paulfromcamden
Baffled
make it even worse to make sure they are so hated they are out of office for a generation or more.
It's not going to happen. Not in England.
make it even worse to make sure they are so hated they are out of office for a generation or more.
I agree. Don't underestimate the chilling effect of raising the PLP nomination threshold though:Point 2 will be the killer. I very much doubt that a CLP would get a 50% turnout on a postal ballot for anything so getting a majority of membership rather than turnout will be nigh on impossible
Perhaps not right now.It's not going to happen. Not in England.
And then after a paragraph or so there was a footnote on page 3 which reads:Mainstream economics is replete with ideas that “everyone knows” to be true, but that are actually arrant nonsense.
From the Federal Reserve! This thing is breaking down and a lot of economists have known this for a long time, but political parties are almost immune to recognising it. There is a routine which everyone sticks to, saying the same things derived from the same set of traditional falsehoods. Before anything changes long-term, this has to break down completely.2. I leave aside the deeper concern that the primary role of mainstream economics in our society is to provide an apologetics for a criminally oppressive, unsustainable, and unjust social order.
Pick a colour. Any colour as long as it's (not) black.Deselection never had much significance IMO. It’s the 20% PLP nomination for leadership thing that’s disastrous. Members will still get to vote, but only for right wingers. Completely insulates the party from reality.
Yes, bit troubling that.And yet he is still backed as general secretary 59% to 41%... It's insane.
That's a relief. I'm reassured that they are concentrating on the important stuff at a time when fuel isn't being distributed, we have empty shelves in supermarkets and manufacturers are unable to obtain an essential component of a number of essential food items.Guys, guys, can't we just be grateful that we finally have a "functioning opposition"?
And yes, this is real.
That footnote is extraordinary. The previous day, Starmer's The Road Ahead was published. It seems to describe a different world, one where no fundamental economic change is required, merely adjustments within the existing paradigm. In particular, its economic prescriptions sound inadequate:And then after a paragraph or so there was a footnote on page 3 which reads:
"2. I leave aside the deeper concern that the primary role of mainstream economics in our society is to provide an apologetics for a criminally oppressive, unsustainable, and unjust social order."
From the Federal Reserve!
The first task in remaking the nation will be resetting the relationship between the government and business to create an economy that works. That will require a new, commonsense, practical approach: one in which we don’t treat the economy as a battle for supremacy between public sector and private sector, but a joint effort. We need to drive innovation and change and drive up standards for employers and employees.
Yes. That third way stuff is like a slippery snake, because it sort of sounds correct and just in essence. The rhetoric speaks to the centrist mind which imagines these two naturally separate powers: public sector (home of the 'communists' et al) and private sector (owners of money and land of innovators), jostling for domination and which needs careful mediation to balance them. It's not even like that. I'll be characteristically boring for a paragraph:That footnote is extraordinary. The previous day, Starmer's The Road Ahead was published. It seems to describe a different world, one where no fundamental economic change is required, merely adjustments within the existing paradigm. In particular, its economic prescriptions sound inadequate:
Is it just me, or does that sound like the Third Way?
Ah, but if only he had starmer's many qualities...
Marcus Rashford. The leader of the opposition to the government
Like penetrating defences of the home team?Ah, but if only he had starmer's many qualities...
Headlines today say the Starmer is thinking about removing Charitable status for private schools. A great idea, but will it still be a firm policy by the end of the week? Or is Starmer just throwing it out there now to test the water and will row back when the inevitable push back happens?
That footnote is extraordinary. The previous day, Starmer's The Road Ahead was published. It seems to describe a different world, one where no fundamental economic change is required, merely adjustments within the existing paradigm. In particular, its economic prescriptions sound inadequate:
Is it just me, or does that sound like the Third Way?
Didn’t that same policy get floated by the JC team and get greeted by a bout of extra-loud spluttering and cries of ‘politics of envy’? Sure I remember it being a thing not too far back.
I’d be all for it, not that it’d warm me up to KS/the current LP in general.
I’m just watching The Invisible Man on Marr now (I’m a bit late as I was watching Angela Rayner calling Tories “scum” on Sky earlier). Even the feckless Marr managed to hold him to one of his ten pledges. As ever there were many words but nothing was said.
PS Rayner for leader, obvs.