Congratualtions Keir Starmer

[Filo]

Just watched PMq's. I must say Starmer comes across very well.

Bullshitter v Barrister

No contest, Bullshitter was constantly looking around for his baying mobs support, but they’re not there, also when the Camera panned to Hancock he had a face like a smacked arse

[IDM]

Just watched PMq's. I must say Starmer comes across very well.

Bullshitter v Barrister

 .....the Camera panned to Hancock he had a face like a smacked arse

He’s a Tory minister.. he probably paid for that

[Filo]

I think it was just after Boris threw the 200k figure testing out for the end of May, Hancock was just thinking  FFS! More figures to fiddle

[MachoMadness]

It's alright, they'll just mail out some cotton buds on the day and call it good enough.

[Filo]

Wasn’t happy was he?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Just watched PMq's. I must say Starmer comes across very well.

Starmer: "On 30 April, the government claimed success in meeting its 100,000 tests a day target. Since then, as the prime minister knows, the number has fallen back. On Monday, there were just 84,000 tests and that meant 24,000 available tests were not used. What does the prime minister think was so special about 30 April that meant that testing that day was so high?"

Johnson: "Yes, he's right that capacity currently exceeds demand, we're working on that, we're running at about 100,000 a day."

Four observations:

1) This shows the problem with PMQs. Starmer, the QC asks a pointed and very precise question. Johnson simply ignores it and there's no comeback. At least not while ever voters don't care about politicians being evasive.

2) Johnson says capacity exceeds demand. That is clearly wrong. For two reasons. Firstly, Govt is suppressing demand by limiting who can be tested. If they opened up testing to everyone, I'd have all my staff tested every day and get my company working again. Secondly, a key reason why there is unused capacity is that people cannot get to it. There was an example on R4 this morning of a key worker in Liverpool being offered a test appointment on the other side of Manchester. If the country has demand for 1000 haggis a day and there are 1100 made in a factory in Inverness but you can only pick them up by driving there, does supply of haggis exceed demand?

3) Even taking the Govt's own ridiculous figures on tests "carried out" (i.e. including the ones simply sent out in the mail and not yet processed or even used and returned) over the past four days, there have been an average of 87,000 tests per day. If you actually include the number of tests done and processed, it is about 70,000 per day. If that is "about 100,000", I've been right all these years in telling Mrs S-T that my knob is "about 9 inches long".

4) The actual question of Starmer's remains unanswered. What WAS so special about 30 April that they manged to get 50% more tests "carried out" than were "carried out" this Monday? What COULD it be...?

[Filo]

Another exchange where Boris is sent packing

Starmer: Mr Speaker, when the Prime Minister returned to work a week ago Monday, he said that many were looking at the Governments “apparent success” of the Governments approach. But yesterday we learnt tragically that at least 29472 people in the UK have now lost their lives to this dreadful virus. Thats now the highest number in Europe and the second highest in the World. Thats not success or “apparent success” So can the Prime Minister tell us how on earth did it come to this?

Johnson: At this stage I don’t think the International comparisons and the data is yet there to draw the conclusions that we want.

Starmer: Mr Speaker, the argument that the international comparisons can’t really be made when the Governments been using slides like this for weeks (holds up copy of Government slide) to do International comparisons, just doesn’t really hold water I’m afraid



I think Boris was hoisted by his own petard there

[foxbat]

without his pack of braying Tory public schoolboys to cheer his evasive waffle and bits of Latin cr@p ,dePfeffel Johnson completely exposed as the inflated pig's bladder waving clown puppet he is, put in place by the tax dodging millionaires,  to protect their interests. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Starmer seems to have a procedure here. Allow his opponent to contradict or make a fool of himself. Precisely how a QC would operate in court. Ask a question that you have a fair idea how the opponent will respond, then hit them with the follow up.

He kebabed Raab last week. He asked a question that included harsh criticism of the Govt on PPE. Raab immediately responded by chiding Starmer for claiming that there was a problem. Starmer said, calmly that he is trying very hard not to play party politics, and that the words Raab took offence at were not his, but actually a quote from the President of the Royal College of Physicians.

Raab looked like he'd taken a haymaker.

I have to say, it makes a refreshing change from "Doreen from Dudley wants me to ask when the No17 bus is coming" approach that we've had for the past 5 years.

[wilts rover]

Wilts.

I apologise for my poor phrasing earlier.

When I said, "I agree that factionalism is a cancer on the Left. That's why the People's Front of Judea scene was such barbed humour." I was meaning the entire spectrum of the Left. My apologies if that wasn't clear.

In fairness though, I have asked you and others in here who I'm sure would claim to be further to the Left than me if they voted and campaigned for Brown in 2010. Those who didn't are on thin ice criticising those who did that for both Brown and Corbyn.

Billy, there is no need to apolgise, just take a minute to review your post before pressing send.

Please don't be offended as I mean this in all comradeship and friendship but you do have a tendency to preach and sermonise in your posts. The above being a perfect example of that.

This has begun in a debate over how left wing the policies of the Atlee government were. Why on earth have you mentioned Gordon Brown and people being on thin ice for critising you in a reply to it? take it up with them! This is a rhetorical question btw.

Wilts.

Thanks for you response. I agree that my tone isn't always the best, and yes, I should make sure I say clearly what I mean.

It does work both ways. Your (less regular these days to be fair) jibes that I am somehow a "centrist" are unnecessary and not supported by what I say and have jibbed with me for a while. I'll confess that I do tend to get a bit narky when I sense the discussion going that way - even if it isn't.

The comment about Brown was connected to the factionalism theme. I thought I recalled you carefully avoiding answering the question about whether you had supported Brown's Labour in 2010 when I'd asked that in the past. My unreserved apologies if my memory is wrong.

Sorry Billy I didn't answer that question because I didn't think it is relevant - still don't. You may have talking about factionalism - I have been discussing if the reforms put in place by Atlee's 1945 Labour government were left-wing or not?

I have no idea if you have previously asked me that question about Brown. I do remember being asked something similar and replying with the answer that I live in the 2nd safest Tory seat in the country, unless I campaign for them whoever I campaign for wont win.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No problem Wilts. We all miss stuff.

Regarding the theme of our discussion, the issue of factionalism was absolutely brought up by you. You raised the issue that the Corbynite Left is fulminating about at the moment, and is building up to be the next generation's Great Betrayal Myth. I responded by pointing out that precisely the same argument could be made about Brown's defeat in 2010, and that both arguments are equally flawed.

Your contribution on the 1945 Govt was provoked by a misunderstanding of what I'd written. I apologise if it wasn't crystal clear, but having gone back and re-read it, I fail to see how anyone reads me saying "there is a middle ground" (in the context of what I wrote about the failings of the Blair and Corbyn approaches) and equates it with me saying "Attlee's Govt was centrist". Unless that reader starts from the assumption that I'm pushing a centrist agenda...

For the record (I find it odd that I'm needing to do this, but there we go) of course the domestic policies of the Attlee Govt were left wing. Their foreign policies however, would have elicited howls of outrage from the Corbynite Left today.

As for your final sentence, I think that's what I was meaning by careful avoidance. I'd asked about campaigning AND voting. But as far as campaigning is concerned, there's no law that stops you from campaigning outside your constituency. I live in a rock solid Labour seat so I went on 50-60 mile round trips to other constituencies to campaign and canvass in December.

Didn't Labour lose Swindon South in 2010?

[Donnywolf]

Very well done SKS - I hope this approach continues and he grows the disillusioned support for Labour back up to a place where he can challenge

My fear is he will lose his "new broom" bounce by the time the next Election come around and by then of course we will be ex EU (no further comment there from me)

[wilts rover]

No problem Wilts. We all miss stuff.

Regarding the theme of our discussion, the issue of factionalism was absolutely brought up by you. You raised the issue that the Corbynite Left is fulminating about at the moment, and is building up to be the next generation's Great Betrayal Myth. I responded by pointing out that precisely the same argument could be made about Brown's defeat in 2010, and that both arguments are equally flawed.

Your contribution on the 1945 Govt was provoked by a misunderstanding of what I'd written. I apologise if it wasn't crystal clear, but having gone back and re-read it, I fail to see how anyone reads me saying "there is a middle ground" (in the context of what I wrote about the failings of the Blair and Corbyn approaches) and equates it with me saying "Attlee's Govt was centrist". Unless that reader starts from the assumption that I'm pushing a centrist agenda...

For the record (I find it odd that I'm needing to do this, but there we go) of course the domestic policies of the Attlee Govt were left wing. Their foreign policies however, would have elicited howls of outrage from the Corbynite Left today.

As for your final sentence, I think that's what I was meaning by careful avoidance. I'd asked about campaigning AND voting. But as far as campaigning is concerned, there's no law that stops you from campaigning outside your constituency. I live in a rock solid Labour seat so I went on 50-60 mile round trips to other constituencies to campaign and canvass in December.

Didn't Labour lose Swindon South in 2010?

Nope.

My first post 244 - I ask why the centre wasn't the middle?

My second post 247 - I am reply to you using 'fringes' of the left & people's front of Judea

I live 40 miles from Swindon, why would I campaign there? The past 2 elections I have campaigned in North Bristol, where the future Mrs Wilts Rover lives. A seat Labour took and held - with an increased majority in 2019.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts.

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=276622.msg963376#msg963376

The first part of that post. Before you misconstrued what I was talking about regarding the Attlee Govt

As I say, YOU introduced the subject of factionalism. My next post was a response to that.

Anyway, I trust that now my position on the Attlee Govt is clear?

And North Bristol? I take it you mean Bristol North West? The seat that swung from Lab -->Con in 2010? I assume you were campaigning there in that Election?

[tyke1962]

We've got a leader now we need a strategy and a team to build it .

We don't want New Labour , it's 2020 not 1997 and the UK is a far different place .

We don't want Corbynism either because ermm we lose elections .

We need Starmerism , people tell me you can't overturn an 80 seat majority in five years , I say bullshyte .

Johnson gained power with no other method than a three worded topical slogan and a brexit weary electorate against the worst Labour election campaign and most disliked leader I've ever seen .

Johnson if he's around that is won't have so much fertile ground to work with again , not a fecking chance given what's coming down the road .

Starmer has the ability to nail Johnson to the floor in parliament but alas that's not nearly enough .

We need a strategy , a strategy that the electorate can buy in to , not free stuff and class politics .

Now you'd be forgiven for thinking that's difficult , actually it's not .

Let me take you on a little journey in to history and I actually invite debate from any tory voters on this board .

When was the last time the Tory Party actually had any ideas delivered through policy that they can stand behind and changed the UK for the better of everyone .

The merit of the policies isn't my point because ill tell you the last time they had anything new and changed the UK , it was the mid 1970's , 45 years ago .

They spent the 1980's putting their ideas in to practice but they were born in the mid 70's .

Since Thatcher left in 1990 , they've had ...

John Major
Michael Howard
William Hague
Ian Duncan Smith
David Cameron
Teresa May

And now Boris Johnson .

Name me one idea from the above that you can even think of never mind enjoy delivered in policy ?

You can't have Brexit by the way because that was always a cross party thing .

[scawsby steve]

without his pack of braying Tory public schoolboys to cheer his evasive waffle and bits of Latin cr@p ,dePfeffel Johnson completely exposed as the inflated pig's bladder waving clown puppet he is, put in place by the tax dodging millionaires,  to protect their interests.

Tax dodging millionaires didn't put him in place, Northern working class voters did.

That's the paradox Keir Starmer needs to sort out.

[BillyStubbsTears]

To be fair Tyke, the Cones Hotline was up there with the Great Leap Forward as a nation-changing policy.

Seriously, you are right though. We are close to the end of a 40-50 year period where we have been defined by a right-leaning political philosophy. Individualism. Belief in the markets. Small state. There are no new ideas on the Right and there haven't been for a long time. Not on the democratic right anyway. There are plenty on the anti democratic authoritarian Right. All the bright thinking on the future of society is on the Left.

The previous period it was the other way round. Left-leaning policies had dominated from the early 40s. Collectivism, a belief in the need for state intervention, strong unions, nationalisation. By the 60s-70s, there were no new ideas on the Left. All the game changing fresh thinking was on the Right.

It goes in cycles. We are coming to the end of this one. The GFC gave it a body blow. The consequences of CV-19 ought to finish it off.

[tyke1962]

without his pack of braying Tory public schoolboys to cheer his evasive waffle and bits of Latin cr@p ,dePfeffel Johnson completely exposed as the inflated pig's bladder waving clown puppet he is, put in place by the tax dodging millionaires,  to protect their interests.

Tax dodging millionaires didn't put him in place, Northern working class voters did.

That's the paradox Keir Starmer needs to sort out.

That's the challenge indeed Steve .

Dismantling the Tories is actually pretty easy for a man of Starmer' intellect and background .

The real issue is to define you are the better alternative to the Tories .

The project has to be huge , positive and ambitious but more importantly it has to be credible and costed .

It requires some brains and some balls and a ruthless approach in the pursuit of power .

The type of strategy that says come with us we WILL make it better , here is our strategy .

Get some confidence back in this country , rejuvenate it .

Telling the country how shyte the tories are isn't enough .

[tyke1962]

To be fair Tyke, the Cones Hotline was up there with the Great Leap Forward as a nation-changing policy.

Seriously, you are right though. We are close to the end of a 40-50 year period where we have been defined by a right-leaning political philosophy. Individualism. Belief in the markets. Small state. There are no new ideas on the Right and there haven't been for a long time. Not on the democratic right anyway. There are plenty on the anti democratic authoritarian Right. All the bright thinking on the future of society is on the Left.

The previous period it was the other way round. Left-leaning policies had dominated from the early 40s. Collectivism, a belief in the need for state intervention, strong unions, nationalisation. By the 60s-70s, there were no new ideas on the Left. All the game changing fresh thinking was on the Right.

It goes in cycles. We are coming to the end of this one. The GFC gave it a body blow. The consequences of CV-19 ought to finish it off.

Nothing to say for 45 years Billy , you couldn't make it up could you .

They've even gone backwards from the Grantham shop keepers daughter to the tried and not so trusted Eton , Bullingdon Club and Oxford University .

Cameron , Osborne , JRM and now Johnson .

Don't get me wrong I was on the wrong side of Thatcher as many of us were in Barnsley , Doncaster , Rotherham and Sheffield but I'll at least the women had a vision and changed the UK .

Just how fecking long can you dine out on her ?

[BillyStubbsTears]

I agree with every word of that Tyke.

What Thatcher brought wasn't something I wanted, but it was at least an ideological vision of the sort of country she wanted us to be, based on a political and economic theory that had been developed on the Right since the early 60s.

There is a perfectly reasonable argument that the social democratic model had run aground by the 70s. That was based on answering the problems of the first half of the century: poor health, housing, education and social mobility,  obscene imbalances of wealth and of course the debt from the War. That required huge Govt intervention, high taxes and running inflation a little hot to inflate away the debt. Every Western country bought into that, even when nominally right wing Govts were in power. Under the Republican Eisenhower, the top rate of tax was 90%! And their economy flourished. Rich people were still rich but much more of the proceeds of growth went to ordinary people on both sides of the Atlantic.

But by the 70s, inflation was out of control. Ironically, in great part because of the policies of Right wing Govts - Nixon collapsing the Bretton Woods agreement and here, the disastrous Barber Boom. So there was a logic to what Thatcher and Reagan brought and the left had no answers. They had to a great extent done the job they set out to do in 1945 and they had no new ideas for the next generation.

Switch it round in the current times. The democratic Right has no grounding philosophy other than wanting power. Austerity here wasn't a vision. It was a tactic to unseat Labour. Similarly with Brexit. There's no ideological underpinning to it, it was simply a tool for Johnson to get power. The deep thinking is on the Left, with people like Piketty doing what Milton Friedman did for the Right in the 60s and 70s - setting out the case for a new economics to answer the problems that this cycle has run into.

It's up to Labour to forge that into an election winning strategy, as Attlee did in 45 and Thatcher did in 79. After this crisis has passed, the need for a new direction, with more role for Govt and less freedom for the richest to do as they please will only be stronger. Inequality, a multi-power world with huge threats to democracy, climate change and dealing with the huge debt we will have through sustainable growth, not mindless cuts is the answer. That needs to be presented as a positive, exciting vision for the future, not, as you say, just shouting that the Tories are shit.

[tyke1962]

I agree with every word of that Tyke.

What Thatcher brought wasn't something I wanted, but it was at least an ideological vision of the sort of country she wanted us to be, based on a political and economic theory that had been developed on the Right since the early 60s.

There is a perfectly reasonable argument that the social democratic model had run aground by the 70s. That was based on answering the problems of the first half of the century: poor health, housing, education and social mobility,  obscene imbalances of wealth and of course the debt from the War. That required huge Govt intervention, high taxes and running inflation a little hot to inflate away the debt. Every Western country bought into that, even when nominally right wing Govts were in power. Under the Republican Eisenhower, the top rate of tax was 90%! And their economy flourished. Rich people were still rich but much more of the proceeds of growth went to ordinary people on both sides of the Atlantic.

But by the 70s, inflation was out of control. Ironically, in great part because of the policies of Right wing Govts - Nixon collapsing the Bretton Woods agreement and here, the disastrous Barber Boom. So there was a logic to what Thatcher and Reagan brought and the left had no answers. They had to a great extent done the job they set out to do in 1945 and they had no new ideas for the next generation.

Switch it round in the current times. The democratic Right has no grounding philosophy other than wanting power. Austerity here wasn't a vision. It was a tactic to unseat Labour. Similarly with Brexit. There's no ideological underpinning to it, it was simply a tool for Johnson to get power. The deep thinking is on the Left, with people like Piketty doing what Milton Friedman did for the Right in the 60s and 70s - setting out the case for a new economics to answer the problems that this cycle has run into.

It's up to Labour to forge that into an election winning strategy, as Attlee did in 45 and Thatcher did in 79. After this crisis has passed, the need for a new direction, with more role for Govt and less freedom for the richest to do as they please will only be stronger. Inequality, a multi-power world with huge threats to democracy, climate change and dealing with the huge debt we will have through sustainable growth, not mindless cuts is the answer. That needs to be presented as a positive, exciting vision for the future, not, as you say, just shouting that the Tories are shit.

Blair very nearly put the Tories out of business for good .

Now in all honesty I wouldn't want that because every government needs an opposition who hold them to account .

What I want is a Labour government that forces the Tories to have to change .

That to me is as bigger endorsement as you can possibly have when you hold power .

New Labour allowed the Tories to wriggle off the hook and we are where we are as a consequence .

Iraq they were warned about in no uncertain terms and they were also warned about the financial industry well in advance of the 2008 crash .

They chose not to listen because they believed they were invincible and absolutely nobody is invincible in UK politics , not even Thatcher was .

The brains who saw the catastrophic Iraq venture were people like George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn from the left .

It's important that we remember history and don't simply close the door because we have won elections and riding the crest of a wave .

It's a massive broad church , we need to remember that at ALL TIMES .

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tyke.

I have a slightly different take. In the mid 1990s, we were at the very peak of the neo-liberal success. The Thatcher-Reagan axis had won the Cold War. Their economic model (for all the carnage it left behind it, and the problems it stored up for the future) was in the ascendant. We were in the middle of an almost unprecendented period of low inflation and steady, stable growth.

No Labour Govt could have been elected at that time that didn't take those two massive factors into account. So something like Blair was inevitable if Labour was going to win elections. If Labour had gone into the mid 90s saying "It's all b*llocks! It needs a new socio-economic revolution!" they would have been hammered, even by Major.

My feeling at the time (and it caused some friction in my Labour-supporting family, ahl tell thi) was that, even taking that into account, Blair went way too far in distancing himself from left-wing principles in 1997. But by 2001, Brown had pulled him further to the left on Govt spending on education, health, on stopping the relentless increase in inequality, and on structural investment. And even though that wasn't left wing enough for me, it was a better compromise than 97-01.

I agree about Iraq and the one and only time in my life I've not voted Labour in a General Election was in 2005, because I couldn't vote for a PM who had done that. But I'll admit, I did it knowing damn well that Labour would win anyway. I wanted to be part of the numbers telling Blair that his time was up, but I wouldn't have done it if there had been a chance of putting Michael f**king Howard into Downing Street. Because Blair, for all his manifest faults was better for the poorest and the weakest in society than Major in 97, better than Hague in 01 and better than Howard in 05.

Just like Brown in 2010 was better than Cameron. And I cannot bear to listen to those who claim to be socialists but didn't see that obvious point because...principles.

Your final sentence. Yes. In spades. And that is the mistake that the Corbynistas made. They saw anyone to the right of them as part of the problem. And some of them are still there on social media today accusing Starmer of being a Blairite, a centrist, a Red Tory.  It makes my f**king blood boil. Your final sentence should be branded on the wrist of anyone who joins the Labour party.

[wilts rover]

Wilts.

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=276622.msg963376#msg963376

The first part of that post. Before you misconstrued what I was talking about regarding the Attlee Govt

As I say, YOU introduced the subject of factionalism. My next post was a response to that.

Anyway, I trust that now my position on the Attlee Govt is clear?

And North Bristol? I take it you mean Bristol North West? The seat that swung from Lab -->Con in 2010? I assume you were campaigning there in that Election?

No I didn't know the future Mrs Wilts Rover in 2010

Again that is in answer to your description of the policies of the 1945 Atlee government. Wrongly. If you want to describe it as factionalism thats your problem and inaccurate.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts.

I'm sure this is as dull for everyone else as it is for me, but I don't see how you can write "Corbyn's main problem was that much of the establishment he tried to take on were in his own party" (in response to a post by Tyke, actually, not me) and then say you didn't raise the topic of factionalism. To which I responded.

And if this were a court, I'm sure the jury would have concluded that you DIDN'T campaign for Brown in 2010. Odd that you won't just say so. It's entirely your prerogative to support and campaign for (or not) whomsoever you want.

Just as it is mine to believe that people on the Left who didn't support Brown in 2010 bear a great deal.of the responsibility for Austerity and ought to reflect on that.

[wilts rover]

Wilts.

I'm sure this is as dull for everyone else as it is for me, but I don't see how you can write "Corbyn's main problem was that much of the establishment he tried to take on were in his own party" (in response to a post by Tyke, actually, not me) and then say you didn't raise the topic of factionalism. To which I responded.

And if this were a court, I'm sure the jury would have concluded that you DIDN'T campaign for Brown in 2010. Odd that you won't just say so. It's entirely your prerogative to support and campaign for (or not) whomsoever you want.

Just as it is mine to believe that people on the Left who didn't support Brown in 2010 bear a great deal.of the responsibility for Austerity and ought to reflect on that.

Apologies for my mistake Billy

When I thought we were discussing factionalism with regard to the Atlee government I had presumed we were following that thread.

I had no idea you were replying to tykes bit of it. Seeing as how that bit was a addressed to him and something completely different addressed to you.

I would have though that the responsibility for austerity was down to the people who carried it out rather than any campaigners in 2010. That's like saying that Corbyn lost in 2017 & 2019 due to people from his own party attacking him as LOTO. On a functionalist point if you will.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts.

You'd make a brilliant politician...

But I'll clarify, just for the record.

1) Your reply to Tyke raised the issue of factionalism. I responded to that. So that's that one sorted.

2) You were wrong to interpret my post as implying that Attlee's Govt occupied the centre ground. And how you could possibly have come to that conclusion frankly baffles me.

3) If I stand by and don't help someone who is trying to disarm a gunman because I don't believe in violent struggle, they fail and the gunman then shoots an innocent bystander, should I congratulate myself on upholding my principles? I guess I could just console myself that I personally didn't pull the trigger.

4) You appear to equate "criticism" with "lack of support when it matters". But that always WAS the take of the extreme left of the Labour party. Always so convinced of their correctness that criticism, by definition, is treachery.

For the avoidance of doubt, anyone in the Labour party who went out of their way to sabotage the campaigns in 17 and 19 is a disgrace and should be kicked out.

But if criticism of a Labour leader is not accepted, Corbyn would have been booted out if the Labour party decades ago.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Talking of factionalism, Bastani seems determined to be Starmer's biggest critic.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1259067007527419904

Where the f**k is his evidence for this?

[wilts rover]

Talking of factionalism, Bastani seems determined to be Starmer's biggest critic.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1259067007527419904

Where the f**k is his evidence for this?

Probably best if you ask him rather than people on a football forum I reckon.

If I had to guess it would be based on the current row relating to the shadow cabinet only asking a Landlords Association rather than both landlords and tenants before drafting their Rentiers policy - but that's just a guess. I don't follow Bastani and am a bit surprised you do.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I don't follow Bastani, but he has a habit of wading into discussions that I do follow. And he is, by all accounts, very influential in the Left new media. I'm guessing we also shouldn't question the motives of anyone else in posts in here then?

[Colemans Left Hook]

No problem Wilts. We all miss stuff.

Regarding the theme of our discussion, the issue of factionalism was absolutely brought up by you. You raised the issue that the Corbynite Left is fulminating about at the moment, and is building up to be the next generation's Great Betrayal Myth. I responded by pointing out that precisely the same argument could be made about Brown's defeat in 2010, and that both arguments are equally flawed.

Your contribution on the 1945 Govt was provoked by a misunderstanding of what I'd written. I apologise if it wasn't crystal clear, but having gone back and re-read it, I fail to see how anyone reads me saying "there is a middle ground" (in the context of what I wrote about the failings of the Blair and Corbyn approaches) and equates it with me saying "Attlee's Govt was centrist". Unless that reader starts from the assumption that I'm pushing a centrist agenda...

For the record (I find it odd that I'm needing to do this, but there we go) of course the domestic policies of the Attlee Govt were left wing. Their foreign policies however, would have elicited howls of outrage from the Corbynite Left today.

As for your final sentence, I think that's what I was meaning by careful avoidance. I'd asked about campaigning AND voting. But as far as campaigning is concerned, there's no law that stops you from campaigning outside your constituency. I live in a rock solid Labour seat so I went on 50-60 mile round trips to other constituencies to campaign and canvass in December.

Didn't Labour lose Swindon South in 2010?

 Sheffield, I recall