose even more seats in the north, and lose remaining scottish seats, and do badly in wales Nandy - Thought of as nice and pleasant but loses even more northern seats and keeps her own at the next GE with only three figures. Philips - Shes the unknown. Shes the one that probably wont win, probably wont do any better than all the others. But she could. People seem to like the hooker hoops and the 'aufentic' working class brummie stuff. How true it is doesnt matter, it matters only she can pull it off.
She could learn all the other stuff. She has plenty of time. If you have already got a bit of va va voom (and she has), mix in some intense NLP and speech training you can go far.
So on that basis Starmer now and let Philips and Nandy grow into the role of potential successor over the next few years.
That result doesn't do my betfair book any good but I'll break even.
That does not prove he lied. Your thread states that no checks NI to GB is true and they there will be some checks GB to NI (the extent to be decided).
But didn't Johnson say that there wouldn't be any checks at all? I admit I'm not exactly following his every word very closely, so I might be wrong.
According to the Guardian live blog, his exact words today were:
The only circumstances in which you could imagine the need for checks coming from GB to NI, as I’ve explained before, is if those goods were going on into Ireland and we had not secured, which I hope and I’m confident we will, a zero tariff, zero quota agreement with our friends and partners in the EU.
... which does seem a little economical with the actualité (unless he's going to accept 100% dynamic alignment with EU regulations for goods, animal welfare, and agricultural products).
Laura Pidcock can take David M's role and be inexplicably 19/1 for the Labour leadership for years, despite not being an MP.
Yes. If the party ditches its radicalism Pidcock will grow in stature and allure. She will be the Princess in the tower. Laura, Laura, let down your hair.
That does not prove he lied. Your thread states that no checks NI to GB is true and they there will be some checks GB to NI (the extent to be decided).
But didn't Johnson say that there wouldn't be any checks at all? I admit I'm not exactly following his every word very closely, so I might be wrong.
No his exact words were
"Be in no doubt. We are the government of the United Kingdom. I cannot see any circumstances whatever in which they will be any need for checks on goods going from Northern Ireland to GB. The only circumstances in which you could imagine the need for checks coming from GB to NI, as I’ve explained before, is if those goods were going on into Ireland and we had not secured, which I hope and I’m confident we will, a zero tariff, zero quota agreement with our friends and partners in the EU."
What he can be accused of is not saying that there are already SPS checks on live animals and other stuff when going from GB to NI (The Island of ||Ireland is a separate entity for food safety to GB). The other thing he can be criticised for is not saying that the EU has not solved the fudge of NI being in both the UK SM/CU and EU SM/CU so at the moment we do not know if the additional checks over what is in place today are only for goods in transit to the RoI or on some goods going to NI only.
If they win: Starmer - Uninteresting, boring, will foresniscally examine the government, no one will care or take heed. Will overtake the cons at some time in the next year, will hold lead and then will trail off, conservatives will bounce back up as future GE called. Success will be measured by halfing tory majority. Will stabilise the ship and act as a second stage to take charge in 2030. RLB - Will be even more Corbyn but will get next to no media coverage, labour will just trundle along at 30-35% for most of the parliament and will end up with a result in that range at the GE. Labour will end up in no better place in 2024/5 than now. Lady Nugee- will rally her troops in Remania. Will probably through perpetual angry denouncement peg up labour support. Will make good urban gains at the GE and eat into once safe southern seats, will lose even more seats in the north, and lose remaining scottish seats, and do badly in wales Nandy - Thought of as nice and pleasant but loses even more northern seats and keeps her own at the next GE with only three figures. Philips - Shes the unknown. Shes the one that probably wont win, probably wont do any better than all the others. But she could. People seem to like the hooker hoops and the 'aufentic' working class brummie stuff. How true it is doesnt matter, it matters only she can pull it off.
She could learn all the other stuff. She has plenty of time. If you have already got a bit of va va voom (and she has), mix in some intense NLP and speech training you can go far.
Starmer is going to have to stand there with a blank expression when the ECHR report comes out excoriating the Labour Party under Corbyn and admit, yes I was part of his Shadow Cabinet and no, I did nothing meaningful to prevent it.
Of course, it's possible over five years he might recover from that. Or more likely, the smell of that very particular stench of shit will follow him around for ever.
If they win: Starmer - Uninteresting, boring, will foresniscally examine the government, no one will care or take heed. Will overtake the cons at some time in the next year, will hold lead and then will trail off, conservatives will bounce back up as future GE called. Success will be measured by halfing tory majority. Will stabilise the ship and act as a second stage to take charge in 2030. RLB - Will be even more Corbyn but will get next to no media coverage, labour will just trundle along at 30-35% for most of the parliament and will end up with a result in that range at the GE. Labour will end up in no better place in 2024/5 than now. Lady Nugee- will rally her troops in Remania. Will probably through perpetual angry denouncement peg up labour support. Will make good urban gains at the GE and eat into once safe southern seats, will lose even more seats in the north, and lose remaining scottish seats, and do badly in wales Nandy - Thought of as nice and pleasant but loses even more northern seats and keeps her own at the next GE with only three figures. Philips - Shes the unknown. Shes the one that probably wont win, probably wont do any better than all the others. But she could. People seem to like the hooker hoops and the 'aufentic' working class brummie stuff. How true it is doesnt matter, it matters only she can pull it off.
She could learn all the other stuff. She has plenty of time. If you have already got a bit of va va voom (and she has), mix in some intense NLP and speech training you can go far.
I can't see Phillips has any real chance of winning, because she's been so vocal in her criticism of Corbyn and there are enough people who still like Corbyn in Labour. It may be good for Labour long run to have someone stridently anti-Corbyn to purge the party, but it would feed into a "divided party" narrative. She also benefits now from a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing from the press, but that will go pretty damned fast if she were to find herself as leader.
If there's going to be a surprise, it'll come from Nandy. There's a case for saying that she, like Starmer, has been just loyal enough without being too sullied by the Project. And there's a case for saying he feels a bit more like part of the dreaded metropolitan elite.
RLB is banking on "continuity Corbyn" being a winner in the Party, and it just isn't. I don't really see Thornberry's market - metropolitan Remainers who feel Starmer is too male and moderate? It's far too small a pool to fish in.
Are they really 'private' if they are operated on a not for profit basis? The whole concept of the status of charitable organisations historically in law come from the provision of education. The act of teaching was in itself a charitable and noble endeavour.
They do vastly prefer the moniker "independent". Fine by me. And yes, I suppose there is a reason, going back a bit, why they were deemed to be charities and that one - teaching is inherently noble and altruistic - sounds quite believable. But time to reassess, I rather think.
Good day for the monarchy at last as Clive Lewis has to pull out of the Labour leadership race having failed to get sufficient nominations. Lewis of course wanted a referendum on the monarchy
If they win: Starmer - Uninteresting, boring, will foresniscally examine the government, no one will care or take heed. Will overtake the cons at some time in the next year, will hold lead and then will trail off, conservatives will bounce back up as future GE called. Success will be measured by halfing tory majority. Will stabilise the ship and act as a second stage to take charge in 2030. RLB - Will be even more Corbyn but will get next to no media coverage, labour will just trundle along at 30-35% for most of the parliament and will end up with a result in that range at the GE. Labour will end up in no better place in 2024/5 than now. Lady Nugee- will rally her troops in Remania. Will probably through perpetual angry denouncement peg up labour support. Will make good urban gains at the GE and eat into once safe southern seats, will lose even more seats in the north, and lose remaining scottish seats, and do badly in wales Nandy - Thought of as nice and pleasant but loses even more northern seats and keeps her own at the next GE with only three figures. Philips - Shes the unknown. Shes the one that probably wont win, probably wont do any better than all the others. But she could. People seem to like the hooker hoops and the 'aufentic' working class brummie stuff. How true it is doesnt matter, it matters only she can pull it off.
She could learn all the other stuff. She has plenty of time. If you have already got a bit of va va voom (and she has), mix in some intense NLP and speech training you can go far.
I can't see Phillips has any real chance of winning, because she's been so vocal in her criticism of Corbyn and there are enough people who still like Corbyn in Labour. It may be good for Labour long run to have someone stridently anti-Corbyn to purge the party, but it would feed into a "divided party" narrative. She also benefits now from a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing from the press, but that will go pretty damned fast if she were to find herself as leader.
If there's going to be a surprise, it'll come from Nandy. There's a case for saying that she, like Starmer, has been just loyal enough without being too sullied by the Project. And there's a case for saying he feels a bit more like part of the dreaded metropolitan elite.
RLB is banking on "continuity Corbyn" being a winner in the Party, and it just isn't. I don't really see Thornberry's market - metropolitan Remainers who feel Starmer is too male and moderate? It's far too small a pool to fish in.
So basically the odds are roughly correct at the moment.
If they win: Starmer - Uninteresting, boring, will foresniscally examine the government, no one will care or take heed. Will overtake the cons at some time in the next year, will hold lead and then will trail off, conservatives will bounce back up as future GE called. Success will be measured by halfing tory majority. Will stabilise the ship and act as a second stage to take charge in 2030. RLB - Will be even more Corbyn but will get next to no media coverage, labour will just trundle along at 30-35% for most of the parliament and will end up with a result in that range at the GE. Labour will end up in no better place in 2024/5 than now. Lady Nugee- will rally her troops in Remania. Will probably through perpetual angry denouncement peg up labour support. Will make good urban gains at the GE and eat into once safe southern seats, will lose even more seats in the north, and lose remaining scottish seats, and do badly in wales Nandy - Thought of as nice and pleasant but loses even more northern seats and keeps her own at the next GE with only three figures. Philips - Shes the unknown. Shes the one that probably wont win, probably wont do any better than all the others. But she could. People seem to like the hooker hoops and the 'aufentic' working class brummie stuff. How true it is doesnt matter, it matters only she can pull it off.
She could learn all the other stuff. She has plenty of time. If you have already got a bit of va va voom (and she has), mix in some intense NLP and speech training you can go far.
Starmer is going to have to stand there with a blank expression when the ECHR report comes out excoriating the Labour Party under Corbyn and admit, yes I was part of his Shadow Cabinet and no, I did nothing meaningful to prevent it.
Of course, it's possible over five years he might recover from that. Or more likely, the smell of that very particular stench of shit will follow him around for ever.
In fairness to Starmer, the things that went wrong pretty clearly did so at the level of NEC and Leader's Office, not within the Shadow Cabinet. Unless there's a suggestion he's been hand-wringing in public whilst saying it's a Zionist conspiracy in private, he'll get some discomfort but not fatal damage.
I'm not clear what you do to "prevent it" within the shadow cabinet beyond saying, "this is toxic, and your cronies and the NEC need to deal with it". They have no decision making role in the process. Of course, one option would have been to resign, but that doesn't actually "prevent it" - it is a signal and no more, and Corbyn was fairly used to people resigning and shrugged it off.
"Javid in part secured his position as Chancellor for some time to come by giving Johnson Christmas reading in the shape of an 18-page report on his ideas for levelling up the country."
If they win: Starmer - Uninteresting, boring, will foresniscally examine the government, no one will care or take heed. Will overtake the cons at some time in the next year, will hold lead and then will trail off, conservatives will bounce back up as future GE called. Success will be measured by halfing tory majority. Will stabilise the ship and act as a second stage to take charge in 2030. RLB - Will be even more Corbyn but will get next to no media coverage, labour will just trundle along at 30-35% for most of the parliament and will end up with a result in that range at the GE. Labour will end up in no better place in 2024/5 than now. Lady Nugee- will rally her troops in Remania. Will probably through perpetual angry denouncement peg up labour support. Will make good urban gains at the GE and eat into once safe southern seats, will lose even more seats in the north, and lose remaining scottish seats, and do badly in wales Nandy - Thought of as nice and pleasant but loses even more northern seats and keeps her own at the next GE with only three figures. Philips - Shes the unknown. Shes the one that probably wont win, probably wont do any better than all the others. But she could. People seem to like the hooker hoops and the 'aufentic' working class brummie stuff. How true it is doesnt matter, it matters only she can pull it off.
She could learn all the other stuff. She has plenty of time. If you have already got a bit of va va voom (and she has), mix in some intense NLP and speech training you can go far.
Starmer is going to have to stand there with a blank expression when the ECHR report comes out excoriating the Labour Party under Corbyn and admit, yes I was part of his Shadow Cabinet and no, I did nothing meaningful to prevent it.
Of course, it's possible over five years he might recover from that. Or more likely, the smell of that very particular stench of shit will follow him around for ever.
In fairness to Starmer, the things that went wrong pretty clearly did so at the level of NEC and Leader's Office, not within the Shadow Cabinet. Unless there's a suggestion he's been hand-wringing in public whilst saying it's a Zionist conspiracy in private, he'll get some discomfort but not fatal damage.
Yes, assuming he becomes leader, I think he'll be fine on the anti-Semitism issue provided he acts swiftly and effectively when (or preferably before) the ECHR report is released. And I'm sure he will do so, to be fair, as would most of the other candidates except perhaps RLB.
If they win: Starmer - Uninteresting, boring, will foresniscally examine the government, no one will care or take heed. Will overtake the cons at some time in the next year, will hold lead and then will trail off, conservatives will bounce back up as future GE called. Success will be measured by halfing tory majority. Will stabilise the ship and act as a second stage to take charge in 2030. RLB - Will be even more Corbyn but will get next to no media coverage, labour will just trundle along at 30-35% for most of the parliament and will end up with a result in that range at the GE. Labour will end up in no better place in 2024/5 than now. Lady Nugee- will rally her troops in Remania. Will probably through perpetual angry denouncement peg up labour support. Will make good urban gains at the GE and eat into once safe southern seats, will lose even more seats in the north, and lose remaining scottish seats, and do badly in wales Nandy - Thought of as nice and pleasant but loses even more northern seats and keeps her own at the next GE with only three figures. Philips - Shes the unknown. Shes the one that probably wont win, probably wont do any better than all the others. But she could. People seem to like the hooker hoops and the 'aufentic' working class brummie stuff. How true it is doesnt matter, it matters only she can pull it off.
She could learn all the other stuff. She has plenty of time. If you have already got a bit of va va voom (and she has), mix in some intense NLP and speech training you can go far.
I can't see Phillips has any real chance of winning, because she's been so vocal in her criticism of Corbyn and there are enough people who still like Corbyn in Labour. It may be good for Labour long run to have someone stridently anti-Corbyn to purge the party, but it would feed into a "divided party" narrative. She also benefits now from a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing from the press, but that will go pretty damned fast if she were to find herself as leader.
If there's going to be a surprise, it'll come from Nandy. There's a case for saying that she, like Starmer, has been just loyal enough without being too sullied by the Project. And there's a case for saying he feels a bit more like part of the dreaded metropolitan elite.
RLB is banking on "continuity Corbyn" being a winner in the Party, and it just isn't. I don't really see Thornberry's market - metropolitan Remainers who feel Starmer is too male and moderate? It's far too small a pool to fish in.
So basically the odds are roughly correct at the moment.
No - I think Nandy should be shorter and RLB longer.
Good day for the monarchy at last as Clive Lewis has to pull out of the Labour leadership race having failed to get sufficient nominations. Lewis of course wanted a referendum on the monarchy
Yes, I am sure down at Sandringham that came as a big relief and allowed them to focus on family breakdown.
Pidcock was a highly divisive and factional MP. As leader she could only have made the split in the party even worse than it was under Corbyn. And in an age of fluid political allegiances, her much quoted remark that she could never be friends with a Tory summed marked her out as an extremist to her electorate. The swing of over 10% against her was even worse when you consider that she should have had an incumbency advantage as a newly elected MP in 2017.
Too much is made of this IMO. It reminds me a little of the fuss about Andy Murray's "support anybody against England" remark.
I disagree. If she believes it she's an arse, if she doesn't believe it it is a very stupid thing to say. It's not like Murray's comment around sport, it is a reflection of something too many people take to heart in political life by pretending they have no common ground with opponents. It's petty and stupid, and unless it was a joke, which doesn't seem to be suggested, its wrong to either believe it or to pretend to believe it on the basis it would gain support.
If they win: Starmer - Uninteresting, boring, will foresniscally examine the government, no one will care or take heed. Will overtake the cons at some time in the next year, will hold lead and then will trail off, conservatives will bounce back up as future GE called. Success will be measured by halfing tory majority. Will stabilise the ship and act as a second stage to take charge in 2030. RLB - Will be even more Corbyn but will get next to no media coverage, labour will just trundle along at 30-35% for most of the parliament and will end up with a result in that range at the GE. Labour will end up in no better place in 2024/5 than now. Lady Nugee- will rally her troops in Remania. Will probably through perpetual angry denouncement peg up labour support. Will make good urban gains at the GE and eat into once safe southern seats, will lose even more seats in the north, and lose remaining scottish seats, and do badly in wales Nandy - Thought of as nice and pleasant but loses even more northern seats and keeps her own at the next GE with only three figures. Philips - Shes the unknown. Shes the one that probably wont win, probably wont do any better than all the others. But she could. People seem to like the hooker hoops and the 'aufentic' working class brummie stuff. How true it is doesnt matter, it matters only she can pull it off.
She could learn all the other stuff. She has plenty of time. If you have already got a bit of va va voom (and she has), mix in some intense NLP and speech training you can go far.
I can't see Phillips has any real chance of winning, because she's been so vocal in her criticism of Corbyn and there are enough people who still like Corbyn in Labour. It may be good for Labour long run to have someone stridently anti-Corbyn to purge the party, but it would feed into a "divided party" narrative. She also benefits now from a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing from the press, but that will go pretty damned fast if she were to find herself as leader.
If there's going to be a surprise, it'll come from Nandy. There's a case for saying that she, like Starmer, has been just loyal enough without being too sullied by the Project. And there's a case for saying he feels a bit more like part of the dreaded metropolitan elite.
RLB is banking on "continuity Corbyn" being a winner in the Party, and it just isn't. I don't really see Thornberry's market - metropolitan Remainers who feel Starmer is too male and moderate? It's far too small a pool to fish in.
Aren’t 64% of the membership lefties? RLB is banking on their support in a match with Starmer
Yes, I am sure down at Sandringham that came as a big relief and allowed them to focus on family breakdown.
BBC Breaking News - "Transition" agreed for the Sussexes, during which a final settlement and modus operandi for the couple will be worked out. So, worst case scenario could still be "No Deal" and a crash out of the Family to Canada when the transition period ends. Sorry
Bedford and Canterbury show that Labour don't need to be afraid of the east and the south east. There are plenty of commuter towns filling up with professional emigrés from London. They may well be a lot easier to take or retake than northern towns.
There aren't enough of them where Labour are second. For every Norwich North's there are many many more Dewsbury's, Sedgefields etc.
Labour must win back some working class nothern seats in the the medium term because of the dominance of Leave seats.
Many Labour people seem to keep forgetting the system we have rather than the system they wish we had. Winning back a bunch of heavily Leave seats is a must for the next couple of general elections if Labour want to win back power, unless the libdem vote collapses wholesale to them.
Pidcock was a highly divisive and factional MP. As leader she could only have made the split in the party even worse than it was under Corbyn. And in an age of fluid political allegiances, her much quoted remark that she could never be friends with a Tory summed marked her out as an extremist to her electorate. The swing of over 10% against her was even worse when you consider that she should have had an incumbency advantage as a newly elected MP in 2017.
Too much is made of this IMO. It reminds me a little of the fuss about Andy Murray's "support anybody against England" remark.
I disagree. If she believes it she's an arse, if she doesn't believe it it is a very stupid thing to say. It's not like Murray's comment around sport, it is a reflection of something too many people take to heart in political life by pretending they have no common ground with opponents. It's petty and stupid, and unless it was a joke, which doesn't seem to be suggested, its wrong to either believe it or to pretend to believe it on the basis it would gain support.
Even more than that, I think, Pidcock's attitude encapsulates the reasons for Labour's defeat: the Right seeks converts, whereas the Left seeks heretics. Guess which one produces better results in elections?
If they win: Starmer - Uninteresting, boring, will foresniscally examine the government, no one will care or take heed. Will overtake the cons at some time in the next year, will hold lead and then will trail off, conservatives will bounce back up as future GE called. Success will be measured by halfing tory majority. Will stabilise the ship and act as a second stage to take charge in 2030. RLB - Will be even more Corbyn but will get next to no media coverage, labour will just trundle along at 30-35% for most of the parliament and will end up with a result in that range at the GE. Labour will end up in no better place in 2024/5 than now. Lady Nugee- will rally her troops in Remania. Will probably through perpetual angry denouncement peg up labour support. Will make good urban gains at the GE and eat into once safe southern seats, will lose even more seats in the north, and lose remaining scottish seats, and do badly in wales Nandy - Thought of as nice and pleasant but loses even more northern seats and keeps her own at the next GE with only three figures. Philips - Shes the unknown. Shes the one that probably wont win, probably wont do any better than all the others. But she could. People seem to like the hooker hoops and the 'aufentic' working class brummie stuff. How true it is doesnt matter, it matters only she can pull it off.
She could learn all the other stuff. She has plenty of time. If you have already got a bit of va va voom (and she has), mix in some intense NLP and speech training you can go far.
If they win: Starmer - Uninteresting, boring, will foresniscally examine the government, no one will care or take heed. Will overtake the cons at some time in the next year, will hold lead and then will trail off, conservatives will bounce back up as future GE called. Success will be measured by halfing tory majority. Will stabilise the ship and act as a second stage to take charge in 2030. RLB - Will be even more Corbyn but will get next to no media coverage, labour will just trundle along at 30-35% for most of the parliament and will end up with a result in that range at the GE. Labour will end up in no better place in 2024/5 than now. Lady Nugee- will rally her troops in Remania. Will probably through perpetual angry denouncement peg up labour support. Will make good urban gains at the GE and eat into once safe southern seats, will lose even more seats in the north, and lose remaining scottish seats, and do badly in wales Nandy - Thought of as nice and pleasant but loses even more northern seats and keeps her own at the next GE with only three figures. Philips - Shes the unknown. Shes the one that probably wont win, probably wont do any better than all the others. But she could. People seem to like the hooker hoops and the 'aufentic' working class brummie stuff. How true it is doesnt matter, it matters only she can pull it off.
She could learn all the other stuff. She has plenty of time. If you have already got a bit of va va voom (and she has), mix in some intense NLP and speech training you can go far.
Starmer is going to have to stand there with a blank expression when the ECHR report comes out excoriating the Labour Party under Corbyn and admit, yes I was part of his Shadow Cabinet and no, I did nothing meaningful to prevent it.
Of course, it's possible over five years he might recover from that. Or more likely, the smell of that very particular stench of shit will follow him around for ever.
In fairness to Starmer, the things that went wrong pretty clearly did so at the level of NEC and Leader's Office, not within the Shadow Cabinet. Unless there's a suggestion he's been hand-wringing in public whilst saying it's a Zionist conspiracy in private, he'll get some discomfort but not fatal damage.
Yes, assuming he becomes leader, I think he'll be fine on the anti-Semitism issue provided he acts swiftly and effectively when (or preferably before) the ECHR report is released. And I'm sure he will do so, to be fair, as would most of the other candidates except perhaps RLB.
Depends when the report gets published. If it is before voting has finished.....
Aren’t 64% of the membership lefties? RLB is banking on their support in a match with Starmer
The result in 2016 was basically 60/40. And don't make the mistake of thinking the 60% were all obsessive cultists. Plenty simply looked at the alternative - if the question is "how do we win with Corbyn?" the answer wasn't "with Smith". Others felt he deserved a chance to put his case to the public - which he now has, twice. Others are open-minded enough to admit that Corbyn made mistakes and that the numbers don't lie. Others will defend Corbyn to the end, but accept that RLB isn't Corbyn - he was a consistent (some would say pig-headed) leftie from the prehistoric era, whereas she is a johnny-come-lately.
RLB has effectively written off the 40%. That's a big chunk to write off and would be worth it if others were writing off the 60%... but they aren't. Starmer, Thornberry and Nandy all had senior roles under Corbyn and cannot be accused of failing to try to make it work. They weren't part of "the Project" but respected the result and have a good case to make to the whole party.
In other words, RLB is fighting over 60% of the pie, Phillips over 40%, and the rest over 100%. The winner will come from those fighting over 100%.
I disagree. If she believes it she's an arse, if she doesn't believe it it is a very stupid thing to say. It's not like Murray's comment around sport, it is a reflection of something too many people take to heart in political life by pretending they have no common ground with opponents. It's petty and stupid, and unless it was a joke, which doesn't seem to be suggested, its wrong to either believe it or to pretend to believe it on the basis it would gain support.
Yes, OK. But I find the reaction OTT when you consider that she was a very young MP about to enter parliament and was clearly (to me) mainly trying to stress that she would not be going native. I bet it would be possible for a Tory (of the less reprehensible variety) to befriend her. Hope so anyway. It's healthy. And those "sparks fly" relationships can be very rewarding.
You have to remember the fetishisation of the large membership among some, as if that is the most important thing ever. As it is they could lose 100,000 and still be a very very large political party and movement (and most of those who left would vote for them anyway), so its silly.
I disagree. If she believes it she's an arse, if she doesn't believe it it is a very stupid thing to say. It's not like Murray's comment around sport, it is a reflection of something too many people take to heart in political life by pretending they have no common ground with opponents. It's petty and stupid, and unless it was a joke, which doesn't seem to be suggested, its wrong to either believe it or to pretend to believe it on the basis it would gain support.
Yes, OK. But I find the reaction OTT when you consider that she was a very young MP about to enter parliament and was clearly (to me) mainly trying to stress that she would not be going native. I bet it would be possible for a Tory (of the less reprehensible variety) to befriend her. Hope so anyway. It's healthy. And those "sparks fly" relationships can be very rewarding.
Trouble is she hasn't had time to prove it was just posturing words. For all we know she was going to be the big baby Dennis Skinner about it.
Yes, I am sure down at Sandringham that came as a big relief and allowed them to focus on family breakdown.
BBC Breaking News - "Transition" agreed for the Sussexes, during which a final settlement and modus operandi for the couple will be worked out. So, worst case scenario could still be "No Deal" and a crash out of the Family to Canada when the transition period ends. Sorry
Then crash out and cut off without a penny if they don't do any royal duties
Yes, I am sure down at Sandringham that came as a big relief and allowed them to focus on family breakdown.
BBC Breaking News - "Transition" agreed for the Sussexes, during which a final settlement and modus operandi for the couple will be worked out. So, worst case scenario could still be "No Deal" and a crash out of the Family to Canada when the transition period ends. Sorry
It's been a dispiriting week for monarchists that's for sure.
"Javid in part secured his position as Chancellor for some time to come by giving Johnson Christmas reading in the shape of an 18-page report on his ideas for levelling up the country."
I'd think Boris was more of a 2 page exec summary kind of man.
Yes, I am sure down at Sandringham that came as a big relief and allowed them to focus on family breakdown.
BBC Breaking News - "Transition" agreed for the Sussexes, during which a final settlement and modus operandi for the couple will be worked out. So, worst case scenario could still be "No Deal" and a crash out of the Family to Canada when the transition period ends. Sorry
It's been a dispiriting week for monarchists that's for sure.
Made up for by the excellent news today the only avowed republican in the Labour leadership race, Clive Lewis, who wanted a referendum on the monarchy, has been knocked out
Depends when the report gets published. If it is before voting has finished.....
No-one has ever suggested that Keir Starmer is soft on anti-Semitism or soft on the causes of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, so I'm sure the ECHR report won't be a problem for him personally. Assuming I am right, he just needs to make absolutely clear that he's going to clear out the sewer. Which I think he will, to be fair.
Obviously the tabs were onto Meghan being a pariah and a betrayer of the country & royal family right from the start (these were literally words used by a bloke on a lunchtime news vox pop).
I'm perfectly aware of the full quote (below) from where those snippets came, however that wasn't what was offered, instead a mealy mouthed defence from Magrit. 'I know I said that but it didn't come out right, what I really meant was' said no one with zinger of a point ever.
"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."
That is very far from the 'full quote'. The full quote is quite long, so I won't repeat it, but you missed some crucial bits, such as "There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate." - as you will admit, if you are vaguely honest, the exact opposite of what she is accused of saying.
That's the most awful sugary rubbish, it's hard to discern anything in that gloop. Probably best for all concerned that it hasn't had wider coverage.
It's fairly obvious it's 'ask not for whom the bell tolls' sort of stuff point. It's challenging people not to blame society as a concept when society consists of them.
Depends when the report gets published. If it is before voting has finished.....
No-one has ever suggested that Keir Starmer is soft on anti-Semitism or soft on the causes of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, so I'm sure the ECHR report won't be a problem for him personally. Assuming I am right, he just needs to make absolutely clear that he's going to clear out the sewer. Which I think he will, to be fair.
I just don't know how he can do that without, in some way, forcing a confrontation with Corbyn though - whether one believes Corbyn to be personally anti-semitic or not he's said things close to the line, or associated with those close to or over the line, enough times that being tough on the matter, clearing out the sewer, is going to include a lot of people who are good friends of Corbyns. He managed to divest himself of Williamson and a few others, but if it goes further?
"Javid in part secured his position as Chancellor for some time to come by giving Johnson Christmas reading in the shape of an 18-page report on his ideas for levelling up the country."
I'd think Boris was more of a 2 page exec summary kind of man.
"Javid in part secured his position as Chancellor for some time to come by giving Johnson Christmas reading in the shape of an 18-page report on his ideas for levelling up the country."
I'd think Boris was more of a 2 page exec summary kind of man.
More like half a side of A4
He did have 2 whole weeks on the beach to read it.
Comments
"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."
See? It's very very debatable.
'People must look to themselves first' and 'It’s our duty to look after ourselves' are really putting 'And, you know, there's no such thing as society' into context.
I think Pidcock would likely have been in the same boat. The scale of defeat would've totally undercut her likely message of saying the same things, but louder in the voice of a northern woman and hoping Brexit would fade as an issue.
Mind you, there's still a long way to go. It's a long process and perhaps Momentum and others of a similar persuasion, and RLB herself, will recover their mojo and get organised.
I can see how you could try to spin it as a sort of communitarian "charity begins at home" message, but the phrase "people must look to themselves first" is at best a truism, and is at worst a justification for prioritising a tiny increment in your own wellbeing over a life-and-death issue affecting someone else.
The concept underlying the quote is the one I described - small state.
"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."
Edit: And @Richard_Nabavi QED about people not being able/wanting to understanding it.
14-16 January: Application period for registered supporters.
15 January - 14 February: Second stage of nominations from Constituency Labour Parties (CLP) and affiliates, including unions.
20 January: Freeze date for voting eligibility for new members and affiliated supporters.
The full text is here:
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689
Except it is just chump-change to Zac.
"There is no such thing as a living tapestry of men and women."
The whole concept of the status of charitable organisations historically in law come from the provision of education. The act of teaching was in itself a charitable and noble endeavour.
Apparently that is what she was hearing on the doorsteps...
Just that any candidate from the left would have this issue, including Pidcock if she'd clung on, and probably wouldn't have been able to come flying out of the traps as happened when their control of the party was last under threat.
Not surprising given polling numbers, though I am a bit surprised he never had a moment. His debate performances, when he was making the debates, were solid, and he looked like a credible candidate.
I wonder if he might yet be on the ticket in November, though. Towards the end, he did look a bit like he was running for VP.
Boris isn't a details person that's for others.
Get the hankies everyone...
More likely the voters were saying "where the f*ck is Tony Blair?"
After all, we know he's going to have to shaft some group or other. Perhaps it's the ERG.
And she took it to mean the exact opposite.
Similarly, Klobuchar has a fair number of endorsements in Minnesota, but little if any outside.
I'd not overstate endorsements, but they do potentially help in terms of building organisation for primaries if they are scattered around the country. However, Booker's problem wasn't lack of a healthy number of potential helpers in New Jersey; it was everywhere else.
If they win:
Starmer - Uninteresting, boring, will foresniscally examine the government, no one will care or take heed. Will overtake the cons at some time in the next year, will hold lead and then will trail off, conservatives will bounce back up as future GE called. Success will be measured by halfing tory majority. Will stabilise the ship and act as a second stage to take charge in 2030.
RLB - Will be even more Corbyn but will get next to no media coverage, labour will just trundle along at 30-35% for most of the parliament and will end up with a result in that range at the GE. Labour will end up in no better place in 2024/5 than now.
Lady Nugee- will rally her troops in Remania. Will probably through perpetual angry denouncement peg up labour support. Will make good urban gains at the GE and eat into once safe southern seats, will lose even more seats in the north, and lose remaining scottish seats, and do badly in wales
Nandy - Thought of as nice and pleasant but loses even more northern seats and keeps her own at the next GE with only three figures.
Philips - Shes the unknown. Shes the one that probably wont win, probably wont do any better than all the others. But she could. People seem to like the hooker hoops and the 'aufentic' working class brummie stuff. How true it is doesnt matter, it matters only she can pull it off.
She could learn all the other stuff. She has plenty of time. If you have already got a bit of va va voom (and she has), mix in some intense NLP and speech training you can go far.
But the idea that's the reason for the loss more than a decade after he left Number 10 is ludicrous. Ex-PMs have some fans and some detractors - that's the way it goes.
That result doesn't do my betfair book any good but I'll break even.
The only circumstances in which you could imagine the need for checks coming from GB to NI, as I’ve explained before, is if those goods were going on into Ireland and we had not secured, which I hope and I’m confident we will, a zero tariff, zero quota agreement with our friends and partners in the EU.
... which does seem a little economical with the actualité (unless he's going to accept 100% dynamic alignment with EU regulations for goods, animal welfare, and agricultural products).
"Be in no doubt. We are the government of the United Kingdom. I cannot see any circumstances whatever in which they will be any need for checks on goods going from Northern Ireland to GB. The only circumstances in which you could imagine the need for checks coming from GB to NI, as I’ve explained before, is if those goods were going on into Ireland and we had not secured, which I hope and I’m confident we will, a zero tariff, zero quota agreement with our friends and partners in the EU."
What he can be accused of is not saying that there are already SPS checks on live animals and other stuff when going from GB to NI (The Island of ||Ireland is a separate entity for food safety to GB). The other thing he can be criticised for is not saying that the EU has not solved the fudge of NI being in both the UK SM/CU and EU SM/CU so at the moment we do not know if the additional checks over what is in place today are only for goods in transit to the RoI or on some goods going to NI only.
Of course, it's possible over five years he might recover from that. Or more likely, the smell of that very particular stench of shit will follow him around for ever.
If there's going to be a surprise, it'll come from Nandy. There's a case for saying that she, like Starmer, has been just loyal enough without being too sullied by the Project. And there's a case for saying he feels a bit more like part of the dreaded metropolitan elite.
RLB is banking on "continuity Corbyn" being a winner in the Party, and it just isn't. I don't really see Thornberry's market - metropolitan Remainers who feel Starmer is too male and moderate? It's far too small a pool to fish in.
Corbyn and his clown cart have achieved precisely nothing.
I'm not clear what you do to "prevent it" within the shadow cabinet beyond saying, "this is toxic, and your cronies and the NEC need to deal with it". They have no decision making role in the process. Of course, one option would have been to resign, but that doesn't actually "prevent it" - it is a signal and no more, and Corbyn was fairly used to people resigning and shrugged it off.
"Javid in part secured his position as Chancellor for some time to come by giving Johnson Christmas reading in the shape of an 18-page report on his ideas for levelling up the country."
Blair was a war monger in Iraq etc, he's done more good that bad though.
OK, that will be the last time I do this. I almost promise.
He should be solving knife crime first. Numpty.
Labour must win back some working class nothern seats in the the medium term because of the dominance of Leave seats.
Many Labour people seem to keep forgetting the system we have rather than the system they wish we had. Winning back a bunch of heavily Leave seats is a must for the next couple of general elections if Labour want to win back power, unless the libdem vote collapses wholesale to them.
Keir Bear should be 2-9 mark.
RLB has effectively written off the 40%. That's a big chunk to write off and would be worth it if others were writing off the 60%... but they aren't. Starmer, Thornberry and Nandy all had senior roles under Corbyn and cannot be accused of failing to try to make it work. They weren't part of "the Project" but respected the result and have a good case to make to the whole party.
In other words, RLB is fighting over 60% of the pie, Phillips over 40%, and the rest over 100%. The winner will come from those fighting over 100%.
Do you think Rayner should be much shorter?
1-8 maybe?
.
.
.
.
For all those doubting the markedly different approach by the press to Meghan.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
View From Stormont is on tonight at 22:45pm on UTV. (One hour show)