|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Jun 14, 2024 23:06:02 GMT
pjw1961 Yet. I think Keir Hardie had gone before Labour replaced the Liberals. I agree that at the moment Reform is not much more than a one-man band but if they did win 1 or even 2 or 3 seats, some experienced politicians might join them. Particularly any Tories on the right who lose their seat. As oldnat noted from the Yougov polling, a surprising number of young people seem to be joining Reform. I had been wondering about this, after pundits said similar about young people moving right in the Euro elections*. The housing problem is becoming increasingly acute with another one-and-a-half million net arriving in the last two years without a concomitant increase in housebuilding. If Reform add some more lefty economic policies it could be significant in terms of getting past a ceiling based on a focus on immigration, but that may not sit well with the more neolib Farage. * is that a thing or not? Anyone got info on the Euros regarding the younger vote. Are they moving right or is that media fluff? In the NW of England many young people don't want to vote for "established parties", but their choice is not Reform, but independent candidates or small parties who appear to be more radical. So they want change, and they don't expect it from the " established parties". I really cannot say the proportion at any confidence level, but it seems to be a around 14% - but to repeat again projection is not part of my data for this. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jun 14, 2024 23:26:26 GMT
Mercian Thanks! Of course, the major achievement I'd list would be Ted Heath and Geoffrey Ripon taking us INTO the EU! (though at the time, as a signed up leftie, I was against joining - even went on a demo. I was also, seems to me now, wrong about the miners' strike. I didn't see what a dirty and outdated industry coal had become, though the ruthless way the miners were dealt with is another matter. As for the Falklands War, I remember it as something sickening, the bullishness of the whole country , the flag waving, and feeling utterly alienated. I could never list a war as an achievement.) I must say that it's very refreshing to have a civilised discussion about these things rather than the name-calling that happens all too often. Of course war is bad, and in an ideal world we'd all be at peace. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen any time soon, and perhaps never will until a more responsive version of Deep Thought takes over. The Falklands War was fought to liberate British subjects (who wanted to remain British subjects) from a foreign invader. As such it was a matter of pride for many people when it was carried out so effectively, even if it stretched our military resources to the limit. It was a 'just war', unlike some that have taken place since. It may have brought out a streak of jingoism, but I don't think we've seen much of that since, such as for Blair's war in Iraq for instance. EDIT: Incidentally I take a kind of slightly shamefaced pride that we are about the most warlike nation there has ever been. I bought all my children a copy of this book: www.amazon.co.uk/All-Countries-Weve-Ever-Invaded/dp/0752479695 It's pretty awesome. Who else has invaded both the USA, Russia, China and India? Several times! I know there were bad things that happened at times, but we should take pride that such a small country has had such a massive influence on the world. A lot of the Empire was acquired via trade and exploration rather than force, and there is a huge positive legacy. English is now the lingua franca (ironically) of the world, democracy has been established in many parts of the world that had never known it, and a lot of very powerful countries have been put in that position by the UK. Of the G7, one is us and two others were started by us. Slavery was abolished in the British Empire before most places, even though it's on the rise again since our power became reduced. It seems the norm now to concentrate on the negative aspects of Empire, and of course there were some, but children should be taught about their heritage with pride. Overall our influence on the world has been massively positive. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 14, 2024 23:50:11 GMT
Mercian "I could give an equally long list of what I consider to be Tory achievements which you wouldn't agree were achievements," Please do! (I'm not being funny - genuinely interested in your pov) I'll give you sale of council houses, on balance.... (though not the failure to use the revenue to build more) Ok, but I don't want to get attacked from all sides. Most of them happened under the only PM who came anywhere near my position - Margaret Thatcher. Privatisation of most of the inefficient sclerotic treasury-draining nationalised industries and selling them largely to the public, not the big institutional investors thus hugely increasing the number of ordinary people owning shares and making those companies behave like proper companies and being responsive to their customers instead of being condescending and authoritarian (I had a bad experience with British Gas  ). Destruction of the cosy 'Butskellism' of the post-war period when there wasn't a fag paper between the two main parties. Reducing basic rate Income Tax from 33% to 20% where it has mostly stayed ever since. Brexit! Falklands War Playing a big part in bringing down the Soviet Union even though Putin is now trying to resurrect it because of weak Western leaders. That'll do for starters. I have to totally disagree in that I have long viewed her as an AntiChrist figure. The day she was born was a far sadder day than the day she passed away. |
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jun 14, 2024 23:51:12 GMT
It's good to see the German team playing well at the beginning of a tournament … No it’s not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2024 0:25:36 GMT
I see there have been a number of posts about the Scotland match, so would also offer my commiserations. Pat Nevin on the radio made the point that they nearly drew the second half, but that is, I suspect, cold comfort. In view of the other sporting posts, I feel emboldened to make one of my own.
I missed the match because, being a 'white ball' season ticket holder, I was contractually obliged to be at Taunton for tonight's T20 fixture against Kent, despite it being a day of sunshine and heavy showers down here. Sure enough, after one over, the heavens opened and that was that for more than two hours.
Most of the sellout crowd departed in the interim, assuming match abandoned, but, having driven 20 miles to get there, I was b*ggered if I was going home until they officially confirmed it. Sure enough, at 8.30 pm, they said if there was no further rain, play would recommence at 9.02 pm for a five over thrash.
It was like watching a County Championship match on fast forward. Massive strokes, wickets tumbling like nine pins. Somerset hit 55 in their 5 overs, but because of the Duckworth Lewis machinations, Kent needed 61 to win. Thankfully, they fell short by 14 runs, but it was great fun.
So, shortly after 10 pm, I set off home, frozen to the marrow, (I had sensibly worn shorts), cold but happy.
Oh, and they played 'Come on, Eileen' over the tannoy in the seemingly interminable rain delay.
My cup runneth over.
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on Jun 15, 2024 4:58:07 GMT
Mercian Thanks! Of course, the major achievement I'd list would be Ted Heath and Geoffrey Ripon taking us INTO the EU! (though at the time, as a signed up leftie, I was against joining - even went on a demo. I was also, seems to me now, wrong about the miners' strike. I didn't see what a dirty and outdated industry coal had become, though the ruthless way the miners were dealt with is another matter. As for the Falklands War, I remember it as something sickening, the bullishness of the whole country , the flag waving, and feeling utterly alienated. I could never list a war as an achievement.) I know there were bad things that happened at times, but we should take pride that such a small country has had such a massive influence on the world. A lot of the Empire was acquired via trade and exploration rather than force, and there is a huge positive legacy. English is now the lingua franca (ironically) of the world, democracy has been established in many parts of the world that had never known it, and a lot of very powerful countries have been put in that position by the UK. Of the G7, one is us and two others were started by us. Slavery was abolished in the British Empire before most places, even though it's on the rise again since our power became reduced. It seems the norm now to concentrate on the negative aspects of Empire, and of course there were some, but children should be taught about their heritage with pride. Overall our influence on the world has been massively positive. These bad things were..the use of slavery, identiture, exploitation of the indigenous populations on a vast scale followed by the exploitation and extraction of material wealth and resources. This included the redrawing of ethnic boundaries in parts of the world which has directly lead to conflicts on an unbelievable scale during which millions of people continue to die.....India, Pakistan, Middle East etc. This is all before we start to talk about the extraction of resources from parts of the UK to power the ships and railways, the exploitation of working class people and the turning of their environment which are even now post industrial wastelands e.g South Wales valleys...... but apart from these trivial matters we can view our heritage with pride!🙄 |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,635
|
Post by steve on Jun 15, 2024 6:13:15 GMT
It was the traitor's birthday yesterday he was 78. He celebrated by having a deranged rant in front of a selected audience of suck ups.
T
Oddly enough his wife Melania didn't offer him her congratulations.
Maybe related to the fact that he wished her happy birthday from outside the courtroom where he'd just been found guilty of illegal hush money payments he'd made to Stephanie Clifford after the then 60 year old trump had cheated on his wife with the then 26 year old adult film actress, just two months after Melania had given birth to their son.
Or maybe the grifter just can't stand the sight or smell of her criminal husband any more
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jun 15, 2024 6:21:33 GMT
Ah, those ruthlessly efficient Germans!
Had we managed to string the match out for six years, including playing a mid-game leg in North Africa, perhaps we might have slowly turned the tide, but this is definitely the beginning of the end for Scotland's footballing ambitions this time round.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jun 15, 2024 6:48:10 GMT
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jun 15, 2024 6:58:15 GMT
Yes, that line stood out. |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Jun 15, 2024 7:02:30 GMT
I missed the match because, being a 'white ball' season ticket holder, I was contractually obliged to be at Taunton for tonight's T20 fixture against Kent, despite it being a day of sunshine and heavy showers down here. Sure enough, after one over, the heavens opened and that was that for more than two hours. Most of the sellout crowd departed in the interim, assuming match abandoned, but, having driven 20 miles to get there, I was b*ggered if I was going home until they officially confirmed it. Sure enough, at 8.30 pm, they said if there was no further rain, play would recommence at 9.02 pm for a five over thrash. It was like watching a County Championship match on fast forward. Massive strokes, wickets tumbling like nine pins. Somerset hit 55 in their 5 overs, but because of the Duckworth Lewis machinations, Kent needed 61 to win. Thankfully, they fell short by 14 runs, but it was great fun. So, shortly after 10 pm, I set off home, frozen to the marrow, (I had sensibly worn shorts), cold but happy. Oh, and they played 'Come on, Eileen' over the tannoy in the seemingly interminable rain delay. My cup runneth over. Hi @isa , I was at the Oval for my first ever T20 white ball game. Surrey made the silly (in my eyes) decision to bat first and had much the worse of the light conditions, which contributed to them almost throwing away the match, and resulting in the closest finish I've ever seen. At the start of the final over "Surrey needed just six runs to win with four wickets left after Curran's breezy 18 had followed Jason Roy's 55 and Ollie Pope's 48, which had spearheaded a thrilling chase under the Kia Oval floodlights, but finished on 170 for 9. But the veteran Payne was equal to the task, yorking Curran with his first ball and having Abbott caught in the deep off his third. Then came the bye, and a two driven by Jordan Clark. But, with scores level and the field in, Payne fired in another yorker that Clark could only dig out back towards the bowler. He set off for the winning single but Payne only had to move a few yards to his right to take the ball and, jubilantly, run him out at the bowler's end". So the mtch was tied! |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,635
|
Post by steve on Jun 15, 2024 7:02:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jun 15, 2024 7:16:52 GMT
Hapless Scotland and England football teams add greatly to the gaiety of the nation and have done so for as long as I can remember.
That great tradition was honoured last night in Munich and I have every confidence that, early in the knock out stages, England will similarly perform their national duty in a penalty shoot out defeat to a "surprisingly good Belgian outfit" (quote from match report in the Daily Star).
Harry Kane's last great contribution to English football will be a decisive penalty miss, the ball ballooned over the bar, joining in orbit the one he dispatched there against France two years ago.
Southgate will then pen a new version of his famous "Dear England" letter. This time an apologia.
"Dear England, I regret to inform you that my decision to omit the great Jack Grealish did indeed prove to be a disastr......"
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,635
|
Post by steve on Jun 15, 2024 7:32:36 GMT
Being a felon has consequences news.
Convicted fraudster and rapist disgraced former president of the United States is beginning to discover what being convicted of a crime in the US entails.
Believe it or not the traitor, despite having a secret service detail carries a firearm, as a felon this is illegal a convicted criminal can neither, purchase, own or carry a firearm, if he doesn't dispose of them before next week when his conviction is registered he should be imprisoned.
Similarly in the States of New York and New Jersey it's illegal for a felon to hold a liquor licence, so it looks like his golf courses/country clubs like Bedminster are going dry.
Little things short of locking the traitor up , but every little helps.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,635
|
Post by steve on Jun 15, 2024 7:37:15 GMT
"Rishi Sunak pledges to serve as MP for full term if Tory party loses election"
As the honourable member for Santa Monica presumably.
|
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Jun 15, 2024 7:46:32 GMT
"Rishi Sunak pledges to serve as MP for full term if Tory party loses election" As the honourable member for Santa Monica presumably. Reverse psychology in operation. Vote for Rishi so he will leave early |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,635
|
Post by steve on Jun 15, 2024 7:51:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jun 15, 2024 7:56:01 GMT
Marr has for some time now been a rather lonely proponent of the argument that a Starmer government with a big majority, and demoralised opposition, may be much bolder and more radical than the dreary received wisdom assumes. Especially in its first two years or so when the relief at the disappearance of the Tories, and the feeling that something new is in town, affords them public enthusiasm and forbearance. Of course there is an article of faith at work here, and a preparedness to accept that cautious campaigning is a price that always has to be paid on the left if Labour are to win, but political logic lends itself to Marr's thesis too. Most of Labour's front bench have been messing around in impotent opposition politics for most of their political lives. You have to believe, and I do, that figures like Starmer, Streeting, Reeves, Cooper, Reynolds, Ashworth, Phillipson etc have been waiting for the moment that may well be coming, all their political lives. They don't seem like Tory politicians on dilettante entitlement missions to me. They seem instead to be serious politicians who want to get into power to change things and improve people's lives. What an enormous opportunity dawns for them now. Daunting national and global problems to wrestle with but, as an ambitious politician, why would you want to be anywhere else? On the cusp of power and maybe soon to be in a position and place where you can effect change and do things. The keys to the car at last Why have we always got to assume the worst of centre-left Labour politicians! On the basis of them ducking and weaving in opposition in order that one day they might win?? Come on. I'm cutting them some slack and looking forward to what could a game changing Labour Government. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jun 15, 2024 8:04:12 GMT
Very interesting article. Thanks. I'm interested in vote efficiency and my own figures show votes per seat since 1945: Party Best Worst Average
Con 32,777 1983 58,188 1997 41,182
Lab 25,968 2001 50,837 2019 39,615
Lib 92,583 2001 432,823 Feb 1974 254,596
Wasnt the basis for allocating seats changed, from allocating them according to population to allocating according to registered voters? The general assumtion is that labour inclined people are more likely not to register to vote, therefore they will be disadvantaged by the new allocation method, it will have resulted in fewer MPs allocated to labour strongholds. These figures will probably mostly cover the period of the old method? Of course, in that election libs did remarkably well. Was it the case their very much improved number for MPs per vote altered the standard oucome? The SNP also did rather well. |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jun 15, 2024 8:04:38 GMT
Just read Alan Bates has accepted bauble. Oh dear.
|
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Jun 15, 2024 8:11:57 GMT
Marr has for some time now been a rather lonely proponent of the argument that a Starmer government with a big majority, and demoralised opposition, may be much bolder and more radical than the dreary received wisdom assumes. Especially in its first two years or so when the relief at the disappearance of the Tories, and the feeling that something new is in town, affords them public enthusiasm and forbearance. Of course there is an article of faith at work here, and a preparedness to accept that cautious campaigning is a price that always has to be paid on the left if Labour are to win, but political logic lends itself to Marr's thesis too. Most of Labour's front bench have been messing around in impotent opposition politics for most of their political lives. You have to believe, and I do, that figures like Starmer, Streeting, Reeves, Cooper, Reynolds, Ashworth, Phillipson etc have been waiting for the moment that may well be coming, all their political lives. They don't seem like Tory politicians on dilettante entitlement missions to me. They seem instead to be serious politicians who want to get into power to change things and improve people's lives. What an enormous opportunity dawns for them now. Daunting national and global problems to wrestle with but, as an ambitious politician, why would you want to be anywhere else? On the cusp of power and maybe soon to be in a position and place where you can effect change and do things. The keys to the car at last Why have we always got to assume the worst of centre-left Labour politicians. On the basis of them ducking and weaving in opposition in order that one day they might win?? Come on. I'm cutting them some slack and looking forward to what could a game changing Labour Government. I genuinely hope you are right. I don't think you are though.. I am cautiously optimistic that they wil change the tone of politics to a more serious and adult process of decision making, and that they will make a genuine attempt to implement theirmanifesto. Howver I do think something bolder is required over the really big issues, particularly health, social care, and infrastructure, where a consensual long term strategy is required. Also, although I know none of them will do it, tax wil have to rise substantially to sort out the country's problems. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,635
|
Post by steve on Jun 15, 2024 8:15:54 GMT
crossbat11While I don't share Marr's optimism I genuinely hope I'm wrong.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,635
|
Post by steve on Jun 15, 2024 8:31:35 GMT
"Post Office campaigner Alan Bates knighted in king’s birthday honours"
That's sticking it to the man!
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jun 15, 2024 8:40:01 GMT
Mercian "I could give an equally long list of what I consider to be Tory achievements which you wouldn't agree were achievements," Please do! (I'm not being funny - genuinely interested in your pov) I'll give you sale of council houses, on balance.... (though not the failure to use the revenue to build more) Ok, but I don't want to get attacked from all sides. Most of them happened under the only PM who came anywhere near my position - Margaret Thatcher. You are right, this is likely to lead to a challenge to your ideas. Where to start? Although these companies were sold as share offerings with big incentives for the general public to buy shares at advantageous rates, the final result has still been institutional buyers amassing the shares as they were eventually sold (or immediately sold for the quick profit), so aside from a brief diversion they did end up in the hands of institutional investors. Most of the profits also ended up in those same hands, not private individuals. The huge majority of the profits. We are seeing now the failure eg of water companies over the elapsed time to do as promised and invest in their networks. Instead they have been asset stripped by private owners of as much value as possible and are now on the verge of bankruptcy. Nationalised industries on the whole have unfairly been criticised for bad management and being money pits, whereas the truth is the reason they became nationalised is because the private sector had been incapable of running them profitably, so they had been bailed out from bankruptcy because they were considered vital to the national interest. When this finally became unaffordable they were allowed to fold. Residual profitable parts were sold off. Again, Thatcherites always adopted the exact opposite approach to the private sector of selling any parts which are profitable and keeping those which werent. Hardly surprising if there was a net loss.
BT was sold off despite being a big money maker for the treasury and continued to be so for the private sector. Similarly our profitable oil shares were sold off. Generating companies, all making nice profits while we pay inflated prices for energy, disadvantaging the general competitiveness of UK plc.
There still isnt a fag paper between the two parties, at least on paper, its just they have both moved to the right. However there IS a diffrence in that it is a goal of con government to dismantle state services, its just they cannot persuade voters who like those services. Whereas labour want to provide better services, they just cannot find the money to do so. Con will always reduce services if there is scope, lab will try to improve them. The era of the state trying to improve the lot of the average citizen was caused by two world wars and the utter incompetence this demonstrated in the ruling classes. Nations trained to kill told their politicians they demanded better. The collapse of this consensus was largely caused again by mismanagement, this time the energy price shocks as western nations lost control of their fuel supplies in newly independant countries. Thatcher had two breaks, the Falklands war where she was able to exploit patriotic jingoism, plus bribing voters with their own money (also including N sea oil revenues which turned up just then) She was lucky, right place right time. High tax rates post ww2 were mostly the result of...WW2. And the vast debt run up in fighting it. Income tax has fallen from what were indeed ridiculous levels, but we are now once again at record tax levels overall even if the distribution of those taxes has changed. Dont get you, Thatcher was pro EU. She believed in manipulating it to benefit the UK. Was a stupid waste which would never have happened had the Thatcher government not given the impression to Argentina we didnt care what happened to the islands. They took that as a green light to just take control and relieve us of the embarassment of having handed them over. Big part is nonsense. All acolytes of the US did as they were told in sanctioning the USSR until its economy collapsed. At that time the UK military and contribution to NATO was bigger because the steady decline of our armed forces had not gone so far. But Thatcher was indeed running them down steadily, again contributing to the Falklands war, bccause it was obvious our military capacity was steadily declining. One particular issue was withdrawing the regular patrol boat formerly stationed there and other cuts to the navy. All just signalled we no longer cared. Did you lump privatisation of the housing stock in with general privatisation? Which has led to something like x10-x100 increase in house prices, shortages of homes, smaller more run down homes for everyone? Increased costs to industry, because obviously all wages had to rise to pay those extra housing costs of their workers? |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 15, 2024 8:42:01 GMT
It's good to see the German team playing well at the beginning of a tournament … No it’s not. <Panto> Oh, yes, it is! </Panto> Even though the Germans were aided by Clarke picking a Championship (or as I still think about it, Second Division) goalie with chocolate wrists. Isn't there a better goalie in the whole of Scotland? |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jun 15, 2024 8:46:32 GMT
@danny
Totally agree with you about the Falklands War. A shocking failure of diplomacy that led to a needless totem war and consequent loss of life. It rescued Thatcher's floundering premiership though.
Lord Carrington, an honourable man, was absolutely right to resign over the diplomatic disaster.
The ultimate needless war.
|
|
barbara
Member
Posts: 1,903
Member is Online
|
Post by barbara on Jun 15, 2024 8:50:52 GMT
Marr has for some time now been a rather lonely proponent of the argument that a Starmer government with a big majority, and demoralised opposition, may be much bolder and more radical than the dreary received wisdom assumes. Especially in its first two years or so when the relief at the disappearance of the Tories, and the feeling that something new is in town, affords them public enthusiasm and forbearance. Of course there is an article of faith at work here, and a preparedness to accept that cautious campaigning is a price that always has to be paid on the left if Labour are to win, but political logic lends itself to Marr's thesis too. Most of Labour's front bench have been messing around in impotent opposition politics for most of their political lives. You have to believe, and I do, that figures like Starmer, Streeting, Reeves, Cooper, Reynolds, Ashworth, Phillipson etc have been waiting for the moment that may well be coming, all their political lives. They don't seem like Tory politicians on dilettante entitlement missions to me. They seem instead to be serious politicians who want to get into power to change things and improve people's lives. What an enormous opportunity dawns for them now. Daunting national and global problems to wrestle with but, as an ambitious politician, why would you want to be anywhere else? On the cusp of power and maybe soon to be in a position and place where you can effect change and do things. The keys to the car at last Why have we always got to assume the worst of centre-left Labour politicians. On the basis of them ducking and weaving in opposition in order that one day they might win?? Come on. I'm cutting them some slack and looking forward to what could a game changing Labour Government. I genuinely hope you are right. I don't think you are though.. I am cautiously optimistic that they wil change the tone of politics to a more serious and adult process of decision making, and that they will make a genuine attempt to implement theirmanifesto. Howver I do think something bolder is required over the really big issues, particularly health, social care, and infrastructure, where a consensual long term strategy is required. Also, although I know none of them will do it, tax wil have to rise substantially to sort out the country's problems. I said this some time ago. I think Starmer will go down in history as one of our greatest prime ministers. And here's why: As crossbat11 has said, he has exhibited extraordinary levels of leadership since 2020 in forcibly reforging the Labour Party, in instilling discipline, in quelling rebellions, in getting business on his side, in getting Sue Gray as his Chief of Staff, in developing a message and a set of policies that won't scare the horses and will attract a wide base, in preparing and planning for government in great detail, in keeping all his shadow cabinet, even Angela Rayner (who has said she now admires and respects him) on message all the way through this campaign. - He has done this with one single aim in mind - to get into power. As a working class boy he single mindedly fought his way out of his background to university, to be a successful barrister, to be DPP. Someone weak, indecisive, unambitious doesn't achieve all of that. People are mistaking calculating, determined, single minded devotion to a goal as boring and cowardly. It's the opposite. And why has he done all this - we know, not from his words, but from his past actions, that he is dedicated to fighting inequality wherever he has encountered it - doing pro-bono work all over the world for human rights ( he received a "Lawyer of the Year " Award from the Law Society for this work. He didn't do all this and give up a lucrative, easy retirement as a lawyer after being DPP 'just to be PM' a la Boris Johnson or because he thought he would be good at it a la David Cameron without being totally driven to his aims. He's already been clear he needs 2-3 terms to deliver what he believes the country needs and to change things for good. Anybody who thinks he is going to do all this to get into power only to do timid, ineffectual things as PM is deluding themselves and underestimating him. He will be as driven and ambitious in power as he has been in everything he has done all his life. Watch this space. |
|
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: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 15, 2024 8:53:04 GMT
crossbat11 While I don't share Marr's optimism I genuinely hope I'm wrong. I think batty may be right, that Labour might be more radical than some may think, but of course the question arises as to how, esp. in a financially constrained situation. moby kind of talked about it the other day, about Labour doing things that might be tricky to undo, and from what I have been watching and reading, the right are worried about that, the prospect of Starmer doubling down on the Blair methodology, of baking things in via the law. I’ve mentioned myself in the past how Blair being a lawyer meant that shaping legal frameworks, and locking things in that way was unsurprisingly a major modus operandi. Whether it was Good Friday Agreements, Devolution, Supreme Court, joining the ECHR, these mechanisms can constrain future governments. (The economics he left more to Brown). And I figured Starmer being a lawyer might do similar. The right are worried that this manifesto represents the template for that, but I’m not very up on the law, maybe wb61 can shed some light? Labour have talked about the need to get the underlying frameworks right first, and that can apply in many areas, whether it’s concerning people’s rights*, or indeed planning regulations so you can arrange for more housebuilding and leccy. It also tends to not require so much money. (But there may be knock-on effects, that have been occupying my noggin for a while…) * e.g. you can use laws on people’s rights to bake things in for future governments economically. You could have a right to a good job, low energy bills, free synths… |
|
shevii
Member
Posts: 2,244 
Member is Online
|
Post by shevii on Jun 15, 2024 8:57:56 GMT
That great tradition was honoured last night in Munich and I have every confidence that, early in the knock out stages, England will similarly perform their national duty in a penalty shoot out defeat to a "surprisingly good Belgian outfit" (quote from match report in the Daily Star). I'm not in a good position to comment as I don't watch Premier League and to be honest only really watch football live in the lower leagues plus England and any other favoured teams at World Cup etc, but seems to me there is no good reason why one of these days England can't win a major tournament. I usually have to be told by the lad who any of the new England players play for. He was very upbeat before this tournament claiming we have the best player in the world or something like that (I think Bellingham who, typically, is a player I've never really come across other than not standing out in the previous tournaments- no doubt to your horror). I'm not one of those people who think "we invented the game", "we have the best league in the world" and so on but I do think we should at least be getting our fair share of a cake of winners that includes Portugal, Greece, Denmark and we did have a chance against Italy last time. No particular reason why we should be losing on penalties (and we do actually win a fair number- just not the ones that really count). So keep the faith I say! |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jun 15, 2024 9:00:01 GMT
Dont get you, Thatcher was pro EU. She believed in manipulating it to benefit the UK. Did she really? She championed the "Common Market" for sure, but it was standing up to the EU Federal project that started to unpick her power in the Tory party with Heathites. Maastricht ratification came after she left, and it's dubious whether consent would have been obtained via referendum in 1991/2. It was a confidence vote for Major that forced it through.  |
|
).
