Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 24, 2024 9:29:22 GMT
'More or less' discussing shipping costs. They reckon the cost of shipping a container from the far east has gone up from £2000 in december to £6000 now. Of the £4000 increase, £1000 is down to added costs of travelling further, but the other £3000 is due to the shortage of shipping capacity pushing up prices in the spot market. That implies a shortage of goods which never get a slot. Cost of fuel for a typical container ship travelling the long way rises £1 million from 3 to 4 million. Which must have implications for co2 emissions, assuming all the goods still find transport.
4 in 10 GP appointments are 'frequent attenders' who go multiple times a month. But there are still about 30 million gp appointments per month, which means something like 20 million indiviudal people or 1/3 of the population. 70-80% of GP appointments are still face to face, proportion varies in different places. This is far more appointments than people have in hospitals.
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 24, 2024 9:31:02 GMT
The JRF published its latest annual report on poverty yesterday but it doesn't seem to have received much attention in the media or on here.
One startling finding:
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 24, 2024 9:34:35 GMT
An interesting piece from Danny Finkelstein today in which he sees Starmer flipping the political status quo-Mostly Tory with the occasional Labour Government. a quote from it :- "The opportunity for Starmer and the challenge for the Conservatives is that the Baldwin settlement might now be reversed. That Labour might now become the natural party of government, and the Tories win office for short intermissions when Labour gets tired or complacent. This would involve Labour effectively becoming the “Liberal Party”, though without a formal merger with the Liberal Democrats or any change of name. They would simply complete Tony Blair’s unfinished job of transformation. They would be a Baldwinite party but of the left. Broad, national, gradualist, more progressive and modernising than Baldwin but not radical. Meanwhile, the Tories would inherit, or more truthfully would choose, MacDonald’s problems. An excessively ideological view, a dogma with which reality never quite accords, dreams that cannot easily be fulfilled, an impatience with compromise, a purism that demands the impossible of its leaders. The result, a constant search for traitors and frequent coups. All of this would be linked to a demographic — predominantly older, non-urban, more male than female — concentrated and large but limited. Tory leaders would be constantly wondering how to reach beyond the core and only fitfully doing so." From :-"How Starmer could steal ultimate Tory mantle For the past 100 years the Conservatives have been the natural party of government but that role is now up for grabs" DF Times www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-starmer-could-steal-ultimate-tory-mantle-zbl2dzzvnps-Times leader today endorses Streeting's NHS Plan I'd say old Danny (Finkelstein not "our" Danny) is talking some Tory-centric cobblers here. He should have stuck to being William Hague's speechwriter. Or was it Howard's? I can't remember. Some failed Tory leader anyway. I think a lot of Tory/centre-right political commentators are now scurrying around trying to think of what inscription to.put on the Tory wreath for the imminent funeral. Finklestein's appears to be this:- " Alas poor Tories, I knew you well. Your time as the natural party of government is up. Your capacity for chameleon like reinventions is now exhausted. Old Stanley invented the blueprint in the 30s but it's over now, but your great service to the British people is that you made the Labour Party a Tory-lite harmless alternative. Are you listening to that Real Men of the Left. The betrayal is yours (are they squabbling yet, Deidre?).Labour have now transplanted a One Nation Tory Party that is heading for the ultimate reinvention as a squabbling ideologically based right wing party. But victory is ours. As always. My beloved Tory Party has bequeathed to a grateful nation another version of their once glorious selves. Await my Starmer and Streeting endorsement as the ultimate kiss of death " Is Murdoch still paying old Danny for this drivel???
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 24, 2024 9:36:33 GMT
True but Labour were entirely responsible for electing ( twice) serial loser Corbyn, without whom post 2017 history might well have been differ and if they'd performed better in 2010 it wouldn't have happened, at least not in the same way. Arguably the problem here was the libs were the more pro EU party and therefore likely to do more about not leaving the EU (if they had any power at all, of course), whereas Corbyn and the labour party were historically the more anti membership of the two big parties. Had all pro remain voters voted lab, they would have won. Or at least more of a draw again. So arguably, as is often the case, the reason con won was the opposition vote was split, because the libs were standing at all. FPP punishes a divided opposition.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,323
|
Post by steve on Jan 24, 2024 9:40:00 GMT
domjg Polling clearly indicates across a wide range of issues those identifying as liberal democrats and Labour tend to have very similar priorities , the levels of support in some polls for key issues tends to be uncannily similar to within a percent of two. We see it in microcosm here. Labour supporters tend to give slightly higher priority to immigration control , but nothing like the levels of the right and my party is more progressive on electoral reform and our place at the centre of Europe, but the difference among supporters of not leadership is pretty minor.And we both despise the Tories. However we're going to have to rely on Labour to do most of the work in removing the Tory government,let's hope an incoming Labour government exceeds expectations
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 24, 2024 9:42:56 GMT
An interesting piece from Danny Finkelstein today in which he sees Starmer flipping the political status quo-Mostly Tory with the occasional Labour Government. a quote from it :- "The opportunity for Starmer and the challenge for the Conservatives is that the Baldwin settlement might now be reversed. That Labour might now become the natural party of government, and the Tories win office for short intermissions when Labour gets tired or complacent. This would involve Labour effectively becoming the “Liberal Party”, though without a formal merger with the Liberal Democrats or any change of name. They would simply complete Tony Blair’s unfinished job of transformation. They would be a Baldwinite party but of the left. Broad, national, gradualist, more progressive and modernising than Baldwin but not radical. Meanwhile, the Tories would inherit, or more truthfully would choose, MacDonald’s problems. An excessively ideological view, a dogma with which reality never quite accords, dreams that cannot easily be fulfilled, an impatience with compromise, a purism that demands the impossible of its leaders. The result, a constant search for traitors and frequent coups. All of this would be linked to a demographic — predominantly older, non-urban, more male than female — concentrated and large but limited. Tory leaders would be constantly wondering how to reach beyond the core and only fitfully doing so." From :-"How Starmer could steal ultimate Tory mantle For the past 100 years the Conservatives have been the natural party of government but that role is now up for grabs" DF Times www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-starmer-could-steal-ultimate-tory-mantle-zbl2dzzvnps-Times leader today endorses Streeting's NHS Plan I usually have some respect for Danny Finkelstein's thoughts but on this occasion, if this reflects his piece overall, it appears to me entirely wrongheaded and misreading political history. The "Baldwin Settlement" seems to me to reflect a very unsettled settlement. Baldwin's Government was exceptionally ideological in economic terms clinging on classical economic theory long after its utility had been rejected by practical economists. Further dividing the poor into the deserving and undeserving and use of the hated means test was also ideological. It was an ideology rejected by post war Conservative governments until the rise of Thatcherism. The period 1951 to 1964 was, in the main, motivated by Keynesian economic thinking and a belief that the wealth of society ought to be shared (albeit with different divisions of wealth distribution than under Labour). Heath's government followed the same path. What I detect in that piece is wishful thinking; the end of Conservatism (as DF thinks of it) within the Conservative Party to be replaced by the rise of Conservatism in the Labour Party albeit not as red in tooth and claw as DF would like it to be.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 24, 2024 9:43:38 GMT
From :-"How Starmer could steal ultimate Tory mantle arguably con were already too extremely small state/low tax by the end of the major government to be the most common party of government in the future. They stayed in power this time only by adopting brexit, which frankly was a policy most of their MPs disagreed with! And going back to thacher, she benefitted from the Falklands victory, whereas could easily have been a one term winner without it, and then a vast giveaway of state assets. And then Major revitalised the brand with a more caring sharing look. Fundamentally their core policy, low tax low state services, is a vote loser and will not win elections without some extra help. Part of that help is of course general voter inattention to politics and forgetting what happened last time they were in office. When labour lost in 2010, people had forgotten what could have been predicted if you switched to con policies, which exactly came true despite being what had caused con to be kicked out in 1997.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 24, 2024 9:53:16 GMT
However we're going to have to rely on Labour to do most of the work in removing the Tory government,let's hope an incoming Labour government exceeds expectations We can safely assume you - the perennial malcontent - will be pointing out any deficiencies pdq. You won't be able to help yourself, even if a lot of the work that Labour have in front of them is unravelling the chaos of austerity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2024 9:56:47 GMT
I usually have some respect for Danny Finkelstein's thoughts but on this occasion, if this reflects his piece overall, it appears to me entirely wrongheaded and misreading political history. The "Baldwin Settlement" seems to me to reflect a very unsettled settlement. Baldwin's Government was exceptionally ideological in economic terms clinging on classical economic theory long after its utility had been rejected by practical economists. Further dividing the poor into the deserving and undeserving and use of the hated means test was also ideological. It was an ideology rejected by post war Conservative governments until the rise of Thatcherism. The period 1951 to 1964 was, in the main, motivated by Keynesian economic thinking and a belief that the wealth of society ought to be shared (albeit with different divisions of wealth distribution than under Labour). Heath's government followed the same path. What I detect in that piece is wishful thinking; the end of Conservatism (as DF thinks of it) within the Conservative Party to be replaced by the rise of Conservatism in the Labour Party albeit not as red in tooth and claw as DF would like it to be. I cant comment on the political history as i dont have the knowledge. ( you need to read the whole article i think ) DF did opine that it remains to be seen what sort of Labour Party Starmer establishes when in power. And I quite understand why some Labour Party members would find it irritating that he should have the temerity to speculate on a centrist outcome. I would have thought that KS sees very clearly what is happening elsewhere in politics -USA & EU-and will want to appeal to as broad a cross section of the public as possible. I was interested in his remarks about the NT the other day. I think he is doing smart politics and I doubt he would be upset at DF's article !
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 24, 2024 10:09:47 GMT
A new political truism is now upon us, is it not.
Beware, those in power. You muddling centrists. If you let me down or patronise me I will vote for a bunch of white supremacists and racists instead.
An you will be to blame.
Seems reasonable to me.
Muddling centrists, be warned. You're on probation.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 24, 2024 10:12:53 GMT
Colin/CB/WB/Mercian etc.
I was already reflecting on CBs exchange upthread with Mercian re floors and the Tory 30% and Lab 28%, which I agree with historically
When one looks at the age VI splits it already seemed to me that the floors will switch so that Labs floor is higher than the Tories in the coming 30 years or so. **
Consequently, Labour are more likely to be in Government, if one likes supplanting the Tories as the natural party of Government.
Like others I think Finkelstein overstates the Tory Lite depiction of Labour. The Overton Window will determine where parties position themselves but that there will be more ABT voters than ABLab seems highly likely.
Scotland leaving the union should it happen may impact this but it won't alter Lab needing to win in England to govern so not that much perhaps.
** I have no intention of going back but when the Tories were mishandling Brexit I posted remarks my 18/19 year old had made.
Along the lines of they don't realise how much damage they are doing to their long term prospects and that the 2030-60 period, in his opinion would see Labour in Government more than the Tories.
He saw this sliver lining way back, still has to materialise of course as he could have been wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2024 10:17:19 GMT
Colin/CB/WB/Mercian etc. I was already reflecting on CBs exchange upthread with Mercian re floors and the Tory 30% and Lab 28%, which I agree with historically When one looks at the age VI splits it already seemed to me that the floors will switch so that Labs floor is higher than the Tories in the coming 30 years or so. ** Consequently, Labour are more likely to be in Government, if one likes supplanting the Tories as the natural party of Government. Like others I think Finkelstein overstates the Tory Lite depiction of Labour. The Overton Window will determine where parties position themselves but that there will be more ABT voters than ABLab seems highly likely. Scotland leaving the union should it happen may impact this but it won't alter Lab needing to win in England to govern so not that much perhaps. ** I have no intention of going back but when the Tories were mishandling Brexit I posted remarks my 18/19 year old had made. Along the lines of they don't realise how much damage they are doing to their long term prospects and that the 2030-60 period, in his opinion would see Labour in Government more than the Tories. He saw this sliver lining way back, still has to materialise of course as he could have been wrong. The true identity of neither Lab nor Con will be known till after the GE will it jimjam ? Won't both be a reaction to the GE result itself ?
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 24, 2024 10:33:53 GMT
An interesting piece from Danny Finkelstein today in which he sees Starmer flipping the political status quo-Mostly Tory with the occasional Labour Government. a quote from it :- "The opportunity for Starmer and the challenge for the Conservatives is that the Baldwin settlement might now be reversed. That Labour might now become the natural party of government, and the Tories win office for short intermissions when Labour gets tired or complacent. This would involve Labour effectively becoming the “Liberal Party”, though without a formal merger with the Liberal Democrats or any change of name. They would simply complete Tony Blair’s unfinished job of transformation. They would be a Baldwinite party but of the left. Broad, national, gradualist, more progressive and modernising than Baldwin but not radical. Meanwhile, the Tories would inherit, or more truthfully would choose, MacDonald’s problems. An excessively ideological view, a dogma with which reality never quite accords, dreams that cannot easily be fulfilled, an impatience with compromise, a purism that demands the impossible of its leaders. The result, a constant search for traitors and frequent coups. All of this would be linked to a demographic — predominantly older, non-urban, more male than female — concentrated and large but limited. Tory leaders would be constantly wondering how to reach beyond the core and only fitfully doing so." From :-"How Starmer could steal ultimate Tory mantle For the past 100 years the Conservatives have been the natural party of government but that role is now up for grabs" DF Times www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-starmer-could-steal-ultimate-tory-mantle-zbl2dzzvnps-Times leader today endorses Streeting's NHS Plan I'd say old Danny (Finkelstein not "our" Danny) is talking some Tory-centric cobblers here. He should have stuck to being William Hague's speechwriter. Or was it Howard's? I can't remember. Some failed Tory leader anyway. I think a lot of Tory/centre-right political commentators are now scurrying around trying to think of what inscription to.put on the Tory wreath for the imminent funeral. Finklestein's appears to be this:- " Alas poor Tories, I knew you well. Your time as the natural party of government is up. Your capacity for chameleon like reinventions is now exhausted. Old Stanley invented the blueprint in the 30s but it's over now, but your great service to the British people is that you made the Labour Party a Tory-lite harmless alternative. Are you listening to that Real Men of the Left. The betrayal is yours (are they squabbling yet, Deidre?).Labour have now transplanted a One Nation Tory Party that is heading for the ultimate reinvention as a squabbling ideologically based right wing party. But victory is ours. As always. My beloved Tory Party has bequeathed to a grateful nation another version of their once glorious selves. Await my Starmer and Streeting endorsement as the ultimate kiss of death " Is Murdoch still paying old Danny for this drivel??? "your great service to the British people is that you made the Labour Party a Tory-lite harmless alternative. Are you listening to that Real Men of the Left. The betrayal is yours (are they squabbling yet, Deidre?)" - Are we sure Trev was not he? I happened across Danny Finkelstein in the Natural History museum in Oxford a few years back. My over-riding memory is that he appeared to be wearing trousers that were far too big for him.. A kind of anti Sunak in the tailoring dept.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 24, 2024 10:36:47 GMT
Colin/CB/WB/Mercian etc. I was already reflecting on CBs exchange upthread with Mercian re floors and the Tory 30% and Lab 28%, which I agree with historically When one looks at the age VI splits it already seemed to me that the floors will switch so that Labs floor is higher than the Tories in the coming 30 years or so. ** Consequently, Labour are more likely to be in Government, if one likes supplanting the Tories as the natural party of Government. Like others I think Finkelstein overstates the Tory Lite depiction of Labour. The Overton Window will determine where parties position themselves but that there will be more ABT voters than ABLab seems highly likely. Scotland leaving the union should it happen may impact this but it won't alter Lab needing to win in England to govern so not that much perhaps. ** I have no intention of going back but when the Tories were mishandling Brexit I posted remarks my 18/19 year old had made. Along the lines of they don't realise how much damage they are doing to their long term prospects and that the 2030-60 period, in his opinion would see Labour in Government more than the Tories. He saw this sliver lining way back, still has to materialise of course as he could have been wrong. I'm reading Nick Thomas-Symond's biography of Harold Wilson at the moment ("Harold Wilson: The Winner") and I'm about midway. 1967 devaluation crisis and Ian Smith talks about Rhodesia on HMS Fearless. It's an endlessly fascinating walk down memory lane, with lots of new insights into both the man and that turbulent political era. Anyone who thinks factional strife within Labour is a novel invention should read it to be disabused of that strange notion. Left on right, right on left. Crikey it was brutal. But what's even more relevant to this little discussion we're having on here is this idea of "natural political parties of government". Wilson thought he was making Labour that in the 60s and 70s, winning four elections out of five and ensuring Labour governed for 11 out of 14 years during that time. Blair felt he'd got there too after winning his third election in a row in 2005. We were on course until we weren't. And isn:t that always the case in politics, especially two party politics in our electoral system? Fleeting and beguiling periods of dominance and hegemony, swept aside by events and incumbent ennui? Of course, a representative voting system puts us in completely different territory. In essence though, I've never really bought into this natural party of government narrative. The Tories have been more electorally successful over the last 100 years, that's self-evidently true, but have they really been the natural party of government since the Thatcher years? One stable overall majority win in 37 years???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2024 10:37:12 GMT
many people are easily manipulable " voters who have long been ignored and patronised are on the march.A political earthquake is about to rock Europe. Millions of Europeans are saying, ‘We’ve had enough, we no longer trust these tired, entitled mainstream political parties’,” Prof Frank Furedi, director of the MMC think tank in Brussels, To put the quote in context, would that be the Frank Furedi who was founder of the Revolutionary Communist Party ( an organisation that had much the same relationship to Communism as the National Socialist German Workers' Party had with Socialism). Which morphed into Living Marxism until its demise at the hands of the libel lawyers, having accused ITN of fabricating reports of atrocities carried out in Bosnia, and now exists as Spiked magazine ?
To slightly misquote Mandy Rice-Davies ... well he would say that wouldn't he.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 24, 2024 10:41:51 GMT
From the G - "‘This is getting silly’: senior Tories criticise Simon Clarke after he calls for Sunak’s resignation" I'd say it's been getting silly since about 2011, but these Tory MPs are always that quick on the uptake, are they? colin - (quoting Finkelstein) "This would involve Labour effectively becoming the “Liberal Party”, though without a formal merger with the Liberal Democrats or any change of name. They would simply complete Tony Blair’s unfinished job of transformation." I'm never big on liberal/progressive labels, as I don't understand them most of the time, but I have a feeling that this is a classic Westminster commentators way of thinking; those who are steeped in political history see patterns, movements and ideologies as they come and go, inventing historical arcs, journeys and destinations. The rest of us look to see what's happening today and what we'd like to see happen tomorrow, and work from there. Apart from the small matter that Blair largely completed his transformation of Labour, and the party then went on to lose twice before the left got a sniff, I think this whole idea of one party or another gaining some kind of hegemony based on political theory is wrong. The party that best represents where the country wants to go next will win the next election. And the one after that, the one after that, etc etc. I think you can other theorize sometimes. The Conservatives greatest asset historically (apart from masses of cash) has been their willingness to abandon all ideology when it suits, and they've been very good at that. Talk of a new liberal hegemony is fine, if that's what people want, but if Labour wants to retain power long term, it will, like the Tories, need to be prepared to be illiberal when it suits, radical at times, the conservative etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Jan 24, 2024 10:43:43 GMT
Anyone seen this?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,323
|
Post by steve on Jan 24, 2024 10:44:44 GMT
It's quite possible that come November there will have been no presidential debates at all. Biden as incumbent doesn't have to participate in primaries and the traitor because of his inability to s peak coherently even with a teleprompter doesn't want his increasing mental collapse to be apparent. After South Carolina if Haley withdraws the primaries become an irrelevance any way.
There's no obligation to hold presidential election debates involving any candidates and It's highly unlikely that Biden would accept a debate with a third party candidate in the absence of the dementing rapist.
So the US is faced with its most significant election since the civil war where democracy itself is at stake in a remarkably undemocratic way.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 24, 2024 10:49:26 GMT
GBNews apparently reporting a Trussite coup. They are planning to install the lettuce as Prime Minister. Shouldn't a lettuce be a Green.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,323
|
Post by steve on Jan 24, 2024 10:57:11 GMT
Former giant of the Tory party and poster woman for the longevity of iceburg lettuce ,Liz Truss, is about to launch a new group called Popular Conservatism , or PopCon. It does not seem committed to supporting Sunak’s leadership.
So we can open another bag of pop corn while we watch popcon further tear their shambolic party.
|
|
patrickbrian
Member
These things seem small and undistinguishable, like far off mountains turned into clouds
Posts: 306
|
Post by patrickbrian on Jan 24, 2024 10:57:56 GMT
Crossbat
I usually really like your posts, but I find your playground bullying of Danny quite unpleasant. Couldn't you leave that to Alec?
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 24, 2024 10:58:30 GMT
A POSTER UNMASKED: DANNY FINKELSTEIN IS OUR DANNY! "The opportunity for Starmer and the challenge for the Conservatives is that the Baldwin settlement might now be reversed. That Labour might now become the natural party of government, and the Tories win office for short intermissions when Labour gets tired or complacent. This would involve Labour effectively becoming the “Liberal Party”, though without a formal merger with the Liberal Democrats or any change of name. They would simply complete Tony Blair’s unfinished job of transformation. They would be a Baldwinite party but of the left. Broad, national, gradualist, more progressive and modernising than Baldwin but not radical. Meanwhile, the Tories would inherit, or more truthfully would choose, MacDonald’s problems. An excessively ideological view, a dogma with which reality never quite accords, dreams that cannot easily be fulfilled, an impatience with compromise, a purism that demands the impossible of its leaders. The result, a constant search for traitors and frequent coups. All of this would be linked to a demographic — predominantly older, non-urban, more male than female — concentrated and large but limited. Tory leaders would be constantly wondering how to reach beyond the core and only fitfully doing so." From :-"How Starmer could steal ultimate Tory mantle What utter crap. wb61 has disposed of the nonsense about Baldwin. The comments on Macdonald are even more ridiculous. Macdonald was not excessively ideological. He believed in Socialism in some vague way but he never attempted to transform British society. How could he when he led minority governments dependent on Liberal support. To describe him as a purist! His role, & no one else could have done it, was to make Labour plausible as a national party of government. By ca1930 he was getting weary & Labour just had v bad luck with world economic events. "Philip Snowden [Labour Chancellor] was a rigid exponent of orthodox finance and would not permit any deficit spending to stimulate the economy, despite the urgings of Oswald Mosley, David Lloyd George and the economist John Maynard Keynes."
It was Snowden who imposed the welfare cuts which destroyed the Labour government. The Labour government should have devalued the £, which is what the Tories did, or were forced to do, once they entered the National Government. As one despairing former Labour minister said. "Noone told us we could do this." [Quoted by AJP Taylor] colin writes "And I quite understand why some Labour Party members would find it irritating that he should have the temerity to speculate on a centrist outcome." What irritates this LP member is that DF should have the temerity to write nonsense, that the nonsense should be repeated on here, & that DF should draw inferences about the future path of Labour governments & UK politics from a mish-mash, They would become the "Balwinite party but of the left". Jesus. We all know that Starmer is a centrist. We all know what we are voting for & we all know why the Labour refuseniks are agonising. Yes at the moment it's ABT politics & given the incompetence & divisions that characterises the current lot, no wonder! If Labour gain power, & maybe serve two terms, who knows. jimjam quotes his son to the effect that politics will take a new course as the young grow old. JimJam Junior may be right: but one thing one learns is that most political predictions turn out to be wrong. On this empirical basis I never make predictions, except of course about the past. crossbat11 does the same. Makes predictions about the past, the safest way! "I'm reading Nick Thomas-Symond's biography of Harold Wilson at the moment and I'm about midway [ Blimey mate get on with it, you ve been reading it for ever. Put those footie programmes of Villa's glory days out of sight] Anyone who thinks factional strife within Labour is a novel invention [ isn't an invention novel by definition??] should read it to be disabused of that strange notion. Left on right, right on left. Crikey it was brutal [ Yeh I've read Crossman's diaries]. But what's even more relevant to discussion we're having on here is this idea of "natural political parties of government". Wilson thought he was making Labour that in the 60s and 70s, winning four elections out of five and ensuring Labour governed for 11 out of 14 years during that time. Blair felt he'd got there too after winning his third election in a row in 2005. We were on course until we weren't."
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 24, 2024 11:00:36 GMT
Can't share all this venom and lust for vengeance against the Lib Dems on the Left. Sounds and feels too much like Far Left troping for me. Feel my righteous anger comrades exhibitionism. The Lib Dems back then were duped by Cameron and probably led by a cadre of closet Tories or, if I'm being generous, a group of managerial politicians who fancied some rides in limousines and the frisson of power and red boxes. Human frailties. Chequers is nice midsummer too, I'm told. Politics is a glorified board game of subterfuge, sleight of hand, chicanery and deception. You sometimes make a wrong move, get bitten, cash in you chips and go back to the start. Or jail sometimes. The Lib Dems have done that and are now back in full anti Tory mode again. Beating Tories all over the place. That'll do for me. Plenty of assists so my team can score goals. 2010-15 is 9 years ago now. The players who played that game have gone. New team, new game different ball park. I couldn't give the merest toss about the Tory/Lib Dem Coalition now. It's sins were probably overhyped anyway. Expediency always triumphs in the end in politics.Long memories are an encumbrance in politics. Short ones are essential. Too bad that Traitors wasn't on TV fifteen years ago. My party might have learned from it about supping with the Tories (and if we go back to 1975-79, supping with Labour too).
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 24, 2024 11:06:44 GMT
many people are easily manipulable You are Josep Borrell and I claim my 5 euros He said this :- "an irrational hormonal spasm driven by fearful voters manipulated by disinformation." in response to this :- ecfr.eu/publication/a-sharp-right-turn-a-forecast-for-the-2024-european-parliament-elections/Other comments have been :- “serious soul-searching in the centre of European politics.Against a backdrop of stirring populism, which may reach a new peak with the return of Donald Trump later this year, parties of the political mainstream need to wake up.They have been sticking their fingers in their ears and going, ‘No, no, no’,” The real question is how political leaders and the EU respond.”" Professor Simon Hix, of the European University Institute in Florence, "“The threat of a European parliament with the far right in the driving seat is real,” Malik Azmani, a Dutch MEP " “The risk of an ungovernable Europe is pretty real, If the populist parties ever manage to have a blocking minority in the European parliament, the risk is that it will be very difficult to compose a majority.”" Stéphane Séjourné, the new French foreign minister, " voters who have long been ignored and patronised are on the march.A political earthquake is about to rock Europe. Millions of Europeans are saying, ‘We’ve had enough, we no longer trust these tired, entitled mainstream political parties’,” Prof Frank Furedi, director of the MMC think tank in Brussels, Ban Facebook and within a matter of weeks I reckon the number of voters who have supposedly 'had enough' of 'not being listened to' (funnily enough the ones who are actually struggling in a part of the world wealthier and safer than any other tend to be quieter and just get on with it as they don't have time to shout their mouths of) would drop off dramatically. I'd be seriously in favour of that as I think FB genuinely endangers societal cohesion. It's one of the key weapons, if not the key weapon the Russians use against us and I know that it orchestrates a lot of the far right wing nonsense that goes on in eastern Germany. Two or three years ago a twenty something work colleague of mine (a well educated, well spoken young chap) showed me the facebook activity of his own grandfather. It was a cesspit of nastiness and racism with old people trading comments in a seeming arms race to be the most offensive and anti liberal. Not nice.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 24, 2024 11:07:54 GMT
It's quite possible that come November there will have been no presidential debates at all. Biden as incumbent doesn't have to participate in primaries and the traitor because of his inability to s peak coherently even with a teleprompter doesn't want his increasing mental collapse to be apparent. After South Carolina if Haley withdraws the primaries become an irrelevance any way. There's no obligation to hold presidential election debates involving any candidates and It's highly unlikely that Biden would accept a debate with a third party candidate in the absence of the dementing rapist. So the US is faced with its most significant election since the civil war where democracy itself is at stake in a remarkably undemocratic way. WTF are you on about? General Election Debates Presidential Monday, September 16, 2024 City (Venue): San Marcos, TX (Texas State University) Networks: TBA Time: 9 p.m. ET Moderators: TBA Tuesday, October 1, 2024 City (Venue): Petersburg, VA (Virginia State University) Networks: TBA Time: 9 p.m. ET Moderators: TBA Wednesday, October 9, 2024 City (Venue): Salt Lake City (University of Utah) Networks: TBA Time: 9 p.m. ET Moderators: TBA Vice Presidential Wednesday, September 25, 2024 City (Venue): Easton, PA (Lafayette College) Networks: TBA Time: 9 p.m. ET Moderators: TBA
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 24, 2024 11:14:43 GMT
An interesting piece from Danny Finkelstein today in which he sees Starmer flipping the political status quo-Mostly Tory with the occasional Labour Government. a quote from it :- "The opportunity for Starmer and the challenge for the Conservatives is that the Baldwin settlement might now be reversed. That Labour might now become the natural party of government, and the Tories win office for short intermissions when Labour gets tired or complacent. This would involve Labour effectively becoming the “Liberal Party”, though without a formal merger with the Liberal Democrats or any change of name. They would simply complete Tony Blair’s unfinished job of transformation. They would be a Baldwinite party but of the left. Broad, national, gradualist, more progressive and modernising than Baldwin but not radical. Meanwhile, the Tories would inherit, or more truthfully would choose, MacDonald’s problems. An excessively ideological view, a dogma with which reality never quite accords, dreams that cannot easily be fulfilled, an impatience with compromise, a purism that demands the impossible of its leaders. The result, a constant search for traitors and frequent coups. All of this would be linked to a demographic — predominantly older, non-urban, more male than female — concentrated and large but limited. Tory leaders would be constantly wondering how to reach beyond the core and only fitfully doing so." From :-"How Starmer could steal ultimate Tory mantle For the past 100 years the Conservatives have been the natural party of government but that role is now up for grabs" DF Times www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-starmer-could-steal-ultimate-tory-mantle-zbl2dzzvnps-Times leader today endorses Streeting's NHS Plan Danny Finkelstein stood for the SDP in Kenton West ward in the 1986 council elections and in Brent East in the 1987 Parliamentary Election. He was long a confidante of David Owen and did not join the Liberal Democrats after the merger. Since then he has made that rightward swing so common amongst LOC politicians as they get older. He is now a Tory Peer (Baron Finkelstein of Pinner in the London Borough of Harrow).
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,323
|
Post by steve on Jan 24, 2024 11:19:55 GMT
jibYou display your ignorance again.This time on U.S. Politics. Just because the networks have scheduled debates doesn't mean they have to happen it's up to the candidates. Debates scheduled by CNN before the New Hampshire primary were cancelled as neither candidate chose to participate.
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jan 24, 2024 11:21:00 GMT
On this empirical basis I never make predictions, except of course about the past. Sorry Robbie but is that you predicting that you'll never make predictions
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 24, 2024 11:26:16 GMT
PS. Neville Chamberlain was, apparently, the major reforming influence in the 30s. Taylor, again, says of him the "most effective social reformer of the inter-war years". He didn't think the poor & unemployed should be abandoned but rather that the administration of benefits should be made more efficient, that claimants should be means-tested, & the books should be balanced. Like Macdonald he transgressed Napoleon's rule: he had no luck & was overwhelmed by international events.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 24, 2024 11:54:01 GMT
On this empirical basis I never make predictions, except of course about the past. Sorry Robbie but is that you predicting that you'll never make predictions V funny. I would respond with a text-embedded ideogram, but don't use 'em. [Funny they seem far less popular on the site these days?] Ok. I predict there will be more predictions and most of them will be wrong.
|
|