Which is why the Crown Prosecution Service has decided to charge Colonel Bob Stewart*, DSO, MP, with two offences under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, 1986, including ‘racially aggravated abuse’!
Is this really in the Public interest? Or is it just more grovelling to BLM nonsense?
However, and quite astonishingly, this pernicious legislation was brought in by the late Lady Thatcher, rather indicating that the so called Tory Party has been a giant fraud for sometime now.
(* “ Bonking Bob Stewart” of Bosnian War fame as the press dubbed him at the time.)
Which is why the Crown Prosecution Service has decided to charge Colonel Bob Stewart*, DSO, MP, with two offences under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, 1986, including ‘racially aggravated abuse’!
Is this really in the Public interest? Or is it just more grovelling to BLM nonsense?
However, and quite astonishingly, this pernicious legislation was brought in by the late Lady Thatcher, rather indicating that the so called Tory Party has been a giant fraud for sometime now.
(* “ Bonking Bob Stewart” of Bosnian War fame as the press dubbed him at the time.)
One can only wonder what might have happened if Boris had had the patience and discipline to rid his party of more than a handful of Remainers.
Malcolm Knott
10 months ago
The Tories seem to have adopted a similar, if covert, operation to exclude any actual Tories from the Parliamentary party.
Paddy Taylor
10 months ago
Corbynites regularly warn Starmer that “Winning without the Left is not winning at all.”
Yet they never seem to understand that “With the Left, there’s no winning at all.”
For a long time Labour has needed to split into three parties. One can retain the leftist ideological purity beloved of Corbynites – and have so few MPs they can hold meetings in Jeremy’s allotment shed. The second can dance in the streets and celebrate winning seats like Putney, whilst looking down their noses at all those ghastly Brexity untermensch “Red Wall” voters. …. And then there can be a third party, perhaps they could be called,…. oh I don’t know, The Labour Party?….. who can ditch the identity-politics and the ahistorical anti-British stance on everything and maybe try to champion the needs of traditional Labour supporters.
Attlee and Bevin were tough, patriotic and practical; everything the middle class Left is not. Attlee’s favourite historian was A Bryant and Churchill described Bevin as the working class John Bull.
Attlee and Bevin were tough, patriotic and practical; everything the middle class Left is not. Attlee’s favourite historian was A Bryant and Churchill described Bevin as the working class John Bull.
If this article carried any weight then Corbyn would have won the election. But it seems that the electorate disagree with Mr Crick. While we still live in a democracy it’s the only opinion that matters.
If this article carried any weight then Corbyn would have won the election. But it seems that the electorate disagree with Mr Crick. While we still live in a democracy it’s the only opinion that matters.
Paddy Taylor
10 months ago
Corbynites regularly warn Starmer that “Winning without the Left is not winning at all.”
Yet they never seem to understand that “With the Left, there’s no winning at all.”
For a long time Labour has needed to split into three parties. One can retain the leftist ideological purity beloved of Corbynites – and have so few MPs they can hold meetings in Jeremy’s allotment shed. The second can dance in the streets and celebrate winning seats like Putney, whilst looking down their noses at all those ghastly Brexity untermensch “Red Wall” voters. …. And then there can be a third party, perhaps they could be called,…. oh I don’t know, The Labour Party?….. who can ditch the identity-politics and the ahistorical anti-British stance on everything and maybe try to champion the needs of traditional Labour supporters.
Jane Anderson
10 months ago
Starmer may well be purging Corbynistas and other ‘too left wing’ suspects, but he’s also made life very difficult for women who believe in the reality of biological sex and in doing so would like to protect the dignity and integrity of women and girls.
The Labour Women’s Declaration was refused a stall at last year’s conference, and Rosie Duffield had to be accompanied by security to attend. Not one word of support for her from Starmer. Gender Self Id seems to be the one Corbynista pledge he’s still committed to. What a bizarre world we live in.
Indeed. There’s been quite a few Unherd articles about Starmer’s stance on gender self-ID. Those who take note of these things will likely vote accordingly (or abstain) but i’m not sure that’d be in sufficient numbers to dent his chances of success at the next election.
If he were to be severely embarrassed about this during the course of an election interview that might make a difference, just as it did for Gordon Brown when he was embarrassed by calling an elderly northern woman a “bigot” when he thought the microphone was switched off in 2010.
This is the main thing that still puts me off Labour (leaving aside the vacuum where policy should be for a moment). It is very suspicious that despite the apparent purge of the lunatic fringe he still seems frightened of answering the extraordinarily simple question: what is a woman? Identity politics is revolting and it’s still at work in Labour. The incidents with Rupa Huq and Diane Abbott are fine examples of it’s prevelance and no party wedded to those ideas can have my vote.
Indeed. There’s been quite a few Unherd articles about Starmer’s stance on gender self-ID. Those who take note of these things will likely vote accordingly (or abstain) but i’m not sure that’d be in sufficient numbers to dent his chances of success at the next election.
If he were to be severely embarrassed about this during the course of an election interview that might make a difference, just as it did for Gordon Brown when he was embarrassed by calling an elderly northern woman a “bigot” when he thought the microphone was switched off in 2010.
This is the main thing that still puts me off Labour (leaving aside the vacuum where policy should be for a moment). It is very suspicious that despite the apparent purge of the lunatic fringe he still seems frightened of answering the extraordinarily simple question: what is a woman? Identity politics is revolting and it’s still at work in Labour. The incidents with Rupa Huq and Diane Abbott are fine examples of it’s prevelance and no party wedded to those ideas can have my vote.
Absolutely. And he has made no attempt to purge blatant misogynists like Lloyd Russell Moyle.
Jane Anderson
10 months ago
Starmer may well be purging Corbynistas and other ‘too left wing’ suspects, but he’s also made life very difficult for women who believe in the reality of biological sex and in doing so would like to protect the dignity and integrity of women and girls.
The Labour Women’s Declaration was refused a stall at last year’s conference, and Rosie Duffield had to be accompanied by security to attend. Not one word of support for her from Starmer. Gender Self Id seems to be the one Corbynista pledge he’s still committed to. What a bizarre world we live in.
Last edited 10 months ago by Jane Anderson
Ben Jones
10 months ago
An interesting article by a writer on top of his game, but has MC considered this? As we’ve seen over the past few years, it doesn’t really matter which party (or how radical it is) wins an election; the *real* power lies with the civil service. They triage, consider and then approve / boycott policies depending on their own political convictions (Brexit, Rwanda, etc).
This is where Starmer has a baked-in advantage; the civil service is overwhelmingly centre-left. For the vast majority of his policies, a Starmer administration will be kicking at an open door.
He’s probably already discussed this with that utterly impartial avatar of civil service professionalism, Sue Gray. Starmer might not have any scruples, but he does have a plan.
My point being getting compliant MPs on board is important, of course (although I do wonder if this is Labour muscle-memory, as infighting is in the nature of the beast). But, equally important, is the battle Starmer has won by default – His Majesty’s Government’s civil service.
Ben Jones
10 months ago
An interesting article by a writer on top of his game, but has MC considered this? As we’ve seen over the past few years, it doesn’t really matter which party (or how radical it is) wins an election; the *real* power lies with the civil service. They triage, consider and then approve / boycott policies depending on their own political convictions (Brexit, Rwanda, etc).
This is where Starmer has a baked-in advantage; the civil service is overwhelmingly centre-left. For the vast majority of his policies, a Starmer administration will be kicking at an open door.
He’s probably already discussed this with that utterly impartial avatar of civil service professionalism, Sue Gray. Starmer might not have any scruples, but he does have a plan.
My point being getting compliant MPs on board is important, of course (although I do wonder if this is Labour muscle-memory, as infighting is in the nature of the beast). But, equally important, is the battle Starmer has won by default – His Majesty’s Government’s civil service.
Hugh Bryant
10 months ago
What else can he do? He has to win middle class votes to get into No 10. In order to do that he has to become a Tory. Just like Tony Blair.
Once in office he will pursue neo-liberal policies that would make Margaret Thatcher blush. Just like Tony Blair.
The man is a careerist fraud and cannot be trusted to hold a principled position for longer than it takes the media to criticise it. Just like Tony Blair.
So long as we have a middle class intelligentsia which thinks its behaviour doesn’t matter so long as it has the right opinions we’ll keep getting politicians just like Tony Blair.
Hugh Bryant
10 months ago
What else can he do? He has to win middle class votes to get into No 10. In order to do that he has to become a Tory. Just like Tony Blair.
Once in office he will pursue neo-liberal policies that would make Margaret Thatcher blush. Just like Tony Blair.
The man is a careerist fraud and cannot be trusted to hold a principled position for longer than it takes the media to criticise it. Just like Tony Blair.
So long as we have a middle class intelligentsia which thinks its behaviour doesn’t matter so long as it has the right opinions we’ll keep getting politicians just like Tony Blair.
Andrew Horsman
10 months ago
Imagine what Starmer, and his loyalist band of MPs handpicked specifically for their inability to mount any kind of intellectual or political challenge to their leadership’s diktats, will do if he gets into ostensible power and he’s instructed by the powers that be in Geneva to shut down dissenting opinion online, protest in real life, or otherwise disrespect the basic tenets of liberal democracy in the “public interest” or for the “greater good”? For linear-thinking, unprincipled, ideologues with fragile egos trapped by their own narrow worldview, the ends justify the means.
It’s enough to make one shudder. But this too shall pass.
Andrew Horsman
10 months ago
Imagine what Starmer, and his loyalist band of MPs handpicked specifically for their inability to mount any kind of intellectual or political challenge to their leadership’s diktats, will do if he gets into ostensible power and he’s instructed by the powers that be in Geneva to shut down dissenting opinion online, protest in real life, or otherwise disrespect the basic tenets of liberal democracy in the “public interest” or for the “greater good”? For linear-thinking, unprincipled, ideologues with fragile egos trapped by their own narrow worldview, the ends justify the means.
It’s enough to make one shudder. But this too shall pass.
Desmond Wolf
10 months ago
Which of Corbyn’s policies exactly were ‘bloody?’ Nationalising rail, trying to build proper council houses, reindustrialising Britain through a green new deal? Corbyn may have been as dull as ditchwater, but many transformative and popular ideas flourished under his leadership, despite most of the media’s efforts to brand him as communist or pro-Putin or whatever rubbish they allowed journalists to make up.
Do you include anti-semitism amongst these many transformative and popular ideas? Unless the Hard Left faces up to the strident intolerance and anti-semitism within its ranks, it will always be a turn off for voters.
Well it did – Corbyn apologised many times (despite not really needing to – see link below). Give me one single example in the past 10 years where the Tories have done the same (and boy have they had opportunities to do so). How people can still trot out the old false equivalence ‘all as bad as each other’ these days is beyond me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdoVw2tWb0I&t=259s
Well it did – Corbyn apologised many times (despite not really needing to – see link below). Give me one single example in the past 10 years where the Tories have done the same (and boy have they had opportunities to do so). How people can still trot out the old false equivalence ‘all as bad as each other’ these days is beyond me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdoVw2tWb0I&t=259s
Name one depopulating Labour Green policy that’s more depopulating than the Tories’ cutting of child benefit (and their decisions not to build proper housing, cutting sure start, not showing any interest in redindustrialising Britain and creating jobs people can be proud of and support a family on etc etc)
Really? The ‘Green’ middle class always have ridiculous numbers of children (they consider them to be more valuable than anyone else’s) and want to pay stupid people not to work, so that they will do nothing but breed. Nothing depopulating about that.
Name one depopulating Labour Green policy that’s more depopulating than the Tories’ cutting of child benefit (and their decisions not to build proper housing, cutting sure start, not showing any interest in redindustrialising Britain and creating jobs people can be proud of and support a family on etc etc)
Really? The ‘Green’ middle class always have ridiculous numbers of children (they consider them to be more valuable than anyone else’s) and want to pay stupid people not to work, so that they will do nothing but breed. Nothing depopulating about that.
Well that’s exactly my point – it doesn’t need to be if you’re say proposing battery factories (as Labour were in 2019). Green is more regressive if it’s being implemented by regressive people (e.g. Macron’s fuel tax)..
Well that’s exactly my point – it doesn’t need to be if you’re say proposing battery factories (as Labour were in 2019). Green is more regressive if it’s being implemented by regressive people (e.g. Macron’s fuel tax)..
Not sure I recall successfully helping to bring about a peace agreement counting as bloody, though I do think you could say that the Tories’ selling more than £4.6bn in arms (as well as giving military guidance and diplomatic protection against investigations into war crimes) to Saudi Arabia, who have killed more than 350,000 Yemenis either through direct military attacks or through the famine that has ensued (as a result of the war’s disruption of supply chains) in what the UN has called ‘the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century’ is also bloody? Or not bloody enough for you?
I did reply but it was taken down. You can decide for yourself whether over-sensitive cancel culture is a problem of the left rather than of the right when the comment inevitably reappears sometime tomorrow. And maybe you’ll agree it should have been taken down – some people on here want a purge of left wing writers, why not get rid of left wing accounts? Make that right wing echo chamber pitch perfect.
Not sure I recall successfully helping to bring about a peace agreement counting as bloody, though I do think you could say that the Tories’ selling more than £4.6bn in arms (as well as giving military guidance and diplomatic protection against investigations into war crimes) to Saudi Arabia, who have killed more than 350,000 Yemenis either through direct military attacks or through the famine that has ensued (as a result of the war’s disruption of supply chains) in what the UN has called ‘the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century’ is also bloody? Or not bloody enough for you?
I did reply but it was taken down. You can decide for yourself whether over-sensitive cancel culture is a problem of the left rather than of the right when the comment inevitably reappears sometime tomorrow. And maybe you’ll agree it should have been taken down – some people on here want a purge of left wing writers, why not get rid of left wing accounts? Make that right wing echo chamber pitch perfect.
Desmond,
You seem to be suggesting that Corbyn was the victim of media smears?
He wasn’t.
He was the victim of accurate reporting – which in his case proved FAR more damaging.
I don’t think the British MSM is capable of accurate reporting and whatever you think of Corbyn he most certainly was the victim of defamation. Likened to the Kremlin at every available opportunity. Balanced the Labour Party budget but constantly accused of economic ineptitude. As for anti-Semitism, Corbyn stated (in agreement to the investigation) that there was anti-Semitism in the Labour party. However, he was also right in saying that this was exaggerated, and weaponised by the media in order to further drag his, and other socialists names through the dirt.
Cheers for this. Fighting for a politics of hope isn’t easy on here. I back all this and here is some more:
A graph showing the relative interest shown by the press in the ‘left wing’ BBC’s Panorama documentary making the accusation that Labour was deeply anti-semitic against the interest shown in the Forde Report which discredited many of those claims: https://twitter.com/ta_mills/status/1552032223158755329
And here’s Peter Oborne, former Telegraph writer (until he reisgned over their refusal to cover the HSBC scandal and those of other companies for which they receive money) describing how, in the run-up to the 2019 election, most outlets refused to cover his pieces detailing the lies of Boris Johnson but would allow you to write anything you wanted about Corbyn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsa_sqdYzM&t=310s
Cheers for this. Fighting for a politics of hope isn’t easy on here. I back all this and here is some more:
A graph showing the relative interest shown by the press in the ‘left wing’ BBC’s Panorama documentary making the accusation that Labour was deeply anti-semitic against the interest shown in the Forde Report which discredited many of those claims: https://twitter.com/ta_mills/status/1552032223158755329
And here’s Peter Oborne, former Telegraph writer (until he reisgned over their refusal to cover the HSBC scandal and those of other companies for which they receive money) describing how, in the run-up to the 2019 election, most outlets refused to cover his pieces detailing the lies of Boris Johnson but would allow you to write anything you wanted about Corbyn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsa_sqdYzM&t=310s
I don’t think the British MSM is capable of accurate reporting and whatever you think of Corbyn he most certainly was the victim of defamation. Likened to the Kremlin at every available opportunity. Balanced the Labour Party budget but constantly accused of economic ineptitude. As for anti-Semitism, Corbyn stated (in agreement to the investigation) that there was anti-Semitism in the Labour party. However, he was also right in saying that this was exaggerated, and weaponised by the media in order to further drag his, and other socialists names through the dirt.
I’ll agree, some of Corbyns economic policies were popular, especially the ones you mentioned. However Corbyn himself was deeply unpopular, as were the Momentum group behind him and all their policies around identity politics. If they could have separated the two (and agreed to abide the EU referendum result) they wouldn’t have faced the wipeout they did.
It’s been well documented that the British electorate lean left economically and right socially, however unfortunately both major parties now seem to represent the complete opposite
left economically and right socially, however unfortunately both major parties now seem to represent the complete opposite
Hardly the case when you consider the massive money-printing that went on 2020-2022, price-caps, “windfall” taxes etc. The whole UK shebang is full-on left-wing economically now, more left-wing than at any time since 1979.
Um, the billions spent propping up the railways despite record losses, £37bn on an ineffective track and trace system that furnished the pockets of pals, the privatisation of Royal mail, of our social housing (which now means the taxpayer has to subsidise the ‘earnings’ of landlords because too few houses are being built and too many jobs don’t cover rent) And Liz Truss’ tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the poor? Pretty left wing.
Truss tax cuts that didn’t happen cost nothing compared to the energy price caps she proposed and in fact were back to the same rates of the Blair government.
Truss tax cuts that didn’t happen cost nothing compared to the energy price caps she proposed and in fact were back to the same rates of the Blair government.
Um, the billions spent propping up the railways despite record losses, £37bn on an ineffective track and trace system that furnished the pockets of pals, the privatisation of Royal mail, of our social housing (which now means the taxpayer has to subsidise the ‘earnings’ of landlords because too few houses are being built and too many jobs don’t cover rent) And Liz Truss’ tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the poor? Pretty left wing.
I agree with most of this, and sympathise with many concerns considered socially conservative (family breakdown, secularisation, high immigration etc) – I just don’t understand how so much anger on here is directed at immigrants (who usually, like most of us, are looking for fulfilled lives and enough for them and their families to get by on) rather than the super rich who control most of our media and love setting us against each other while taking more and more of our free time, dignity, civil liberties and even global security away from us while taking over our democracies and essential services by stealth, as Matt Kennard has recently documented: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW5dEtjMb-k&t=1241s
I don’t believe it is aimed at the immigrants themselves. Despite immigration being a very polarising issue there is very little in the way of racist abuse aimed at people if other nationalities. The anger is rightly pointed at those in power for letting in many more people than many believe the country can cope with
I don’t believe it is aimed at the immigrants themselves. Despite immigration being a very polarising issue there is very little in the way of racist abuse aimed at people if other nationalities. The anger is rightly pointed at those in power for letting in many more people than many believe the country can cope with
left economically and right socially, however unfortunately both major parties now seem to represent the complete opposite
Hardly the case when you consider the massive money-printing that went on 2020-2022, price-caps, “windfall” taxes etc. The whole UK shebang is full-on left-wing economically now, more left-wing than at any time since 1979.
I agree with most of this, and sympathise with many concerns considered socially conservative (family breakdown, secularisation, high immigration etc) – I just don’t understand how so much anger on here is directed at immigrants (who usually, like most of us, are looking for fulfilled lives and enough for them and their families to get by on) rather than the super rich who control most of our media and love setting us against each other while taking more and more of our free time, dignity, civil liberties and even global security away from us while taking over our democracies and essential services by stealth, as Matt Kennard has recently documented: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW5dEtjMb-k&t=1241s
Do you include anti-semitism amongst these many transformative and popular ideas? Unless the Hard Left faces up to the strident intolerance and anti-semitism within its ranks, it will always be a turn off for voters.
Desmond,
You seem to be suggesting that Corbyn was the victim of media smears?
He wasn’t.
He was the victim of accurate reporting – which in his case proved FAR more damaging.
I’ll agree, some of Corbyns economic policies were popular, especially the ones you mentioned. However Corbyn himself was deeply unpopular, as were the Momentum group behind him and all their policies around identity politics. If they could have separated the two (and agreed to abide the EU referendum result) they wouldn’t have faced the wipeout they did.
It’s been well documented that the British electorate lean left economically and right socially, however unfortunately both major parties now seem to represent the complete opposite
Desmond Wolf
10 months ago
Which of Corbyn’s policies exactly were ‘bloody?’ Nationalising rail, trying to build proper council houses, reindustrialising Britain through a green new deal? Corbyn may have been as dull as ditchwater, but many transformative and popular ideas flourished under his leadership, despite most of the media’s efforts to brand him as communist or pro-Putin or whatever rubbish they allowed journalists to make up.
Stephen Walsh
10 months ago
The hard left brought Labour to its lowest point – not only the catastrophic election defeat in 2019 (their worst since 1935), but, incredibly given it’s proud history in that regard, awash with antisemitism. At least in 1935 Labour was advancing: in 2019 they were still rapidly regressing after nearly a decade in opposition. Jamie Driscoll is typical of the breed. He won the North of Tyne Mayoral election with just 34% of the first preference vote in a 32% turnout – worse even than Labour’s disastrous general election performance in the region in that year’s general election. On his first day in office he declared a “climate emergency”, but for thee and not for me, as he drove a Land Rover to work. His wife is an NHS doctor and his children go to private schools, so his financial perspective is very different to most of his constituents. This frees Driscoll up to spend time on his “anti-fascist” campaigning activities. Save your tears: these people could not be more different from patriots like Nye Bevan, Barbara Castle or Michael Foot.
And yet Corbyn received 40% of the vote and a larger number of votes in 2019 than Labour received in 2005, 2010 and 2015. There is clearly a fairly large amount of support for those sort of policies.
In circumstances where a labour victory should have been a shoe-in after the tragi-comic farce that has been the government of the last 12 years. Corbyn, the man, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
In circumstances where a labour victory should have been a shoe-in after the tragi-comic farce that has been the government of the last 12 years. Corbyn, the man, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
And yet Corbyn received 40% of the vote and a larger number of votes in 2019 than Labour received in 2005, 2010 and 2015. There is clearly a fairly large amount of support for those sort of policies.
Absolutely. He should be sacked for his obsession with identity politics and ‘the climate emergency’ alone.
Stephen Walsh
10 months ago
The hard left brought Labour to its lowest point – not only the catastrophic election defeat in 2019 (their worst since 1935), but, incredibly given it’s proud history in that regard, awash with antisemitism. At least in 1935 Labour was advancing: in 2019 they were still rapidly regressing after nearly a decade in opposition. Jamie Driscoll is typical of the breed. He won the North of Tyne Mayoral election with just 34% of the first preference vote in a 32% turnout – worse even than Labour’s disastrous general election performance in the region in that year’s general election. On his first day in office he declared a “climate emergency”, but for thee and not for me, as he drove a Land Rover to work. His wife is an NHS doctor and his children go to private schools, so his financial perspective is very different to most of his constituents. This frees Driscoll up to spend time on his “anti-fascist” campaigning activities. Save your tears: these people could not be more different from patriots like Nye Bevan, Barbara Castle or Michael Foot.
Last edited 10 months ago by Stephen Walsh
Marcus Leach
10 months ago
I would like to see the far-Left and “Progressives” purged from society in general to end the cycle of their ruinous ideas and policies being inflicted on society
Much as I despise him, Starmer is doing exactly the right thing politically. A political party that puts itself forward as a future government cannot consist of constantly warring factions. Crick’s point about the far-Left returning to enact reprisals is weak. The far-Left only found their way back in to Labour because of a foolish mistake in changing how leaders are elected.That won’t happen again.
But, once in power, I expect Starmer to quickly rediscover his far-Left instincts. His whole political history up until reletively recently has been an especially noxious combination of “Progressivism” and traditional far-Left ideology
Starmer will do what Socialist always do. They promise everyone free this and free that, turn on the spending taps and everyone thinks isn’t this wonderful. Then the taxes rise, the wealthy leave the country and the total tax take begins to precipitously fall. The government borrows more and more leading to inflation and eventually higher interest rates. Borrowing costs escalate until no one is willing to lend. The economy collapses and all the wonderful free stuff disappears and people find themselves eating rat soup.
. The perversity of the present polling indicating a large lead for Labour, is that the country is in the economic and social mess it’s in because the Tories have pursued policies that are combination of New Labour and Corbynism, The electorate, apparenty, is going to vote in a government under Starmer that is not only going to do more of the same, it is going to double down on it. It can only be a complete disaster.
The country is in the mess it is in because the central focus of the economic policy of both parties for the past thirty years has been to keep the middle class on side by mouthing progressive platitudes whilst artificially inflating house prices.
Starmer will continue with this and the mess will get worse.
You are partly right.
New Labour intentionally let house prices get out of control (the average house price doubled during their 13 years in power) in order to create a feeling of false economic prosperity that created a few good years of economic growth.
New Labour didn’t do this to keep the middle class happy, but to legitimise massive increased spending. The 3-4% gdp growth had petered out by 2000 but Labour kept increasing spending until annual government spending had increaed from 35% of GDP to 46%.
Then came the 2008 crash and, instead of allowing a the economy the go in to recession and to clear the asset bubbles, Brown kept them pumped with QE and rock bottom interest rates and still kept increasing spending,
The Toeies took over and after a few year of perfunctory “austerity” carried on where New Labour and Brown left off; house prices were allowed to continue to spiral and the “emergency” monetary policy carried on for another 12 years. The Tories also kept Labour’s superficially GDP boosting mass immigration policy.
It is probably the case that New Labour and the Tories had different reasons for their reckless asset bubble pumping and mass immigration. For Labour it was so they could keep on spending. The Tories just did it to keep the spending going so they could retain power and use it to enrich themselves, their donors and the rest of their friends.
Either way it the desire to continue with socialist spending and fiscal imprudence that was at the heart of the disastrouos policies that has delived the economic mess we are now dealing with.
You are partly right.
New Labour intentionally let house prices get out of control (the average house price doubled during their 13 years in power) in order to create a feeling of false economic prosperity that created a few good years of economic growth.
New Labour didn’t do this to keep the middle class happy, but to legitimise massive increased spending. The 3-4% gdp growth had petered out by 2000 but Labour kept increasing spending until annual government spending had increaed from 35% of GDP to 46%.
Then came the 2008 crash and, instead of allowing a the economy the go in to recession and to clear the asset bubbles, Brown kept them pumped with QE and rock bottom interest rates and still kept increasing spending,
The Toeies took over and after a few year of perfunctory “austerity” carried on where New Labour and Brown left off; house prices were allowed to continue to spiral and the “emergency” monetary policy carried on for another 12 years. The Tories also kept Labour’s superficially GDP boosting mass immigration policy.
It is probably the case that New Labour and the Tories had different reasons for their reckless asset bubble pumping and mass immigration. For Labour it was so they could keep on spending. The Tories just did it to keep the spending going so they could retain power and use it to enrich themselves, their donors and the rest of their friends.
Either way it the desire to continue with socialist spending and fiscal imprudence that was at the heart of the disastrouos policies that has delived the economic mess we are now dealing with.
The country is in the mess it is in because the central focus of the economic policy of both parties for the past thirty years has been to keep the middle class on side by mouthing progressive platitudes whilst artificially inflating house prices.
Starmer will continue with this and the mess will get worse.
Marcus Leach
10 months ago
I would like to see the far-Left and “Progressives” purged from society in general to end the cycle of their ruinous ideas and policies being inflicted on society
Much as I despise him, Starmer is doing exactly the right thing politically. A political party that puts itself forward as a future government cannot consist of constantly warring factions. Crick’s point about the far-Left returning to enact reprisals is weak. The far-Left only found their way back in to Labour because of a foolish mistake in changing how leaders are elected.That won’t happen again.
But, once in power, I expect Starmer to quickly rediscover his far-Left instincts. His whole political history up until reletively recently has been an especially noxious combination of “Progressivism” and traditional far-Left ideology
Starmer will do what Socialist always do. They promise everyone free this and free that, turn on the spending taps and everyone thinks isn’t this wonderful. Then the taxes rise, the wealthy leave the country and the total tax take begins to precipitously fall. The government borrows more and more leading to inflation and eventually higher interest rates. Borrowing costs escalate until no one is willing to lend. The economy collapses and all the wonderful free stuff disappears and people find themselves eating rat soup.
. The perversity of the present polling indicating a large lead for Labour, is that the country is in the economic and social mess it’s in because the Tories have pursued policies that are combination of New Labour and Corbynism, The electorate, apparenty, is going to vote in a government under Starmer that is not only going to do more of the same, it is going to double down on it. It can only be a complete disaster.
Last edited 10 months ago by Marcus Leach
Simon Blanchard
10 months ago
This why we need PR. “Hard” left wingers could form their own party and have their popular support reflected fairly. As could Tice and Farage. Starmer understands too well that under FPTP people like Diane Abbott represent a vulnerability too easily exploited by the enemy.
Yes and we’re pretty well the only country in Europe (apart from Belarus) which uses first past the post. Although I think it was Christopher Hitchens who defended it by saying ‘there’s something in the British temper that likes a clear winner.’
Neither Germany nor France use PR. Yes it’s not immediately FPTP but say in France it ends up being that. Germany has a way of trying to balance up votes to make the overall vote more representative but it’s not PR.
Germany’s top-up-from-party-list system is widely considered to be a form of PR for elections to the Bundestag. The only respect in which it is not totally PR is that parties with less than 5% of the vote are excluded (unless they win a smattering of FPTP consituencies outright).
Ok it’s a sort of PR but not really what people generally think of as PR. Yes I agree it seeks to balance or voting results more evenly but what you really have is a combination – FPTP first then a bit of PR tacked on. That’s not what the UK voted on when given the option- maybe they should have been. If you want real PR look at Ireland – only takes about 5 days to work out who has won.
Ok it’s a sort of PR but not really what people generally think of as PR. Yes I agree it seeks to balance or voting results more evenly but what you really have is a combination – FPTP first then a bit of PR tacked on. That’s not what the UK voted on when given the option- maybe they should have been. If you want real PR look at Ireland – only takes about 5 days to work out who has won.
Germany’s top-up-from-party-list system is widely considered to be a form of PR for elections to the Bundestag. The only respect in which it is not totally PR is that parties with less than 5% of the vote are excluded (unless they win a smattering of FPTP consituencies outright).
Spain does have a version of PR but also has FPTP. It uses closed lists ie you don’t get to vote for a candidate just a party. I don’t think that’s the answer either. Think you need to do some research before comparing the UK to Belarus
Neither Germany nor France use PR. Yes it’s not immediately FPTP but say in France it ends up being that. Germany has a way of trying to balance up votes to make the overall vote more representative but it’s not PR.
Spain does have a version of PR but also has FPTP. It uses closed lists ie you don’t get to vote for a candidate just a party. I don’t think that’s the answer either. Think you need to do some research before comparing the UK to Belarus
PR is all very well, until the point where ‘X’ number of years of cosy consensus (such as Germany) leads to an outlier suddenly knocking over the entire applecart. AfD’s day, I suspect, is yet to come.
Yes and we’re pretty well the only country in Europe (apart from Belarus) which uses first past the post. Although I think it was Christopher Hitchens who defended it by saying ‘there’s something in the British temper that likes a clear winner.’
PR is all very well, until the point where ‘X’ number of years of cosy consensus (such as Germany) leads to an outlier suddenly knocking over the entire applecart. AfD’s day, I suspect, is yet to come.
What we really need is de-centralisation on the Swiss model. PR will just hand more power to the Oxbridge mafia that effectively runs this country.
Simon Blanchard
10 months ago
This why we need PR. “Hard” left wingers could form their own party and have their popular support reflected fairly. As could Tice and Farage. Starmer understands too well that under FPTP people like Diane Abbott represent a vulnerability too easily exploited by the enemy.
David Lindsay
10 months ago
Jamie Driscoll is going to win. Everyone up here knows it. Kim McGuinness has adopted the novel election-winning strategy of going into purdah. It will be a preferential voting system for Mayor. If Jamie did not win on the first round, then he would win on the second. Keir Starmer’s Labour Party is going to be humiliated from the left, a few months before the General Election. Let’s keep up that momentum. All the way to a hung Parliament.
David Lindsay
10 months ago
Jamie Driscoll is going to win. Everyone up here knows it. Kim McGuinness has adopted the novel election-winning strategy of going into purdah. It will be a preferential voting system for Mayor. If Jamie did not win on the first round, then he would win on the second. Keir Starmer’s Labour Party is going to be humiliated from the left, a few months before the General Election. Let’s keep up that momentum. All the way to a hung Parliament.
Walter Marvell
10 months ago
Oh please. Stop trying to convince us that day to day party politics actually matters. We have just seen the Fool Boris purged from Parliament for attending the leaving drinks of civil servants in the HQ of Covid policy. I loath the lockdown man. But Partygate is the most sinister BBC/media-promoted hysteria/lie/scandal since the same reptilian Remainiacs tried to shit on a democratic referendum and the monstrous lockdown catastrophe that unites all of them – political parties NHS Blob – in utter shame. The permanent Leftist New Order – in Parliament and beyond in the Technocracy – is flexing its muscles now and debasing all our potemkim fake democratic institutions for all to see. Its so so ugly. But they dont care. They are untouchable, hardwired into law culture and the architecture of governance. Wake up.
Walter Marvell
10 months ago
Oh please. Stop trying to convince us that day to day party politics actually matters. We have just seen the Fool Boris purged from Parliament for attending the leaving drinks of civil servants in the HQ of Covid policy. I loath the lockdown man. But Partygate is the most sinister BBC/media-promoted hysteria/lie/scandal since the same reptilian Remainiacs tried to shit on a democratic referendum and the monstrous lockdown catastrophe that unites all of them – political parties NHS Blob – in utter shame. The permanent Leftist New Order – in Parliament and beyond in the Technocracy – is flexing its muscles now and debasing all our potemkim fake democratic institutions for all to see. Its so so ugly. But they dont care. They are untouchable, hardwired into law culture and the architecture of governance. Wake up.
Caroline Watson
10 months ago
Jamie Driscoll is a sanctimonious virtue signaller who has drawn a huge salary and done absolutely nothing for the North East. The grants that he says he obtained were from a pot of legacy EU regional money and were administered by Tory-controlled Northumberland County Council. We would have had that money anyway.
Most people up here would like to abolish the Mayor role in its entirety. It is particularly pointless for rural areas as, in its new incarnation, its incumbent will spend most of his or her time trying to appease councillors from Gateshead and Sunderland over the dominance of Newcastle. It will undermine the autonomy of county councils and, in Northumberland’s case, will insert place people as officers to push a Labour identity politics agenda that people here do not want. Northumberland County Council is still being investigated over the corruption of its former Chief Executive and other Labour place-people. This involved the CEO paying herself an additional salary and investing council tax payers’ money in a private company and spending it in the Middle East. This is not a bizarre conspiracy theory – it is recorded.
Labour politics in the North East has been corrupt for decades. We need less local government, not more.
Caroline Watson
10 months ago
Jamie Driscoll is a sanctimonious virtue signaller who has drawn a huge salary and done absolutely nothing for the North East. The grants that he says he obtained were from a pot of legacy EU regional money and were administered by Tory-controlled Northumberland County Council. We would have had that money anyway.
Most people up here would like to abolish the Mayor role in its entirety. It is particularly pointless for rural areas as, in its new incarnation, its incumbent will spend most of his or her time trying to appease councillors from Gateshead and Sunderland over the dominance of Newcastle. It will undermine the autonomy of county councils and, in Northumberland’s case, will insert place people as officers to push a Labour identity politics agenda that people here do not want. Northumberland County Council is still being investigated over the corruption of its former Chief Executive and other Labour place-people. This involved the CEO paying herself an additional salary and investing council tax payers’ money in a private company and spending it in the Middle East. This is not a bizarre conspiracy theory – it is recorded.
Labour politics in the North East has been corrupt for decades. We need less local government, not more.
Simon Neale
10 months ago
Consider the Corbynite group Momentum, which has refocused its work on issues such as climate change and getting people elected to local government councils.
Blimey, a cynic might conclude that they don’t care why they have power, so long as they have it.
Simon Neale
10 months ago
Consider the Corbynite group Momentum, which has refocused its work on issues such as climate change and getting people elected to local government councils.
Blimey, a cynic might conclude that they don’t care why they have power, so long as they have it.
Bret Larson
10 months ago
We just had an election in Alberta. The “left candidate”, Notley, wore blue to the debate and tried to come off as a conservative. Her chief of staff last time round was a Marxist Leninist.
It didnt quite work out for them. They won most of the metro seats and lost all the rural seats as their policies are the usual majoritarian CO2 taxes, “but well give it all back to you in UBI”.
Saving the planet and buying the vote one city block at a time.
Bret Larson
10 months ago
We just had an election in Alberta. The “left candidate”, Notley, wore blue to the debate and tried to come off as a conservative. Her chief of staff last time round was a Marxist Leninist.
It didnt quite work out for them. They won most of the metro seats and lost all the rural seats as their policies are the usual majoritarian CO2 taxes, “but well give it all back to you in UBI”.
Saving the planet and buying the vote one city block at a time.
Dominic A
10 months ago
The far left and the far right should be put in a padded play area adjacent to the House of Commons.
The far left and the far right should be put in a padded play area adjacent to the House of Commons.
Peter Kettle
10 months ago
Starmer is a frightful prospect; a rigid green policy for absurd wind farms, votes for 16 year olds, and a decayed Marxist philosophy that I do not trust. He would destroy business and probably let Corbynistas back in.
N Satori
10 months ago
I rather wish that UnHerd would purge the Left from among its contributing journalists. Michael Crick for instance – founder of Channel 4 News and a later BBC stalwart whose regular Newsnight reports could be relied on to sneer at all things conservative.
The political infighting may provide stimulating drama for veteran political reporters and their avid readers…
Like mafia factions engaged in a perpetual t*t-for-tat vendetta, the Labour Right and Left closely observe each other’s tactics, then adopt them, with ever more draconian reprisals. If and when the Labour Left returns, it will be with a great sense of vengeance — and Labour’s politics will get more bloody than ever.
… but many of us are more concerned about the effect these factions will have on our lives rather than on each other.
Last edited 10 months ago by N Satori
N Satori
10 months ago
I rather wish that UnHerd would purge the Left from among its contributing journalists. Michael Crick for instance – founder of Channel 4 News and a later BBC stalwart whose regular Newsnight reports could be relied on to sneer at all things conservative.
The political infighting may provide stimulating drama for veteran political reporters and their avid readers…
Like mafia factions engaged in a perpetual t*t-for-tat vendetta, the Labour Right and Left closely observe each other’s tactics, then adopt them, with ever more draconian reprisals. If and when the Labour Left returns, it will be with a great sense of vengeance — and Labour’s politics will get more bloody than ever.
… but many of us are more concerned about the effect these factions will have on our lives rather than on each other.
The Tories seem to have adopted a similar, if covert, operation to exclude any actual Tories from the Parliamentary party.
Cameron’s dalliance with the Lib Dems obviously rubbed off on him – he ended up selecting a boatload of them for Parliament.
Which is why the Crown Prosecution Service has decided to charge Colonel Bob Stewart*, DSO, MP, with two offences under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, 1986, including ‘racially aggravated abuse’!
Is this really in the Public interest? Or is it just more grovelling to BLM nonsense?
However, and quite astonishingly, this pernicious legislation was brought in by the late Lady Thatcher, rather indicating that the so called Tory Party has been a giant fraud for sometime now.
(* “ Bonking Bob Stewart” of Bosnian War fame as the press dubbed him at the time.)
One can only wonder what might have happened if Boris had had the patience and discipline to rid his party of more than a handful of Remainers.
Cameron’s dalliance with the Lib Dems obviously rubbed off on him – he ended up selecting a boatload of them for Parliament.
Which is why the Crown Prosecution Service has decided to charge Colonel Bob Stewart*, DSO, MP, with two offences under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, 1986, including ‘racially aggravated abuse’!
Is this really in the Public interest? Or is it just more grovelling to BLM nonsense?
However, and quite astonishingly, this pernicious legislation was brought in by the late Lady Thatcher, rather indicating that the so called Tory Party has been a giant fraud for sometime now.
(* “ Bonking Bob Stewart” of Bosnian War fame as the press dubbed him at the time.)
One can only wonder what might have happened if Boris had had the patience and discipline to rid his party of more than a handful of Remainers.
The Tories seem to have adopted a similar, if covert, operation to exclude any actual Tories from the Parliamentary party.
Corbynites regularly warn Starmer that “Winning without the Left is not winning at all.”
Yet they never seem to understand that “With the Left, there’s no winning at all.”
For a long time Labour has needed to split into three parties. One can retain the leftist ideological purity beloved of Corbynites – and have so few MPs they can hold meetings in Jeremy’s allotment shed. The second can dance in the streets and celebrate winning seats like Putney, whilst looking down their noses at all those ghastly Brexity untermensch “Red Wall” voters. …. And then there can be a third party, perhaps they could be called,…. oh I don’t know, The Labour Party?….. who can ditch the identity-politics and the ahistorical anti-British stance on everything and maybe try to champion the needs of traditional Labour supporters.
In other words the Labour Party of Attlee, Bevin and Dalton, and NOT Bevan, Laski, and Miliband.
Attlee and Bevin were tough, patriotic and practical; everything the middle class Left is not. Attlee’s favourite historian was A Bryant and Churchill described Bevin as the working class John Bull.
Attlee and Bevin were tough, patriotic and practical; everything the middle class Left is not. Attlee’s favourite historian was A Bryant and Churchill described Bevin as the working class John Bull.
The Hard Left, the Herd Left, and the Heart Left?
If this article carried any weight then Corbyn would have won the election. But it seems that the electorate disagree with Mr Crick. While we still live in a democracy it’s the only opinion that matters.
In other words the Labour Party of Attlee, Bevin and Dalton, and NOT Bevan, Laski, and Miliband.
The Hard Left, the Herd Left, and the Heart Left?
If this article carried any weight then Corbyn would have won the election. But it seems that the electorate disagree with Mr Crick. While we still live in a democracy it’s the only opinion that matters.
Corbynites regularly warn Starmer that “Winning without the Left is not winning at all.”
Yet they never seem to understand that “With the Left, there’s no winning at all.”
For a long time Labour has needed to split into three parties. One can retain the leftist ideological purity beloved of Corbynites – and have so few MPs they can hold meetings in Jeremy’s allotment shed. The second can dance in the streets and celebrate winning seats like Putney, whilst looking down their noses at all those ghastly Brexity untermensch “Red Wall” voters. …. And then there can be a third party, perhaps they could be called,…. oh I don’t know, The Labour Party?….. who can ditch the identity-politics and the ahistorical anti-British stance on everything and maybe try to champion the needs of traditional Labour supporters.
Starmer may well be purging Corbynistas and other ‘too left wing’ suspects, but he’s also made life very difficult for women who believe in the reality of biological sex and in doing so would like to protect the dignity and integrity of women and girls.
The Labour Women’s Declaration was refused a stall at last year’s conference, and Rosie Duffield had to be accompanied by security to attend. Not one word of support for her from Starmer. Gender Self Id seems to be the one Corbynista pledge he’s still committed to. What a bizarre world we live in.
Indeed. There’s been quite a few Unherd articles about Starmer’s stance on gender self-ID. Those who take note of these things will likely vote accordingly (or abstain) but i’m not sure that’d be in sufficient numbers to dent his chances of success at the next election.
If he were to be severely embarrassed about this during the course of an election interview that might make a difference, just as it did for Gordon Brown when he was embarrassed by calling an elderly northern woman a “bigot” when he thought the microphone was switched off in 2010.
This is the main thing that still puts me off Labour (leaving aside the vacuum where policy should be for a moment). It is very suspicious that despite the apparent purge of the lunatic fringe he still seems frightened of answering the extraordinarily simple question: what is a woman? Identity politics is revolting and it’s still at work in Labour. The incidents with Rupa Huq and Diane Abbott are fine examples of it’s prevelance and no party wedded to those ideas can have my vote.
Absolutely. And he has made no attempt to purge blatant misogynists like Lloyd Russell Moyle.
Indeed. There’s been quite a few Unherd articles about Starmer’s stance on gender self-ID. Those who take note of these things will likely vote accordingly (or abstain) but i’m not sure that’d be in sufficient numbers to dent his chances of success at the next election.
If he were to be severely embarrassed about this during the course of an election interview that might make a difference, just as it did for Gordon Brown when he was embarrassed by calling an elderly northern woman a “bigot” when he thought the microphone was switched off in 2010.
This is the main thing that still puts me off Labour (leaving aside the vacuum where policy should be for a moment). It is very suspicious that despite the apparent purge of the lunatic fringe he still seems frightened of answering the extraordinarily simple question: what is a woman? Identity politics is revolting and it’s still at work in Labour. The incidents with Rupa Huq and Diane Abbott are fine examples of it’s prevelance and no party wedded to those ideas can have my vote.
Absolutely. And he has made no attempt to purge blatant misogynists like Lloyd Russell Moyle.
Starmer may well be purging Corbynistas and other ‘too left wing’ suspects, but he’s also made life very difficult for women who believe in the reality of biological sex and in doing so would like to protect the dignity and integrity of women and girls.
The Labour Women’s Declaration was refused a stall at last year’s conference, and Rosie Duffield had to be accompanied by security to attend. Not one word of support for her from Starmer. Gender Self Id seems to be the one Corbynista pledge he’s still committed to. What a bizarre world we live in.
An interesting article by a writer on top of his game, but has MC considered this? As we’ve seen over the past few years, it doesn’t really matter which party (or how radical it is) wins an election; the *real* power lies with the civil service. They triage, consider and then approve / boycott policies depending on their own political convictions (Brexit, Rwanda, etc).
This is where Starmer has a baked-in advantage; the civil service is overwhelmingly centre-left. For the vast majority of his policies, a Starmer administration will be kicking at an open door.
He’s probably already discussed this with that utterly impartial avatar of civil service professionalism, Sue Gray. Starmer might not have any scruples, but he does have a plan.
My point being getting compliant MPs on board is important, of course (although I do wonder if this is Labour muscle-memory, as infighting is in the nature of the beast). But, equally important, is the battle Starmer has won by default – His Majesty’s Government’s civil service.
An interesting article by a writer on top of his game, but has MC considered this? As we’ve seen over the past few years, it doesn’t really matter which party (or how radical it is) wins an election; the *real* power lies with the civil service. They triage, consider and then approve / boycott policies depending on their own political convictions (Brexit, Rwanda, etc).
This is where Starmer has a baked-in advantage; the civil service is overwhelmingly centre-left. For the vast majority of his policies, a Starmer administration will be kicking at an open door.
He’s probably already discussed this with that utterly impartial avatar of civil service professionalism, Sue Gray. Starmer might not have any scruples, but he does have a plan.
My point being getting compliant MPs on board is important, of course (although I do wonder if this is Labour muscle-memory, as infighting is in the nature of the beast). But, equally important, is the battle Starmer has won by default – His Majesty’s Government’s civil service.
What else can he do? He has to win middle class votes to get into No 10. In order to do that he has to become a Tory. Just like Tony Blair.
Once in office he will pursue neo-liberal policies that would make Margaret Thatcher blush. Just like Tony Blair.
The man is a careerist fraud and cannot be trusted to hold a principled position for longer than it takes the media to criticise it. Just like Tony Blair.
So long as we have a middle class intelligentsia which thinks its behaviour doesn’t matter so long as it has the right opinions we’ll keep getting politicians just like Tony Blair.
What else can he do? He has to win middle class votes to get into No 10. In order to do that he has to become a Tory. Just like Tony Blair.
Once in office he will pursue neo-liberal policies that would make Margaret Thatcher blush. Just like Tony Blair.
The man is a careerist fraud and cannot be trusted to hold a principled position for longer than it takes the media to criticise it. Just like Tony Blair.
So long as we have a middle class intelligentsia which thinks its behaviour doesn’t matter so long as it has the right opinions we’ll keep getting politicians just like Tony Blair.
Imagine what Starmer, and his loyalist band of MPs handpicked specifically for their inability to mount any kind of intellectual or political challenge to their leadership’s diktats, will do if he gets into ostensible power and he’s instructed by the powers that be in Geneva to shut down dissenting opinion online, protest in real life, or otherwise disrespect the basic tenets of liberal democracy in the “public interest” or for the “greater good”? For linear-thinking, unprincipled, ideologues with fragile egos trapped by their own narrow worldview, the ends justify the means.
It’s enough to make one shudder. But this too shall pass.
Imagine what Starmer, and his loyalist band of MPs handpicked specifically for their inability to mount any kind of intellectual or political challenge to their leadership’s diktats, will do if he gets into ostensible power and he’s instructed by the powers that be in Geneva to shut down dissenting opinion online, protest in real life, or otherwise disrespect the basic tenets of liberal democracy in the “public interest” or for the “greater good”? For linear-thinking, unprincipled, ideologues with fragile egos trapped by their own narrow worldview, the ends justify the means.
It’s enough to make one shudder. But this too shall pass.
Which of Corbyn’s policies exactly were ‘bloody?’ Nationalising rail, trying to build proper council houses, reindustrialising Britain through a green new deal? Corbyn may have been as dull as ditchwater, but many transformative and popular ideas flourished under his leadership, despite most of the media’s efforts to brand him as communist or pro-Putin or whatever rubbish they allowed journalists to make up.
Do you include anti-semitism amongst these many transformative and popular ideas? Unless the Hard Left faces up to the strident intolerance and anti-semitism within its ranks, it will always be a turn off for voters.
Well it did – Corbyn apologised many times (despite not really needing to – see link below). Give me one single example in the past 10 years where the Tories have done the same (and boy have they had opportunities to do so). How people can still trot out the old false equivalence ‘all as bad as each other’ these days is beyond me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdoVw2tWb0I&t=259s
Well it did – Corbyn apologised many times (despite not really needing to – see link below). Give me one single example in the past 10 years where the Tories have done the same (and boy have they had opportunities to do so). How people can still trot out the old false equivalence ‘all as bad as each other’ these days is beyond me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdoVw2tWb0I&t=259s
Green policies are about de-industrialising.
And depopulating.
Name one depopulating Labour Green policy that’s more depopulating than the Tories’ cutting of child benefit (and their decisions not to build proper housing, cutting sure start, not showing any interest in redindustrialising Britain and creating jobs people can be proud of and support a family on etc etc)
Really? The ‘Green’ middle class always have ridiculous numbers of children (they consider them to be more valuable than anyone else’s) and want to pay stupid people not to work, so that they will do nothing but breed. Nothing depopulating about that.
Name one depopulating Labour Green policy that’s more depopulating than the Tories’ cutting of child benefit (and their decisions not to build proper housing, cutting sure start, not showing any interest in redindustrialising Britain and creating jobs people can be proud of and support a family on etc etc)
Really? The ‘Green’ middle class always have ridiculous numbers of children (they consider them to be more valuable than anyone else’s) and want to pay stupid people not to work, so that they will do nothing but breed. Nothing depopulating about that.
Well that’s exactly my point – it doesn’t need to be if you’re say proposing battery factories (as Labour were in 2019). Green is more regressive if it’s being implemented by regressive people (e.g. Macron’s fuel tax)..
And depopulating.
Well that’s exactly my point – it doesn’t need to be if you’re say proposing battery factories (as Labour were in 2019). Green is more regressive if it’s being implemented by regressive people (e.g. Macron’s fuel tax)..
Was Corbyn’s tacit support of the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah not ‘bloody’ enough for you?
Obviously not.
Not sure I recall successfully helping to bring about a peace agreement counting as bloody, though I do think you could say that the Tories’ selling more than £4.6bn in arms (as well as giving military guidance and diplomatic protection against investigations into war crimes) to Saudi Arabia, who have killed more than 350,000 Yemenis either through direct military attacks or through the famine that has ensued (as a result of the war’s disruption of supply chains) in what the UN has called ‘the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century’ is also bloody? Or not bloody enough for you?
I did reply but it was taken down. You can decide for yourself whether over-sensitive cancel culture is a problem of the left rather than of the right when the comment inevitably reappears sometime tomorrow. And maybe you’ll agree it should have been taken down – some people on here want a purge of left wing writers, why not get rid of left wing accounts? Make that right wing echo chamber pitch perfect.
Obviously not.
Not sure I recall successfully helping to bring about a peace agreement counting as bloody, though I do think you could say that the Tories’ selling more than £4.6bn in arms (as well as giving military guidance and diplomatic protection against investigations into war crimes) to Saudi Arabia, who have killed more than 350,000 Yemenis either through direct military attacks or through the famine that has ensued (as a result of the war’s disruption of supply chains) in what the UN has called ‘the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century’ is also bloody? Or not bloody enough for you?
I did reply but it was taken down. You can decide for yourself whether over-sensitive cancel culture is a problem of the left rather than of the right when the comment inevitably reappears sometime tomorrow. And maybe you’ll agree it should have been taken down – some people on here want a purge of left wing writers, why not get rid of left wing accounts? Make that right wing echo chamber pitch perfect.
Desmond,
You seem to be suggesting that Corbyn was the victim of media smears?
He wasn’t.
He was the victim of accurate reporting – which in his case proved FAR more damaging.
Head in sand?
He wasn’t a “victim” if it was accurate reporting (and I agree with you on that).
I don’t think the British MSM is capable of accurate reporting and whatever you think of Corbyn he most certainly was the victim of defamation. Likened to the Kremlin at every available opportunity. Balanced the Labour Party budget but constantly accused of economic ineptitude. As for anti-Semitism, Corbyn stated (in agreement to the investigation) that there was anti-Semitism in the Labour party. However, he was also right in saying that this was exaggerated, and weaponised by the media in order to further drag his, and other socialists names through the dirt.
Accurate reporting? I think not.
Cheers for this. Fighting for a politics of hope isn’t easy on here. I back all this and here is some more:
A graph showing the relative interest shown by the press in the ‘left wing’ BBC’s Panorama documentary making the accusation that Labour was deeply anti-semitic against the interest shown in the Forde Report which discredited many of those claims:
https://twitter.com/ta_mills/status/1552032223158755329
And here’s Peter Oborne, former Telegraph writer (until he reisgned over their refusal to cover the HSBC scandal and those of other companies for which they receive money) describing how, in the run-up to the 2019 election, most outlets refused to cover his pieces detailing the lies of Boris Johnson but would allow you to write anything you wanted about Corbyn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsa_sqdYzM&t=310s
Cheers for this. Fighting for a politics of hope isn’t easy on here. I back all this and here is some more:
A graph showing the relative interest shown by the press in the ‘left wing’ BBC’s Panorama documentary making the accusation that Labour was deeply anti-semitic against the interest shown in the Forde Report which discredited many of those claims:
https://twitter.com/ta_mills/status/1552032223158755329
And here’s Peter Oborne, former Telegraph writer (until he reisgned over their refusal to cover the HSBC scandal and those of other companies for which they receive money) describing how, in the run-up to the 2019 election, most outlets refused to cover his pieces detailing the lies of Boris Johnson but would allow you to write anything you wanted about Corbyn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsa_sqdYzM&t=310s
Not so – see my comments below.
Head in sand?
He wasn’t a “victim” if it was accurate reporting (and I agree with you on that).
I don’t think the British MSM is capable of accurate reporting and whatever you think of Corbyn he most certainly was the victim of defamation. Likened to the Kremlin at every available opportunity. Balanced the Labour Party budget but constantly accused of economic ineptitude. As for anti-Semitism, Corbyn stated (in agreement to the investigation) that there was anti-Semitism in the Labour party. However, he was also right in saying that this was exaggerated, and weaponised by the media in order to further drag his, and other socialists names through the dirt.
Accurate reporting? I think not.
Not so – see my comments below.
I’ll agree, some of Corbyns economic policies were popular, especially the ones you mentioned. However Corbyn himself was deeply unpopular, as were the Momentum group behind him and all their policies around identity politics. If they could have separated the two (and agreed to abide the EU referendum result) they wouldn’t have faced the wipeout they did.
It’s been well documented that the British electorate lean left economically and right socially, however unfortunately both major parties now seem to represent the complete opposite
Hardly the case when you consider the massive money-printing that went on 2020-2022, price-caps, “windfall” taxes etc. The whole UK shebang is full-on left-wing economically now, more left-wing than at any time since 1979.
Um, the billions spent propping up the railways despite record losses, £37bn on an ineffective track and trace system that furnished the pockets of pals, the privatisation of Royal mail, of our social housing (which now means the taxpayer has to subsidise the ‘earnings’ of landlords because too few houses are being built and too many jobs don’t cover rent) And Liz Truss’ tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the poor? Pretty left wing.
Truss tax cuts that didn’t happen cost nothing compared to the energy price caps she proposed and in fact were back to the same rates of the Blair government.
Truss tax cuts that didn’t happen cost nothing compared to the energy price caps she proposed and in fact were back to the same rates of the Blair government.
Um, the billions spent propping up the railways despite record losses, £37bn on an ineffective track and trace system that furnished the pockets of pals, the privatisation of Royal mail, of our social housing (which now means the taxpayer has to subsidise the ‘earnings’ of landlords because too few houses are being built and too many jobs don’t cover rent) And Liz Truss’ tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the poor? Pretty left wing.
I agree with most of this, and sympathise with many concerns considered socially conservative (family breakdown, secularisation, high immigration etc) – I just don’t understand how so much anger on here is directed at immigrants (who usually, like most of us, are looking for fulfilled lives and enough for them and their families to get by on) rather than the super rich who control most of our media and love setting us against each other while taking more and more of our free time, dignity, civil liberties and even global security away from us while taking over our democracies and essential services by stealth, as Matt Kennard has recently documented:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW5dEtjMb-k&t=1241s
I don’t believe it is aimed at the immigrants themselves. Despite immigration being a very polarising issue there is very little in the way of racist abuse aimed at people if other nationalities. The anger is rightly pointed at those in power for letting in many more people than many believe the country can cope with
I don’t believe it is aimed at the immigrants themselves. Despite immigration being a very polarising issue there is very little in the way of racist abuse aimed at people if other nationalities. The anger is rightly pointed at those in power for letting in many more people than many believe the country can cope with
Hardly the case when you consider the massive money-printing that went on 2020-2022, price-caps, “windfall” taxes etc. The whole UK shebang is full-on left-wing economically now, more left-wing than at any time since 1979.
I agree with most of this, and sympathise with many concerns considered socially conservative (family breakdown, secularisation, high immigration etc) – I just don’t understand how so much anger on here is directed at immigrants (who usually, like most of us, are looking for fulfilled lives and enough for them and their families to get by on) rather than the super rich who control most of our media and love setting us against each other while taking more and more of our free time, dignity, civil liberties and even global security away from us while taking over our democracies and essential services by stealth, as Matt Kennard has recently documented:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW5dEtjMb-k&t=1241s
Do you include anti-semitism amongst these many transformative and popular ideas? Unless the Hard Left faces up to the strident intolerance and anti-semitism within its ranks, it will always be a turn off for voters.
Green policies are about de-industrialising.
Was Corbyn’s tacit support of the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah not ‘bloody’ enough for you?
Desmond,
You seem to be suggesting that Corbyn was the victim of media smears?
He wasn’t.
He was the victim of accurate reporting – which in his case proved FAR more damaging.
I’ll agree, some of Corbyns economic policies were popular, especially the ones you mentioned. However Corbyn himself was deeply unpopular, as were the Momentum group behind him and all their policies around identity politics. If they could have separated the two (and agreed to abide the EU referendum result) they wouldn’t have faced the wipeout they did.
It’s been well documented that the British electorate lean left economically and right socially, however unfortunately both major parties now seem to represent the complete opposite
Which of Corbyn’s policies exactly were ‘bloody?’ Nationalising rail, trying to build proper council houses, reindustrialising Britain through a green new deal? Corbyn may have been as dull as ditchwater, but many transformative and popular ideas flourished under his leadership, despite most of the media’s efforts to brand him as communist or pro-Putin or whatever rubbish they allowed journalists to make up.
The hard left brought Labour to its lowest point – not only the catastrophic election defeat in 2019 (their worst since 1935), but, incredibly given it’s proud history in that regard, awash with antisemitism. At least in 1935 Labour was advancing: in 2019 they were still rapidly regressing after nearly a decade in opposition. Jamie Driscoll is typical of the breed. He won the North of Tyne Mayoral election with just 34% of the first preference vote in a 32% turnout – worse even than Labour’s disastrous general election performance in the region in that year’s general election. On his first day in office he declared a “climate emergency”, but for thee and not for me, as he drove a Land Rover to work. His wife is an NHS doctor and his children go to private schools, so his financial perspective is very different to most of his constituents. This frees Driscoll up to spend time on his “anti-fascist” campaigning activities. Save your tears: these people could not be more different from patriots like Nye Bevan, Barbara Castle or Michael Foot.
And yet Corbyn received 40% of the vote and a larger number of votes in 2019 than Labour received in 2005, 2010 and 2015. There is clearly a fairly large amount of support for those sort of policies.
Labour got 32.1% of the vote in 2019
Ah ok thanks for the correction- it must have been the 2017 election where they got 40
Ah ok thanks for the correction- it must have been the 2017 election where they got 40
In circumstances where a labour victory should have been a shoe-in after the tragi-comic farce that has been the government of the last 12 years. Corbyn, the man, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Labour got 32.1% of the vote in 2019
In circumstances where a labour victory should have been a shoe-in after the tragi-comic farce that has been the government of the last 12 years. Corbyn, the man, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Don’t you mean BEVIN not BEVAN.
Absolutely. He should be sacked for his obsession with identity politics and ‘the climate emergency’ alone.
And yet Corbyn received 40% of the vote and a larger number of votes in 2019 than Labour received in 2005, 2010 and 2015. There is clearly a fairly large amount of support for those sort of policies.
Don’t you mean BEVIN not BEVAN.
Absolutely. He should be sacked for his obsession with identity politics and ‘the climate emergency’ alone.
The hard left brought Labour to its lowest point – not only the catastrophic election defeat in 2019 (their worst since 1935), but, incredibly given it’s proud history in that regard, awash with antisemitism. At least in 1935 Labour was advancing: in 2019 they were still rapidly regressing after nearly a decade in opposition. Jamie Driscoll is typical of the breed. He won the North of Tyne Mayoral election with just 34% of the first preference vote in a 32% turnout – worse even than Labour’s disastrous general election performance in the region in that year’s general election. On his first day in office he declared a “climate emergency”, but for thee and not for me, as he drove a Land Rover to work. His wife is an NHS doctor and his children go to private schools, so his financial perspective is very different to most of his constituents. This frees Driscoll up to spend time on his “anti-fascist” campaigning activities. Save your tears: these people could not be more different from patriots like Nye Bevan, Barbara Castle or Michael Foot.
I would like to see the far-Left and “Progressives” purged from society in general to end the cycle of their ruinous ideas and policies being inflicted on society
Much as I despise him, Starmer is doing exactly the right thing politically. A political party that puts itself forward as a future government cannot consist of constantly warring factions. Crick’s point about the far-Left returning to enact reprisals is weak. The far-Left only found their way back in to Labour because of a foolish mistake in changing how leaders are elected.That won’t happen again.
But, once in power, I expect Starmer to quickly rediscover his far-Left instincts. His whole political history up until reletively recently has been an especially noxious combination of “Progressivism” and traditional far-Left ideology
Starmer will do what Socialist always do. They promise everyone free this and free that, turn on the spending taps and everyone thinks isn’t this wonderful. Then the taxes rise, the wealthy leave the country and the total tax take begins to precipitously fall. The government borrows more and more leading to inflation and eventually higher interest rates. Borrowing costs escalate until no one is willing to lend. The economy collapses and all the wonderful free stuff disappears and people find themselves eating rat soup.
. The perversity of the present polling indicating a large lead for Labour, is that the country is in the economic and social mess it’s in because the Tories have pursued policies that are combination of New Labour and Corbynism, The electorate, apparenty, is going to vote in a government under Starmer that is not only going to do more of the same, it is going to double down on it. It can only be a complete disaster.
The country is in the mess it is in because the central focus of the economic policy of both parties for the past thirty years has been to keep the middle class on side by mouthing progressive platitudes whilst artificially inflating house prices.
Starmer will continue with this and the mess will get worse.
You are partly right.
New Labour intentionally let house prices get out of control (the average house price doubled during their 13 years in power) in order to create a feeling of false economic prosperity that created a few good years of economic growth.
New Labour didn’t do this to keep the middle class happy, but to legitimise massive increased spending. The 3-4% gdp growth had petered out by 2000 but Labour kept increasing spending until annual government spending had increaed from 35% of GDP to 46%.
Then came the 2008 crash and, instead of allowing a the economy the go in to recession and to clear the asset bubbles, Brown kept them pumped with QE and rock bottom interest rates and still kept increasing spending,
The Toeies took over and after a few year of perfunctory “austerity” carried on where New Labour and Brown left off; house prices were allowed to continue to spiral and the “emergency” monetary policy carried on for another 12 years. The Tories also kept Labour’s superficially GDP boosting mass immigration policy.
It is probably the case that New Labour and the Tories had different reasons for their reckless asset bubble pumping and mass immigration. For Labour it was so they could keep on spending. The Tories just did it to keep the spending going so they could retain power and use it to enrich themselves, their donors and the rest of their friends.
Either way it the desire to continue with socialist spending and fiscal imprudence that was at the heart of the disastrouos policies that has delived the economic mess we are now dealing with.
You are partly right.
New Labour intentionally let house prices get out of control (the average house price doubled during their 13 years in power) in order to create a feeling of false economic prosperity that created a few good years of economic growth.
New Labour didn’t do this to keep the middle class happy, but to legitimise massive increased spending. The 3-4% gdp growth had petered out by 2000 but Labour kept increasing spending until annual government spending had increaed from 35% of GDP to 46%.
Then came the 2008 crash and, instead of allowing a the economy the go in to recession and to clear the asset bubbles, Brown kept them pumped with QE and rock bottom interest rates and still kept increasing spending,
The Toeies took over and after a few year of perfunctory “austerity” carried on where New Labour and Brown left off; house prices were allowed to continue to spiral and the “emergency” monetary policy carried on for another 12 years. The Tories also kept Labour’s superficially GDP boosting mass immigration policy.
It is probably the case that New Labour and the Tories had different reasons for their reckless asset bubble pumping and mass immigration. For Labour it was so they could keep on spending. The Tories just did it to keep the spending going so they could retain power and use it to enrich themselves, their donors and the rest of their friends.
Either way it the desire to continue with socialist spending and fiscal imprudence that was at the heart of the disastrouos policies that has delived the economic mess we are now dealing with.
The country is in the mess it is in because the central focus of the economic policy of both parties for the past thirty years has been to keep the middle class on side by mouthing progressive platitudes whilst artificially inflating house prices.
Starmer will continue with this and the mess will get worse.
I would like to see the far-Left and “Progressives” purged from society in general to end the cycle of their ruinous ideas and policies being inflicted on society
Much as I despise him, Starmer is doing exactly the right thing politically. A political party that puts itself forward as a future government cannot consist of constantly warring factions. Crick’s point about the far-Left returning to enact reprisals is weak. The far-Left only found their way back in to Labour because of a foolish mistake in changing how leaders are elected.That won’t happen again.
But, once in power, I expect Starmer to quickly rediscover his far-Left instincts. His whole political history up until reletively recently has been an especially noxious combination of “Progressivism” and traditional far-Left ideology
Starmer will do what Socialist always do. They promise everyone free this and free that, turn on the spending taps and everyone thinks isn’t this wonderful. Then the taxes rise, the wealthy leave the country and the total tax take begins to precipitously fall. The government borrows more and more leading to inflation and eventually higher interest rates. Borrowing costs escalate until no one is willing to lend. The economy collapses and all the wonderful free stuff disappears and people find themselves eating rat soup.
. The perversity of the present polling indicating a large lead for Labour, is that the country is in the economic and social mess it’s in because the Tories have pursued policies that are combination of New Labour and Corbynism, The electorate, apparenty, is going to vote in a government under Starmer that is not only going to do more of the same, it is going to double down on it. It can only be a complete disaster.
This why we need PR. “Hard” left wingers could form their own party and have their popular support reflected fairly. As could Tice and Farage. Starmer understands too well that under FPTP people like Diane Abbott represent a vulnerability too easily exploited by the enemy.
Yes and we’re pretty well the only country in Europe (apart from Belarus) which uses first past the post. Although I think it was Christopher Hitchens who defended it by saying ‘there’s something in the British temper that likes a clear winner.’
No, Italy moved back to FPTP because PR was such a disaster for them.
Neither Germany nor France use PR. Yes it’s not immediately FPTP but say in France it ends up being that. Germany has a way of trying to balance up votes to make the overall vote more representative but it’s not PR.
Germany’s top-up-from-party-list system is widely considered to be a form of PR for elections to the Bundestag. The only respect in which it is not totally PR is that parties with less than 5% of the vote are excluded (unless they win a smattering of FPTP consituencies outright).
Ok it’s a sort of PR but not really what people generally think of as PR. Yes I agree it seeks to balance or voting results more evenly but what you really have is a combination – FPTP first then a bit of PR tacked on. That’s not what the UK voted on when given the option- maybe they should have been. If you want real PR look at Ireland – only takes about 5 days to work out who has won.
Ok it’s a sort of PR but not really what people generally think of as PR. Yes I agree it seeks to balance or voting results more evenly but what you really have is a combination – FPTP first then a bit of PR tacked on. That’s not what the UK voted on when given the option- maybe they should have been. If you want real PR look at Ireland – only takes about 5 days to work out who has won.
Germany’s top-up-from-party-list system is widely considered to be a form of PR for elections to the Bundestag. The only respect in which it is not totally PR is that parties with less than 5% of the vote are excluded (unless they win a smattering of FPTP consituencies outright).
Spain does have a version of PR but also has FPTP. It uses closed lists ie you don’t get to vote for a candidate just a party. I don’t think that’s the answer either. Think you need to do some research before comparing the UK to Belarus
No mention of the occasionally* wonderful land of
‘William Tell’?
(* Their Police feel it is essential to carry guns at all times!)
No mention of the occasionally* wonderful land of
‘William Tell’?
(* Their Police feel it is essential to carry guns at all times!)
Did we not have a referendum on PR no so long ago and was it not decisively rejected
No, Italy moved back to FPTP because PR was such a disaster for them.
Neither Germany nor France use PR. Yes it’s not immediately FPTP but say in France it ends up being that. Germany has a way of trying to balance up votes to make the overall vote more representative but it’s not PR.
Spain does have a version of PR but also has FPTP. It uses closed lists ie you don’t get to vote for a candidate just a party. I don’t think that’s the answer either. Think you need to do some research before comparing the UK to Belarus
Did we not have a referendum on PR no so long ago and was it not decisively rejected
PR is all very well, until the point where ‘X’ number of years of cosy consensus (such as Germany) leads to an outlier suddenly knocking over the entire applecart. AfD’s day, I suspect, is yet to come.
If that is the people’s wish then so be it, I’m afraid.
If that is the people’s wish then so be it, I’m afraid.
What we really need is de-centralisation on the Swiss model. PR will just hand more power to the Oxbridge mafia that effectively runs this country.
Yes and we’re pretty well the only country in Europe (apart from Belarus) which uses first past the post. Although I think it was Christopher Hitchens who defended it by saying ‘there’s something in the British temper that likes a clear winner.’
PR is all very well, until the point where ‘X’ number of years of cosy consensus (such as Germany) leads to an outlier suddenly knocking over the entire applecart. AfD’s day, I suspect, is yet to come.
What we really need is de-centralisation on the Swiss model. PR will just hand more power to the Oxbridge mafia that effectively runs this country.
This why we need PR. “Hard” left wingers could form their own party and have their popular support reflected fairly. As could Tice and Farage. Starmer understands too well that under FPTP people like Diane Abbott represent a vulnerability too easily exploited by the enemy.
Jamie Driscoll is going to win. Everyone up here knows it. Kim McGuinness has adopted the novel election-winning strategy of going into purdah. It will be a preferential voting system for Mayor. If Jamie did not win on the first round, then he would win on the second. Keir Starmer’s Labour Party is going to be humiliated from the left, a few months before the General Election. Let’s keep up that momentum. All the way to a hung Parliament.
Jamie Driscoll is going to win. Everyone up here knows it. Kim McGuinness has adopted the novel election-winning strategy of going into purdah. It will be a preferential voting system for Mayor. If Jamie did not win on the first round, then he would win on the second. Keir Starmer’s Labour Party is going to be humiliated from the left, a few months before the General Election. Let’s keep up that momentum. All the way to a hung Parliament.
Oh please. Stop trying to convince us that day to day party politics actually matters. We have just seen the Fool Boris purged from Parliament for attending the leaving drinks of civil servants in the HQ of Covid policy. I loath the lockdown man. But Partygate is the most sinister BBC/media-promoted hysteria/lie/scandal since the same reptilian Remainiacs tried to shit on a democratic referendum and the monstrous lockdown catastrophe that unites all of them – political parties NHS Blob – in utter shame. The permanent Leftist New Order – in Parliament and beyond in the Technocracy – is flexing its muscles now and debasing all our potemkim fake democratic institutions for all to see. Its so so ugly. But they dont care. They are untouchable, hardwired into law culture and the architecture of governance. Wake up.
Oh please. Stop trying to convince us that day to day party politics actually matters. We have just seen the Fool Boris purged from Parliament for attending the leaving drinks of civil servants in the HQ of Covid policy. I loath the lockdown man. But Partygate is the most sinister BBC/media-promoted hysteria/lie/scandal since the same reptilian Remainiacs tried to shit on a democratic referendum and the monstrous lockdown catastrophe that unites all of them – political parties NHS Blob – in utter shame. The permanent Leftist New Order – in Parliament and beyond in the Technocracy – is flexing its muscles now and debasing all our potemkim fake democratic institutions for all to see. Its so so ugly. But they dont care. They are untouchable, hardwired into law culture and the architecture of governance. Wake up.
Jamie Driscoll is a sanctimonious virtue signaller who has drawn a huge salary and done absolutely nothing for the North East. The grants that he says he obtained were from a pot of legacy EU regional money and were administered by Tory-controlled Northumberland County Council. We would have had that money anyway.
Most people up here would like to abolish the Mayor role in its entirety. It is particularly pointless for rural areas as, in its new incarnation, its incumbent will spend most of his or her time trying to appease councillors from Gateshead and Sunderland over the dominance of Newcastle. It will undermine the autonomy of county councils and, in Northumberland’s case, will insert place people as officers to push a Labour identity politics agenda that people here do not want. Northumberland County Council is still being investigated over the corruption of its former Chief Executive and other Labour place-people. This involved the CEO paying herself an additional salary and investing council tax payers’ money in a private company and spending it in the Middle East. This is not a bizarre conspiracy theory – it is recorded.
Labour politics in the North East has been corrupt for decades. We need less local government, not more.
Jamie Driscoll is a sanctimonious virtue signaller who has drawn a huge salary and done absolutely nothing for the North East. The grants that he says he obtained were from a pot of legacy EU regional money and were administered by Tory-controlled Northumberland County Council. We would have had that money anyway.
Most people up here would like to abolish the Mayor role in its entirety. It is particularly pointless for rural areas as, in its new incarnation, its incumbent will spend most of his or her time trying to appease councillors from Gateshead and Sunderland over the dominance of Newcastle. It will undermine the autonomy of county councils and, in Northumberland’s case, will insert place people as officers to push a Labour identity politics agenda that people here do not want. Northumberland County Council is still being investigated over the corruption of its former Chief Executive and other Labour place-people. This involved the CEO paying herself an additional salary and investing council tax payers’ money in a private company and spending it in the Middle East. This is not a bizarre conspiracy theory – it is recorded.
Labour politics in the North East has been corrupt for decades. We need less local government, not more.
Blimey, a cynic might conclude that they don’t care why they have power, so long as they have it.
Blimey, a cynic might conclude that they don’t care why they have power, so long as they have it.
We just had an election in Alberta. The “left candidate”, Notley, wore blue to the debate and tried to come off as a conservative. Her chief of staff last time round was a Marxist Leninist.
It didnt quite work out for them. They won most of the metro seats and lost all the rural seats as their policies are the usual majoritarian CO2 taxes, “but well give it all back to you in UBI”.
Saving the planet and buying the vote one city block at a time.
We just had an election in Alberta. The “left candidate”, Notley, wore blue to the debate and tried to come off as a conservative. Her chief of staff last time round was a Marxist Leninist.
It didnt quite work out for them. They won most of the metro seats and lost all the rural seats as their policies are the usual majoritarian CO2 taxes, “but well give it all back to you in UBI”.
Saving the planet and buying the vote one city block at a time.
The far left and the far right should be put in a padded play area adjacent to the House of Commons.
The House of Lords?
Hah!
Hah!
The House of Lords?
The far left and the far right should be put in a padded play area adjacent to the House of Commons.
Starmer is a frightful prospect; a rigid green policy for absurd wind farms, votes for 16 year olds, and a decayed Marxist philosophy that I do not trust. He would destroy business and probably let Corbynistas back in.
I rather wish that UnHerd would purge the Left from among its contributing journalists. Michael Crick for instance – founder of Channel 4 News and a later BBC stalwart whose regular Newsnight reports could be relied on to sneer at all things conservative.
The political infighting may provide stimulating drama for veteran political reporters and their avid readers…
… but many of us are more concerned about the effect these factions will have on our lives rather than on each other.
I rather wish that UnHerd would purge the Left from among its contributing journalists. Michael Crick for instance – founder of Channel 4 News and a later BBC stalwart whose regular Newsnight reports could be relied on to sneer at all things conservative.
The political infighting may provide stimulating drama for veteran political reporters and their avid readers…
… but many of us are more concerned about the effect these factions will have on our lives rather than on each other.