Wonder how many are Tories? Who feel - quite rightly - a donation to JC is a contribution to C&UP.
Well, with hindsight the original Tories for Corbyn movement was a reckless gamble - 2017 could so easily have turned out differently - but I bet that most of them are delighted with the ultimate result. So why would they not chip in and have another go now?
His "ending" of Vietnam War, not so much. He did extract US military, but way he it left VERY bad taste in American mouths. AND Nixon & his stodge Spiro Agnew (back when presidents got somebody else to play the Buffoon) certainly did nothing to "bring us together" like that famous sign said back in 1968.
Sir, I take great exception at being compared to Spiro Agnew.
I shall expect an apology or a witty rejoinder in response.
I apologize immediately & unreservedly. Unless of course you were weaned on a Maryland crab-cake and/or your uncle was a paving contractor in Baltimore County.
Johnson is in net negative and has been for some time - yet the Tory lead remains high. And Starmer has been in net positive and has been for some time.
So therefore right now the popularity of the leaders seems to be irrelevant.
His "ending" of Vietnam War, not so much. He did extract US military, but way he it left VERY bad taste in American mouths. AND Nixon & his stodge Spiro Agnew (back when presidents got somebody else to play the Buffoon) certainly did nothing to "bring us together" like that famous sign said back in 1968.
Sir, I take great exception at being compared to Spiro Agnew.
I shall expect an apology or a witty rejoinder in response.
I apologize immediately & unreservedly. Unless of course you were weaned on a Maryland crab-cake and/or your uncle was a paving contractor in Baltimore County.
Apology received with thanks. There are some Vice-Presidents with whom I might not have minded comparison but not Agnew..
Wonder how many are Tories? Who feel - quite rightly - a donation to JC is a contribution to C&UP.
Well, with hindsight the original Tories for Corbyn movement was a reckless gamble - 2017 could so easily have turned out differently - but I bet that most of them are delighted with the ultimate result. So why would they not chip in and have another go now?
I wonder where he is and how far away from the nearest infectious person he is? By that I’m not hoping he’s in danger rather than it is patchy. My nearest case is anything from five meters to 10k away so I hope they were wearing masks when last out and about.
Labour leads by 6 points in the North, Tories lead by 7 points in Midlands, Labour by 21 points in London, Tories by 17 points in the South, Labour by 23 in Wales, Conservatives by 17 in Scotland
His "ending" of Vietnam War, not so much. He did extract US military, but way he it left VERY bad taste in American mouths. AND Nixon & his stodge Spiro Agnew (back when presidents got somebody else to play the Buffoon) certainly did nothing to "bring us together" like that famous sign said back in 1968.
Sir, I take great exception at being compared to Spiro Agnew.
I shall expect an apology or a witty rejoinder in response.
I apologize immediately & unreservedly. Unless of course you were weaned on a Maryland crab-cake and/or your uncle was a paving contractor in Baltimore County.
Apology received with thanks. There are some Vice-Presidents with whom I might not have minded comparison but not Agnew..
Funny thing about Sprio, was that when he was elected governor, he was the LIBERAL candidate & got a lot of Black votes. In 1968 he was a Nelson Rockefeller supporter, until Rocky dissed him and he switched his support to Nixon for the GOP nomination. Who picked Agnew for VP based on his appeal to moderates & liberal Republicans (then a potent force in Northeast and West).
Johnson is in net negative and has been for some time - yet the Tory lead remains high. And Starmer has been in net positive and has been for some time.
So therefore right now the popularity of the leaders seems to be irrelevant.
No, the net figures are misleading.
Look at the positives. Look at the share not the lead.
I get the point, but portraying Nixon as a supreme statesman who ended the Vietnam war is a bit of a stretch.
Nixon was a supreme statesman who ended the Vietnam war.
Nixon was one of the greatest Presidents of all time . . . who got carried away with Watergate and cover ups and so became regarded as one of the most toxic and worst of all time. People will only ever associate Nixon with Watergate now but its worth remembering just how incredibly successful he was before Watergate.
If Nixon had been assassinated, JFK-style, in the weeks after his second election victory then I strongly believe history would now be remembering Nixon as one of the greatest Presidents of all time.
I was around when Nixon was President. Opening with China was his biggest achievement, hailed by Dems & Reps, liberals & (most) conservatives alike. AND you forgot to mention his founding the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which is applauded by many enviros & progressives.
His "ending" of Vietnam War, not so much. He did extract US military, but way he it left VERY bad taste in American mouths. AND Nixon & his stodge Spiro Agnew (back when presidents got somebody else to play the Buffoon) certainly did nothing to "bring us together" like that famous sign said back in 1968.
Even at the height of his electoral glory in November 1972 he was NEVER loved by more than a fringe of weirdos (such as Roger Stone). My old man was a Republican who voted for him three times (1960, 1968, 1972) and never did like the SOB.
So was NOT shocking when people started flaunting their "Don't Blame Me - I'm From Massachusetts" bumper-stickers in 1973 . . .
I didn't forget, I didn't want to go into a longer dragged out post. Yes China, EPA etc Nixon had a lot of great successes in his first term. Of course its worth thinking why Massachusetts was referred to, Nixon was very popular overall.
At the time I'm referring to if he'd been shot then and we remembered him from then . . . he had an approval rating in January 1973 of 67%
Not many Presidents have had 67% approval ratings! By the end of 73 of course it was a very different matter!
Swiftness his fall shows hollowness of his popularity.
Which Nixon himself recognized; one reason why Watergate happened at all.
Also a reason why he kept Spiro Agnew on the ticket, despite wanting to dump him in favor of John Connolly, a politico crony who'd previously mastered in abhorrent psychology under Lyndon Johnson). Because he reasoned that NOBODY would want to remove RN from office IF the replacement was Spiro.
Unfortunately for him, the Vice President suffered his own fall from grace in 1973, leading to HIS resignation and replacement by Gerald Ford. Who when push came to shove, replaced Tricky Dick to the relief of 90% plus of the American people.
Nixon had positive net approval ratings throughout his entire Presidential term until they cratered due to Watergate.
Can somebody explain the new boundaries as I thought the seat numbers were remaining the same
Yes they are keeping at 650 seats and a 5% threshold. There are 5 protected seats: Orkney and Shetland, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Ynys Mon, and 2 for Isle of Wight.
The main difference with the current boundaries is that Wales loses its over-representation so will likely lose 8 seats. The main winner region is likely to be the South East, which could gain 7 seats.
The new boundaries should benefit the Tories but not as much as before the election. Electoral Calculus' current estimate is Con +6, Lab -3, SNP -2, Plaid - 1 vs 2019.
The boundaries will be based on the electorates from March 2020. So I'm guessing the review will kick off either end of this year or early next year.
I ran a rough calculation based on the likely seats for Wales a few months back.
I came up with Labour 14, Tory 12, Plaid 2 and a few which were too close to call. With Ynys Môn getting protected status, I’m going to hesitantly put that in the Tory column. I know it’s very close, but it’s 1951 since a sitting MP was defeated there. That leaves three I’m struggling with - two in Carmarthenshire which might go any one of three ways and one in the North.
Any reduction for Wales will hurt Labour pretty badly because the Valleys are their last stronghold and they will inevitably take a pounding.
Labour are not very popular in the blue collar seats along the M4 corridor anyway. Boris Johnson by contrast is revered amongst people who considered Brexit to be the way forward.
If Johnson can avoid any blame for any post-Covid and post- Brexit economic damage, and I believe Wales will be caned, particularly post-Brexit, he will pick up a few more seats outside Cardiff. I am sure he has his scapegoats lined up already.
I doubt that. I would expect Labour to regain many - perhaps all - of the seats lost in Wales in 2019. Even if the Tories manage to retain a GB lead of 4% - 5% - compared with 11.7% last time - Labour should regain Bridgend - Delyn - Vale of Clwyd - Clwyd South.Wrexham would be another likely gain. Boundary changes may affect some outcomes , but in the context of a pro- Labour swing of 3% - 4% not very much.
I live near Bridgend, and I would have thought you are right, particularly with the fallout from the closure of the engine plant, but WAG rather than Johnson are taking the hit on that.
Labour have a very frosty relationship with the TV broadcast media here in Wales. Local BBC news is very hostile. Drakeford's stock has risen through Covid, but he and the Assembly Government are compared poorly against Johnson's performance, particularly in relation to the "late" opening of retail and hospitality sectors. Still no mandatory mask wearing in Wales, so Drakeford and Gething are being hammered in the media (rightly?) for that.
Johnson is an enigma here in Wales. Historically the Welsh were hostile to English Tory Toffs, but Johnson seems to transcend that.
The last poll in Wales showed a big shift back to Labour.I believe it would be a mistake to extrapolate much from Welsh Assembly elections where turnout is much lower and party alleigances much looser. Were I on the electoral roll there, I would support the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party.
I voted "No" in 1998, but I am a convert now.
I did not have a vote in Autumn 1997 - but have certainly not changed my mind.Very content if Johnson called a Referendum there to ascertain whether voters still wanted the Assembly. I am firmly of the Left but would vote Tory in a Tory v Plaid contest. Ditto in Scotland re-SNP.
Again, I'm going to go all HYFUD and show the latest polls on the Wales and the Welsh *Parliament* (It's not an Assembly anymore)
"If there were a referendum tomorrow on abolishing the Senedd (Welsh Parliament) and this was the question, how would you vote? Should Wales abolish the Senedd (Welsh Parliament)?” The result for this question (with changes since January again in brackets) were:
Yes: 25% (+1) No: 48% (+1) Would not vote: 8% (no change) Don’t Know: 16% (-1) Refused: 3% (-1)"
The new Barometer poll also repeated the now standard multiple-choice constitutional preference question that has been used in several previous Barometer polls as well as in many other studies. The findings here (with changes since January again in brackets) were:
No devolved government in Wales: 22% (+5) Senedd with fewer powers: 5% (-3) Leave things as they are now: 24% (no change) Senedd with more powers: 20% (+2) Independent Wales: 16% (+2) Don’t Know: 12% (-4) Refused: 2% (-1)"
I have seen that poll - but also recall polls leading up to the 1997 Devolution Referendum predicting a Yes win by at least 60% to 40%. In the event, it was 50.3% to 49.7%. My general sense is that the Assembly excites few voters - as reflected in low turnouts.
Forced? Nobody will be forced. Remember that the number of people sanctioned so far for breaking self-isolation on return from abroad is Zero. It won't be enforced.
Cabinet ministers making the most of EU travel while they still can...
Heartwarming.
We've already left you cretin.
Still got FOM during the transition right?
Oh dear, FOM does not mean what you think it means...
You can still travel to the EU visa free during the transition as far as I am aware. No restrictions on travel to/from the EU as of now
No restrictions next year either. That is not what FOM means.
I'm not sure that's right, if we want to put in restrictions on holidaying abroad, whether you need a visa to come here, etc. that can still be done. We don't have that right now and we won't until after the transition period is over, that was what my understanding of Government announcements was
Johnson is in net negative and has been for some time - yet the Tory lead remains high. And Starmer has been in net positive and has been for some time.
So therefore right now the popularity of the leaders seems to be irrelevant.
A 4% lead really is not high at all - pretty well within MOE. I acknowledge that other polls now show a wider gap.
Cabinet ministers making the most of EU travel while they still can...
Heartwarming.
We've already left you cretin.
Still got FOM during the transition right?
Oh dear, FOM does not mean what you think it means...
You can still travel to the EU visa free during the transition as far as I am aware. No restrictions on travel to/from the EU as of now
No restrictions next year either. That is not what FOM means.
I'm not sure that's right, if we want to put in restrictions on holidaying abroad, whether you need a visa to come here, etc. that can still be done. We don't have that right now and we won't until after the transition period is over, that was what my understanding of Government announcements was
We have agreed a reciprocal agreement with the EU that we will not impose restrictions on holidaying. That means we can't restrict anyone from the EU and they won't restrict us.
In the future a government might want to change that, but nothing is changing next year as far as that is concerned. If we impose restrictions on the EU they will terminate their reciprocal agreement with us.
If the Government wants to enforce a visa to come into this country in order to holiday, it can do now.
Similarly if EU countries want to enforce visas for us to holiday abroad, they can do.
When we were in the EU, we got visa free travel, so it could be different once we've left, it won't necessarily be. Whether one directly causes the other I don't know
Cabinet ministers making the most of EU travel while they still can...
Heartwarming.
We've already left you cretin.
Still got FOM during the transition right?
Oh dear, FOM does not mean what you think it means...
HYUFD was making this mistake the other night.
Its remarkable how many people here do not even understand what FOM actually means!
You are wrong. FOM doesn't just refer to free movement of workers, it also refers to the right to cross EU borders with only a passport as set out in Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38/EC - a right which as CHB correctly observes survives during transition.
Cabinet ministers making the most of EU travel while they still can...
Heartwarming.
We've already left you cretin.
Still got FOM during the transition right?
Oh dear, FOM does not mean what you think it means...
You can still travel to the EU visa free during the transition as far as I am aware. No restrictions on travel to/from the EU as of now
No restrictions next year either. That is not what FOM means.
I'm not sure that's right, if we want to put in restrictions on holidaying abroad, whether you need a visa to come here, etc. that can still be done. We don't have that right now and we won't until after the transition period is over, that was what my understanding of Government announcements was
We have agreed a reciprocal agreement with the EU that we will not impose restrictions on holidaying. That means we can't restrict anyone from the EU and they won't restrict us.
In the future a government might want to change that, but nothing is changing next year as far as that is concerned. If we impose restrictions on the EU they will terminate their reciprocal agreement with us.
Can you link to this agreement? I'm not sure I've seen that one.
And this applies in the case of No Deal? We will be able to go to any EU country visa free for holiday and that applies here in any scenario?
Cabinet ministers making the most of EU travel while they still can...
Heartwarming.
We've already left you cretin.
Still got FOM during the transition right?
Oh dear, FOM does not mean what you think it means...
HYUFD was making this mistake the other night.
Its remarkable how many people here do not even understand what FOM actually means!
You are wrong. FOM doesn't just refer to free movement of workers, it also refers to the right to cross EU borders with only a passport as set out in Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38/EC - a right which as CHB correctly observes survives during transition.
Well thanks but I was actually just asking a question whether FOM carries on during the transition, I didn't mean to directly link it to holidays or anything else.
I shouldn't have quoted the post above, now I feel silly
Cabinet ministers making the most of EU travel while they still can...
Heartwarming.
We've already left you cretin.
Still got FOM during the transition right?
Oh dear, FOM does not mean what you think it means...
HYUFD was making this mistake the other night.
Its remarkable how many people here do not even understand what FOM actually means!
You are wrong. FOM doesn't just refer to free movement of workers, it also refers to the right to cross EU borders with only a passport as set out in Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38/EC - a right which as CHB correctly observes survives during transition.
A right that exists for many other nations outside the EU too via reciprocal agreements and a right that will continue post-transition.
FOM is much more than just what is already quite a common reciprocal agreement outside of that framework.
Cabinet ministers making the most of EU travel while they still can...
Heartwarming.
We've already left you cretin.
Still got FOM during the transition right?
Oh dear, FOM does not mean what you think it means...
HYUFD was making this mistake the other night.
Its remarkable how many people here do not even understand what FOM actually means!
You are wrong. FOM doesn't just refer to free movement of workers, it also refers to the right to cross EU borders with only a passport as set out in Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38/EC - a right which as CHB correctly observes survives during transition.
A right that exists for many other nations outside the EU too via reciprocal agreements and a right that will continue post-transition.
FOM is much more than just what is already quite a common reciprocal agreement outside of that framework.
Okay but you referred to an agreement we've made with the EU for holiday visas, can you send me a link? Haven't heard about that
Entering other countries Visas for short trips: you will not need one if you’re a tourist If you’re a tourist, you will not need a visa for short trips to EU countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. You’ll be able to stay for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
You may need a visa or permit to stay for longer, to work or study, or for business travel.
It does say here one won't be required, to be honest I wasn't aware this applied regardless of any deal or not being made, fair enough TIL
Entering other countries Visas for short trips: you will not need one if you’re a tourist If you’re a tourist, you will not need a visa for short trips to EU countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. You’ll be able to stay for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
You may need a visa or permit to stay for longer, to work or study, or for business travel.
It does say here one won't be required, to be honest I wasn't aware this applied regardless of any deal or not being made, fair enough TIL
Let's be honest, there's a much bigger issue regarding international travel than whether you need a visa or not. I genuinely feel for the Med countries. This is going to be very painful for them.
Entering other countries Visas for short trips: you will not need one if you’re a tourist If you’re a tourist, you will not need a visa for short trips to EU countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. You’ll be able to stay for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
You may need a visa or permit to stay for longer, to work or study, or for business travel.
It does say here one won't be required, to be honest I wasn't aware this applied regardless of any deal or not being made, fair enough TIL
A third country doesn't always mean you need a visa full stop. Why would the European Union enforce visas on it's closest neighbour with similar democratic values and a similar wealth? It would make no sense and would make them look spiteful and be self defeating, considering 1/4 of all visitors to Spain are British. Yes, we could impose visas on them, but that would mean we're departing from being a friendly nation to them and would give them some more reason to do it.
You seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to say.
I was asking if we've still got FOM during the transition, it was a genuine question
I have no idea actually. Quite how it's relevant to going on holiday to Spain, I don't know.
We were talking about going abroad, just seemed a relevant time to ask
FOM has very little to do with going abroad. Living abroad, on the other hand...
A truly striking bit of wrong end of the stickery. Some things are as simple as they seem to be, and freedom of movement is genuinely about being, you know, free to, you know, move, including across borders for holidays, exactly as Shapps is doing.
Entering other countries Visas for short trips: you will not need one if you’re a tourist If you’re a tourist, you will not need a visa for short trips to EU countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. You’ll be able to stay for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
You may need a visa or permit to stay for longer, to work or study, or for business travel.
It does say here one won't be required, to be honest I wasn't aware this applied regardless of any deal or not being made, fair enough TIL
A third country doesn't always mean you need a visa full stop. Why would the European Union enforce visas on it's closest neighbour with similar democratic values and a similar wealth? It would make no sense and would make them look spiteful and be self defeating, considering 1/4 of all visitors to Spain are British. Yes, we could impose visas on them, but that would mean we're departing from being a friendly nation to them and would give them some more reason to do it.
I dunno, our Government seems pretty spiteful at times
If the Government wants to enforce a visa to come into this country in order to holiday, it can do now.
Similarly if EU countries want to enforce visas for us to holiday abroad, they can do.
When we were in the EU, we got visa free travel, so it could be different once we've left, it won't necessarily be. Whether one directly causes the other I don't know
If in the future the government wanted to enforce a visa to come to this holiday we would let the EU know we were doing that and terminate our reciprocal visa-free arrangements and they could then demand one from us.
If in the future the EU wanted to enforce visas for us to travel there they could, they would let us know they were doing that and terminate our reciprocal visa free arrangements and we could then demand one from them.
However in the mean time that's not happening. As is quite common for friendly developed nations we've got a reciprocal agreement in place that we won't do that.
Entering other countries Visas for short trips: you will not need one if you’re a tourist If you’re a tourist, you will not need a visa for short trips to EU countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. You’ll be able to stay for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
You may need a visa or permit to stay for longer, to work or study, or for business travel.
It does say here one won't be required, to be honest I wasn't aware this applied regardless of any deal or not being made, fair enough TIL
I also thought there was now a need to have at least 6 months on your passport - I've seen this with reference to cruises.
Cabinet ministers making the most of EU travel while they still can...
Heartwarming.
We've already left you cretin.
Still got FOM during the transition right?
Oh dear, FOM does not mean what you think it means...
HYUFD was making this mistake the other night.
Its remarkable how many people here do not even understand what FOM actually means!
You are wrong. FOM doesn't just refer to free movement of workers, it also refers to the right to cross EU borders with only a passport as set out in Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38/EC - a right which as CHB correctly observes survives during transition.
A right that exists for many other nations outside the EU too via reciprocal agreements and a right that will continue post-transition.
FOM is much more than just what is already quite a common reciprocal agreement outside of that framework.
Okay but you referred to an agreement we've made with the EU for holiday visas, can you send me a link? Haven't heard about that
That's a press release from the EU confirming they'd agreed to grant us visa free travel on the basis of having agreed with us it would be reciprocal.
The Council and the European Parliament have agreed that, following Brexit, UK citizens coming to the Schengen area for a short stay (90 days in any 180 days) should be granted visa free travel. This agreement was confirmed yesterday by EU ambassadors on behalf of the Council and by the European Parliament Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee today. The text now needs to be formally adopted by the European Parliament and the Council.
According to EU rules, visa exemption is granted on condition of reciprocity. The government of the United Kingdom has stated that it does not intend to require a visa from EU citizens travelling to the UK for short stays. In the event that the United Kingdom introduces a visa requirement for nationals of at least one member state in the future, the existing reciprocity mechanism would apply and the three EU institutions and the member states would undertake to act without delay in applying the mechanism. The Commission would monitor the respect of the principle of reciprocity on a continuous basis and immediately inform the European Parliament and the Council of any developments which could endanger the respect of this principle.
So sad. I loved Peter. This week I have been trying to learn Oh Well and Black Magic Woman on the guitar.
I think had you offered him his last twenty five years back in the late 70s/early 80s he wouldn't have believed it possible. It could have been a lot, lot worse.
My wife's family knew Peter Green's younger relatives, apparently. One of that generation of postwar East End Jewish boys drawn to the 'sixties creative industries ; Marc Bolan was another.
An incredibly sad story. The Man of the World documentary by the BBC is good. I think it is on iplayer, but no doubt will be shown again now he has sadly passed away. Spent his final years in Leigh-on-Sea I believe
Thanks for this. There are incredible similarities with Syd Barrett's story here ; those who were the most sensitive souls, and had a period of having their drinks spiked with LSD, often seem to have suffered the most negative consequences of hallucinogens. Both he and Barrett seem to have degenerated almost to drifters after these experiences, which they didn't plan or initiate.
More confident personalities of the era, acting with their own sense of agency, and most importantly not so enormously frightened and unsettled by the experience, seemed to have been the ones sometimes deriving more benefit from it ; and also generally seemed to have returned to the drug only rarely, if at all, afterwards.
No two ways about it. Drugs are a disaster for the nations mental health. Druggies rarely do anything productive with their lives after they achieve their grip.
Cabinet ministers making the most of EU travel while they still can...
Heartwarming.
We've already left you cretin.
Still got FOM during the transition right?
Oh dear, FOM does not mean what you think it means...
You can still travel to the EU visa free during the transition as far as I am aware. No restrictions on travel to/from the EU as of now
No restrictions next year either. That is not what FOM means.
I'm not sure that's right, if we want to put in restrictions on holidaying abroad, whether you need a visa to come here, etc. that can still be done. We don't have that right now and we won't until after the transition period is over, that was what my understanding of Government announcements was
We have agreed a reciprocal agreement with the EU that we will not impose restrictions on holidaying. That means we can't restrict anyone from the EU and they won't restrict us.
In the future a government might want to change that, but nothing is changing next year as far as that is concerned. If we impose restrictions on the EU they will terminate their reciprocal agreement with us.
Can you link to this agreement? I'm not sure I've seen that one.
And this applies in the case of No Deal? We will be able to go to any EU country visa free for holiday and that applies here in any scenario?
Gave the link in other reply but hadn't seen the second question. Yes it applies "deal or no deal". It would have even applied even if we'd left with no deal and no extension in March last year.
This agreement was made 100% separately to the rest of the negotiations. Its got nothing to do with the deal procedure and is simply an ongoing reciprocal agreement. It applies on a "one for all" basis, we can't require visas from ANY EU nation without the reciprocal agreement terminating for all of them.
There are 60 countries on that list, plus some non-states such as Hong Kong too.
Freedom of movement is an entirely different matter to visa-free travel, it incorporates it of course, but it is much, much more than that. Visa free travel will continue as long as we reciprocally agree it just like the other 60 non-EU countries that have it agreed with the EU already.
I don't understand why the Green vote is so high, it normally drops a bit in elections so Labour probably has 1 or 2 points there but their voters must know they're only causing another Tory Government
Johnson is in net negative and has been for some time - yet the Tory lead remains high. And Starmer has been in net positive and has been for some time.
So therefore right now the popularity of the leaders seems to be irrelevant.
My best guess would be that the leadership numbers aren't shifting the party ones because Labour is toxic to more voters than the Tories are - indeed, the fact that Johnson is doing as well as he is and Starmer isn't doing better might be partly explained by this.
We have been through such a period of upheaval since 2010 - the Coalition, a tiny Tory majority, a Tory minority, a Tory landslide, and the Scottish, European and Corbyn dramas all running right through the second half of it - that we have quite forgotten that actually the Tories were once referred to as the natural party of Government (as opposed to Labour, which has had only three successful leaders since the War.) There's a good reason why this is so. We are a small-c conservative country, and Labour tends only to get into power when the swing voters in elections - especially middling folk from middling seats in Middle England - feel that change is needed and that Labour can be trusted to achieve that change without endangering what one might broadly term their security.
Hence the fact that, despite everything that's going on at the moment, Labour is stuck behind the Tories in the polls. Consider:
(1) Labour has a serious image problem left over from the Great Recession. Fairly or otherwise, it still gets a lot of the blame for crashing the economy the last time it was in charge.
(2) Corbyn only went about five minutes ago. Voters haven't forgotten that Labour's members went crackers and installed a complete loon as leader. They're therefore entitled to wonder if the party has really changed, or whether the lunatics are still waiting in the shadows waiting to take over the asylum again. Imagine if there were an election tomorrow and Labour won: what would then happen if Starmer met with an unfortunate accident or were ousted by his own party? Would we end up with Corbyn Mk.2 by the back door?
(3) Labour is associated in the minds of many electors with a lot of minority interest left-liberal ideas, not least in the spheres of immigration, Europe and political correctness. Corbyn left behind him a legacy of radicalism and anti-patriotism which many former Labour voters found offensive, and they suspect that the Labour Party more broadly is sympathetic to most of this legacy. A lot of the Red Wall voters won't be in a particular hurry to go back to a party that's been captured by metropolitans, thinks they are "bigots" (that one goes all the way back to Brown, of course,) and is associated with a range of trendy but woefully unpopular hashtag crusades like the legion of radical left and Marxist fringe groups and ideas (abolition of the nuclear family, defunding of the police, an open door to migrants) that hide behind the Black Lives Matter slogan.
Thus, Labour is still viewed suspiciously and as a threat by much of the population to both the economic and cultural or moral security of the country. It is going to take more than an apology to the Jewish community and some payouts in court to undo all that damage. Moreover,
(4) Johnson has been able to use Brexit to reset the political clock and capture the change agenda. There's no need to vote Labour for real change if you think that, following Cameron's austerity drive and May's drift, Boris Johnson has created a completely new Government and has brought, or at any rate is in the process of bringing, real change.
That's not to say that both the ongoing fallout from Covid and Keir Starmer's efforts to make Labour electable won't eventually change the position, but right now I think that's where we are. It's a little bit like 1979 I suppose: we have a new Government, elected after a period of chaos and upheaval, that has just secured a good election victory but is also on probation and will be judged on its ability to deal with the problems of a very challenging first term. If it passes the test then (except for viewers in Scotland) it could enter a lengthy period of dominance. If things go pear shaped then we may, however, need to swap the 1979 analogy for 1992...
To be honest I have no idea but I think it is unlikely
Indeed this has been done across the UK with Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster on board
Boris cannot win in this pandemic, either he is too slow or too fast
Who would want his job
As the Prime Minister himself has admitted, mistakes have been made. That at least is honest and of course hindsight is so this year.
Had we known in mid March what we know now different decisions would have been made but it looked as through an uncontrolled pandemic with a significant risk to sections of the population was loose and quite rightly the Government prioritised the public health risk over the economic risk.
This has been at the heart of the debate ever since - at what point do health considerations (both individual and societal) cease to be as significant as the economic considerations of lost businesses, lost jobs and enormous levels of debt funded by borrowing?
Those who consider themselves at risk from the virus (potential or actual) have one view - those who see their livelihood disappearing, their debts mounting and their economic future compromised take another.
That's the balance any Prime Minister in such a situation has to strike but Boris Johnson wanted the job, he wanted to be Prime Minister and if I'm being harsh, I suppose I would say that as we all have to sometimes he has to take the rough with the jagged.
I don't understand why the Green vote is so high, it normally drops a bit in elections so Labour probably has 1 or 2 points there but their voters must know they're only causing another Tory Government
Labour supporters have been complaining since the time of the dinosaurs about the Lib Dems and their predecessors, the Greens, and the Scots and Welsh Nats breaking up the left vote and letting the Tories in.
There may be some truth in this (albeit that it's somewhat presumptuous to assume that all the supporters of those parties would immediately gravitate to Labour if they were to magically vanish,) but whingeing about it has never, ever worked. It's a waste of energy.
Besides, if Labour could strip enough support from the Tories then it could win handily without having to worry about Green voters at all (whereas if it goes charging into ecosocialism to try to strip away Green votes, then it risks bleeding away more support from the centre than it gains on the left.)
Starmer's not an idiot. Now more than ever, with Scottish Labour a busted flush, his party's route to power lies directly through dozens and dozens of Tory-held seats in England and Wales. He won't be worrying about the Green vote at all. It's not worth the bother. He'll be focussed completely on how to win support from the Conservatives. That's the only game in town.
@Black_Rook I'm upvoting most of your brilliant posts recently
Black Rook has always believed in quality over quantity.
You're far too kind. I start spouting Victorian three-volume novels when I get going, I'm frequently wrong, and I'm occasionally prone to hyperbole when I'm feeling pessimistic. Or more pessimistic than usual, anyway. But I do try to make sense at least occasionally.
I don't understand why the Green vote is so high, it normally drops a bit in elections so Labour probably has 1 or 2 points there but their voters must know they're only causing another Tory Government
Labour supporters have been complaining since the time of the dinosaurs about the Lib Dems and their predecessors, the Greens, and the Scots and Welsh Nats breaking up the left vote and letting the Tories in.
There may be some truth in this (albeit that it's somewhat presumptuous to assume that all the supporters of those parties would immediately gravitate to Labour if they were to magically vanish,) but whingeing about it has never, ever worked. It's a waste of energy.
Besides, if Labour could strip enough support from the Tories then it could win handily without having to worry about Green voters at all (whereas if it goes charging into ecosocialism to try to strip away Green votes, then it risks bleeding away more support from the centre than it gains on the left.)
Starmer's not an idiot. Now more than ever, with Scottish Labour a busted flush, his party's route to power lies directly through dozens and dozens of Tory-held seats in England and Wales. He won't be worrying about the Green vote at all. It's not worth the bother. He'll be focussed completely on how to win support from the Conservatives. That's the only game in town.
Well good point Black_Rook.
I agree, that's what we need to be doing, taking the Tory votes - but right now we aren't. And I haven't quite seen a strategy for doing that yet.
So far Starmer has been very effective at taking the Lib Dem vote - but the Tory vote has not been touched much at all.
Waiting/hoping Brexit will fail and these voters will come back seems foolish. He needs to work out how to appeal to these voters, what do they want.
Surely the Unions will always ensure Labour are ok financially.
Will they have the firepower? The recession and mass redundancies means a lot of paying members to represent, and many more paying members who won't be paying anymore because they're unemployed.
I guess it ultimately depends how large a bill Labour accrues. You can surely only go to the same well so many times before it dries up?
Surely the Unions will always ensure Labour are ok financially.
Will they have the firepower? The recession and mass redundancies means a lot of paying members to represent, and many more paying members who won't be paying anymore because they're unemployed.
I guess it ultimately depends how large a bill Labour accrues. You can surely only go to the same well so many times before it dries up?
I don't understand why the Green vote is so high, it normally drops a bit in elections so Labour probably has 1 or 2 points there but their voters must know they're only causing another Tory Government
Labour supporters have been complaining since the time of the dinosaurs about the Lib Dems and their predecessors, the Greens, and the Scots and Welsh Nats breaking up the left vote and letting the Tories in.
There may be some truth in this (albeit that it's somewhat presumptuous to assume that all the supporters of those parties would immediately gravitate to Labour if they were to magically vanish,) but whingeing about it has never, ever worked. It's a waste of energy.
Besides, if Labour could strip enough support from the Tories then it could win handily without having to worry about Green voters at all (whereas if it goes charging into ecosocialism to try to strip away Green votes, then it risks bleeding away more support from the centre than it gains on the left.)
Starmer's not an idiot. Now more than ever, with Scottish Labour a busted flush, his party's route to power lies directly through dozens and dozens of Tory-held seats in England and Wales. He won't be worrying about the Green vote at all. It's not worth the bother. He'll be focussed completely on how to win support from the Conservatives. That's the only game in town.
Well good point Black_Rook.
I agree, that's what we need to be doing, taking the Tory votes - but right now we aren't. And I haven't quite seen a strategy for doing that yet.
So far Starmer has been very effective at taking the Lib Dem vote - but the Tory vote has not been touched much at all.
Waiting/hoping Brexit will fail and these voters will come back seems foolish. He needs to work out how to appeal to these voters, what do they want.
Christ, patience. Starmer doesn’t have to do anything but look vaguely competent ( tick ), not be a loony left headbanger ( tick , thanks RLB for giving the chance to sack you), till at least spring next year when he can trot out some local govt stuff and a bit of Welsh and ( half heated Scottish ‘cos he knows it’s a lost cause really) stuff
The next election ain’t happening till 2024 at the least. He’ll have to define himself on Europe, Scotland, and tax/the economy gradually through 2022/3/4. There’s no point yet, it just gives reasons to piss people off when as LOTO all he has to do at the moment is exude reasonableness.
I don't understand why the Green vote is so high, it normally drops a bit in elections so Labour probably has 1 or 2 points there but their voters must know they're only causing another Tory Government
Labour supporters have been complaining since the time of the dinosaurs about the Lib Dems and their predecessors, the Greens, and the Scots and Welsh Nats breaking up the left vote and letting the Tories in.
There may be some truth in this (albeit that it's somewhat presumptuous to assume that all the supporters of those parties would immediately gravitate to Labour if they were to magically vanish,) but whingeing about it has never, ever worked. It's a waste of energy.
Besides, if Labour could strip enough support from the Tories then it could win handily without having to worry about Green voters at all (whereas if it goes charging into ecosocialism to try to strip away Green votes, then it risks bleeding away more support from the centre than it gains on the left.)
Starmer's not an idiot. Now more than ever, with Scottish Labour a busted flush, his party's route to power lies directly through dozens and dozens of Tory-held seats in England and Wales. He won't be worrying about the Green vote at all. It's not worth the bother. He'll be focussed completely on how to win support from the Conservatives. That's the only game in town.
Indeed.
Its worth noting that much of the complaints about a split left vote originate or give examples of eg the SDP split and suggestions that it permitted the Thatcher 1983 landslide. However there was much contemporary evidence that Alliance voters preferred on a forced choice a Thatcher/Tory government over a Foot/Labour one, so without the SDP being there it could have been a bigger Tory majority.
I think many Labour activists hate the Tories so much they perceive all other parties as also being "anti Tory" when the Lib Dems are no more "anti Tory" than they are "anti Labour"
I don't understand why the Green vote is so high, it normally drops a bit in elections so Labour probably has 1 or 2 points there but their voters must know they're only causing another Tory Government
Labour supporters have been complaining since the time of the dinosaurs about the Lib Dems and their predecessors, the Greens, and the Scots and Welsh Nats breaking up the left vote and letting the Tories in.
There may be some truth in this (albeit that it's somewhat presumptuous to assume that all the supporters of those parties would immediately gravitate to Labour if they were to magically vanish,) but whingeing about it has never, ever worked. It's a waste of energy.
Besides, if Labour could strip enough support from the Tories then it could win handily without having to worry about Green voters at all (whereas if it goes charging into ecosocialism to try to strip away Green votes, then it risks bleeding away more support from the centre than it gains on the left.)
Starmer's not an idiot. Now more than ever, with Scottish Labour a busted flush, his party's route to power lies directly through dozens and dozens of Tory-held seats in England and Wales. He won't be worrying about the Green vote at all. It's not worth the bother. He'll be focussed completely on how to win support from the Conservatives. That's the only game in town.
Well good point Black_Rook.
I agree, that's what we need to be doing, taking the Tory votes - but right now we aren't. And I haven't quite seen a strategy for doing that yet.
So far Starmer has been very effective at taking the Lib Dem vote - but the Tory vote has not been touched much at all.
Waiting/hoping Brexit will fail and these voters will come back seems foolish. He needs to work out how to appeal to these voters, what do they want.
Christ, patience. Starmer doesn’t have to do anything but look vaguely competent ( tick ), not be a loony left headbanger ( tick , thanks RLB for giving the chance to sack you), till at least spring next year when he can trot out some local govt stuff and a bit of Welsh and ( half heated Scottish ‘cos he knows it’s a lost cause really) stuff
The next election ain’t happening till 2024 at the least. He’ll have to define himself on Europe, Scotland, and tax/the economy gradually through 2022/3/4. There’s no point yet, it just gives reasons to piss people off when as LOTO all he has to do at the moment is exude reasonableness.
Chill.
Predix:
Sturgeon will win easily next May. She might even get a majority of the votes, let alone seats. There will be intense pressure for indyref2.
But of course Bojo will say no. The more the polls point to a possible win for Yes, the less reason he has to yield. He doesn't want to be the PM that lost the union, no one does. So he will say No until 2024, for sure. The SNP will huff and puff and put grievance fuel on the Nat fire, but they won't be able to do anything. The Tories will say Well if Scotland is probably lost, who cares if it is lost even more dramatically, let's wait and hope for a miracle
This gives Starmer an opportunity: he could come in as the Devomax prime minister, willing to solve this terrible constitutional crisis with a new Federal Settlement, undoing the awful damage done by Blair's deliberately botched, warped, unfair Devolution Agreement.
That may be just enough for Starmer to get afew Scottish seats (if SLAB can get a decent leader), AND head off the charge that he will be hijacked by the Nats in a minority government.
Starmer is boring but he is clever. I bet he will do something like this. Whether it works is a different matter. The UK is headed for a massive constitutional crisis in about 2025.
I don't understand why the Green vote is so high, it normally drops a bit in elections so Labour probably has 1 or 2 points there but their voters must know they're only causing another Tory Government
Labour supporters have been complaining since the time of the dinosaurs about the Lib Dems and their predecessors, the Greens, and the Scots and Welsh Nats breaking up the left vote and letting the Tories in.
There may be some truth in this (albeit that it's somewhat presumptuous to assume that all the supporters of those parties would immediately gravitate to Labour if they were to magically vanish,) but whingeing about it has never, ever worked. It's a waste of energy.
Besides, if Labour could strip enough support from the Tories then it could win handily without having to worry about Green voters at all (whereas if it goes charging into ecosocialism to try to strip away Green votes, then it risks bleeding away more support from the centre than it gains on the left.)
Starmer's not an idiot. Now more than ever, with Scottish Labour a busted flush, his party's route to power lies directly through dozens and dozens of Tory-held seats in England and Wales. He won't be worrying about the Green vote at all. It's not worth the bother. He'll be focussed completely on how to win support from the Conservatives. That's the only game in town.
Well good point Black_Rook.
I agree, that's what we need to be doing, taking the Tory votes - but right now we aren't. And I haven't quite seen a strategy for doing that yet.
So far Starmer has been very effective at taking the Lib Dem vote - but the Tory vote has not been touched much at all.
Waiting/hoping Brexit will fail and these voters will come back seems foolish. He needs to work out how to appeal to these voters, what do they want.
Christ, patience. Starmer doesn’t have to do anything but look vaguely competent ( tick ), not be a loony left headbanger ( tick , thanks RLB for giving the chance to sack you), till at least spring next year when he can trot out some local govt stuff and a bit of Welsh and ( half heated Scottish ‘cos he knows it’s a lost cause really) stuff
The next election ain’t happening till 2024 at the least. He’ll have to define himself on Europe, Scotland, and tax/the economy gradually through 2022/3/4. There’s no point yet, it just gives reasons to piss people off when as LOTO all he has to do at the moment is exude reasonableness.
Chill.
The UK is headed for a massive constitutional crisis in about 2025.
Thank goodness, we will be missing them by then.
Though itll probably be mixed in with a monarchical crisis too.
I don't understand why the Green vote is so high, it normally drops a bit in elections so Labour probably has 1 or 2 points there but their voters must know they're only causing another Tory Government
Labour supporters have been complaining since the time of the dinosaurs about the Lib Dems and their predecessors, the Greens, and the Scots and Welsh Nats breaking up the left vote and letting the Tories in.
There may be some truth in this (albeit that it's somewhat presumptuous to assume that all the supporters of those parties would immediately gravitate to Labour if they were to magically vanish,) but whingeing about it has never, ever worked. It's a waste of energy.
Besides, if Labour could strip enough support from the Tories then it could win handily without having to worry about Green voters at all (whereas if it goes charging into ecosocialism to try to strip away Green votes, then it risks bleeding away more support from the centre than it gains on the left.)
Starmer's not an idiot. Now more than ever, with Scottish Labour a busted flush, his party's route to power lies directly through dozens and dozens of Tory-held seats in England and Wales. He won't be worrying about the Green vote at all. It's not worth the bother. He'll be focussed completely on how to win support from the Conservatives. That's the only game in town.
Well good point Black_Rook.
I agree, that's what we need to be doing, taking the Tory votes - but right now we aren't. And I haven't quite seen a strategy for doing that yet.
So far Starmer has been very effective at taking the Lib Dem vote - but the Tory vote has not been touched much at all.
Waiting/hoping Brexit will fail and these voters will come back seems foolish. He needs to work out how to appeal to these voters, what do they want.
Christ, patience. Starmer doesn’t have to do anything but look vaguely competent ( tick ), not be a loony left headbanger ( tick , thanks RLB for giving the chance to sack you), till at least spring next year when he can trot out some local govt stuff and a bit of Welsh and ( half heated Scottish ‘cos he knows it’s a lost cause really) stuff
The next election ain’t happening till 2024 at the least. He’ll have to define himself on Europe, Scotland, and tax/the economy gradually through 2022/3/4. There’s no point yet, it just gives reasons to piss people off when as LOTO all he has to do at the moment is exude reasonableness.
Chill.
The UK is headed for a massive constitutional crisis in about 2025.
Thank goodness, we will be missing them by then.
Though itll probably be mixed in with a monarchical crisis too.
Yes, I'd rather like them to go away. The era of 1990-2014 now seems like a wonderful golden age of happiness and stability, despite 9/11 and the GFC
And of course there is always the chance the pandemic will get worse, we have a terrible second wave, and economic disaster collapses the entire global structure, causing wars, coups and revolutions, rendering Scottish independence irrelevant
Comments
Johnson is in net negative and has been for some time - yet the Tory lead remains high. And Starmer has been in net positive and has been for some time.
So therefore right now the popularity of the leaders seems to be irrelevant.
https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1287120057928224768?s=20
Its remarkable how many people here do not even understand what FOM actually means!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Jorgensen
Labour leads by 6 points in the North, Tories lead by 7 points in Midlands, Labour by 21 points in London, Tories by 17 points in the South, Labour by 23 in Wales, Conservatives by 17 in Scotland
Look at the positives. Look at the share not the lead.
They are charging £14 for the snood. IIRC I paid £7.99 for 6.
https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1287044497373896704
I was asking if we've still got FOM during the transition, it was a genuine question
https://twitter.com/PascalLTH/status/1287127581381230605?s=20
But freedom of movement isn't relevant for holidays. Holidays aren't affected by ending FOM.
In the future a government might want to change that, but nothing is changing next year as far as that is concerned. If we impose restrictions on the EU they will terminate their reciprocal agreement with us.
If the Government wants to enforce a visa to come into this country in order to holiday, it can do now.
Similarly if EU countries want to enforce visas for us to holiday abroad, they can do.
When we were in the EU, we got visa free travel, so it could be different once we've left, it won't necessarily be. Whether one directly causes the other I don't know
And this applies in the case of No Deal? We will be able to go to any EU country visa free for holiday and that applies here in any scenario?
I shouldn't have quoted the post above, now I feel silly
FOM is much more than just what is already quite a common reciprocal agreement outside of that framework.
Entering other countries
Visas for short trips: you will not need one if you’re a tourist
If you’re a tourist, you will not need a visa for short trips to EU countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. You’ll be able to stay for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
You may need a visa or permit to stay for longer, to work or study, or for business travel.
It does say here one won't be required, to be honest I wasn't aware this applied regardless of any deal or not being made, fair enough TIL
If in the future the EU wanted to enforce visas for us to travel there they could, they would let us know they were doing that and terminate our reciprocal visa free arrangements and we could then demand one from them.
However in the mean time that's not happening. As is quite common for friendly developed nations we've got a reciprocal agreement in place that we won't do that.
This agreement is separate from other agreements so applies deal or no deal: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/04/03/visa-free-travel-after-brexit-council-presidency-and-european-parliament-reach-provisional-agreement/
Maybe I am a cynic, but why else announce it just after 1000s have travelled at start of weekend of start of school holidays?
That's a press release from the EU confirming they'd agreed to grant us visa free travel on the basis of having agreed with us it would be reciprocal.
The Council and the European Parliament have agreed that, following Brexit, UK citizens coming to the Schengen area for a short stay (90 days in any 180 days) should be granted visa free travel. This agreement was confirmed yesterday by EU ambassadors on behalf of the Council and by the European Parliament Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee today. The text now needs to be formally adopted by the European Parliament and the Council.
According to EU rules, visa exemption is granted on condition of reciprocity. The government of the United Kingdom has stated that it does not intend to require a visa from EU citizens travelling to the UK for short stays. In the event that the United Kingdom introduces a visa requirement for nationals of at least one member state in the future, the existing reciprocity mechanism would apply and the three EU institutions and the member states would undertake to act without delay in applying the mechanism. The Commission would monitor the respect of the principle of reciprocity on a continuous basis and immediately inform the European Parliament and the Council of any developments which could endanger the respect of this principle.
Indeed this has been done across the UK with Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster on board
Boris cannot win in this pandemic, either he is too slow or too fast
Who would want his job
This agreement was made 100% separately to the rest of the negotiations. Its got nothing to do with the deal procedure and is simply an ongoing reciprocal agreement. It applies on a "one for all" basis, we can't require visas from ANY EU nation without the reciprocal agreement terminating for all of them.
There are 60 countries on that list, plus some non-states such as Hong Kong too.
Freedom of movement is an entirely different matter to visa-free travel, it incorporates it of course, but it is much, much more than that. Visa free travel will continue as long as we reciprocally agree it just like the other 60 non-EU countries that have it agreed with the EU already.
My view is they should have backed EEA and stuck with it. Corbyn's indecisiveness and inability to make a decision was a big problem.
Had Starmer been OK with EEA then Corbyn would have been. Leave voters on the other hand is another matter.
We have been through such a period of upheaval since 2010 - the Coalition, a tiny Tory majority, a Tory minority, a Tory landslide, and the Scottish, European and Corbyn dramas all running right through the second half of it - that we have quite forgotten that actually the Tories were once referred to as the natural party of Government (as opposed to Labour, which has had only three successful leaders since the War.) There's a good reason why this is so. We are a small-c conservative country, and Labour tends only to get into power when the swing voters in elections - especially middling folk from middling seats in Middle England - feel that change is needed and that Labour can be trusted to achieve that change without endangering what one might broadly term their security.
Hence the fact that, despite everything that's going on at the moment, Labour is stuck behind the Tories in the polls. Consider:
(1) Labour has a serious image problem left over from the Great Recession. Fairly or otherwise, it still gets a lot of the blame for crashing the economy the last time it was in charge.
(2) Corbyn only went about five minutes ago. Voters haven't forgotten that Labour's members went crackers and installed a complete loon as leader. They're therefore entitled to wonder if the party has really changed, or whether the lunatics are still waiting in the shadows waiting to take over the asylum again. Imagine if there were an election tomorrow and Labour won: what would then happen if Starmer met with an unfortunate accident or were ousted by his own party? Would we end up with Corbyn Mk.2 by the back door?
(3) Labour is associated in the minds of many electors with a lot of minority interest left-liberal ideas, not least in the spheres of immigration, Europe and political correctness. Corbyn left behind him a legacy of radicalism and anti-patriotism which many former Labour voters found offensive, and they suspect that the Labour Party more broadly is sympathetic to most of this legacy. A lot of the Red Wall voters won't be in a particular hurry to go back to a party that's been captured by metropolitans, thinks they are "bigots" (that one goes all the way back to Brown, of course,) and is associated with a range of trendy but woefully unpopular hashtag crusades like the legion of radical left and Marxist fringe groups and ideas (abolition of the nuclear family, defunding of the police, an open door to migrants) that hide behind the Black Lives Matter slogan.
(TBC)
Thus, Labour is still viewed suspiciously and as a threat by much of the population to both the economic and cultural or moral security of the country. It is going to take more than an apology to the Jewish community and some payouts in court to undo all that damage. Moreover,
(4) Johnson has been able to use Brexit to reset the political clock and capture the change agenda. There's no need to vote Labour for real change if you think that, following Cameron's austerity drive and May's drift, Boris Johnson has created a completely new Government and has brought, or at any rate is in the process of bringing, real change.
That's not to say that both the ongoing fallout from Covid and Keir Starmer's efforts to make Labour electable won't eventually change the position, but right now I think that's where we are. It's a little bit like 1979 I suppose: we have a new Government, elected after a period of chaos and upheaval, that has just secured a good election victory but is also on probation and will be judged on its ability to deal with the problems of a very challenging first term. If it passes the test then (except for viewers in Scotland) it could enter a lengthy period of dominance. If things go pear shaped then we may, however, need to swap the 1979 analogy for 1992...
Had we known in mid March what we know now different decisions would have been made but it looked as through an uncontrolled pandemic with a significant risk to sections of the population was loose and quite rightly the Government prioritised the public health risk over the economic risk.
This has been at the heart of the debate ever since - at what point do health considerations (both individual and societal) cease to be as significant as the economic considerations of lost businesses, lost jobs and enormous levels of debt funded by borrowing?
Those who consider themselves at risk from the virus (potential or actual) have one view - those who see their livelihood disappearing, their debts mounting and their economic future compromised take another.
That's the balance any Prime Minister in such a situation has to strike but Boris Johnson wanted the job, he wanted to be Prime Minister and if I'm being harsh, I suppose I would say that as we all have to sometimes he has to take the rough with the jagged.
Do It Early and Often in Rutland
Rutland for a Rutting Good Time
Visit Rutland and Do the Obvious
Rutland - Come Horny, Leave Happy
Rutland - Sexiest Shire This Side of Sidcup
Virginia is for Lovers - Rutland is for the Ruttish
Rutland on Your Own - Hand Book for the Single Traveler
But at least I've accepted it now.
There may be some truth in this (albeit that it's somewhat presumptuous to assume that all the supporters of those parties would immediately gravitate to Labour if they were to magically vanish,) but whingeing about it has never, ever worked. It's a waste of energy.
Besides, if Labour could strip enough support from the Tories then it could win handily without having to worry about Green voters at all (whereas if it goes charging into ecosocialism to try to strip away Green votes, then it risks bleeding away more support from the centre than it gains on the left.)
Starmer's not an idiot. Now more than ever, with Scottish Labour a busted flush, his party's route to power lies directly through dozens and dozens of Tory-held seats in England and Wales. He won't be worrying about the Green vote at all. It's not worth the bother. He'll be focussed completely on how to win support from the Conservatives. That's the only game in town.
I agree, that's what we need to be doing, taking the Tory votes - but right now we aren't. And I haven't quite seen a strategy for doing that yet.
So far Starmer has been very effective at taking the Lib Dem vote - but the Tory vote has not been touched much at all.
Waiting/hoping Brexit will fail and these voters will come back seems foolish. He needs to work out how to appeal to these voters, what do they want.
I guess it ultimately depends how large a bill Labour accrues. You can surely only go to the same well so many times before it dries up?
Meanwhile someone gave us a present today: gift wrapped homemade face masks. The new normal.
The next election ain’t happening till 2024 at the least. He’ll have to define himself on Europe, Scotland, and tax/the economy gradually through 2022/3/4. There’s no point yet, it just gives reasons to piss people off when as LOTO all he has to do at the moment is exude reasonableness.
Chill.
Its worth noting that much of the complaints about a split left vote originate or give examples of eg the SDP split and suggestions that it permitted the Thatcher 1983 landslide. However there was much contemporary evidence that Alliance voters preferred on a forced choice a Thatcher/Tory government over a Foot/Labour one, so without the SDP being there it could have been a bigger Tory majority.
I think many Labour activists hate the Tories so much they perceive all other parties as also being "anti Tory" when the Lib Dems are no more "anti Tory" than they are "anti Labour"
Sturgeon will win easily next May. She might even get a majority of the votes, let alone seats. There will be intense pressure for indyref2.
But of course Bojo will say no. The more the polls point to a possible win for Yes, the less reason he has to yield. He doesn't want to be the PM that lost the union, no one does. So he will say No until 2024, for sure. The SNP will huff and puff and put grievance fuel on the Nat fire, but they won't be able to do anything. The Tories will say Well if Scotland is probably lost, who cares if it is lost even more dramatically, let's wait and hope for a miracle
This gives Starmer an opportunity: he could come in as the Devomax prime minister, willing to solve this terrible constitutional crisis with a new Federal Settlement, undoing the awful damage done by Blair's deliberately botched, warped, unfair Devolution Agreement.
That may be just enough for Starmer to get afew Scottish seats (if SLAB can get a decent leader), AND head off the charge that he will be hijacked by the Nats in a minority government.
Starmer is boring but he is clever. I bet he will do something like this. Whether it works is a different matter. The UK is headed for a massive constitutional crisis in about 2025.
Though itll probably be mixed in with a monarchical crisis too.
https://twitter.com/SimonCalder/status/1287153718622904322
And of course there is always the chance the pandemic will get worse, we have a terrible second wave, and economic disaster collapses the entire global structure, causing wars, coups and revolutions, rendering Scottish independence irrelevant
Happy days
And, you know what? To hell with it. I want some warm Med sun and some grilled sardines. Fuck the virus