UK Politics - General News & Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

the centrist working class voters they need to win a GE

New Labour won them over; how long will they stick with Boris (does Jacob R-S speak/ appeal to them )?

[Pseudo]

He's the type of the left wing nut job that Labour need to be rid of in order to become electable again

See his election winning speech, no further explanation needed

The nature of our electoral systems requires that major parties be broad churches that encompass wide ranges of views. That means that Labour have to attract people who agree with Russell-Moyle as much as the Conservatives have to attract people who agree with the likes of Mark Francois.

Broad, sure, but there's a limit. Francois and the likes haven't prevented the Tories from winning, the likes of Russel-Moyle will continue to prevent Labour from winning

I really don't think that's the case. Did Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Tony Benn, Michael Meacher, Diane Abbot or Ronnie Campbell prevent Labour from winning in 1997?

Thats an overly simplistic arguement, ignoring many factors and differences. My point is, with Russell-Moyle in the Shadow Cabinet Labour is less electable, not more electable, to the centrist working class voters they need to win a GE

Your argument appears to be based on the misconception that Russell-Moyle is in the Shadow Cabinet, he isn't. Shadow Minister for Natural Environment and Air Quality isn't a cabinet level position. It also ignores the fact that Michael Meacher was in Blair's Shadow Cabinet and was Minister of State for the Environment in the first Blair ministry, which doesn't sound that much far away from Russell-Moyle's current position of Shadow Minister for Natural Environment and Air Quality.

I think that the problem is that you're focusing on something that isn't really something that's going to dissuade voters who are shifting to Labour for other reasons.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Natural Environment and Air Quality

A less 'bruising' portfolio
- and he needs green credentials, to keep his seat, too

[dmereifield]

the centrist working class voters they need to win a GE

New Labour won them over; how long will they stick with Boris (does Jacob R-S speak/ appeal to them )?

Whether he appeals to them or not, they voted for the Tories - again. Labour hasn't won a GE in 15 years, losing 4 in that period

[dmereifield]

He's the type of the left wing nut job that Labour need to be rid of in order to become electable again

See his election winning speech, no further explanation needed

The nature of our electoral systems requires that major parties be broad churches that encompass wide ranges of views. That means that Labour have to attract people who agree with Russell-Moyle as much as the Conservatives have to attract people who agree with the likes of Mark Francois.

Broad, sure, but there's a limit. Francois and the likes haven't prevented the Tories from winning, the likes of Russel-Moyle will continue to prevent Labour from winning

I really don't think that's the case. Did Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Tony Benn, Michael Meacher, Diane Abbot or Ronnie Campbell prevent Labour from winning in 1997?

Thats an overly simplistic arguement, ignoring many factors and differences. My point is, with Russell-Moyle in the Shadow Cabinet Labour is less electable, not more electable, to the centrist working class voters they need to win a GE

Your argument appears to be based on the misconception that Russell-Moyle is in the Shadow Cabinet, he isn't. Shadow Minister for Natural Environment and Air Quality isn't a cabinet level position. It also ignores the fact that Michael Meacher was in Blair's Shadow Cabinet and was Minister of State for the Environment in the first Blair ministry, which doesn't sound that much far away from Russell-Moyle's current position of Shadow Minister for Natural Environment and Air Quality.

I think that the problem is that you're focusing on something that isn't really something that's going to dissuade voters who are shifting to Labour for other reasons.

My arguement isn't built on that - it's built on the fact that with people like him being a Labour spokesperson, holding a brief (albeit not Shadow Cabinet level),.Starmer will struggle to convince centrist voters that he has been able to wrestle the party back from the far left

[ArmChairCivvy]

Labour hasn't won a GE in 15 years, losing 4 in that period

They've smashed it, with the unlearning of lessons. The Schwerpunkt - the key for success - is winning the middleground
- the visible Tory person I chose, so as to highlight both ends of the spectrum if you look at the main parties together, to put under the microscope seems to be aiming for the high ground instead
- but in so doing will soon become a liability and will be sent to 'head for the hills'... into political wilderness. Which takes me back to the discussion as it was started: Starmer has realised that he will have to do the same to the nut jobs in his party, or they as a party will stay in that same place

[Pseudo]

He's the type of the left wing nut job that Labour need to be rid of in order to become electable again

See his election winning speech, no further explanation needed

The nature of our electoral systems requires that major parties be broad churches that encompass wide ranges of views. That means that Labour have to attract people who agree with Russell-Moyle as much as the Conservatives have to attract people who agree with the likes of Mark Francois.

Broad, sure, but there's a limit. Francois and the likes haven't prevented the Tories from winning, the likes of Russel-Moyle will continue to prevent Labour from winning

I really don't think that's the case. Did Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Tony Benn, Michael Meacher, Diane Abbot or Ronnie Campbell prevent Labour from winning in 1997?

Thats an overly simplistic arguement, ignoring many factors and differences. My point is, with Russell-Moyle in the Shadow Cabinet Labour is less electable, not more electable, to the centrist working class voters they need to win a GE

Your argument appears to be based on the misconception that Russell-Moyle is in the Shadow Cabinet, he isn't. Shadow Minister for Natural Environment and Air Quality isn't a cabinet level position. It also ignores the fact that Michael Meacher was in Blair's Shadow Cabinet and was Minister of State for the Environment in the first Blair ministry, which doesn't sound that much far away from Russell-Moyle's current position of Shadow Minister for Natural Environment and Air Quality.

I think that the problem is that you're focusing on something that isn't really something that's going to dissuade voters who are shifting to Labour for other reasons.

My arguement isn't built on that it's built on the fact that with people like him being a Labour spokesperson, holding a brief (albeit not Shadow Cabinet level),.Starmer will struggle to convince centrist voters that he has been able to wrestle the party back from the far left

And my refutation of your argument remains that Michael Meacher being a Labour spokesperson and holding a brief didn't prevent Blair from convincing centrist voters that he'd been able to reform the party.

[dmereifield]

^^ you're of course welcome to a different opinion, but your arguement is rather vacuous, ignoring the many other relevant factors and the different circumstances. Not least of which is that Kier Starmer is not Tony Blair, and Boris Jonson is not John Major

[SKB]

Tony Blair, that "working class" boy born in Edinburgh to Conservative parents, who enjoyed a privileged boarding school education as well as 'fagging' for the older boys, then who went on to study law at Oxford University like his Tory father once did....

And under his later career as Prime Minister, further privatised public utilities and institutions into private businesses - just as Margaret Thatcher had done in the 1980s.

And who also delared war on a country that had alleged "weapons of mass destruction". Which it didn't.

Very "Labour".

[Pseudo]

^^ you're of course welcome to a different opinion, but your arguement is rather vacuous,

Rebuttals don't have to be complex when the argument that they're rebutting is simplistic.

ignoring the many other relevant factors and the different circumstances. Not least of which is that Kier Starmer is not Tony Blair, and Boris Jonson is not John Major

What a wonderfully facile point you make. Obviously, no political leader or situation is precisely analogous to any other, but that doesn't mean that you can't draw comparisons between them. After all, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

You might want to pretend that the politics of junior shadow ministers are a significant issue for voters, but I don't think that you'll find much to back that up. Unless they cause a significant scandal then I doubt most voters outside of their own constituency even know who most junior shadow ministers are.

[dmereifield]

^^ you're of course welcome to a different opinion, but your arguement is rather vacuous,

Rebuttals don't have to be complex when the argument that they're rebutting is simplistic.

ignoring the many other relevant factors and the different circumstances. Not least of which is that Kier Starmer is not Tony Blair, and Boris Jonson is not John Major

What a wonderfully facile point you make. Obviously, no political leader or situation is precisely analogous to any other, but that doesn't mean that you can't draw comparisons between them. After all, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

You might want to pretend that the politics of junior shadow ministers are a significant issue for voters, but I don't think that you'll find much to back that up. Unless they cause a significant scandal then I doubt most voters outside of their own constituency even know who most junior shadow ministers are.

That's not the point I made, as you know. My point, again, was that having the likes of Russell-Moyle holding briefs and speaking on behalf of the Shadow Government will make it more difficult for centrist voters to believe that Starmer has rid the Labour party of the hard left. Nothing you have provided as a rebuttal has provided sufficient evidence for me to change that view. We are allowed to disagree

[Pseudo]

^^ you're of course welcome to a different opinion, but your arguement is rather vacuous,

Rebuttals don't have to be complex when the argument that they're rebutting is simplistic.

ignoring the many other relevant factors and the different circumstances. Not least of which is that Kier Starmer is not Tony Blair, and Boris Jonson is not John Major

What a wonderfully facile point you make. Obviously, no political leader or situation is precisely analogous to any other, but that doesn't mean that you can't draw comparisons between them. After all, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

You might want to pretend that the politics of junior shadow ministers are a significant issue for voters, but I don't think that you'll find much to back that up. Unless they cause a significant scandal then I doubt most voters outside of their own constituency even know who most junior shadow ministers are.

That's not the point I made, as you know. My point, again, was that having the likes of Russell-Moyle holding briefs and speaking on behalf of the Shadow Government will make it more difficult for centrist voters to believe that Starmer has rid the Labour party of the hard left.

That exactly the point that I was responding to when I pointed out that unless they cause a significant scandal then I doubt most voters outside of their own constituency even know who most junior shadow ministers are. That makes it hard to believe that voters are going to be dissuaded from voting Labour because they might not entirely agree with the politics of an MP they've never heard of holding a shadow junior ministerial portfolio they've never heard of.

Nothing you have provided as a rebuttal has provided sufficient evidence for me to change that view. We are allowed to disagree

If Labour winning a historic landslide with a hard left MP in shadow ministerial position isn't enough evidence for you that Labour can win with over centrist voters with a hard left MP in a shadow ministerial positions then I'd suggest that it's probable that you can't be convinced because as I've demonstrated, your belief isn't one that has basis in precedent and you haven't actually presented any evidence for why you think that Russell-Moyle merely being a shadow minister would dissuade centrist voters from supporting Labour.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Labour have a very uphill battle to win the next election for a variety of reasons, but Russell-Moyle being a shadow minister isn't one of those reasons.

[Pseudo]

A Very British Coup?
A Former RN Trident Submarine Commander Assess

Coups happen in other countries – they are not something the public would ever expect in Britain. But could such a thing be occurring in plain sight here today or is this simply a wild exaggeration of a few bumps in road in our democracy?

Since Prime Minister Boris Johnson was voted into power, his Government has threatened parliamentary sovereignty, the independence of the judiciary, the independence of the BBC, the individual right to trial by jury and has undermined public confidence in all institutions of governance to an extent never seen before.

The net effect of all these measures could amount to a coup – a very British coup, one which will perhaps only be evident in hindsight.

The Government’s justification for such behaviour seems to be ‘the national interest’ – but the ‘Government’ and the ‘state’ here are not synonymous. When the two diverge to the extent that the Government starts acting in its own interest and to the detriment of the interests of the state, this can be construed as a coup.

[SW1]

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

This is a resignation letter from a journalist at the New York Times. Should you read it so much of it could be directed at many news organisations over here and what has and the direction of travel,since the eu referendum.

[SKB]

Huawei to be banned and removed from UK 5G networks by 2027

(The Sun) 14th July 2020

Boris Johnson bans Huawei from 5G network from next year – but it will take until 2027 for ALL of it to be scrapped.

The Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden today announced that new Huawei equipment will be banned from next year after a growing backlash against the company.

Speaking in the Commons, Mr Dowden explained the decision came after US sanctions against the network.

He said: "The National Cyber Security Centre has reviewed the consequences of the US actions, the NCSC has now reported to ministers that they have significantly changed their security assessment of Huawei's precence in the UK's 5 network.

"The Government agrees with the NSCS’s advice, the best way to secure our networks if to stop using new affected Huawei equipment to build the UK’s 5G networks

"From the end of this year telecoms operators must not buy any equipment from Huawei, and after the telecoms bill it will be illegal to do so."

The move is a major u-turn for the Government, who had vowed to continue with Huawei despite concerns from Tory MPs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... n-telecoms
and
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/huaw ... ks-by-2027




...says the company thats already banned in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, the US.

[Pseudo]

After being announced as the next chair of the Intelligence and Security Select Committee a few weeks ago, "failing" Chris Grayling has unsurprisingly failed to do so. He was defeated in the vote by Julian Lewis, who should actually be pretty good in the job given the pretty excellent job he's done in holding the government to account as chair of the Defence Select Committee.

[Pseudo]

And now in a petty and self-defeating act of revenge they've withdrawn the whip from Julian Lewis thus removing any hold that the government has over him.

I think that we can expect the Russia report by the end of the week and going forward an ISC that's independent of the government will be interesting.

[Jensy]

And now in a petty and self-defeating act of revenge they've withdrawn the whip from Julian Lewis thus removing any hold that the government has over him.

I think that we can expect the Russia report by the end of the week and going forward an ISC that's independent of the government will be interesting.

That anyone in No.10 considered this an appropriate response suggests that they've entirely lost the plot.

It's long been known that Boris plays favourites, but risking a backbench uprising just to win an argument is beyond even the low, low expectations held for this government.

If there is one thing the Tories excel at, it's removing sitting Prime Ministers who get too big for their boots, even when they've won sizeable majorities.

[dmereifield]

And now in a petty and self-defeating act of revenge they've withdrawn the whip from Julian Lewis thus removing any hold that the government has over him.

I think that we can expect the Russia report by the end of the week and going forward an ISC that's independent of the government will be interesting.

That anyone in No.10 considered this an appropriate response suggests that they've entirely lost the plot.

It's long been known that Boris plays favourites, but risking a backbench uprising just to win an argument is beyond even the low, low expectations held for this government.

If there is one thing the Tories excel at, it's removing sitting Prime Ministers who get too big for their boots, even when they've won sizeable majorities.

Allegedly Lewis gave the whips assurances that he would vote for Grayling, and dis not reveal his intention to stand himself. Then at the last minute did so, after getting assurances from Laboir/SNP that they'd vote for him. This complicates things a bit....I actually think Lewos would do a good job, better than Grayling.

[Pseudo]

And now in a petty and self-defeating act of revenge they've withdrawn the whip from Julian Lewis thus removing any hold that the government has over him.

I think that we can expect the Russia report by the end of the week and going forward an ISC that's independent of the government will be interesting.

That anyone in No.10 considered this an appropriate response suggests that they've entirely lost the plot.

It's long been known that Boris plays favourites, but risking a backbench uprising just to win an argument is beyond even the low, low expectations held for this government.

If there is one thing the Tories excel at, it's removing sitting Prime Ministers who get too big for their boots, even when they've won sizeable majorities.

Allegedly Lewis gave the whips assurances that he would vote for Grayling, and dis not reveal his intention to stand himself. Then at the last minute did so, after getting assurances from Laboir/SNP that they'd vote for him. This complicates things a bit....I actually think Lewos would do a good job, better than Grayling.

Lewis has addressed the government's version of events.

[dmereifield]

He's the type of the left wing nut job that Labour need to be rid of in order to become electable again

See his election winning speech, no further explanation needed

The nature of our electoral systems requires that major parties be broad churches that encompass wide ranges of views. That means that Labour have to attract people who agree with Russell-Moyle as much as the Conservatives have to attract people who agree with the likes of Mark Francois.

Broad, sure, but there's a limit. Francois and the likes haven't prevented the Tories from winning, the likes of Russel-Moyle will continue to prevent Labour from winning

I really don't think that's the case. Did Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Tony Benn, Michael Meacher, Diane Abbot or Ronnie Campbell prevent Labour from winning in 1997?

Thats an overly simplistic arguement, ignoring many factors and differences. My point is, with Russell-Moyle in the Shadow Cabinet Labour is less electable, not more electable, to the centrist working class voters they need to win a GE

It would appear that either Sir Kier, Russell-Moyle or both, agree with me. Russell-Moyle has just resigned from his Shadow Ministerial position

[Pseudo]

He's the type of the left wing nut job that Labour need to be rid of in order to become electable again

See his election winning speech, no further explanation needed

The nature of our electoral systems requires that major parties be broad churches that encompass wide ranges of views. That means that Labour have to attract people who agree with Russell-Moyle as much as the Conservatives have to attract people who agree with the likes of Mark Francois.

Broad, sure, but there's a limit. Francois and the likes haven't prevented the Tories from winning, the likes of Russel-Moyle will continue to prevent Labour from winning

I really don't think that's the case. Did Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Tony Benn, Michael Meacher, Diane Abbot or Ronnie Campbell prevent Labour from winning in 1997?

Thats an overly simplistic arguement, ignoring many factors and differences. My point is, with Russell-Moyle in the Shadow Cabinet Labour is less electable, not more electable, to the centrist working class voters they need to win a GE

It would appear that either Sir Kier, Russell-Moyle or both, agree with me. Russell-Moyle has just resigned from his Shadow Ministerial position

Do you have any particular reason to believe that Russell-Moyle quit because for the reason that you gave, namely that he's the type of the left wing nut job that Labour need to be rid of in order to become electable again, rather than the reason that he stated?

[dmereifield]

No, I don't. I'd rather suspect that Sir Kier might have asked him to go. I have no evidence of that either, but the fact that he's embarrassed himself and the Labour party on numerous occasions with his outbursts and language means that his departure is a good thing for the Labour party

[SKB]

All new electrically driven vehicles in the UK will have a green flash in their numberplates as from Autumn 2020.




https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gree ... ion-future

[Scimitar54]

Sounds like an action designed to cause multiple “breaches of the peace” and criminal damage to the property of “non green plated vehicles” to me. A Dominic Cummings idea perhaps?