UKH

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/11/caroline-lucas-calls-for-e...

Had quite a high opinion of her until I read this divisive bollocks. I just can’t get my head around how she thought it was acceptable to come out with it, or the ammunition it gives her opponents. 

Likewise. I thought, at last, opposition parties were getting their act together about brexit, then this childish shit. I despair 

youtube.com/watch?v=folETlLz3FM&

Face palm.

Anyone who thinks an all female cabinet would be more moderate than a male one I give you:

Ann Widdecombe

Priti Patil

Andrea Leadsom

It's a sign of the times that someone previously seeming so reasonable as her would think this proposal both sensible and likely to meet with approval.  But her reaction to Boris being voted in as leader was equally unbalanced.

Kate Hoey, Ester McVey, Nadine Dorries...

Apparently she has now said that she didn’t get it right.

She says that she should have included a woman of colour in her cabinet.

Situation: the remain side is in disarray and there is no unifying pro-remain opposition body - the official opposition's big move today is "Grouse" (maybe).

I don't know about you lot, but under these circumstances, this suggestion seems pretty much the best one that's on offer - point to another working proposition that is actually more credible/palatable? (Farage supports need not reply).

Try swapping any of the proposed cabinet with their equivalent bloke - does actually this improve things?

There is an element of gesture politics in this but I'm not too bothered about this as it gives a novelty to the construction that does go half way to overcoming the petty squabbling that stands in the way of most other solutions. There's a bit of historical redress as well but so what? What are you lot afraid of?

Diane Abbot 

Why do we have to be afraid of it? It’s discriminatory. She’s either saying women are superior to men (a notion I’d have a bit of time for if we hadn’t just had a disaster of a female prime minister), or that men and women can’t work together. Can’t see how that’s going to be a productive viewpoint (and certainly isn’t my experience). 

I’m all for anything that sorts the Brexshit mess out, but playing childish gender politics isn’t going to do it. And it’s managed to piss everyone off, because it hadn’t considered other identities. As someone said upthread - facepalm. 

While the Greens have their hearts in the right place, most of the time at least, they're not really a party of grown up politics.

Equally, in assuming one gender is more likely to deliver better political outcomes, this does rather point to assumptions of innate differences between men and women.  I'm comfortable with that, but I'm surprised that Caroline Lucas also appears to be. 

We've been here many times before.  Swap the white politicians for black ones, the rich with the poor, this tribe with the other.  Always guaranteed to deliver the utopia we've been denied...and if it doesn't, I'm sure a good purge or two, or perhaps re-education of the internal enemies working to undermine the revolution, will see us right.   

How do you get from Lucas anti-Corbyn zealotry and silly feminist idealism bringing her stupid plan down to the Soviet Union? 

Why do you assume he was talking about the Soviet Union?
Unless of course that's what you think the Soviet Union was actually like... 

Grown up politics? Can you give me some examples of that in the last 3 years?

When certain people in the West mention purges, re-education, enemies of the revolution then 10 times out of 10 they are referring to the USSR or some other socialist country. 

The only person mentioning the Soviet Union is you. As usual. Please f*ck off.

Quite.  So what does she do?  Just as there is some hint of pro-remain unifying, she makes a divisive proposal pretty much designed to put off exactly the supporters that are needed to stop this catastrophe.  Using brexit to push moronic, sexist, grudge politics is beyond stupid.

She can have a bee in her bonnet - perhaps, but it's her forum too.

If you believe that climate change is a huge issue then they're the only party with the right priorities, and therefore the most grown up politics. 

point taken but she isn't included (or wasn't last I heard)...

It would be nice to think so, but they clearly aren't if they put sub-sixth form feminism above stopping brexit (and by extension extreme free-marketeers who care nothing for the environment).

For most of our modern history it has been discriminatory the other way, I'm not sure we're at mortal peril* from a short spell of the other way around.

.

.

.

* Well not that much given the alternatives...

Oh dear...

Unfortunately, the veneer is wearing off and I think it's safe to say they are about much more than climate change. 

They may just make the trains run on time but the negatives might outweigh the positives - do you reckon they could actually do a better job than the Conservatives? They are dramatically anti-hierarchy. At it's best that means they have great trouble agreeing, especially once they have to deal with contentious issues. Even choosing a leader seemed nearly impossible. If it came to thornier issues I could see them being perfectly willing to ditch democracy and egalitarianism and fast turn in to something nobody benefits from.

Like what? 

I read that as cabaret and wondered what the fuss was about.

Given that the Tories called a referendum which they then lost, and then tore themselves and the country to shreds failing to deliver the outcome that was never supposed to happen, it's an impossibly low bar. My balls could do a better job.

It is a sad failure of the imagination. A caretaker PM should be someone whose career is over, so they are no threat to all the others. She should have proposed the emergency female cabinet to block no-deal brexit led by Theresa May!

I'd gladly vote for this cabinet.

Chill your beans mate. It's the internet, where we're all allowed to be wrong the whole time...

Symptomatic of an oedipus complex maybe, but I'd rather have Caroline Lucas & Co in power than the current bunch of incumbent nob-heads.

We have one party of government led by Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab and Priti Patel, their Partners led by Arlene Foster, and the official opposition led by Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott. 

This all female cabinet may well be a stupid idea (she hasn’t even selected the best female MPs), but I don’t think there is any evidence that any other party is ‘clearly’ more grown up. 

So would I, but it’s a false choice isn’t it?

Do you think that the conservatives are actually in credit for their work in the past 9 years? 

And your suggestion that the Green Party would ditch democracy seems a bit rich, especially at a time when the government is seriously considering it. 

Well are their policies aspirational or realistic on climate change? I'd say they were aspirational. As for their economic policies....

Being willing to throw a referendum that you might lose scores pretty highly in my books as a good thing. I thought you'd be happy they then failed to deliver, though at least they tried.

I'm doubtful the Greens would have allowed a referendum if it wasnt in line with their policies regardless of public sentiment. Lucas's proposal shines a light on where they really stand on equality and equal rights.

No.

Is it? It feels like a positive move to me. Corbyn insists that only he can lead a government of national unity, yet it is blatantly obvious that he could not command the support of the Commons. So, how can he be persuaded to step aside? He'd not shift for Hammond, Watson, Starmer or Grieve. He'd not shift for Cooper or Thornberry. But he might just shift for something as strange and specific as an all-female cabinet led by the sole Green MP - it clearly poses no threat to him in a subsequent election. 

Anyway, got any better ideas?

Is insulating buildings aspirational? Or increasing renewable energy? Can we be a bit less fatalistic? 

Ken Clarke? 

A reasonable candidate, one who would get the Tory rebels on side, but Corbyn is a contemporary of Clarke, and likely regards him as the auld enemy. Margaret Beckett has been suggested by the Guardian, which strikes me as even better idea. But in any case, Ken Clarke/Margaret Beckett and who? Lucas's idea is much more fully formed and interesting- and her proposed cabinet looks pretty impressive to me. I can imagine it doing good in the world.

That's because you're completely mad. David Cameron didn't call the referendum thinking "I might lose this", he called it thinking "this'll shut Nigel, IDS and all that lot up for good" - and he made the wrong call and lost. You do have to be absolutely batshit mental for this to "score highly in your book", when you consider the consequences for a lot of people's lives of this reckless gamble with the future of the country for entirely self-serving motivation.

I will be happy when they really do fail to deliver, and we either remain in the EU or we have BINO. But I'm not counting my chickens, we've got an utter retard at the helm, unless that wanker "scores highly in your book" too?

Their education policy is streets ahead of anything on offer from the rest. Surprisingly, it appears to have been written by people with a detailed practical knowledge of the topic. It's almost as if they used experts. 

Calm down.

Support for Brexit had been clear for years. Rightly or wrongly it was worth putting to the people, win or lose. 

It was interesting to hear "Count Dunkula" (arrested and refused appeal after sppeal for making an offensive joke) interviewed on Triggernometry. He's become better known now for being outspoken in his support for UKIP.  Not because he necessarily supports Brexit or all their policies. But because they are the only party who appear to be standing up for a core fundamental many people hold dear - one now dismissed as right wing and has been steadily eroded. Ample evidence that he is not unique.

Whether you like it or not, and regardless of whether you are willing to open your eyes to it or not, the grounds for a massive protest vote in the UK has been growing for years.  Be thankful it ended up focussed on something as relatively insignificant as EU membership. Still, as Caroline Lucas shows, Remain appears incapable of getting it.

"Scrap university tuition fees, fund full student grants and greater public investment in further and higher education."

Which magic money tree are they going to shake for that one?  How many more universities providing Media Studies degrees are we going to build to service it? The University sector needs a huge shakeup with failing universities selling dubious degrees allowed to fail. Many are little more than degree certificate printing machines providing little in the way of teaching and degrees of little value.

Free everything for everyone!

Yes and no. 

It's cheap rhetoric to keep saying it's a climate emergency, we must do something for the sake of our kids etc... The challenge is putting in measures and funding them that don't kill the economy. Any idiot could list 10 measures that would reduce carbon emissions or use of resources, the hard part is paying for them. 

I'm surprised you think our education system can be improved by more of the 'competition drives up standards' pseudo market nonsense that has so comprehensively failed in the secondary sector. As an ex secondary head I've no time for such foolishness. Education is too precious to be subjected to the magical paradox solution of raising standards through failure. One last thought: in the age of Trump and Cummings it's a pity more people don't have more of an understanding of much-maligned Media Studies. 

Whilst it is hard to agree with their goals etc. their tactics are working, both are in  seats of power. So perhaps they do understand media and are using it to further their own agendas. Or are you suggesting people would not be drawn in by their obvious tactics if they had better knowledge? 

I don't think there is anything wrong with any uni degree (ignoring star trek degrees etc) the problem is the correlation with each field to the employment market of the future. The right numbers in the right field. 

I find it ironic that nobody ever batted an eyelid about the predominatly all male cabinets of the past.

Not saying an all one gendrer cabinet is a good idea. Just that single gender groups tend not to raise so much fuss if they are male

Could just ask the rest of Europe how they do it, and copy them? 

Why is England the only country in Europe that would need magic to be able to afford to educate it's children?

The latter. Cummings is a highly intelligent man who clearly understands how to manipulate the media. Since Trump doesn't appear to be highly intelligent I guess I have to accept he's blessed with some kind of instinctive ability. 

They do actually.  Even for things like interview panels all male groups are at least frowned upon and often prevented.

You think if someone suggested an all male cabinet was the way forward  because they claimed men  were somehow better that would pass without comment?  I'd think the likes of Lucas would go beserk. 

If Lucas or anyone else formed a cabinet that was predominantly women based on merit, that would not cause much comment but that's not what she proposed.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Tertiary_educa...

It would appear that the UK spends about the same % of its GDP on tertiary education as most European countries.

In my experience there have been plenty of measures I've put in which have reduced my carbon footprint which have saved me money and added to my quality of life. I feel it is will power that is needed, not an ability to pay for them........and I mean a collective willpower.  

Did you miss the bit where we spent a hundred years trying to give women equal opportunities and, as a result, have had two female prime ministers, numerous cabinet ministers and leaders of most major political parties (except the Labour party, of course)?

So, the outcome  of the many many decades spent coming to recognise that females have equal abilities as men and deserve equal opportunities is to say that women have special and unique talents and that opportunities for men should therefore be denied.

Even an idiot can get lucky? 

Of course. If you reduce personal consumption of energy or goods there is a personal saving. 

But it's the big national long term carbon savings that will cost money up front initially. More green transport on roads, more goods by electrified rail, far far more genuine cycle paths, better building standards etc. A bigger shift back towards green energy production. Probably increased tax on fuel as an incentive. 

I agree it's a change of mentality that's the biggest leap, but just by constantly saying climate emergency, which Labour are some how trying to take the credit for implementing, doesn't change anything. Only personal action does.

Labour have managed as usual to turn what could be a collective green or environmental argument into a class war over grouse. I fear in general it's a lost cause and we are all going to roast just like the grouse. 

The Big Girls are all going to meet in the toilet and sort it all out

as a listener to Any Questions I note that this is not the first time she has let her otherwise worthy party down by saying something stupid

People did bat an eyelid. There’s also a difference between that happening as part of the social conventions of the day and it being an actual policy. 

What it tells me is that Caroline Lucas deems posh, white women to be more worthy than other groups. I’d prefer it if identity wasn’t a factor at all, as I think it a flawed way of looking at the world, but if you’re going to do it at least have a spread of representation. 

I missed this one-

Where else could he mean? 

Try not to be a d*ck every time you post please. 

I think we could follow it all back to human behaviour. Frustrating. We are ruled by our fear.

That is the limited merit the idea has, it is so obviously strange and artificial it could not last beyond delivery of its single purpose. Something that looked a lot like the coalition which will likely follow, there would be legitimate concern that it could destroy the party system by clinging to power or by returning prominent MP's tainted by 'collaboration with the enemy' to the front ranks of their respective parties (still a risk to some on Lucas' list). 

Parliament is going to have to legislate to block a no-deal crash. Johnson probably won't put up too much of a fight since the next step is now unfortunately an election where he can drive another dangerous but electorally expedient wedge into the populous by pitting 'the people' against parliament. From there he has a majority to press on with brexit, perhaps in a more orderly fashion, likely still limping toward catastrophe hobbled by his militant backbenchers, radicalised membership and whatever grubby deals he cut to reach No.10.

jk

So there is a poll in the Telegraph claiming to show that 54% of people would support Johnson proroguing parliament to get no deal through. Could this really be true (in which case I lose all hopefor this country and come out unequivocally in favour of Scottish independence!). Or did people misunderstand the question and meant that he would need to prorogue if he wanted to get no deal through? And of course it is the Telegraph Boris Fanzine Comic, so a large pinch of salt might be appropriate........

I don’t know if there’s any desire for a general election from the two major parties.

Normally they’d be vying for power but given that the Conservatives are going to haemorrhage votes to the Brexit party and Labour are going to see their voters go who knows where then neither stand to gain.

I suppose Johnson could be hoping for a Conservative/Brexit party coalition after the election and Corbyn might still have some fantasy about a Labour victory but the likely result is even more of a mess than we have now - is that possible?

Given the source and the obvious desperation on the right to maintain brexit momentum, to get us beyond the point of no return whatever the cost (see also bullshit from John Bolton this morning) we'd be foolish not to suspect some gaming.

How they achieved that result I don't know but you're right to take it with a pinch of salt. That said, as a population we really don't understand what's happening, it is quite possible we're just following the charming clown.

jk

If we leave on the 31st then that's the easy bit of brexit over, there will be years, probably in reality decades of heavy lifting to do to deliver a sustainable settlement and peace at home. Johnson can't do that with a majority of one which won't last throught the next steps of the process anyway. Whether they want an election or not one is needed. The issue is the timing and the circumstances in which one is called and held.

Best bet for Johnson with his eyes on a term as PM and for the looters bankrolling him is November 1st, it neutralises Farage delivering his voters and we go to the polls before the calamity unfolds, doubly so if it's a held on a national 'independance day' holiday so we don't have see the run on the banks and the panic buying unfurling as we walk to the polls. Downside is it destroys the UK likely triggering border referenda in Ireland and Scotland, perhaps even Wales when the EU money dries up It also destroys the Conservative party as a brand come 2024, no longer could they lay claim to being the party of the union or economic responsibility.

Does Johnson want to destroy the country and the party? Seems unlikely. Is he oblivious to the risk? Probably not. So next best is to make a rip-roaring show of trying to deliver brexit before he's finally thwarted by our anti-democratic corrupt parliament. He then turns the brexiters' ire onto 'parliament', if we would just deliver him a majority it wouldn't happen again, voting for Farage threatens a Corbyn government etc etc. It doesn't get him the same thumping majority burning the country to the ground would, he might even end up again shackled to the DUP and Farage but he probably does inherit a functioning country in which his career and party might survive beyond '24 if he can manufacture some kind of compromise to keep the economy afloat outside the EU without his party cutting him loose.

jk

I suspect but obviously don’t know that there are many Conservative voters who because of the Brexit debacle won’t vote Conservative even if they promise to or actually do deliver Brexit.

Add in those who won’t vote for Johnson because he’s a buffoon and I think that the Conservative party is in dire straits.

The main beneficiary will be the Brexit party whose sole purpose is self evident and doesn’t need any political campaign to gain support.

Whether a successful Brexit party will gain a majority is doubtful but it might allow a coalition of remain leaning parties to gain power.

What that coalition would then do remains to be seen.

There could be an argument that when you don't have a vast majority peace and general consensus are more likely, as policy will have to take into account everyone's views and wishes. Just as people moaned about the coalition government, they came to realise that the lib dems were in fact watering down tory hard line policy.

Now if Boris is capable of delivering long stability across the UK is a different argument. I'd say he isn't, as he tends to blow bridges up quicker than he'll ever build any. But then that isn't any different to the other parties at the moment. Be it lucas's womens rights party or Labour promising Scotland indef2. 

He doesn't need the 40 odd % support parties once did with the opposition so fragmented. A chunk of Farage voters will get him a working majority or at least first stab at another coalition of sorts. The anti-brexit tories had already fled or abstained by 2017, how many moderate conservative voters are left to be lost if multi-part politics is re-invigorated is an interesting question, those who might have held their nose for the May vs Corbyn clash but now are faced with an extremist in No.10 and a LibDem life raft in reach.

Not post brexit, they're a studiously single issue pressure organisation, not a political party. Name one documented policy you'd be voting for post-brexit if you voted for Farage.

Farage won't win a majority. Even if Brexit is postponed I doubt he gets 20 seats. That probably still gets him deputy PM and effective control of Conservative policy.

A remain inclined coalition would almost certainly put the issue back to the public for two reasons, it is the only way to settle the matter without our democratic institutions being opened up to fire they may not survive and the major stakeholders will not have all run on a 'revoke and remain' ticket.

jk

The reality that it wasn't worth putting to the people is pretty obvious now - leaving isn't a workable policy. 

UKIP "appear to be standing up for a core fundamental many people hold dear" - what core fundamental is that? If it's so "core", and so "fundamental", then surely it's easy to articulate?

What Dankula has in common with UKIP is that he's been labelled as "far right" and marginalised. He points out himself that he doesn't actually share any of their policy aims - it's a strange alliance on the basis of something that has almost nothing to do with UKIP as a political party.

I know that the "free speech under threat" thing is the most important thing in the world to you and Count Dankula, and you're right it's not only you two. I think this movement is basically a crock of shit from whinging cry-babies who get told off when they post stuff online that contravenes current social norms (that isn't to say that Dankula isn't completely right that he should never have been arrested).

There are people on the far right who don't like immigrants and gays and they feel marginalised and angry because their views used to be acceptable and now they're not. They're probably a subset of the people that globalisation hasn't done any favours for, and whose opportunities in the labour market have declined in the shift to a knowledge-based economy. So there's good reasons and bad reasons to be unhappy with the way things are, often mixed together - and the bad reasons dishonestly exploited ("your lack of opportunity is the fault of the immigrants and minorities who are being given special rights" say those whose policies shit all over the working class). 

There is another protest movement, against exploitative capitalism and pro environmentalism. While there are a lot of problems with the EU from this angle too, remaining in the EU is a hell of a lot better way of progressing towards these goals than leaving. So obviously this left-wing protest movement is Remain. 

You seem to paint one protest movement as somehow valid and "standing up for (unnamed) core fundamentals", and the other as not valid. You want Remainers to "get" the protest movement represented by UKIP, but what does this mean? Caroline Lucas isn't going to start agreeing with Tommy Robinson!

You're going to have to accept that this UKIP, "free speech is under threat" "gays are getting special rights and white males are oppressed" viewpoint isn't the unifying political idea that we're all going to suddenly realise is the ultimate truth and unite around. Some people are obsessed by it. Others think it's a crock of shit. It's just fringe internet politics, it's not important. Look what happened to UKIP - destroyed by going down that road and replaced by something that people actually consider important, Brexit (party).

Very well put. 

The polls are all over the place and conflicting answers are obtained depending upon what question is asked. What is clear is that there has been a steadily but slowly growing opposition to Brexit over the past year or so. Check out the Britainelects website.

Regarding that Telegraph poll https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/peter-kellner-on-telegraph-no-...

jk

Indeed, like what?

From watching different people on youtube giving their take on the world and events in it, It's easier to sound wise or foresighted enough to get subscribers if one only hints vaguely at dark possibilities, I've noticed, a bit like Cameron going on about 'Britain is broken'. Harder to be found to be wrong too I dare say.

I'm not entirely convinced that that this is the case. My suspicion is that some who voted to leave but could have been swayed to stay will now have consolidated their view that exit is right. I suspect that the reason would be twofold - firstly a "the process and negotiations have been deliberately screwed up to scupper our chances of leaving" belief and, secondly, a " how on earth can it be impossible to leave the EU without it being this much of a mess?" view.

Although a remainer, I have quite a sympathy with both of the above views. If the question were put to another referendum, I'd be very torn - I want to stay, but also to give a message to our politicians that they were given their orders (whether I like them or not) and they have failed utterly in their duty to carry them out and deserve to be removed from office immediately as a result.

To paraphrase: They've failed to do the impossible so I'd task them with it again to make a point.

Makes perfect sense! Someone get me the hell out of this asylum.

And before someone says it's not impossible to get out of the EU, no, it isn't. It's costly and it's weakening, we don't get a better deal out than in, much of what the people expected clashed with what the other people were told to expect... squaring all of that away while leaving the EU: that is impossible. The lies it was built on made it impossible given there wasn't the political will or courage to manage expectations before embarking on the project in earnest.

jk

Thanks. Reassuring and at the same time horrifying.

The Telegraph is appalling. The day after the EU elections it had an article on the front page which claimed the results showed that the country now wanted a no deal Brexit - a straight lie.

They weren't tasked with the impossible. They were tasked with removing the UK from the European Union. They've failed to deliver that. 

I don't like that they were given that task, and neither do you. However, our government is duty-bound either to deliver or provide a viable alternative and get that through. They've done neither. 

Edit: my reply posted before I saw your edited version.

Sorry, edited while you were posting.

They very much were tasked with the impossible. With real courage, leadership and the expenidure of a lot of political capital that task could perhaps have been redefined to make it achievable. As is, a brexit beneficial to the tax paying, service using, working electorate simply does not exist, it is going to hurt. No amount of wishful thinking can change that reality and no amount of expectation management can now make a dent in the quasi religious belief deliberately instilled in quitters. It is undeliverable because it was built and sustained on lies, the consequences of that decision will now destroy our country and our society.

edit: missed your edit

jk

I'd love to disagree, but really can't. However, the leavers need to recognise that it was based upon lies, and are unlikely to do so. My genuine hope is that the damage is reasonably short-term - I don't fully subscribe to the "destroy our country and society" view as I believe that as a country we have quite an ability to make the best of a bad job. 

Did you miss the bit where I said in the past?

Two female prime ministers in a hundred years wow we really pushed the boat out on that one.

Aside from Prime Ministers though (which does stand out) Labour have had more elected female MPs than the other main parties by a considerable margin 57.8% to the Conservatives 28.5%

You mean other than the suffragettes and similar pressure groups?

  The past is another country. It's completely mad and ahistoric to argue that because the world was a different place a hundred years ago we should make it equally unfair now. And you are wrong, eventually they did "bat an eyelid". That's why things changed.

I think you'll find I wasn't actually arguing that we should make it unfair.

I said: Not saying an all one gendrer cabinet is a good idea

Changing I think you mean things are changing.

The EU is neo-liberalist and globalist which is why many on the left and the right voted against it. The US ruling class ie. Globalist ruling class want us to stay in the EU ( see Obombas views). Now we have hire-a-war Bolton saying yay for brexit and he is a definate globalist.

For the ordinary people of the left and right who voted to leave the EU as the answer to all their problems you will find that if you leave the EU you will still get globalism. In fact it will be turbo charged, bye bye nhs, hello ttip, watch as all the promises/lies made by the brexiteers are cast aside to help a failing economy and we end up as a billionaires wet dream tax haven and 1/6 of the population can't afford health care,where unions are a part of management and the needy can live off charity scraps. ie. The ones who will pay the most are the ones who always pay most, the ones who create all the wealth for the multi-billioniares - the masses, the workers.

To ukip dukula fans yea we know you are pissed off because you and other racists had great fun freely calling people racist/homophobic/xenophobic names in the 70s and why can't your sons and daughters have that same freedom to?

The Western world has finally progressed to the anti-imperialist ideals of the Socialist bloc but you have not. 

But I thought we were the imperialist running dog lackeys of the USA, who apparently want us both in (Obama) and out (Bolton) of the EU to further their neo liberal globalist hegemony?

Have I missed a memo?

Depends on who's running the show after Brexit and also on whether the heightened interest in politics, that Brexit has caused, can be sustained and shaped to improve democracy and allow us to keep our politicians in check.

If education is so important, should the public sector really be involved with it?

Bolton a globalist? Only in the sense that Hitler favoured European integration.

I win the Godwin award, I think......

Seriously, globalism is different from US exceptionalism and, if you wish, neo-imperialist or at least hegemonial politics.

In fact, globalism in nothing more than the idea that many things, be it exploiting workers but also preserving peace in Europe or protecting the environment are better achieved by supranational systems based on binding agreements between states, be it in the form of the EU, the Kyoto agreement or the WTO. It is not intrinsically bad, even though I agree that economic globalism has its definitive down sides. 

CB

Has more competition between universities helped to raise standards, and the self motivation of students*?

* I have in mind the reported instances of students 'asking to be spoon fed' because they're paying more for their degrees.

I think all education should be provided free by the state. While the more radical side of me would really like to ban paid-for education I guess I'd settle for removing the charitable status of so-called 'public schools,' irrespective of how many free sessions at the five courts they offered to the local comprehensive.

I also wonder whether the idea that students should have to pay for further/higher education may seem strangely wrong-headed in a very few decades, when AI may well have so transformed employment that lifelong education will be taken for granted and society might be exploring ideas of a basic income for all.

I'm with you regarding kids, but shouldn't the state, and thus the taxpayer, have an interest in whether that education is worthwhile?

Would you have quotas, limits to what the state would pay for, or would you say that whatever education anyone wants, the state will automatically pay for?    Would that be, not only undergraduate degrees (how far down the ability cohort?), but also masters degrees and PhDs?  So, if someone wants to get a doctorate in English Literature by writing the three thousand and eleventh thesis on James Joyce's Ulysses, then the taxpayer should always fund it? 

I would not agree. I think that when it comes to education for adults, the state should make a cost/benefit analysis as to what it will fund (and I think we're likely already funding too much higher education in many areas).   If people want to pursue more than that as a lifestyle choice, then ok, but it shouldn't be a call on the taxpayer.

What is this Socialist bloc you talk of? 

I love the way your condemnatory oration ends by slipping in agreement on the main point! 

I think everyone should be entitled to free education up to the age 18, plus a degree or equivalent. This could of course take very different forms after 16, mixing academic and vocational routes, full-time and part-time study. (I'm not a fan of vocational study pre-16. I told Ofsted I'd happily offer Health & Beauty in my comp's 14-16 options once Benenden started to do so.) I think people would fairly naturally find the right route for themselves, but I don't believe anyone should be denied three/four years further study on the basis of ability, nor on the basis of whether society perceives their chosen area of study as being 'useful.' After that, I accept the state has the right to fund only what society regards as useful but I can see this changing in the future - for example to a system where each citizen has a number of credits to spend on education throughout life.

I can't take arguments that this is difficult to fund very seriously. It's only currently difficult because we don't regard it as a priority and structure our tax and spending appropriately. I think the main reason many people argue that students should pay for their degrees is moral rather than practical.

I appreciate we're unlikely to agree on these issues but after 30 years in education it's too late for me to change my views now!

Finally, as somebody who's agonising over my costume for the next Bloomsday, I'm not sure I can accept there's any limit to the number of doctoral theses that can be written on Ulysses.

I'm with you there, though I do think there should be pathways diverting to more practical routes (but still with training/education) from about the age of 14.    I think that low-ability boys can, in particular, gain little from the academic-focused curriculum from about 14 on.

We're talking about 3 or 4 years of adult life, getting on for 8% of someone's whole working life.   That's a very expensive thing for the state to pay for, unless society then does benefit from the education.   My gut feeling -- based, admittedly on little hard evidence -- is that society does benefit from about a third of the cohort doing such degrees, but not likely much beyond a third. 

I guess it's both.  On the practical side, when society went from about 8% of the cohort going to university to about 40%, the cost increase meant you either had to get students to pay, or make big changes elsewhere. 

But yes, there's also the moral issue: why should the half of the population not going to university pay for it?  If we're talking about education that society really needs (doctors, engineers, etc) then sure, it's fair that the taxpayer overall pays.    I'm less convinced that this is fair if the education is only really a benefit to the individual, and is more of a lifestyle choice.

You might be interested in this poll: https://mailchi.mp/survation/westminster-voting-intention-brexit-update-the...

Funny how you always see contradictory results depending upon which combination of questions are asked but again, a clear majority want to stay in the EU.

Thanks - those figures are interesting 

Completely idiotic.

Some huge amount of resources from UK government funding for things like a mulititude of PhD theses on Ulysses????... who are you quoting this time to support your shameful exaggerations. There are only around 25,000 PhDs in all subjects awarded every year (more than half of which are probably STEM) and probably only a few hundred in English Literature, a lot of which won't even be governmnent funded  (not sure which HESA subject area E. Lit. is included in but no possible areas have more than a couple of thousand in total).  The majority of government research funding already goes to STEM.

How do you decide what society really needs?  And further, what society will need in 10+ years, which is the time-frame needed?  It's not obvious to me that another PhD in engineering, probably on a topic of little  practical use, is more beneficial than say one on applied ethics, given the growth in AI and it uses and problems.

But I made no assertion that a "huge amount of resources from UK government" was spent on "things like a mulititude of PhD theses on Ulysses" did I?    So you're misrepresenting me, aren't you?  Which is dishonest, isn't it?  Not that you'll care, since you have no integrity. And you're a coward, since you insist on making your misrepresentations using a pseudonym.

I don't think that's always easy.  I do think that society needs to think hard about how it allocates spending against different priorities.  Universities now amount to getting on for 4% of government spending (if they were free that is).

I can't think of any other fairly expensive item of government expenditure where the government seems as unconcerned about what it is getting for its money, in terms of what degrees students take and whether society overall benefits.   I don't think we should simply presume that the more people going to universities the better.

Well university isn't free so society does choose degree subjects by way of individuals choices (and some top up for certain areas) .

Research funding is allocated by various means of prioritising. 

Agreed, though my comments were mostly in reply to a suggestion that it should be free, and also projections are that roughly half of student debt will end up being written off, and so end up having been paid for by the taxpayer. 

So what point exactly were you making with your comments on  PhDs on Ulysses? You can pretty much guarentee anyone doing such research will be highly motivated, have an interesting new angle on the work (to cover originality requirements), have a ready audience, and more than likely not to be government funded.

There are studies, including this recent one, on differential degree costs.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13944

Its pretty clear now that the move to £9k fees was a disaster in economic terms. It led to: the ONS to force the loan debt onto the government deficit; much greater differentials of subject funding compared to costs; the highest predicted levels of student debt in the world; and the way things are looking it won't save the taxpayer anything from the preceeding £3k fee system (when you add loan book costs to the 50% and fast rising proportion we are already expecting taxpayers to pick up from current fees... a £7.4 billion annual bill, right now... a 57% increase to taxpayer costs from just two years ago).

As is entirely clear if you simply read the comment, I was asking Andy Clarke, exploring how far his commitment went to all education being provided free.

So why you need to pretend that I said something I didn't, or why you need to try to make out that it was unclear, beats me. 

A sober look at the situation makes it clear that:

- Boris will get through a No Deal Brexit unless the rest of Parliament plus a couple of Tories get through a successful No Confidence Vote

- Swinson's Lib Dems and Change UK would rather see No Deal than back Corbyn

- Distressingly, the Greens are also swaying in the wind

There are two choices: either the biggest political party in the UK (by membership participation), allows political operators from tiny minority parties to dictate who its leader should be, undermining party democracy and the most progressive political project it has advanced since 1945; or the hacks and opportunists STFU and get behind Corbyn.

Otherwise, Boris will get No Deal through.

I understand your frustration, but the government of national unity has to command enough votes, and if fewer than about half a dozen of the rebel Tories can bring themselves to support Corbyn (a rebellion too far?), then his GNU has no chance. Which, is why Jo Swinson has not supported him, I guess, believing there's no time to waste on backing a lame duck. I suspect she's right, but we'll see.

Jo Swinson has consistently voted with the Tories and announced her leadership with an attack on Corbyn. She is the worst kind of opportunist, and her lasting legacy will be a No Deal Brexit - after which she will disappear into obscurity.

It dismays me equally that some remainers refuse to back Corbyn and others refuse to back Clarke or whoever as prime minister in an emergency temporary government. I really don't care who leads it - all that matters is that, following a vote of no confidence, Brexit is delayed long enough to hold a general election on remain/leave grounds and then, hopefully, the formation of a government with a mandate to hold a confirmation referendum. If the same result can be achieved by parliament blocking no deal without an emergency government being formed, then even better.

Which is precisely what Corbyn wants. He has been anti eu his entire political career. 

Quite.

It would be great if politicians could forget about party politics for a few weeks and just do what needs to be done. Like you and probably the vast majority of Remain voters, I couldn't care less who gets to be called Prime Minister for a few weeks. I just want them to do what they all say they want to do.

And I agree, but realistically it is the rebel Tories who have to swallow the most pride, who have to take the most flak, and who have the most to lose, personally, for voting for a government of national unity - against the government of their own party - and it is for that reason that Corbyn is not likely to be able to command the confidence of the commons. I'm not an apologist for Swinson, but she has already indicated she'd go along with Corbyn if he could demonstrate that enough Tories might vote for him. Pragmatically we need a leader of a GNU who will be as inoffensive as possible, allowing the rebel Tories to vote for them, and allowing Corbyn to endorse them. I'm still thinking of Caroline Lucas, but there are plenty of others with a better chance than Corbyn of achieving a GNU.

Harriet Harman?

I agree.

Sadly there is a lot of paranoia in the Labour party with many seeing anti Corbyn plots everywhere. I suspect this extends as far as the man himself and so he may well see any proposal to have someone else as caretaker PM as an a cunning if convoluted attempt to depose him as party leader.

What a tragedy it would be for British governance if politicians could not put their differences to one side for a few weeks to work in what they believe to be the national interest.

The public's estimation of their politicians plummeted after the expenses scandal and has plumbed to hitherto unexplored and unimagined depths as a result of the Brexit fiasco. In a few weeks time politicians may have a chance to redeem themselves by cooperating to break the impasse in our country's politics. I fear though that instead they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I am surprised that no one has asked the obvious question yet. 

What has happened to this forum? Has everyone grown up? 

yes, Corbyn is quite right to see Starmer or Benn as a threat to his party leadership. He should be able to see that Clarke, Beckett or Harman would not be, although he is probably about the same age. 

If this is going to work, the likes of you have got to accept, the interim leader won't be Corbyn, however righteous you think he is. It has to be someone tolerable for a short peiord for a specific task to a commons majority. Corbyn isn't that person. 

Tolerable for whom?

I think this is a paranoid delusion, to be honest. Corbyn has been left-wing his entire life, and it is clear by now that there is no socialist Brexit on the horizon; Brexit has been a right-wing project from beginning to end - and a failed one, at that. Corbyn is not sitting there secretly wanting Brexit, even if he is - correctly - critical of the EU.

Is there any need for a referendum? Surely Labour should fight not for a referendum but to remain and revoke article 50. Why would a confirmatory referendum be needed?

I think reversing the referendum result without a second referendum would be open to reasonable charges of being undemocratic.

For a majority of the house. It’s that simple and the defining pre-requisite to form a government.

Both Clark and Harmon offer the best, I’m tempted to say only, chance.

Because, not unreasonably, the Labour Party doesn’t want to alienate Brexit-supporting traditional Labour voters. The issue transcends  traditional political boundaries.

As I said, to a majority in the commons

I wonder, has the idea been floated for them to share the role of PM? Likely that would be more palatable across the divide.

The statement that Jo Swinson consistently voted with Tories is plain bullshit. In fact she consistently voted with her party whip which for her first period as an MP happened to correspond with the coalition arrangements (even then votes were not always consistent as both parties were allowed in the deal to abstain on some key votes). I'm pretty sure her first attack was on what has happened with Brexit, where she then moved to Corbyn as she sees him as highly culpable.

In the end, any national unity government can't be seem to be partial and needs the support of enough MPs who wish to stop a no deal Brexit. Corbyn is just not trusted enough to be unifiying of that group and makes it a minority Labour government rather than a government of national unity.  It's why Attlee sensibly supported Churchill in 1940.  From what I can tell Corbyn is hemorrhaging support of young Labour remain voters due to these stunts, voters that a few years back in the election campaign that he so inspired. If no deal happens he is on the way to becoming one of the biggest hate figures of the century as his ego will be the main reason the best chance to stop no deal was lost.

This is patently untrue. There have been many opportunities to avoid a no deal Brexit. The most obvious of these is the Tories going into negotiations with less red lines; the second most obvious is the ERG supporting May's deal instead of sabotaging Brexit; the third is minority parties working with Labour earlier, e.g. during the "indicative votes" debacle, and supporting a compromise Brexit deal. Finally, the minority parties and non-bat-shit-crazy Tories could now support Corbyn's call for a no confidence vote. But, many politicans would prefer a No Deal Brexit over a Corbyn government... which is the real problem.

Maybe JC should step back a bit then, in the country's interest, rather than indulge in this posturing? For example, Dominic Grieve said last week that, for him and many others, they could never vote with him because he is a man whose views they regard as "truly abhorrent". I think JC is unaware of the degree of his toxicity to a large portion of the house, including many Labour MPs. 

It looks like a power grab  to me, and I don't trust him, and Seamus Milne,  to behave when in power, nor to relinquish it easily. 

I'm sorry, but when did Dominic Grieve's sensitivities become the decisive political horizon?

I think what many people miss is the extent to which an anti-socialist agenda is being prioritised over - pretty much everything else, from economic stability to the unity of the UK.

When, e.g. Offwidth above writes: "If no deal happens he is on the way to becoming one of the biggest hate figures of the century as his ego will be the main reason the best chance to stop no deal was lost", he reveals the extent of anti-Corbyn bias, which is out of touch with all objective reality. In a very real sense, Corbynism is the only reason Brexit hasn't occurred already, as the democratic energy behind the Corbyn project reduced the Tory control in parliament, despite all predictions.

A recent poll of the Tory membership showed the excessive character of anti-Corbynism - which is to say, anti-socialism: the vast majority would prefer a no deal Brexit, economic collapse and Scottish independence over Corbyn, because they feel his premiership would be 'disastrous'. The tautological character of preferring political and economic disaster over Corbyn because he might be a political and economic disaster reveals a lot.

Just a few days ago, far-right thugs beat up Owen Jones in the street for being a prominent socialist. Swinson's attacks on Corbyn are the flip side of the same coin. The neoliberal political establishment are attempting to unite around anti-socialism, under the cover of remain. Personally, I find this deeply worrying and deeply cynical.
 

Quite agree - there should be one (maybe two) token males; perhaps occupying culture and sport, and maybe secretary of state for wales.

Err, because it's an illustration of the political reality in the house? Corbyn is too deeply disliked by too many to begin to be a unifying figure. 

There's little point ignoring that just because you're a fan. 

This isn't a battle of ideologies, it's not a battle for 'hearts and minds', it's not an inchoate hegemony. The only electorate is the House of Commons, the members of which likely already know exactly where they all stand on such matters as neo-liberalism and socialism. It is simply a pragmatic hunt for someone who can command enough votes.

Just because it is presented as simply an issue of pragmatism, does not mean that it is simply so.

But... in fact, no one has presented this as simply a pragmatic issue. From the very start, Swinson, Grieve, Letwin, Umna, etc. have argued that Corbyn, his politics and his followers are 'toxic', destructive and unpopular.

More to the point, lacking any basis in reality has not stopped Swinson, Lucas et al from proposing all sorts of completely unpragmatic fantasies...

Likewise Corbyn cultists... 

Latest from JC... he will do "everything necessary to stop a disastrous no-deal Brexit” apart from, of course, the most likely way of stopping it, by agreeing a party neutral leadership for a national unity government. Plus all this 1945 radical change stuff is going to scare away more swing votors (that he needs) than it attracts. He just can't stop 'preaching to his converted' when all he needs to do is appear unifyingly statesman-like for now  (as Attlee was in 1940), being in front of a political open goal that is Boris,  and get his party working together again, win swing votors, and/or get used to coalition building. This does require compromise, but why on earth not? Things like better public sector investment and nationalising railway franchises are more centre ground these days than radical; and Boris has blown apart any semblance of conservative care with policy and the national purse strings, so can hardly argue convincingly on relative costs or risks. It's almost like JC wants Boris to win to show us just how evil he his (Boris is more dangerous popularist chancer, than extremist).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/18/phoney-outsider-corbyn-att...

Meanwhile, back in my constituency a good (ex Labour) MP is still a more important target for some local Labour activists than stopping a hard Brexit (the new far left resurgence in Labour usually have no time for what they see as a failed neo-Liberal EU). Ditto for some moderate Labour MPs in the party who stayed but still worry about deselection, or anyone in the party despairing over the party handling of brexit so far (or say how it handled antisemitism). Corbyn, or more particularly those like Milne closely advising him, seem to be responsible for some pretty toxic stuff to me, if we want to maximise the chances of the UK to return to more progressive political ways.

Don't think anything will change. He's gone to Ghana for 4 days. Climate emergency anyone!?

That would seem the least unappealing compromise if the practicalities could be dealt with. I'm not sure in reality they could unless their specific duties/responsibilities were cleanly divided which itself sounds unlikely to be achievable given decisions are never made in a vacuum.

jk

They say first rule of politics is 'learn to count'.

Corbyn, even with LibDem etc support cannot pull that coalition together, he is simply to polarising a figure. If, and it may simply not be possible, anyone is to pull together a single-task rainbow government it cannot be seen to be advancing any party's cause, it will pull together only around someone apparently devoid of, or beyond by dint of age, personal ambition, someone broadly from the centre ground. The opposition to such a move will be fierce and will come from across the floor: from people with pro-brexit obligations, entrenched tribal behaviour, personal grievances, fear of mission creep, personal safety fears and more.

The game now is to find the person willing and able to fulfil the role who minimises that opposition. Corbyn obviously isn't that person, we need to accept that and move on, whether you think it right or wrong it is just reality.

jk

I think you're making a number of false assumptions, here.

First, the idea that 'radical change' is unpopular whereas the status quo is popular. This is not the case. Witness the failure of Brown and Miliband, the Remain campaign or May in 2017, and conversely the success of those like Farage and the Brexiteers who claim they will deliver sweeping change. Second, that Corbyn's programme is radical nonsense, when it is actually 'more centre ground', as you yourself say - by which I think you mean popular.

Thirdly, that Corbyn is not already doing what he can to be 'unifyingly statesman-like'; what precisely has he done that is not so? He promised that, if he formed an emergency government, it would not implement LP policies but simply move to call an election. Nothing could be more neutral and unifying. But, whatever he does - except quit - will never be enough for some, who have from the start attempted to undermine the whole political project by projecting the idea that Corbyn as an individual is unfit for office (unlike, say, Theresa May - who was billed by many as the model statesperson). He is not fit for the DUP because he recognised the claims of Republicans. He is not fit for the pro-Israel cliques because he recognises the rights of Palestinians. He is is not fit for the Tories because he promises tax-reform and an end to "liberalising" economic policies. He is not fit for the Labour establishment because he and his followers promise to permanently wrestle power from their zombie grasp.

Finally, related to this last point, you repeat a lot of stuff about activists "threatening" to deselect their MPs. Well, from my perspective what this is about is quite straightforward: the LP became a club for a small number of geeks, hacks and political operators, who were allowed to operate as they saw fit, with little scrutiny and a heady mixture of incompetence and cynicism. Then, suddenly, all these ordinary people started turning up and making demands and saying: "...and if you don't like it, we will vote you out." To which the LP establishment were up in arms, with responses ranging from "You ungrateful bunch of idiots, you don't even understand the issues involved" (something I have heard firsthand from an unpopular, longstanding LP councillor involved in handing public land to a private company for "redevelopment") to "you're all far-left infiltrators". Now, of course some of the ordinary public have irksome views (e.g. they might ignorantly conflate Netanyahu's increasingly genocidal policies with Zionism or use misogynistic language to denounce an unpopular female MP) or areas of ignorance - but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to participate in the democratic processes within the party. It means that there is a long way to go on issues like anti-semitism and women's struggle. But, the sad thing is how quickly many people are turned against the forces of democracy and encouraged to prop up the status quo by the mere appearance of professionalism and whispering campaigns ("there's this guy called Milne... controls everything... some people say he's ultra-left... did you know he said "Palestinians have a right to resist", and that he's a Stalinist!")

All of this to say: Corbyn is not the problem and getting rid of him is far from guaranteed to deliver unto us the much-craved resumption of normal service.

They're quite simply not.

jk

Actually, the numbers are the same, whichever way you look at it and whoever is leading this 'pragmatic' arrangement. The difference is how it looks and smells.

On the one hand, there are Tories feeling sensitive about voting "for Corbyn", despite the alternative being voting for catastrophe... and Lib Dems hoping to make a bit of political hay whilst the sun shines...

On the other, that a short-term government led by Corbyn looks like a necessity caused by the disastrous failures of the Tory party, whilst the sort of "unity" government being proposed sounds like a stitch up by the political establishment...

Do you think that is really going to be "unifying"? The Murdoch media is already working overtime for the ERG, describing such a plan as 'sabotage' and 'treachery'.

At least Corbyn and Labour have a narrative to combat this - that this is a Tory failure led by demagogues set on using political and economic chaos to introduce ultra-right economic liberalisation. Whereas... what do the others have? A narrative of... well this was all a mistake, let's do a second referendum and see what has changed....

Corbyn needs to realise that simply saying he'll unite etc.. doesn't make it happen, you have to be a leader in practice not just name. He can't even lead or unite his own party. 

Right now he should be going around MPs fostering support, where is he? Ghana.

What you mean is, Corbyn hopes for economic collapse so he can introduce ultra left wing economic policy?

Isn't Labour's whole stance one of fence sitting and looking like you are trying to help, whilst hoping for a disaster will increase your chances of power? 

From 3 decades in trade unionism I know plenty of longstanding Labour members who still feel the Labour party is no place for these 'recycled revolutionaries': often ideological thugs who are highly motivated to turn up to local meetings and intimate and shout down, until many ordinary party members give up. Only a tiny minority of members go to local party meetings so such entryism can lead to surprising local power that is highly unrepresentative of local members, let alone Labour votors. To be clear this is about the likes of ex Militant, ex Respect and ex SWP.

To get elected Labour needs to be attractive to middle ground swing votors and here you accuse dedicated party members of being zombies... good luck with such attitudes. Most young climbers I know who were inspired by JC at the last election and voted and often joined Labour now feel let down, especially over brexit. 

John Mcdonnell was on the news this morning going on about Boris being unpopular with voters ... all very true but much less so than JC. Recently he has probably achieved a drop from a nadir for any Labour opposition leader in history. 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/07/23/everything...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-labour-leader-poll-sl...

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/17/48-35-brit...

On the matter of leadership of a national unity government, JC simply doesn't have the votes even if it were appropriate for a party leader to do this. My point on him being statesman-like is that in such a situation he should recognise that, stand aside and let another more neutral leader take the role, who could hold a majority. I think no current party leader would be acceptable in that. If he had done this already his public image would have improved instead of getting worse.

Calling current popular Labour policy as big a change as 1945, as they did on the news today, looks to me just as idiotic as some of Boris's pronouncements. In any case, his chances of winning a UK majority to acheive such aims are slim; hence, the compromise necessary in any coalition to form a government will probably have to happen or we go aroumd the loop again, further increasing the risk of getting Boris back as PM. 

What are you on about!? The Lib Dems are in no way the flip side of violent thugs.

Which changes who will vote for it, it changes 'the numbers'. Listen to the noises coming from anti no-deal tories, they simply will not put Corbyn in power, ever. Rail against the tribal stupidity of that as much you like, it will change nothing.

No, I think it will be terribly divisive and will result in widespread civil unrest. I also think we may be forced by Johnson's puppet-masters to a place where that is still the least worst option.

That said, unrest is now the likely outcome whether we leave on the current schedule, late, or eventually remain, our social cohesion is destroyed, our expectations warped by propaganda.

The sole point of an emergency government would be to deliver a democratic event before the clock runs out on brexit by default. That's much more likely to be an election than a referendum since it only has to hold together days of a few weeks to deliver.

jk

I think we're broadly in agreement - except on that single point about whether people should get behind Corbyn, or whether he should bring Labour behind whichever nominal candidate. And soon that will be academic! What a mess...

Um... no, I don't think that's even remotely the case. You really are quite paranoid when it comes to Corbyn, aren't you?

You've got to bear in mind that you're talking to a man who has a picture of Corbyn stuck to the inside of his toilet bowl.

My personal experience with LP meetings, and talking with others about LP meetings, is the it's the geeky introversion and obsession with process that puts people off, more than rabid SWPers! But, maybe it depends where you are...!

It wouldn't be so controversial to say that Theresa May's "Go Home Vans" or Boris's "Letter Boxes" comments are the flip side of the same coin; the mainstreaming of anti-migrant racism has clearly been instrumental in emboldening the far right. But, personally, I would go further and say that it the desperate attempt to discredit the emergence of a new progressive cultural and political project is also continuous with a new, bold form of bigotry, which the far-right is energised by. It's arguable; but it's not 'quite simply' the case that it is not, as much as these centrist hacks would like to pretend that they have no responsibility for the forces of reaction that are plaguing us. Culpability for this includes Labour, as well - they, too, have courted reaction.

There's a massive appetite for change in this country and trying to appeal to voters who think that everything is basically ok is not the way to electoral success for Labour. The Tories have tracked further and further right for the last 40 years, with Labour chasing them rightwards. Today's centre would have been considered hard right ideology by Thatcher. In that time millions of people have stopped voting because all politicians have offered the same flavour of politics.

Hopefully many swing voters will see that Labours policies are just a moderate roll back of the excesses of the last 40 years. The key groups Labour needs to appeal to though are people who have never voted and those who stopped voting after they were let down in 1997.

The polls you are using to illustrate Corbyn's unpopularity, one is an outlier from Yougov (which constantly favours the Conservatives) and other polling at around the same time showed a Labour lead, the other just shows that Leavers want No Deal.

Sorry, you're really going to have to walk me through this one, I don't know what you're alluding to.

Jk

Brexit is making fools of all of us.