"There’s no future for the Left until the Labour Party accepts that it’s finished. As I write, Labour is 15 points behind in the opinion polls. If anything, that figure flatters it"
DANIEL HANNAN
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/16/no-future-left-labour-party-accepts-finished/
|
|
Given how keen you are to mention my politics whenever I raise issues of party I'm surprised you don't mention the Daniel Hannan, is otherwise Tory Peer Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, former MEP and an adviser to the Board of Trade.
|
>> Given how keen you are to mention my politics whenever I raise issues of party
>> I'm surprised you don't mention the Daniel Hannan, is otherwise Tory Peer Lord Hannan of
>> Kingsclere, former MEP and an adviser to the Board of Trade.
I'm not really following the connection between the two, since I am not allowing party politics to bias some other issue, I am actually referring directly to party politics. But as it happens I had absolutely no idea who Daniel Hannan was, aside from having pretty clear politics.
Nonetheless, I thought it an interesting point about Labour being a barrier for 'The Left'.
"Labour, as currently constituted, cannot win a majority. Its structures are too ungainly, its nostrums too old, its activists too angry, its mood too sour. In Britain, as in any country, there is a chunk of the electorate in the market for a Left-of-centre party. But the language of picket lines is as foreign to that electorate as the language of “defund the police”."
This bit, for example. Isn't that exactly what is standing in the way and pretty much what seems to be protecting Johnson?
|
>> Nonetheless, I thought it an interesting point about Labour being a barrier for 'The Left'.
>>
>> "Labour, as currently constituted, cannot win a majority. Its structures are too ungainly, its nostrums
>> too old, its activists too angry, its mood too sour. In Britain, as in any
>> country, there is a chunk of the electorate in the market for a Left-of-centre party.
>> But the language of picket lines is as foreign to that electorate as the language
>> of “defund the police”."
>>
>> This bit, for example. Isn't that exactly what is standing in the way and pretty
>> much what seems to be protecting Johnson?
Fair point. What's going on at the moment with Labour is a real turn off for me, a natural socialist.
|
>>What's going on at the moment with Labour is a real turn off for me, a natural socialist.
Well exactly. Imagine what it's doing to those a little less socialist, which presumably includes most people who voted for Blair.
As I may have mentioned, I intensely dislike party politics. However, since we are unlikely to get shot of the idea, it then becomes pretty damned important that at least two of the major parties are reasonably well balanced and fairly equally powerful to keep them both on an even track and away from extremism.
If Labour, or 'The Left' indeed, don't sort this out then goodness only knows how badly wrong the Conservatives are likely to become.
|
<< "Labour, as currently constituted, cannot win a majority. Its structures are too ungainly, its
>> nostrums
>> >> too old, its activists too angry, its mood too sour. In Britain, as in
>> any
>> >> country, there is a chunk of the electorate in the market for a Left-of-centre
>> party.
>> >> But the language of picket lines is as foreign to that electorate as the
>> language
>> >> of “defund the police”."
How much if that is true and how much the talk of a right wing brexiteer Tory? He, FWIW, is public school>Oxford and, being an MEP before he was 30, has little experience of real life. MAybe a bit of journalism on the Telegraph. The reference to picket lines and defunding the police* does not reflect the reality of Labour policy.
There's a generation of voters out there who would need a picket line explaining to them.
The need for, but lack of support of a Social Democratic party is not unique to the UK. France has the same issue.
It was initially appealing after 2017 to think 'one more heave' and we could have the Tories out. Then, presented with the open goal of Johnson eviscerating his majority, the rest of the commons couldn't make it work and hold his feet to the fire.
As of course his strategists had bet.
Dragging the left of the party kicking and screaming to the concept that they need a majority to achieve anything is going to be hard work.
I'd imagine that when Starmer stood for the leadership he had a two year plan to reform the party and create a vision, as Blair did. He's been blown off course by the pandemic and now needs to get a grip and get back on the road. Loss of Hartlepool was probably inevitable given the Brexit Party got 25% last time and picking a fight with Angela Rayner, who appeals to both wings of the party, was just stupid.
They retained all their Mayors and won the new one in West Yorks convincingly. Why there and not in Tees Valley or the West Midlands which should be natural Labour territory?
*Defunding police/prisons could mean transferring resources to treatment and rehabilitation.
How much money is spaffed up catching people in small time drug related offending and imprisoning them? On discharge after a few weeks they're on the streets trying to get their benefits restored with next to no help. The DWP has a dedicated line but it's no good if you're released at court kicking out time on Friday after a sentence already served on remand.
|
They retained all their Mayors and won the new one in West Yorks convincingly. Why
>> there and not in Tees Valley or the West Midlands which should be natural Labour
>> territory?
>>
>
Different demographics I would imagine.
|
You're fixating on the man, and he's not relevant. Who cares where he went to school? And really, Brexit blah blah is all just s***e.
Pretty much none of the rest of your post has anything to do with the idea that;
"Labour, as currently constituted, cannot win a majority. Its structures are too ungainly, its nostrums too old, its activists too angry, its mood too sour. In Britain, as in any country, there is a chunk of the electorate in the market for a Left-of-centre party. But the language of picket lines is as foreign to that electorate as the language of "defund the police"
I presume that you think there is no issue and that Labour Party as it is remains perfectly acceptable to those seeking to support and left-leaning / left-of-centre politicians?
Which kind of makes one wonder how it can be so unsuccessful then.
>>"Dragging the left of the party kicking and screaming to the concept that they need a majority to achieve anything is going to be hard work."
I think that points to a conclusion that the Party is the problem.
|
>> You're fixating on the man, and he's not relevant. Who cares where he went to
>> school? And really, Brexit blah blah is all just s***e.
He absolutely is relevant because of his views and fact he's an archetype for so much of the Conservative party in Parliament.
I treated his 'structures too ungainly' etc as a political diatribe.
There is an issue with a party that actually forms policy democratically and one where it's dictated from the top.
I'll think some more about how to deal with that.
|
>> He absolutely is relevant because of his views and fact he's an archetype for so
>> much of the Conservative party in Parliament.
Surely the relevant bit is the opinion? If it's valid then what does he matter? Whereas if it's not valid then what does he matter?
If your only defence is that you don't approve of the man who said it then that would be pointless and worthless.
|
I wouldn't credit Hannan's 'opinion' - propaganda more like, but the fact that it sounds even credible is a tragedy.
I think about this quite a lot because what the Conservative government has done and is doing is so destructive. Leaving aside the corruption and equality issues the financial damage done by Brexit, on some estimates, already equates to all the net contributions we have ever made to the EU. Even Margaret Thatcher, hostile as she was to the idea of the EU, was very much in favour of the single market.
Although Labour made progress electorally under Corbyn in 2017 it was clear that he would never win a general election. There are simply too many people who won't stomach him and his infantile fans whatever the appeal of Labour policies. I was happy to see Starmer defeat the gormless Long Bailey and Burgon for the leadership, who thought it was a good idea to put Burgon on the front bench?
Starmer is a good man and capable, but looking at the polling now, when the Conservatives are mired in sleaze and incompetence, he isn't going to win one either. It can't all be the vaccination triumph.
For so many, blustering Boris trumps serious Starmer even when Starmer by rights should have Johnson pinned under a fusilade of forensic questions. The poor bloke always looks as if he is about to burst into tears.
Many CLP officers are idiots, undermining Starmer being top of their agendas. Ditto the outgoing GenSec of Unite, McCluskey.
Inevitably this will change, but who knows when? PMs like Attlee, Heath, Wilson, Thatcher and even the flawed Blair, were giants of intellect and integrity compared to the selection we have had since 2010. Burnham is positioning himself for a comeback but I'm not sure he's the one. Yvette Cooper should be a prospect but she seems happier on committees.
I wish I, and even more so my children, qualified for an EU passport. Unfortunately our Irish connections are too distant. Perhaps a move to NI before Ireland reunites, or Scotland pre-independence, would get us in the back door!
|
Perhaps a move to NI before Ireland reunites,
Well you've plenty of time to move before that happens!
|
I still think that the Common Market that we joined in the 1970s was a great idea - free trade, no tariffs - made many things a lot easier for companies and individuals
However, the last 50 years the EU now sits above the governments of the 27 countries dictating you do this that & the next thing - no discussion as everything is waived through the EU Parliament because it is just a rubber stamping establishment. What Germany & France want they get, the rest have to fall in line.
The financial crisis of Greece saw the German & French banks re-paid and the Greeks suffer with austerity on steroids - also suffering are Portugal, Spain, Italy others.
I know a Spanish couple where the family of 4 live off her teacher's wage, the husband lost a job in around 2009. He retrained but to no real avail so is a house husband & they are better off than many. The 2 daughters are leaving school this summer and the following summer - they may well struggle to get a job as unemployment in their part of Spain is 50%+ for under 25s and that was pre-Covid.
|
>>
>>
>> Perhaps a move to NI before Ireland reunites,
>>
If that ever happens, it won't be in your lifetime.
|
>> If that ever happens, it won't be in your lifetime.
Probably not, although I think it is inevitable sometime. But the Nationalist vote is drawing nearer to the Loyalist one, and might well overtake it in my lifetime. And there is literally no solution at the moment for NI being part of the UK with no internal border checks and no border controls between NI and the republic.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 18 May 21 at 02:45
|
>>
>>
>> Probably not, although I think it is inevitable sometime. But the Nationalist vote is drawing
>> nearer to the Loyalist one, and might well overtake it in my lifetime. And there
>> is literally no solution at the moment for NI being part of the UK with
>> no internal border checks and no border controls between NI and the republic.
>>
The problem is not one of whether a majority would vote for a united Ireland or not. If the nationalists won there would still be a very sizeable minority (Close to 50%) who would be horrified at the very thought of it. NI is full of actual and would be Protestant paramilitaries who have been at least as vicious as the IRA ever were. Even the run up to a referendum would see a level of violence as bad or probably even greater than was ever seen during the last troubles, and many mainstream loyalist politicians (Who make bible belt Americans look like progressive liberals) would either refuse to condemn or even be publicly behind the paramilitaries. Naturally a resurgence of the IRA would be the outcome of that.
And don't overestimate the feeling about reunification in the Republic either. Although people there had sympathy with the Catholics in the north because of the discrimination they suffered there is not a lot of love for the people themselves, Northern Irelanders being regarded as "Rough tinkers" is a common feeling. And what would Eire do with the north anyway? It is an economic basket case, nearly half the population would be violently opposed to the Dublin government and would never accept any security forces controlled by them.
A two nation Ireland will be here for a very long time yet.
|
And don't overestimate the feeling about reunification in the Republic either. Although people there had
>> sympathy with the Catholics in the north because of the discrimination they suffered there is
>> not a lot of love for the people themselves, Northern Irelanders being regarded as "Rough
>> tinkers" is a common feeling. And what would Eire do with the north anyway? It
>> is an economic basket case, nearly half the population would be violently opposed to the
>> Dublin government and would never accept any security forces controlled by them.
>>
>> A two nation Ireland will be here for a very long time yet.
>>
My thoughts too, I don't think they'd be any great push politically in Ireland to try and start a vote. The politicians would know it's a none starter. If Brexit left the N and S Ireland a few tricky problems, it would look like a child's crossword puzzle in comparison to an attempt to unite N and S Ireland.
|
I concluded long ago that "the Irish problem" is impossible for this outsider to fathom, so I can't disagree with wiser heads.
What I do think is that the Conservatives have done what might turn out to be a great deal more harm than they anticipated by widdling on the assurances in the Good Friday Agreement with the NI protocol. A lot of people hung their credibility on it and now the loyalists in particular are mightily peed off. The loyalists thought they were part of Britain, the Nationalists could pretend they were part of Ireland since they inhabited the same economic zone (i.e. the EU) and there is no land border. Characteristically, Johnson swore he would not upset this balance, and promptly did, with predictable consequences.
Again characteristically, the EU is being blamed for doing "too many checks" at NI ports under the protocol, which Johnson said he can renege on, having left the EU (I might not have got that bit quite right, TBH it didn't make any sense to me). That the loyalists would be incensed by the EU controlling its border between the UK mainland and NI is not exactly a surprise.
Johnson could yet be remembered as the PM who lost Scotland and reignited Northern Ireland.
|
>> If that ever happens, it won't be in your lifetime.
Indeed, it'll just as much a problem getting a referendum (and getting a yes vote) just as much as North of the boarder, if not more so.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 18 May 21 at 02:46
|
|
If I were Irish, whichever side of the fence I sat, I'd go for a sea border with the rest of the UK, remain constitutionally part of the UK, join a trade federation with Ireland, be border free with Ireland, and enjoy my access to Europe.
|
>> I wouldn't credit Hannan's 'opinion' - propaganda more like, but the fact that it sounds
>> even credible is a tragedy.
Hannan may well be a dick, but taking the opinion and ignoring the man, it seems to me that it is pointing at at least part of the issue.
>> Although Labour made progress electorally under Corbyn in 2017 it was clear that he would
>> never win a general election. There are simply too many people who won't stomach him
>> and his infantile fans whatever the appeal of Labour policies.
Precisely the point surely? Surprising that they cannot see it themselves.
>> Starmer is a good man and capable, but looking at the polling now, when the
>> Conservatives are mired in sleaze and incompetence, he isn't going to win one either. It
>> can't all be the vaccination triumph.
Which is strange. Because he seems like a reasonable and intelligent bloke, his political views, such as I am aware of them, also seem reasonable and practical.
Why isn't he wiping the floor with him?
Speaking only for myself, there are many policies or approaches which can be considered left wing or socialist or leaning that way that I very much support and agree with. But the Labour PArty seems locked in the days of mners' picket lines and Longbridge.
>> Inevitably this will change, but who knows when?
It changed for Blair because he moved Labour. After Blair it moved back. THat's the issue surely.
>> I wish I, and even more so my children, qualified for an EU passport.
I wonder if the single market and freedom of movement will ever come back. Letting them go along with the bath water was a mistake.
|
>> >> Inevitably this will change, but who knows when?
>>
>> It changed for Blair because he moved Labour. After Blair it moved back. THat's the
>> issue surely.
Thinking on this comment it's a good one...people in Labour, whether pro or anti Starmer, fixate on how to persuade people to vote Labour which is understandable right now. But as with any product, persuasion helps at the margin but if the product's wrong then people won't buy it.
If you're looking for a conclusion, stop reading now, I think this is just a stream of thought.
It's very seductive for anybody with socialist leanings to hark back to Labour's defence of the oppressed working class, the fight for fairness, equality of opportunity, and so on. Truth is that half of the working class has always voted Conservative anyway - it used to be the agricultural ones in the shires, with the mass organised labour of the the towns and cities in the old industries of coal, steel and manufacturing being the ones who voted Labour. Now that distinction has gone and with it chunks of the red wall, but there are also many fewer "working class" (as in C2DE) people anyway. The red wall in Hartlepool disappeared along with engineering and shipbuilding. Overall, there simply aren't enough working class people to get Labour over the line. Blair saw that.
New Labour actually implemented a lot of socialist policy but Blair recognised that he needed the votes of the expanding middle class. Not just the middle class of old, the bank managers, solicitors, doctors etc. but the salaried lower management and technocrats who would not instinctively see an aggressively socialist message as being for them.
It's not undemocratic or unprincipled to look at the electorate and try to work out what will work for them. Working out how to give as many people as possible what they want (and need) in a socially responsible way while making the economy work, dealing with healthcare needs and eliminating food and housing poverty isn't cheating or betraying the founders of the party. And what they want includes a credible brand. Or even an incredible one, like "Boris".
The working class isn't going to rise up and rescue Labour. Labour needs to appeal to exactly the same type of people as the Conservatives do.
Wilson and Heath were ideological opposites, but they both realised that 90% of what they needed to do was the same, and if they could be relied on to do that then they could get elected and keep a few of their promises.
The Corbynites are convinced that Labour has lost its identity and an aggressively socialist message will restore it and increase its appeal. I think they are wrong.
People actually like socialism, even Conservative voters. My neighbour was ranting recently against socialism, and I asked him which bit of socialism he didn't like - was it social housing (he lives in it), the NHS, or the old age pension? Answer came there none. Don't go on about socialism, just do it.
I would suggest changing the name of Labour, but they'd probably choose Consignia. Labour certainly needs to change what Labour means.
|
No argument with any of that.
>>Labour needs to appeal to exactly the same type of people as the Conservatives do.
.....is a particularly good point.
I do think it comes back to the difference between the Labour party and socialist politics. The Labour Party lives in a world that no longer exists, and hasn't for many years. But it's a world that they desperately want to exist and continue to insist upon.
I think there would be many more left-leaning voters were it not for the behaviour, image and style of The Labour Party. And perhaps without The Labour Party the Left-leaning could provide a much stronger opposition to the uncontrolled rabble on the other side of the house.
|
|
Exactly the same was said at the time Michael Foot was the Leader.
|
|
Wales seem to have come to terms with Labour. Never been a Labour supporter in any of their recent guises, however I (and many others it seems) had a grudging respect for Mark Drakeford as the Wales PM, according to the media he is on the left wing of the Party and a Corbynite, but you'd never really guess it. There were a couple of errors in the Lockdowns but he sailed a mostly steady course. Shame this isn't reflected across the UK.
|
>>Wales seem to have come to terms with Labour.
I think the Welsh Nationalists, their parties and their politicians being a bunch of ignorant, bigoted unmitigated pillocks helps.
|
Political success is a marketing exercise.
People make choices whether about politics, cars, houses, clothes, pensions etc. They are sometimes swayed by objective analysis, but more often by emotion, perceptions, expectations, confidence, brand - it's about positivity.
There is no point in arguing this cheapens or diminishes political debate. It is a reality.
Labour are split - between progressives, centrists and dinosaurs. They are currently incapable of a coherent positive alternative message.
To break out requires real leadership which energises. Thatcher had the self belief to force a new course in 1997. Blair did similarly in 1997. Both sidelined their tired internal opposition with positive future messages.
Boris may have the qualities lacking in his predessors. Cameron nice guy but ultimately weak. May decent, honest, but too attached to consensus to fearlessly lead.
All democracies need an effective opposition and I regret its absence at the moment. Starmer comes across as decent, thoughtful etc etc. But he has not been able to ditch the dinosaurs or sell a positive new message. I suspect he won't lead Labour to victory in 2024.
The other disappointment are the Libdems. Under Clegg they had 50+ seats. They started the election process in 2019 with decent opinion polls and faile to capitalise.
|
Follow the money.
Tories are funded by businesses and rich dudes - hence the sleaze when they quietly return the favour (in return for letting the party appear to steer its own ship).
Labour are largely funded by unions who prefer to make their voice a major noise in the party. This makes SKS et al appear as if they aren't calling the shots.
Labour need to become corporate w****s, or the unions need to stfu and allow the party leadership to (at least) appear fully in control.
|
>> Labour need to become corporate w****s, or the unions need to stfu and allow the
>> party leadership to (at least) appear fully in control.
Blair managed both, till he thought he became god-like
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
Another example of sitting on labour traditional area?
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
>>
>> Another example of sitting on labour traditional area?
Pretty much. I'm not sure what I think of this proposal.
On the one hand simplification and accountability are desperately needed, but on the other hand stagnation or inefficient Civil Service type management most certainly are not. It's difficult to see how it will get Union support, like anybody ever does, but perhaps the users will be sufficiently supportive.
I think it may end up being neither one thing nor the other.
|
As currently organised, rail does not deliver an efficient or well regarded service. The changes proposed may help, but I have limited confidence.
We should seriously question:
- what does a rail network excel at - mainly commuting in and out of large urban area
- what does a 19th century technology bring to the 21st - very little
- how should it be funded - those who use it
- environment - green or not - the jury is out
Rail is good at moving large numbers in and out of large urban centres which would otherwise be more congested. Otherwise car, coach, plane do a better job on most journeys.
If used for freight, it needs double handling to get from factory to railway, and then railway to final customer. Costly and slower - would need investment in facilities in stations.
Putting heavy rolling stock on fixed steel rails was the bees knees in 1850. Much better than horse and cart. Much faster than a canal barge. That advantage has completely disappeared.
Rail networks are expensive to run. Providing subsidies simply distorts behaviours. This is plain daft unless there are other compelling reasons to do so. The market should drive behaviours, limited only by adherence to agreed levels of safety, environment etc
Station to station rail may be greener than cars. Seems there is little in it compared to coaches. Factor in getting door to door which requires transport to/from station, and the environmental impact and cost of construction and the conclusions are less clear!
|
>> Rail is good at moving large numbers in and out of large urban centres which
>> would otherwise be more congested. Otherwise car, coach, plane do a better job on most
>> journeys.
Rail is outstanding at moving large numbers of people in and out in the commuter sense but it's also good for longer distances. Apart from domestic routes like Manchester or Scotland it's also excellent internationally. Pre-Covid Eurostar had all but killed of London to Paris or Brussels by air. It can probably do Amsterdam and Cologne etc as well.
>> If used for freight, it needs double handling to get from factory to railway, and
>> then railway to final customer. Costly and slower - would need investment in facilities in
>> stations.
Most railfreight uses intermodal containers. Double handling applies to containers on lorries too. The train though is much faster at shifting a couple of dozen intermodal containers from Felixstowe to Glasgow than 30+ lorries. It's also good for truly bulk stuff. Less coal than there was but ores, fuel oil etc all find a niche in rail.
Subsidy is a difficult concept when the road network is maintained at public expense.
|
<
I believe that the take on Vehicle taxes is far more than the expenditure on roads. It used to be known as Road Tax, until more money went into the exchequer.
Means that road users pay into the general taxation, which, among other things, goes to subsidise the railways.
I'm not indicating that this is a bad thing, but I can't see how comparing a susidised railway, with a road network financed by it's users is a reasonable argument.
8o)
|
>> I believe that the take on Vehicle taxes is far more than the expenditure on
>> roads. It used to be known as Road Tax, until more money went into the
>> exchequer.
>>
>> Means that road users pay into the general taxation, which, among other things, goes to
>> subsidise the railways.
>>
>> I'm not indicating that this is a bad thing, but I can't see how comparing
>> a susidised railway, with a road network financed by it's users is a reasonable argument.
The 'Road Fund' existed until the twenties when it was abolished by Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr WS Churchill. Since then road tax has simply been a charge on the pleasure and convenience of a vehicle and gone into the general pot. Fuel duty no longer 'belongs' to motorists than alcohol duty does to drinkers or tobacco duty to smokers.
There was a suggestion during the May government that the 'Road Fund' might be re-established but I don't think anything happened.
The Treasury has always hated hypothecation and may well have shot the Transport Minister's goose.
Like it or not roads are maintained by the taxpayer. Central government for the Motorways and Trunk network, local councils for the rest.
|
|
Slight thread drift but yesterday, whilst awaiting the Leeds train at Settle, a goods train passed through. I was informed that it had come from Belgium, carrying 1,000 tons+ of some special clay en route to Scotland. Just goes to show the Settle-Carlisle is good for something in addition to passenger traffic and the daily log train.
|
>>The Treasury has always hated hypothecation
Me too.
|
>>Like it or not roads are maintained by the taxpayer. Central government for the Motorways and Trunk network, local councils for the rest.
I like it. I think it is how it should be.
But, like everything else, they do a fairly lousy job of it.
|
>>Rail is outstanding at moving large numbers of people in and out in the commuter sense but it's also good for longer distances. Apart from domestic routes like Manchester or Scotland it's also excellent internationally. Pre-Covid Eurostar had all but killed of London to Paris or Brussels by air. It can probably do Amsterdam and Cologne etc as well.
Absolutely. I have used it to Barcelona and Madrid. My intention is to use it much more around Europe in the coming years, I've always used it whenever possible in the UK.
It is b****** expensive though.
>>Costly and slower - would need investment in facilities in stations.
Not really the most important of drivers these days.
Several Governments, mostly Conservative I expect, saw that rather than invest in the railway they could make money by flogging off bits of it, especially big bits of land.
It was a sad time when we allowed all the local goods yards to be replaced with offices, malls and car parks.
It would be a better idea to have them these days on the basis that one could simply refuse large trucks entry to towns and cities.
Were it not we could force freight back onto the railway where it belongs.
The railways should be owned and controlled by the Government. It's just a pity they do such a s*** job of running/managing it, whatever brand they are. I'm not sure how one gets past the compulsion that nationalised industries and unions have for crapping on their own feet.
|
Absolutely. I have used it to Barcelona and Madrid. My intention is to use it
>> much more around Europe in the coming years, I've always used it whenever possible in
>> the UK.
>>
>> It is b****** expensive though
>>
I wonder if its subsidies are higher abroad than in the UK?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 20 May 21 at 18:18
|
>> As currently organised, rail does not deliver an efficient or well regarded service. The changes
>> proposed may help, but I have limited confidence.
>>
>> We should seriously question:
.......
>> the environmental impact and cost of construction and the conclusions are less clear!
None of the above was valid or accurate. Seemed to be written by someone who has never been within 50 miles of a railway
|
The only time I have found rail a worthwhile service is in commuting into centre of large cities or urban areas.
I live in a county town with a population of ~80,000 with a mainline rail station. I am about 1.5 miles from the station - walk is 30 mins, taxi 10 mins, car and park 12 mins. No cost of walking. Taxi is ~£7 each way. Parking depends on length of stay - but say ~£10.
Two journeys I may often take.
The first to a larger city ~ 35 miles distant. At random for travel on 1st June - fare (peak or off peak) is £22 return. Rail time 30mins. Frequency is approx 2 per hour - although the last train goes at 22.40, the next is at 01.00 in the morning. No good for concerts, parties etc.
Total elapsed journey time door to door: home to station 15mins, train 30 mins, station to destination - say 15mins by taxi. Using walk/bus instead of car/taxi adds ~30mins but saves ~£15-20 at each end.
Second journey which would be undertaken fairly frequently to see daughter in north London. Same travel times - fare is £110 return with 2 or 3 changes.
Rail journey time varies between 3 and 4 hours + home to station, and station to daughter. 4-5 hours door to door. Adding in an intermediate stop to sister in Hertfordshire (which we often do) is a complete non-starter in a day. If staying in hotel overnight (which we do occassionally) we then need to factor in transport to/from hotel.
In summary - trip to Exeter - train is 15-45 mins longer than car. Cost of ~7 litres of fuel is ~£9. Even if double to cover servicing tyres etc car costs £18 vs train at £22 + possible parking/taxis at both ends £30-40.
Similar comparison for London trip - door to door journey time is an extra 1-2 hours. Fuel required for 350 mile round trip is ~ £45 (double to £90). Train fare £110 plus possible taxi at each end £30-40 - total £140-150.
For one person the car wins - although on a business trip it would be possible to work on the train. For two or more the train is utterly non-competitive in terms of both time and money - unless you dislike driving and love trains (I don't!).
Last edited by: Terry on Fri 21 May 21 at 01:37
|
Gosh, your life is complicated.
In a car on the way to London I spill my cornflakes and in the car on my way back from London I spill my G&T and in both directions I crash into other vehicles while reading the paper. I get stressed by the traffic and annoyed by slow drivers and pssed off by the cost and convenience of parking.
On the train I don't.
Depends on your position on the difference between quality and quantity I guess.
|
I use the train a lot for social purposes.
In my latter days of work the 07:25 left Settle arriving Keighley 08:05, perfect for work at 08:30. Even better after work allowing time for a few pints every evening in the Boltmakers Arms.
I’ve access to both Settle & Giggleswick stations, a 20 and 35 minute walk respectively. Leeds -Carlisle and Leeds-Lancaster lines, so great for both my fix of big city life and either linear or circular walks in nice country on both lines.
Wednesday last, six of us caught the train to Shipley, took light refreshment, then canal walk to Saltaire ( ditto) train to Skipton ( ditto) then train back to Settle ( ditto).£6.65 return with a Dales Rail Card/ Senior Rail Pass. Bargain.
Far cheaper and faster than buses. And onboard facilities. For me the 3 year Senior Rail Pass at £72 giving 33% discount is an absolute bargain, less so during Covid but I’ll be renewing it in July.
Last edited by: legacylad on Fri 21 May 21 at 07:32
|
Really off topic top tip - "Senior Rail Pass" - if you shop at Tesco and collect the rewards points you can have a yearly senior rail pass for 1/3 the cost in points. Unfortunately the 3 yearly one isn't an option.
secure.tesco.com/clubcard/vouchers/1-year-senior-railcard/UK-009982.prd
|
>> Really off topic top tip - "Senior Rail Pass" - if you shop at Tesco
>> and collect the rewards points you can have a yearly senior rail pass for 1/3
>> the cost in points. Unfortunately the 3 yearly one isn't an option.
What happened if you bought the 3 year version, say, 2 years ago? You've lost 15 months. No?
|
>> What happened if you bought the 3 year version, say, 2 years ago? You've lost
>> 15 months. No?
I bought the one year version in early 2020 expecting to have a few trips to London etc but never used it once.
|
>>
>> What happened if you bought the 3 year version, say, 2 years ago? You've lost
>> 15 months. No?
I bought my 3 Year Senior Rail Card in July 2018. I used it all last summer before going to Spain for 10 weeks in October. I began using it again in January of this year.
My local line ran a reduced service, but I used it at least once a week, every week, for both linear and circular walks. Essential travel for both exercise and mental wellbeing y’see.
Saved a fair bit collecting my new car from Coalville ( 3 rail journeys) last month.
Off to cinema in Leeds next Monday using train as I always do, then walking using train on Thursday. Day trip to London the following week to see an exhibition.
|
>> The only time I have found rail a worthwhile service is in commuting into centre
>> of large cities or urban areas.
I guess the appropriate analogy is 'your mileage may vary'.
I live in a dormitory village just over the M1 from Northampton.
For London or central Birmingham the train is a no brainer. Perhaps London's northern or western outer suburbs near the M1/M40 might justify driving. Off peak return to London, before railcard, is £34.90 and to Birmingham £16.90. If you limit yourself to specific trains it can be cheaper - I've had a return to Liverpool for less than £20. All three hourly trains to Birmingham stop at the airport and there's a multiplicity of connections at New Street.
London and Birmingham trains both take around an hour. When commuting, admittedly with a folding bike in the mix, I could get from my front door to my office in Chancery Lane in 90minutes.
As well as Northampton Milton Keynes Central, Banbury and Wellingborough stations are all around half an hour away by car. They allow access to other services including, via Banbury, Southampton and the West of England or, via Wellingborough, Sheffield and Leeds though those now need a change.
|
I wonder if the bulk of train travel is concentrated among a small percentage of the population and the rest use it rarely or not at all?
I've paid for those 1/3 off discount cards in the past but quote often didn't even cover the cost of buying it in the first place. I don't bother now.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 22 May 21 at 20:22
|
>> I wonder if the bulk of train travel is concentrated among a small percentage of
>> the population and the rest use it rarely or not at all?
I expect the same is true of busses, at least outside of London.
|
|
Yes, I bet it's the same, probably more so for bus journeys.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 22 May 21 at 20:22
|
The average person makes 986 journeys a year.
600 in car or van, 300 walk/bike, 50 bus, 33 rail.
Rail is concentrated on commuting and business - mainly into and out of London.
Rail journeys are longer than average - distance travelled is ~10% of total distance, but only 3% of number of journeys.
Clearly most people either never or very rarely use rail. A small number use it extensively!
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870647/tsgb-2019.pdf
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57204335
Here's a bit more about possible future plans.
I think he's right about bringing TB back, might work but could just bring all the internal party stuff to the front again.
|
Would TB even want to come back. He knows all about political infighting and factional stupidity.
FWIW I regarded him with some respect for his break with traditional labour - although his Iraq antics were unforgiveable.
But he may prefer to be a successful elder statesman commenting from the touchline, rather than involved in the fracas.
|
>> I think he's right about bringing TB back, might work but could just bring all
>> the internal party stuff to the front again.
>>
From what I remember of the TB era, it worked well in many ways, even with lies not seen until BJ, mainly bacuse he had a good team around him, Campbell, Mandelson, Brown et.al, none of whom would have been much on their own, but who were not a bad supporting act.
|
Asa lightweight on the forum, Igenerally keep out of political discussions, but......
I think that it was Mandelson who gave the Labour party's election results as:
lose, lose, lose, lose, Blair, Blair, Blair, lose, lose, lose, lose.
Whatever else, Blair was selling what the electorate wanted to buy.
|
Good as TB was in the beginning, he lost the plot and started getting delusions of grandeur in his second half.
If they could bring back the original Blair I think that would be excellent. But the evolved creature was much less desirable.
|
>> Good as TB was in the beginning, he lost the plot and started getting delusions
>> of grandeur in his second half.
>>
>>
All leaders end up like that if they stay in office too long. Thatcher was a case in point, inflicted some necessary pain to right the mess she inherited but lost the plot after a while, council tax being her biggest blunder. She should have quit after the '87 election.
|
Is Labour a political and social philosophy, or a brand.
We continually assert the former, but a lot of its power comes from the brand (name).
Change the name, keep the philosphy, would it get as many (or any) votes.
Conversely change the philosophy, keep the name, would people really notice.
If they want success do they need to build the brand, not argue about the policies!!
|
Keir's 10 principles for power, lifted from the Independent
1 We will always put hard-working families and their priorities first.
2 If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be rewarded fairly.
3 People and businesses are expected to contribute to society, as well as receive.
4 Your chances in life should not be defined by the circumstances of your birth – hard work and how you contribute should matter.
5 Families, communities and the things that bring us together must once again be put above individualism.
6 The economy should work for citizens and communities. It is not good enough to just surrender to market forces.
7 The role of government is to be a partner to private enterprise, not stifle it.
8 The government should treat taxpayer money as if it were its own. The current levels of waste are unacceptable.
9 The government must play its role in restoring honesty, decency and transparency in public life.
10 We are proudly patriotic but we reject the divisiveness of nationalism
Which all sound very good but which, if you didn’t know they were his, you’d struggle to even attribute to any particular political party. And all boil down to “we believe in good things not bad things”. I’m also not sure whether they replace or are added to Kiers 10 Pledges, the last of which, “Effective opposition the to Tories”, is the most pressing issue, the one he’s most in control of and the one he’s done nothing about. The only saving grace is that the 10 bullet points haven’t been carved onto a large stone ;)
Last edited by: PeterS on Fri 24 Sep 21 at 08:27
|
Seems to me he felt like he had to do something, short of a set election pledges as there is no election, but I'm not sure a 12000 word essay is the right way to go about it.
The pledges seem bland, inoffensive and ineffective, some might argue like sks himself.
|
|
Godamn, I'd vote for a party that based government on those principals. I'll never see it in my lifetime tho, neither will my son
|
|
People do like a list these days.
|
>> People do like a list these days.
>>
To port or starboard ?
|
>> www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/keir-starmer-s-12000-word-essay-has-failed-to-inspire-even-his-fans-the-government-must-be-laughing/ar-AAOJXI6
>>
>> I don't think SKS's essay has gone down very well.
What you have there is an article by Andrew Fisher, formerly of Corbyn's team. Anything at all from Starmer would have been rubbished by him. The critics on the left need to work out that the only chance Labour has is to get behind an elected leader even if he is a centrist. They put zero energy into criticising the government and everything into undermining the present leadership.
Politicians are in favour of motherhood and apple pie. Nothing new about that.
I would like to see Starmer being more attacking TBH. It's not as if the government isn't an easy target. But pointing out that they are no longer seems to worry Conservative voters.
|
KS iseems a serious and sincere man. No doubt his essay is worthy, honest, complete, intellectually profound etc etc, But it will not win an election - or anything close.
KS needs advice on how to treat his political campaign - a basic marketing and promotion exercise, not a battle of intellects and integrity. I don't pretend to be a marketing expert, but right now he is simply not cuttting it.
Distill the message into easily understood, persuasive sound bites. Ensure his message is differentiated from the competition. Keep repeating them. Use positive emotions - humour and humanity, not anger.
Boris didn't become PM on the back of an intellectually sound analysis of the UK, its people and its economy. He had a few very simple messages delivered with confidence and humour "take back control", "get Brexit done, £20bn for NHS", "levelling up".
Showmanship has thus far enabled him to brush off challenges about covid management, Cummings, Brexit legacy and short cuts, possibly corrupt covid contracting etc etc.
Despite being a moderate Tory I would prefer that Labour were an effective opposition rather than fighting old internal battles. 13000 words are 12500 too many. KS needs to change - step up or step down!
|
>No doubt his essay is worthy, honest, complete, intellectually profound etc etc,
Well I haven't read it but you can count me as a doubter. I'm willing to bet that it's full of fluff, platitudes and vomit inducing clichés.
I too was hoping Starmer would turn Labour into a credible opposition but he has failed miserably. No policies, no clear direction and splinters in his 'arris. How does he expect the elctorate to know what he stands for when he doesn't know himself?
|
Rebecca Long-Baily was interviewed on R4 this morning and was aske the simple question, should men who self identify as female but are still physically male be allowed into women's safe spaces, changing rooms, toilets etc. All it required was a simple yes/no answer but she did everything she could to avoid the question, instead going off on some long waffle about human rights, etc.
Labour should wise up to the fact that apart from the very small militant trans community the answer to most people is blindingly simple. They need to realise that the electorate are worried about living standards, the NHS and security and don't give a stuff about a tiny group most people (Rightly or wrongly) don't give a stuff about.
But that's Labour's problem, always in hock to the militant left. The further you go from the Blair era, the more you realise that Afghan aside he was a pretty decent PM.
|
>> Rebecca Long-Baily was interviewed on R4 this morning and was aske the simple question, should
>> men who self identify as female but are still physically male be allowed into women's
>> safe spaces, changing rooms, toilets etc.
If the answer is obvious and the subject of no import outside the militants it rather begs the question of why the R4 presenter thought it worth raising.
I doubt they'd have got a yes/no answer from a Conservative either. The SDP has suggested it's in favour of self identification and has had a deal of trouble for its troubles.
You need look no further than the other forum you and I both use to see how exercised people get on both sides.
|
Politicians on both sides of the political divide will do their utmost not to alienate any potential voter by giving explicit answers to a possibly controversial questions.
Prevarification and a capacity for answering a different question to the one actually asked are essential qualities for high office.
That's why they rank lower as trusted professionals than estate agents, lawyers and bankers.
When the political history of the last 100 years is written, the PMs who get the most coverage will be Churchill and Thatcher, probably closely followed by Blair and (maybe) Boris. They had the confidence to propose and push through radical agendas - the rest will be regarded by history as just caretakers.
|
>> When the political history of the last 100 years is written, the PMs who get
>> the most coverage will be Churchill and Thatcher, probably closely followed by Blair and (maybe)
>> Boris. They had the confidence to propose and push through radical agendas - the rest
>> will be regarded by history as just caretakers.
The only pushing or radical that happened out of those 4 is Thatcher.
|
>> I doubt they'd have got a yes/no answer from a Conservative either. The SDP has
>> suggested it's in favour of self identification and has had a deal of trouble for
>> its troubles.
That should of course have read SNP.
|
>> That should of course have read SNP.
No, I think you had it about right, the first time.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 27 Sep 21 at 02:49
|
Any voting system you vote on, will almost certainly be hijacked by radicals try to take control, of what they see as a vehicle of power
No party is immune, and has from a suffered a credibility gap
|
>If the answer is obvious and the subject of no import outside the militants it rather begs
> the question of why the R4 presenter thought it worth raising.
Maybe the presenter wanted to give her the opportunity to prove that she didn't deserve her Westminster nickname?
|
>> Maybe the presenter wanted to give her the opportunity to prove that she didn't deserve
>> her Westminster nickname?
Save me Googling, what is that nickname.
|
I was quite warming to Starmer and could've forgiven his choice of deputy until she opened her gob.
Perhaps they're hoping to appeal to the yob element?
|
>> I was quite warming to Starmer and could've forgiven his choice of deputy until she
>> opened her gob.
He didn't choose her, she was elected by the Membership.
I also wonder whether reactions would be the same if she spoke in an RP accent.
|
|
I bet sks wishes he could choose his deputy.
|
>>
>> I also wonder whether reactions would be the same if she spoke in an RP
>> accent.
>>
No ones issue with her is her accent; she’s just very unpleasant to people, is not a team player and not that bright. Her confidence is way ahead of her ability, which to be fair is true of many politicians. But her style plays well to the somewhat inward looking and parochial guardian reading contingent in the Labour Party that either seem not to understand how to win an election, or do understand and don’t really want to. It doesn’t resonate at all with the voters. Of course that’s the voters fault..if only they realised what was best for them ;)
Last edited by: PeterS on Mon 27 Sep 21 at 08:00
|
Disregarding her accent, education, intelligence and actual views I think the net of it is that she just isn't a good enough communicator to get her message across in an effective way. Her style will never have broad appeal and seems only to cut through when she is being divisive in some way.
You can't really expect to win votes from people when you are telling them they voted for scum. That sort of thing is OK for getting onside with angry activists but it's naive to think that such comments won't be widely reported.
For many she was a compromise candidate in the deputy leadership election. Essentially lightweight, satisfyingly anti-Conservative, and not Richard Burgon. I don't think Rosena Allin Khan was the ideal candidate but I think she would have been a better choice.
It's tragic that Labour is being so hopeless when the government offers them one open goal after another.
|
I listened to Grangela Rayner in 'the house' last week and thought why isn't in the top job.
But after her vitriolic remarks about the Tories, I reckon she has cooked her goose good and proper.
|
>>I also wonder whether reactions would be the same if she spoke in an RP accent.
I wasn't commenting on her accent, but her choice of words. I'm hardly in a position to criticise others accents having a full Lutonian myself.
|
She is the left wing equivalent of a right ring swivel-eyed loon (they exist too). They both appeal to a limited, but very enthusiastic audience.
She may or may not be bright, but she has the ability to communicate effectively - in that sense a sort of left wing Boris.
Her performance almost certainly set back the chances of a Labour government. The party conference, apart from communicating the illusion of mutually agreed policies, should:
- allow the already faithful to re-affirm support,
- encourage those disenchanted with other parties, and old members returning to the fold
She may have lost support from many of the former who would be disgusted by her outburst, and is likely to increase the resolve of the latter group to remain where they are.
|
|
She lost me by her use of language. She addresses people as “comrades”. That sends more of a shiver up my spine than “scum”.
|
The first duty of a politician is to get themselves and their party elected.
Just like a car or insurance salesman this is best done by getting people to like you. Not by insulting people. But by persuading people that your views seem sensible and reasonable.
It really as simple/difficult as that.
Calling people 'scum' is not the way to do it.
|
The right wing equivalent to the good lady may use words and phrases to describe the opposition and their supporters including:
"lazy, workshy, ignorant, irresponsible, benefit cheats, breeding like rabbits, illiterate, dishonest, drug taking, obese, politics of envy, fantasy magic money trees, marxist, leninist, trotskyite, transgender, homosexual etc etc"
I've probably missed many. Boris may think this but I have never heard him express these sentiments in public all in one hit - or even a few of them separately. A few in the Tory party may!
Both sets of rhetoric are entirely unjustified and unacceptable. It is the language of the arrogant, unpleasant, power hungry, and hate.
|
|
Doesn't scum normally rise to the top?
|
>> The right wing equivalent to the good lady may use words and phrases to describe
>> the opposition and their supporters including:
>>
>> "lazy, workshy, ignorant, irresponsible, benefit cheats, breeding like rabbits, illiterate, dishonest, drug taking, obese, politics
>> of envy, fantasy magic money trees, marxist, leninist, trotskyite, transgender, homosexual etc etc"
The reports I've seen on BBC, Guardian and I websites are all clear she was speaking about the Government Front Bench and with particular focus on the PM. Nothing suggests it was aimed at Tory voters.
The epithet causing a fit of the vapours is scum. Nobody seems to have disagreed with racist, misogynist or homophobic.
|
The epithet causing a fit of the vapours is scum. Nobody seems to have disagreed
>> with racist, misogynist or homophobic.
>>
Rule 1 of public political mudfights, keep things simple.
|
Rosie Duffield has been attacked by her own party for saying that "Only women have a cervix", with even Starmer saying "She shouldn't have said that, it's not right".
As anyone with half a brain knows, it is dead right and by arguing otherwise to appease a loud minority the party is turning itself into an unelectable laughing stock at a time the country needs a decent opposition more than ever.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58708009
Looks like drink might well have been involved.
|
So Ms Rayner has now apologised for and retracted her 'scum' comment.
I don't think it is a coincidence that she has done so at the same time as somebody has been sentenced for threats to her/her family. Two others have been arrested and are being interviewed/investigated for similar offences. It's quite apparent she's has had a deluge of terrifying threats, not just to her but to her children as well. She's also on compassionate leave following the loss of a loved one so it's reasonable to conclude she's at a low ebb anyway.
Even mainstream commentators have tried to suggest a link between her remarks and the murder of David Amess. The reality, based on the limited facts available whilst there are live court proceedings, is that the motive was associated with extreme Islam and possibly Middle East/African politics and that the crime was long in the planning.
Retraction seems to be an attempt to dial down the rhetoric.
Whether the 'scum' comment was or was not over the top the fact that she's effectively been intimidated into withdrawal/apology is not a good thing for political discourse.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 29 Oct 21 at 11:17
|
>> the fact that she's
>> effectively been intimidated into withdrawal/apology is not a good thing for political discourse.
Whilst I would agree with you, I feel that language similar to that used by her is to be deplored.
|
|
More likely she has realised that inflammatory comments (and "scum" is one of them) is going to provoke unpleasant inflammatory reaction. Frankly some people shouldn't be allowed a soapbox. Maybe she has learned something, let's hope
|
>> More likely she has realised that inflammatory comments (and "scum" is one of them) is
>> going to provoke unpleasant inflammatory reaction. Frankly some people shouldn't be allowed a soapbox. Maybe
>> she has learned something, let's hope
So, albeit you express yourself differently you agree my basic point that she's been intimidated.
Not a good thing is it?
I think Nye Bevan and Denis Skinner, to name just two, got away with far worse before Social Media upped the ante.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 29 Oct 21 at 11:31
|
Her comments were completely unacceptable. Senior politicians should know better and behave better irrespective of political leanings.
That she did not apologise immediately for her remarks shows a lack of judgement and humility.
The comments made are not somehow justified by the intimidation she was subsequently subjected to.
This does not excuse the behaviour of others who have been abusive or threatening. Nor does it reduce the personal sympathy she deserves for personal loss.
|
>> So, albeit you express yourself differently you agree my basic point that she's been intimidated.
>>
In that she opened her gob spewing insults thinking she had some kind of immunity
>> Not a good thing is it?
Deserved I call it
>> I think Nye Bevan and Denis Skinner, to name just two, got away with far
>> worse before Social Media upped the ante.
They had a little wit, and Street cred, she has neither
|
>>
>> >> So, albeit you express yourself differently you agree my basic point that she's been
>> intimidated.
>> >>
>> In that she opened her gob spewing insults thinking she had some kind of immunity
>> >> Not a good thing is it?
>> Deserved I call it
You cannot seriously justify the threats to her and her family.
Scum might have been at the outer end of discourse but it was a specific reference to members of the Cabinet who have demonstrably expressed homophobic, misogynist or racist views. Some are Etonians too.
If it were pursued as defamation she'd have a solid defence for truth/justification.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 29 Oct 21 at 17:02
|
>> Scum might have been at the outer end of discourse but it was a specific
>> reference to members of the Cabinet who have demonstrably expressed homophobic, misogynist or racist views. Some are Etonians too.
95+ % of Labour's traditional working class voters have done exactly the same, none of them went to Eton as far as I know.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 29 Oct 21 at 19:44
|
>>Scum might have been at the outer end of discourse but it was a specific reference to members of the Cabinet who have demonstrably expressed homophobic, misogynist or racist views. Some are Etonians too.
"Might"??
Do I take it that you approve it is, or at least justify it, if it is against people who have themselves said bad things? And presumably doubly so if they are from a party you don't support.
Not acceptable from them, not acceptable from her.
Bunch of immature t***s.
|
>> >>Scum might have been at the outer end of discourse but it was a specific
>> reference to members of the Cabinet who have demonstrably expressed homophobic, misogynist or racist views.
>> Some are Etonians too.
>>
>> "Might"??
>>
>> Do I take it that you approve it is, or at least justify it, if
>> it is against people who have themselves said bad things? And presumably doubly so if
>> they are from a party you don't support.
I don't particularly approve but as I've said already I don't think it's at all serious or anywhere near a red card offence. There's a lot of faux outrage over it, particularly in the Tory press and those who absurdly link it to the murder of David Amess.
|
>>those who absurdly link it to the murder of David Amess.
I agree that to say one caused the other is absurd. However, it is part of a growing style of behaviour, communication, lack of respect etc. which is certainly causing various unpleasant results.
And it is appalling behaviour typical of politicians today.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 30 Oct 21 at 14:48
|
How would folk feel about a right wing Tory senior minister standing up at a meeting and saying (for instance) of left wing supporters- "they are just lazy, thick, benefit cheats, incapable of an honest days work, with an overwhelming sense of entitlement"
Not materially different to the Rayner rant, and would no doubt be equally offensive to those at whom the tirade was directed.
Neither Rayner or the above are acceptable from those who seek influence and leadership roles in a civilised society. A defence of "trivial", "slightly inappropriate" or "simply playing to their audience" is not a credible defence.
She is a disgrace and should resign!
|
>> She is a disgrace and should resign!
Not very convincing. Your analogy would be untrue, whereas Rayner just used inappropriate language. Had she used the word despicable there would be no case to answer.
|
>> How would folk feel about a right wing Tory senior minister standing up at a
>> meeting and saying (for instance) of left wing supporters- "they are just lazy, thick, benefit
>> cheats, incapable of an honest days work, with an overwhelming sense of entitlement"
>>
>> Not materially different to the Rayner rant, and would no doubt be equally offensive to
>> those at whom the tirade was directed.
Quite different. Rayner's comments were about the Conservative Front Bench not the party's supporters.
An appropriate analogy would be comments by senior Tories about people like Dianne Abbott or Jeremy Corbyn.
|
>>
>> Quite different. Rayner's comments were about the Conservative Front Bench not the party's supporters.
>>
>> An appropriate analogy would be comments by senior Tories about people like Dianne Abbott or
>> Jeremy Corbyn.
>>
Actually pretty similar because it was only after the event she tried to frame it as referring to the front bench, when it became apparent that what was meant as rabble rousing for a group of labour activists had reached rather wider audience. However, that form of damage limitation is a technique used by all politicians at some point, when they realise they’ve put their foot in it!
|
>> Actually pretty similar because it was only after the event she tried to frame it
>> as referring to the front bench, when it became apparent that what was meant as
>> rabble rousing for a group of labour activists had reached rather wider audience.
Any evidence for that?
The comment, made at a fringe/social event, referred to homophobia, misogyny, racism and Etonians.
The last word seems to be quite specific.
|
What's that phrase you use Bromps? Dog whistle - defined as "political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition".
That's what her scum comment felt like to me - a dog whistle, deliberately chosen and aimed to resonate with certain potential supporters, and increase her support, at which is was successful.
She got the intended publicity and backed down, despite saying she wouldn't.
If she didn't consider the potential consequences of such a comment on social media etc she isn't really fit for purpose.
|
If she planned to use the word it was ill-judged. More likely it came from heightened emotion in the heat of the moment. Either way it was a bad choice.
Nevertheless it is more a matter of style than content, which I would find easier to defend the the Prime Ministers outright lies.
|
|
If it was in the heat of the moment she doubled down the next day. And it's not the first time is it?
|
>> Rosie Duffield has been attacked by her own party for saying that "Only women have
>> a cervix", with even Starmer saying "She shouldn't have said that, it's not right".
>>
>> As anyone with half a brain knows, it is dead right and by arguing otherwise
>> to appease a loud minority the party is turning itself into an unelectable laughing stock
>> at a time the country needs a decent opposition more than ever.
The problem with Ms Duffield's assertion is that its corollary is that anyone with a cervix is a woman.
Which is a bit of a beggar if your a trans man with a Gender Recognition Certificate to support your status.
|
>>Gender Recognition Certificate
What a pe of old s***e. Identify how you wish, have whatever surgery you wish, but you *are* male or female. It is not a matter of choice.
|
>> >>Gender Recognition Certificate
>>
>> What a pe of old s***e. Identify how you wish, have whatever surgery you wish,
>> but you *are* male or female. It is not a matter of choice.
Not clear, at least to me, as a matter of law. One can change one's gender status and be issued with a new birth certificate in certain circumstances. Gender reassignment surgery is not necessary.
One would have to have suffered from gender dysphoria, to have lived as a member of the assigned gender for at least 2 years, and to intend to remain in that gender for life.
It's easy to see the problems that arise here. How, for example, could a man live as a woman for 2 years if she wasn't allowed to use ladies lavs prior to gender reassignment.
I take the view that it doesn't much affect me so whatever accommodation is reached is probably OK.
About 15 years ago, a male colleague - let's call him Robert - announced that he would henceforth be living as a woman. He did, too. Male colleagues were generally accepting and supportive. A lot of the women were quite nasty about Roberta using their facilities and objected, unsuccessfully, to her doing so.
|
Manatee, one person I know did all that, eventually had surgery to remove all his bits and give decent boobs. He made a very attractive woman. Unfortunately three years in, has realised it was all a massive mistake but now irreversible apart from the breast implants. I know that is only one person, but obviously counselling etc was not good enough for what was really a mental health issue.
|
|
Tracey Emin is a woman, she hasn't got a cervix.
|
>> What a pe of old s***e. Identify how you wish, have whatever surgery you wish,
>> but you *are* male or female. It is not a matter of choice.
You're perfectly entitled to hold that view, a proposition recently endorsed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal:
tinyurl.com/v2kjcjyb (link to EAT website)
However at present the law allows Gender Recognition Certificates which can make the owner of a cervix legally a man. One such was interviewed on BBC R4's PM programme last night.
The point he made was that Sajid Javid was ignoring the legalities to make a cheap political point.
There's a real issue about safe spaces for women but it won't be solved by the absolutist line of Ms Duffield and others.
|
>>You're perfectly entitled to hold that view
I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but I am aware of my rights to hold the opinions I choose.
I agree on safe spaces for everybody, not just women. But if every new gender demands either it's own safe space or the right to share someone else's it's not going to work.
I can think of no reason why women should be forced to share their safe space with someone pretending to be a woman, however committed that person is to the pretence. Nor why any male should refuse.
|
>> I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but I am aware of my rights
>> to hold the opinions I choose.
No I meant that the EAT decision in the Forstater case I linked seems to confirm that the absolutist gender critical belief that natal sex is immutable was a Philosophical belief under the Equality Act. Had it gone the other way then, at least in some contexts, it's expression might put people in the frame for hate crime type actions. Indeed I think somebody was but the prosecution was either misguided or poorly presented.
>> I can think of no reason why women should be forced to share their safe
>> space with someone pretending to be a woman, however committed that person is to the
>> pretence. Nor why any male should refuse.
I'd start from the principle that trans women are women and then work out how to deal with miscreants who pretend to be women to gain access to such spaces.
Like a couple of others here I've watched a colleague transition male to female. Not somebody I saw every day, they were a ministerial appointment to a Quango so attended meetings etc on a monthly or so basis. Apparently they'd long felt miscast in the male gender but there was little option for exploring it in the sixties and they married etc. Only after being widowed did they do anything about it. Went through hormones, living in the acquired gender, and subsequently surgery.
None of the issues Manatee describes; female colleagues were totally supportive.
I really don't see how she can be described as 'someone pretending to be a woman'.
One of my son's oldest friends, they were babies at nursery together, is currently transitioning. Tom is very understanding and supportive of his friend and got quite upset last weekend when another of his schoolmates was dismissive of the issue.
SWMBO and I also have the transitioner as a Facebook friend so see some posts about the prejudices he experiences.
|
>> Like a couple of others here I've watched a colleague transition male to female. Not
>> somebody I saw every day, they were a ministerial appointment to a Quango so attended
>> meetings etc on a monthly or so basis. Apparently they'd long felt miscast in the
>> male gender but there was little option for exploring it in the sixties and they
>> married etc. Only after being widowed did they do anything about it. Went through hormones, living in the acquired gender, and subsequently surgery.
There is a big difference between someone who goes through the surgical process of changing gender (Robert Millar, mountains category winner in the 1985 Tour de France and now living as Phillipa Yorke, for example) and what many of the trans community want, that anyone who simply declares themselves as female should automatically be regarded as such.
It makes about as much sense as me declaring that I'm now a tin of Heinz Alphabet Spaghetti.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 28 Sep 21 at 19:34
|
>> The reports I've seen on BBC, Guardian and I websites are all clear she was
>> speaking about the Government Front Bench and with particular focus on the PM. Nothing suggests
>> it was aimed at Tory voters.
>>
>> The epithet causing a fit of the vapours is scum. Nobody seems to have disagreed
>> with racist, misogynist or homophobic.
>>
Even the Guardian, which has never been a particularly reliable source of unbiased or accurate news, does not make it clear that she was referring to the Front Bench, though there has been some spin to portray it that way.
The focus on the offence caused by referring to vast swathes of voters as ‘scum’ is because that’s the language she used. After some in her own party distanced themselves from that statement she then said she would say sorry, but only if Boris Johnson apologised for past comments he made “that are homophobic, that are racist, that are misogynistic”. But there were no specific comments referred to so it’s a specious parallel to draw, and an approach reminiscent of a teenager arguing, badly.
|
She did tweet something with a few links to various of his utterances including this one
www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/09/27/boris-johnson-tank-top-bum-boys-homophobic-peter-mandleson-history/
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 27 Sep 21 at 17:09
|
Shadow Cabinet member has resigned in a protest against Starmer.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58713175
|
An effective opposition should hold the government to account.
What we have are a woeful excuse for an opposition. Despite all the opportunity they have had over the last 18 months, none of it has stuck.
The party conference has done zero to improve their chances of electoral success - inward looking infighting being the order of the day. Nothing of any substance to suggest any real plans.
Labour are not without competent and decent individuals. Perhaps a reinvention of a Lib/Lab pact could be in order. This will allow the truly nutter left (as I see them) to continue their pursuit of the politics of hate and envy, additionally becoming angy about their inevitable irrelevance.
|
>> She did tweet something with a few links to various of his utterances including this
>> one
>>
>> www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/09/27/boris-johnson-tank-top-bum-boys-homophobic-peter-mandleson-history/
>>
>>
There’s been a lot of after the event justification of many of the events in Brighton, though the 2019 resolution for kinder, gentler politics was soon forgotten. And I’ve had a pretty interesting evening in Brighton chatting to all sorts of people, though not at conference itself I hasten to add! I do wonder how well any politicians words from 23 years ago stand the test of time though. From what I recall of the response back then to that article, many who Angela think should be offended were were highly amused by it. And though the intention could be perceived as offensive I doubt it was, and it does at least show a creative use of the English language, unlike the abuse currently hurled about by some :)
All we want, no, need, is a strong opposition. No one can imagine the current shadow cabinet being in power. Most people couldn’t even name the shadow cabinet. The Labour Party is full of people fighting running battles with anyone whose views don’t match their own narrow, privileged, parochial view of life. And the electorate won’t elect people for student politics level attacks on those that don’t agree with them. They just want to believe that who they’re voting for understands what matters to them, has a plan, can lead and won’t mess everything up. God knows the bar’s not particularly high at the moment, but still they undershoot by miles.
|
>> God knows the bar's not particularly high at the moment, but still they undershoot by miles.
Isn't that the truth - Boris is a miserable excuse for a statesman, but his Brexit cabinet buddies are truly awful.
And Labour's front bench are even worse!
Ultimately they (Labour) need someone who will punt the far left or encourage them to FO into their own little clique.
It's centre ground or fail for whoever tries to take over from the Tories next.
|
And you know what? Its all our (us being the electorate) fault for turning out and voting for these numpties.
I think I am going to start an Abstain party, that campaigns on asking people not to vote in protest. I wont be elected of course, unless I have cocked it up badly.
|
No future for the Labour Party? is the title of the thread and I think that is about right. The Left heckled their own leader - what does that tell you?
Starmer said in his marathon 89 minute speech today - how did the delegates stay awake? - that amongst other things, British homes have the most inefficient insulation in Europe - which is just untrue. May I refer you to one of my favourite programmes, BBC Radio 4s More or Less more or Less, which only yesterday debunked that claim.
I think the Labour movement will have to try a lot harder.
|
Going to jump in here and agree that the Labour Party in its current form is doomed. It's beset by infighting, has no clear manifesto, a fence-sitting leader who's unable to debate an imbecile outside a courtroom, problems (still!) with anti-Semitism, and a huge problem with a chunk of their previous core voters called Brexit.
They've announced no plans to support young people and reverse the cuts made to youth support services by the Tories, and at the same time are resolutely silent on things like student loans. Silence on extracting fair taxes from Google / Apple / Microsoft / Amazon. No announcements on supporting EV charging or greener energy installations.
I left Labour when Jeremy Corbyn started farting around with things and have no inclination to go back. Given the industry I work in it should say something that I voted Green at the last two elections.
I'm not averse to paying more tax - I think relatively high earners don't do too badly from a tax perspective in the UK - but right now I don't think that a Labour government charging me more tax would benefit the people who need it most.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Sun 3 Oct 21 at 09:25
|
No future for the Labour Party? - sooty123
