|
|
Post by lens on May 9, 2024 17:16:31 GMT
Covid, on the other hand, has settled into a very dangerous niche, whereby humans are very complacent about it, thinking that because the acute phase is now predominantly mild it's more or less harmless. I seem to recall that in the year after completing the vaccination program the annual death toll was still 1/4 to 1/2 that in its peak year. Maybe Danny - but don't forget that post vaccination the death toll became predominantly amongst the unvaccinated. So being vaccinated didn't just mean you were 1/4 to a 1/2 less likely to die of infection, all else equal, someone vaccinated improved their odds by a lot more than that. Which was reflected in the statistics of those in intensive care, let alone dying. In the latter half of 2021, the great majority of patients in intensive care were unvaccinated, in spite of only being about 10-20% of the population at the time. Vaccination works. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,658
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on May 9, 2024 17:24:09 GMT
barbara"Labour become the party of the whole country, a one nation government " If Labour are genuinely interested in a one nation government , Introduce P R in their first term and by default you will get one. I shan't hold my breath.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 9, 2024 17:28:51 GMT
See the video at the bottom of the thread - especially if you live in Bath!
|
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on May 9, 2024 17:47:18 GMT
barbara "Labour become the party of the whole country, a one nation government " If Labour are genuinely interested in a one nation government , Introduce P R in their first term and by default you will get one. I shan't hold my breath. I suspect that Labour might find they have too many MPs to avoid a centrist government being embarrassed by left-wing amendments and private member bills passing in the commons. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on May 9, 2024 18:02:54 GMT
pjw1961 “party of government rather than protest”. That is a false and deeply damaging dichotomy. “Labour has only been able to do that from the centre ground” And that is applying a deeply damaging dead hand of history. Sorry, pj; 95% of your stuff is brilliant and always worth reading, but in this you have a terrible debilitating blind spot. How is it false?. I said since 1979 - The Conservatives won four elections in a row 1979-1992 and were in power for 18 years. The centrist Blair won three elections in a row 1997-2005 and Labour were in power for 13 years. Labour shifted to the left after 2010 and lost another four elections in a row and the Tories (with a bit of help from the Lib Dems and DUP) have been in power for 14 years. The last time Labour won on anything approaching a left wing manifesto was by a tiny majority 50 years ago. To have voted then you would need to be at least 68 now. The point about government v protest is that Reform or Galloway's worker's party or the Greens can advance any policies they fancy knowing they will never have to enact them. Parties that expect to actually govern - like the SNP in Scotland, or the Conservatives and Labour in Westminster have to advance policies that will appeal to enough people to build a winning voting coalition. It is basic politics really. False because it equates correlation with causation. Thatcher rode on an irresistible wave first of North Sea oil, then selling off the family silver, etc. The money ran out on Black Wednesday and John Smith, a good leftie, should and would have been PM. But he died too young and Tony Blair stood in. He did good things but did not make the necessary structural changes (see barbara ’s excellent post a short while ago). Cameron then mesmerised us with fear and austerity, but eventually, the whole edifice collapsed with Johnson and Truss. Starmer’s Labour is poised to take over. I share barbara ’s optimism here too. He is significantly to the left of Blair (see e.g. George Eaton’s recent New Statesman piece). The damaging false dichotomy arises from equating left policies on the one hand with ‘protest’ on the other. This is wrong, but a favourite of old ‘new Labour’ fans. I just wish they would stop. And, while I am here, your suggestion that “ … there just aren't enough lefties to win an election” is also terribly, terribly wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on May 9, 2024 18:11:21 GMT
Tbh isa, it might not be vary likely, but I am at the stage where I really wouldn’t be completely shocked if Starmer joined the Tories, Sturgeon joined Reform, Sunak left to lead the SNP, Truss joined the Greens and Ed Davey led the Lib Dems. (There’s a universe where all that has happened, think about that…) You're just trying to make sure no one wins the "At the end of 2024, who will be leader of..." sweepstake  |
|
|
|
Post by jib on May 9, 2024 18:28:42 GMT
What a joke, our resident Lib Dem mouthpiece urging Labour to bring in PR.
If it wasn't bad enough getting into bed with the Tories, the one thing - the one f*****g thing - you should have had nailed on the bedpost was PR before you did that.
Idiots.
More chance of Stormy Daniels getting the truth on Watergate from Nixon than PR at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 9, 2024 19:43:11 GMT
What a joke, our resident Lib Dem mouthpiece urging Labour to bring in PR. If it wasn't bad enough getting into bed with the Tories, the one thing - the one f*****g thing - you should have had nailed on the bedpost was PR before you did that. Idiots. More chance of Stormy Daniels getting the truth on Watergate from Nixon than PR at the moment. What they got was a referendum an AV in single member constituencies, which is one of the voting systems that may actually yield a less proportional result than FPTP. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 9, 2024 19:44:45 GMT
I am drawn to this section of Barbara'a insightful post -
'His view is that Starmer has a grand vision - one to rewire Britain in a way that will stop future Tory governments from just reversing everything. Much as Atlee did after the war. He changed the Overton window for 40 years until Thatcher got in. She then rewired Britain in her own image and this has lasted ever since.'
I would simply make the point that there was nothing inevitable about Thatcher's rewiring having lasted until the present day. Rather it was a political choice made by Blair - and to perhaps only a slightly lesser extent by Brown. Had John Smith lived to form a government far more of the 80s/90 settlement would have been reversed - and Blair's failure to do so contributed significantly to the collapse in turnout we saw in 2001 - particularly on traditional Labour areas. If Blair genuinely thought that adhering to Thatcher's settlement was essential to securing electoral success, then I beleve he was profoundly wrong in his judgement. It may have been necessary in order to gain the 179 majority in 1997 - but not to win a majority of 70 - 100.Blair appeared genuinely taken aback by the scale of his 1997 victory - and that confirms my view that he confused the circumstances of 1997 with those of 1992. It is likely that Labour presented its 1992 and 1997 Manifestos in the wrong order.By 1997 voters were ready - almost desperate - for change in a way that was not true five years earlier with John Major on the scene as a fairly new PM. Blair failed to respond to that , and to some extent we have paid the price ever since for his not having seized the opportunity. He was though never a Social Democrat - never mind a Socialist - but rather a European Christian Democrat.
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 9, 2024 19:53:44 GMT
I am drawn to this section of Barbara'a insightful post - 'His view is that Starmer has a grand vision - one to rewire Britain in a way that will stop future Tory governments from just reversing everything. Much as Atlee did after the war. He changed the Overton window for 40 years until Thatcher got in. She then rewired Britain in her own image and this has lasted ever since.' I would simply make the point that there was nothing inevitable about Thatcher's rewiring having lasted until the present day. Rather it was a political choice made by Blair - and to perhaps only a slightly lesser extent by Brown. Had John Smith lived to form a government far more of the 80s/90 settlement would have been reversed - and Blair's failure to do so contributed significantly to the collapse in turnout we saw in 2001 - particularly on traditional Labour areas. If Blair genuinely thought that adhering to Thatcher's settlement was essential to securing electoral success, then I beleve he was profoundly wrong in his judgement. It may have been necessary in order to gain the 179 majority in 1997 - but not to win a majority of 70 - 100.Blair appeared genuinely taken aback by the scale of his 1997 victory - and that confirms my view that he confused the circumstances of 1997 with those of 1992. It is likely that Labour presented its 1992 and 1997 Manifestos in the wrong order.By 1997 voters were ready - almost desperate - for change in a way that was not true five years earlier with John Major on the scene as a fairly new PM. Blair failed to respond to that , and to some extent we have paid the price ever since for his not having seized the opportunity. He was though never a Social Democrat - never mind a Socialist - but rather a European Christian Democrat. Politicians have been fighting the last war since the first war. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on May 9, 2024 20:01:28 GMT
I'm joining the barbara party! I think her recent post lays out the case for Starmer and his strategy very well. Rafael Behr did so too in his latest article in the Guardian:- www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/08/keir-starmer-bland-politics-labourStarmer is much denigrated on both the right and left, and his success belittled as a mere by-product of Tory haplessness. An unwitting and fortunate beneficiary of self-induced incumbent implosion. As Geoff Boycott might have said;" ma mother int law wud have been 30 points ahead int polls... " But is that either fair or true? To what extent has Starmer's reinvention of Labour, after the wreckage of 2019 and Corbyn's leadership, spooked the Tories and precipitated panic in their ranks? Has he exploited their woes quietly, cleverly and relentlessly? Better than most would have done? I think he is in many ways the Tories ultimate nightmare. Colonising their vacated centre ground, slowly emerging as a Prime Minister in waiting and, along with Reeves, reclaiming the mantle of economic competence. These are poison pills for an ailing Tory Government. No Labour bogeyman to frighten the horses. Just a silent assassin, killing them softly with little song. Could he be that rare successful opposition leader who campaigns in prose and governs in poetry? Keep the faith. We're getting there. Pragmatism for a while longer yet. Ducking and weaving and, as all Labour leaders have to, fighting big and powerful establishment enemies. Guns to the right of him, guns to the left of him. On he goes though. A very impressive politician in lots of understated ways |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 9, 2024 20:05:12 GMT
Starmer is no Harold Wilson. We can but hope that he is no Blair.
|
|
|
|
Post by barbara on May 9, 2024 20:08:37 GMT
I been fighting the last war since the first war.We mustn't forget that it was his forensic questioning of Boris Johnson at PMQs that led to him lying to the House about Partygate that ultimately led to his downfall. No quick wins for Starmer. He plays a long game. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,759
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 9, 2024 20:09:55 GMT
I knew Starmer read this board but didn’t realise he posted here! (Many people aren’t really having a go at him though, they’re concerned about whether it’s the right strategy to take on more right-wing MPs, which is an interesting point of debate, and how they should vote when it’s liable to be a landslide).
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,759
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 9, 2024 20:11:46 GMT
Starmer is no Harold Wilson. We can but hope that he is no Blair. I am kinda hoping he isn’t a Wilson either, and am setting up a Starmer appreciation thread! |
|
|
|
Post by moby on May 9, 2024 20:17:01 GMT
Starmer is no Harold Wilson. We can but hope that he is no Blair. Far too early to make that judgement imo. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 9, 2024 20:17:31 GMT
How is it false?. I said since 1979 - The Conservatives won four elections in a row 1979-1992 and were in power for 18 years. The centrist Blair won three elections in a row 1997-2005 and Labour were in power for 13 years. Labour shifted to the left after 2010 and lost another four elections in a row and the Tories (with a bit of help from the Lib Dems and DUP) have been in power for 14 years. The last time Labour won on anything approaching a left wing manifesto was by a tiny majority 50 years ago. To have voted then you would need to be at least 68 now. The point about government v protest is that Reform or Galloway's worker's party or the Greens can advance any policies they fancy knowing they will never have to enact them. Parties that expect to actually govern - like the SNP in Scotland, or the Conservatives and Labour in Westminster have to advance policies that will appeal to enough people to build a winning voting coalition. It is basic politics really. False because it equates correlation with causation. Thatcher rode on an irresistible wave first of North Sea oil, then selling off the family silver, etc. The money ran out on Black Wednesday and John Smith, a good leftie, should and would have been PM. But he died too young and Tony Blair stood in. He did good things but did not make the necessary structural changes (see barbara ’s excellent post a short while ago). Cameron then mesmerised us with fear and austerity, but eventually, the whole edifice collapsed with Johnson and Truss. Starmer’s Labour is poised to take over. I share barbara ’s optimism here too. He is significantly to the left of Blair (see e.g. George Eaton’s recent New Statesman piece). The damaging false dichotomy arises from equating left policies on the one hand with ‘protest’ on the other. This is wrong, but a favourite of old ‘new Labour’ fans. I just wish they would stop. And, while I am here, your suggestion that “ … there just aren't enough lefties to win an election” is also terribly, terribly wrong. I wasn't certainly wasn't equating left policies with protest - that is not the case. What I would say that a mindset that is found mainly (but certainly not exclusively), on the left, of thinking that going on marches and signing petitions and acting as a "pressure group" is an end in itself and substitute for the exercise of power is what I mean by 'protest'. The 1930's Jarrow hunger marchers were heroic but achieved nothing when compared to Attlee's post-war government. "And, while I am here, your suggestion that “ … there just aren't enough lefties to win an election” is also terribly, terribly wrong." - I've offered my electoral evidence of my proposition. What is your evidence to demonstrate I am terribly wrong? |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,759
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 9, 2024 20:21:46 GMT
Let’s take the golden scenario: that Starmer really is the new Attlee.
Even then, you might still be concerned. Leaders can pass away or retire early after election and potentially be replaced by something a lot worse. They may be deposed, which is is a possibility if he really is that left-wing as the right of the party are not exactly keen on left-wingedness. And some economic or other calamity may bring down the government or make it only one term.
So even if he is the second coming, you still have to prepare for the worst.
(P.s. There is a difference between pressure group in terms of going on marches, and pressuring in the context discussed above, where they vote for an alternative to get the party in power to shift policies. That’s how UKIP got their ref., for example)
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 9, 2024 20:38:35 GMT
Let’s take the golden scenario: that Starmer really is the new Attlee. Even then, you might still be concerned. Leaders can pass away or retire early and be replaced by something a lot worse. They may be deposed, which is is a possibility if he really is that left-wing as the right of the party are not exactly keen on left-wingedness. And some economic or other calamity may bring down the government or make it only ine term. So even if he is the second coming, you still have to prepare for the worst. It would be good to think he could be another Attlee but there are few signs of that. To be fair such a person would be unlikely to emerge in the modern world - and Attlee's ascent to the leadership was very fortuitous on the eve of the 1935 election. I have always been a fan of Harold Wilson - though I accept that may reflect nostalgia for his having been the leading political figure of my formative years in the 1960s and early 1970s. With hindsight it is clear that his exceptional skills in the public arena were directed at the ordinary voter - the 'man in the street' - rather than political anoraks such as ourselves who seek to analyse politics and current issues in great detail. Had forums such as this existed in his day, I don't doubt that we would have spent a lot of effort seeking to tear him apart as we now do to his successors.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 9, 2024 20:43:56 GMT
I went to a Labour meeting tonight and there were a few interesting snippets:
(a) There is a distinct possibility that our Tory Council is engaging in voter suppression. I don't want to go into details on a public forum as there may be some action to come, but the basic technique is to close polling stations in strong Labour areas and make those voters travel long distances to vote, while not doing the same in Conservative areas.
(b) The Braintree DC result for the Essex Police, Crime and Fire Commissioner election was revealed - Labour were only about 1,000 votes behind the Tories - this in the area that contains the constituencies of James Cleverly and Priti Patel. The caveat is the low turnout, but even with that it is extraordinary.
(c) in a room full of Labour activists it is fair to say that Natalie Elphicke's defection did not make anyone very happy - reactions varied from "unsavoury but we'll have to put up with it" to anger, although not directed at anyone in particular.
|
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on May 9, 2024 20:46:47 GMT
I'm definitely with domjg on the Natalie Elphicke thing. I was initially dismayed yesterday but I was listening to James O'brien this morning and he said he had been convinced by a series of tweets by Andrew Levi (tweets as Andrew PR Levi but I'm not on X so can't read the whole thread). His view is that Starmer has a grand vision - one to rewire Britain in a way that will stop future Tory governments from just reversing everything. Much as Atlee did after the war. He changed the Overton window for 40 years until Thatcher got in. She then rewired Britain in her own image and this has lasted ever since. That's what Starmer needs to do. To achieve that he needs not only a massive majority and 3 terms but a country wide consensus covering everyone from all political perspectives. So his view is everyone is welcome in the Labour Party. Doesn't mean they get to set policy or stand fior election - but the two tribes created by Thatcher are disposed of finally and Labour become the party of the whole country, a one nation government much as Atlee's Party did, ensuring that future Conservative governments will largely continue to deliver Labour policies as they did after 1945. Margaret Thatcher did something similar ensuring that furure Labour governments continued to deliver her policies. I think this is where Starmer's admiration of Thatcher comes from. Not her views, policies or ideology but her ability to reshape Britain for a generation or more. That's what Starmer wants to do. He's probably the cleverest PM we'll have in a long time. Intensely strategic with a single minded determination to win power and a big majority in order to change Britain for the better and for a long time. If that means being pragmatic now and upsetting some core voters in order to attract people who would never previously have voted Tory that's fine by me. I'm 100% for him. I don't care what the individual policies are I want to get this Tory government out not just for 5 years but for a generation. Bring it on. it's an attractive proposition and you've put it very well. But I just can't buy into it. There is no evidence either way, we are having to take on trust that there is a grand vision behind a policy programme so limited it is almost a mirage. All the evidence (the promises to keep to Tory spending plans, not to reverse legislation etc) is setting limitations and therefore points to the to the contrary. Also I don't think Atlee or Thatcher would have accomodated such a radicaly oppositional view as Elphicke's on immigration within their party Also you very much knew where you stood with Thatcher on most issues prior to her election, even if it wasn't apparent how far she would go to achieve her vision. Just as a reminder here is the 1979 conservative manifesto introduction (my bolds) : OUR FIVE TASKS RESTORING THE BALANCE The control of inflation Better value for money Trade union reform
1. Picketing
2. The closed shop
3. Wider participation
Too many strikes
Responsible pay bargaining A MORE PROSPEROUS COUNTRY Cutting income tax
A property-owning democracy
Industry, commerce and jobs Nationalisation (reversing it)Fair trade Small businesses Energy Agriculture Fishing Animal welfare THE RULE OF LAW The fight against crime Deterring the criminal Immigration and race relations The supremacy of Parliament Northern Ireland HELPING THE FAMILY Homes of our own
The sale of council houses
Reviving the private rented sector
Protecting the environment Standards in education Parents' rights and responsibilities The arts Health and welfare Making sense of social security The elderly and the disabled A STRONG BRITAIN IN A FREE WORLD Improving our defences The European Community Africa and the Middle East Rhodesia Trade, aid and the Commonwealth 7. A NEW BEGINNING Foreword FOR ME, THE HEART OF POLITICS is not political theory, it is people and how they want to live their lives. No one who has lived in this country during the last five years can fail to be aware of how the balance of our society has been increasingly tilted in favour of the State at the expense of individual freedom.
This election may be the last chance we have to reverse that process, to restore the balance of power in favour of the people. It is therefore the most crucial election since the war. Together with the threat to freedom there has been a feeling of helplessness, that we are a once great nation that has somehow fallen behind and that it is too late now to turn things round. I don't accept that. 1 believe we not only can, we must. This manifesto points the way." |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,759
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 9, 2024 20:48:12 GMT
Let’s take the golden scenario: that Starmer really is the new Attlee. Even then, you might still be concerned. Leaders can pass away or retire early and be replaced by something a lot worse. They may be deposed, which is is a possibility if he really is that left-wing as the right of the party are not exactly keen on left-wingedness. And some economic or other calamity may bring down the government or make it only ine term. So even if he is the second coming, you still have to prepare for the worst. It would be good to think he could be another Attlee but there are few signs of that. To be fair such a person would be unlikely to emerge in the modern world - and Attlee's ascent to the leadership was very fortuitous on the eve of the 1935 election. I have always been a fan of Harold Wilson - though I accept that may reflect nostalgia for his having been the leading political figure of my formative years in the 1960s and early 1970s. With hindsight it is clear that his exceptional skills in the public arena were directed at the ordinary voter - the 'man in the street' - rather than political anoraks such as ourselves who seek to analyse politics and current issues in great detail. Had forums such as this existed in his day, I don't doubt that we would have spent a lot of effort seeking to tear him apart as we now do to his successors.
We know he saw in some liberal social reforms but what would you say were Wilson’s economic achievements, G.? |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 9, 2024 20:50:09 GMT
I went to a Labour meeting tonight and there were a few interesting snippets: (a) There is a distinct possibility that our Tory Council is engaging in voter suppression. I don't want to go into details on a public forum as there may be some action to come, but the basic technique is to close polling stations in strong Labour areas and make those voters travel long distances to vote, while not doing the same in Conservative areas. (b) The Braintree DC result for the Essex Police, Crime and Fire Commissioner election was revealed - Labour were only about 1,000 votes behind the Tories - this in the area that contains the constituencies of James Cleverly and Priti Patel. The caveat is the low turnout, but even with that it is extraordinary. (c) in a room full of Labour activists it is fair to say that Natalie Elphicke's defection did not make anyone very happy - reactions varied from "unsavoury but we'll have to put up with it" to anger, although not directed at anyone in particular. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 9, 2024 20:53:36 GMT
I went to a Labour meeting tonight and there were a few interesting snippets: (a) There is a distinct possibility that our Tory Council is engaging in voter suppression. I don't want to go into details on a public forum as there may be some action to come, but the basic technique is to close polling stations in strong Labour areas and make those voters travel long distances to vote, while not doing the same in Conservative areas. (b) The Braintree DC result for the Essex Police, Crime and Fire Commissioner election was revealed - Labour were only about 1,000 votes behind the Tories - this in the area that contains the constituencies of James Cleverly and Priti Patel. The caveat is the low turnout, but even with that it is extraordinary. (c) in a room full of Labour activists it is fair to say that Natalie Elphicke's defection did not make anyone very happy - reactions varied from "unsavoury but we'll have to put up with it" to anger, although not directed at anyone in particular. indeed - black Americans suffering particularly. Given how much the Conservative seem to want to borrow from the Republicans it is rather alarming. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 9, 2024 20:56:11 GMT
bardin1
You make the excellent point that, if Starmer has a grand plan to alter British politics, he isn't telling anyone what it is. That is in marked contrast to both Atlee and Thatcher, both of whom spelt out what they wanted to do, and how they would do it. The electorate bought into those plans, not the leader who articulated them.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on May 9, 2024 21:00:52 GMT
Bloody Greeks.
If Starmer even thinks of ever giving them the Elgin Marbles back, then Galloway's got my vote for life.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,759
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 9, 2024 21:04:33 GMT
He might offer Galloway a role tho’
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 9, 2024 21:09:12 GMT
Bloody Greeks. If Starmer even thinks of ever giving them the Elgin Marbles back, then Galloway's got my vote for life.
Give the kids their marbles back! |
|
|
|
Post by athena on May 9, 2024 21:16:32 GMT
To think that radicals get accused of being unrealistic... It's utterly misguided to think that someone who has failed to grasp that the climate and biodiversity crises will be the central challenge of the next 100 years deserves to be described as 'probably the cleverest PM we'll have in a long time. Intensely strategic...' leftieliberal linked a Guardian report that most climate scientists think the global temperature rise will be much more than 1.5 Celsius and are scared and depressed by the grotesque mismatch between the scale of the problems we face and the actions being taken. It irritates me that the story still needs to be printed. Every scientist I know feels this way, and it's incredibly frustrating that our political systems just don't seem to be capable of the action required. barbara 's much-liked post has annoyed me more than just about anything else I've read on this forum. As for the notion that 'Starmer has a grand vision - one to rewire Britain in a way that will stop future Tory governments from just reversing everything' - this is just a statement of faith. Where's the evidence? One approach would be to have a codified constitution, so that we can have constitutional laws that are harder to overturn, but constitutional reform isn't a priority for Starmer, so whatever his grand vision is, it must involve something else - and I think he ought to share what that is with the voters. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,759
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 9, 2024 21:31:28 GMT
barbara 's much-liked post has annoyed me more than just about anything else I've read on this forum. If you bite, then it plays into the line that the left “just hate Starmer”, as a distraction from the issue at hand. (The same used to happen with Blair. Still does, actually) Reality is, it’s off the point: whether you hate Starmer, or think he is the second Attlee, it can still be rational to have an alternative option on the left to keep things honest. (And to assist Starmer even, because if he is genuinely going to do some lefty things, and people on the right of the party want to make that difficult, he can point to the votes leaking away to the left. Just as Cameron had to cede the ref. because of the votes leaking to UKIP). The Elphicke thing am still trying to get my head around 🤯🤯 |
|
