Search results

That’s not what the poll you posted says? There was no majority support for limiting events or movement.

Have a read of this: Opinion | David Shor Is Telling Democrats What They Don’t Want to Hear Voters don’t vote on specifics, they don’t vote for policy (they don’t vote for anything three years from an election!), they vote on feel and yes that’s wishy washy. Genuinely what do you want...

Yet again you’re missing the point. People don’t vote Labour because they think we’re too soft so we have to message harder. The Tories have the opposite issue. This was what did Corbyn. Individual policy polling over party image polling.

What reassurance? “Oh don’t worry guys in three years we might fix this, but probably not because we don’t care about getting elected.”. Much reassuring.

Because he wants to get elected and convincing the media and public that the national finances aren’t like household finances isn’t going to be done in a one minute interview. This is the classic Labour interview gambit: demand policy, then either slate them for not committing or slate them...

This is hilarious and not for the reasons the host thinks

Privatised water is so dumb and ideological. I’m not going to change water supplier because of competition or better product. There’s only one set of water pipes. It’s just a state backed monopoly.

Glad to hear you and her are Ok. Sorry to hear about the dog though :(

https://www.newstatesman.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/08/gettyimages-1157398939_1_.jpg Or something like it but with substance. Tough on crime, fund the NHS, patriotic, etc.

So you think they should be even more centrist?

Money. Govenrment creates money. Too much money and you get inflation, so you use tax to destroy it (and nudge behaviour)

I’m not sure why appealing to voters is “re-harnessing all their best hits from 97” and not just “how to get elected 101” TBH. Voter concerns aren’t identical to 1997, but the tactic of talking to voters about their concerns is timeless. Post Corbyn voter concerns are we’ll spend shit loads and...

Electoral maths is always relevant. Most people aren’t far left so appealing to the far left won’t win.

Why are trainers pancakes?

It did for the Tories. Do I really need to point to 2017 and 2019 for evidence against the navel gazing strategy you propose?

I think based on what we’ve seen you’re probably right. Personally I’d have Rose in ahead of Hyam cos I like passing innit? I like Walker and Godden but think as a team we are better with Waghorn. Recently I’d be tempted to give Kane a shot at RWB, but he’s a long way off proving he’s a better...

It means “we can be trusted not to tax you loads and spend on everything like we know you’re worried we will do” Because we need to win votes from the Tories. Because most people don’t see Covid as some massive even but a public health crisis to be managed then moved on from. Because...

It’s a bit trolley problem I suppose, but I’m not sure how saying police should stop crime when it’s happening in front of them rather than let it happen so they can prosecute leads to a police state?

Pretty much.

Standard after a leadership competition. Same happened under Corbyn.