George wrote "In an echo of Labour’s Bennites, Jenrick declared that the party “should be at the service of the membership” – the inverse of Starmer’s “country first, party second”". I have no brief for Jenrick, or perhaps even the Bennites. All the same that strikes me as centrist sectarianism at work. One does not have to be a Leninist or whatever the right-wing equivalent is to think that the policies developed by politically minded people might have something to offer in 'the service of the country ', whatever that means. Political journalists and incumbent ministers will often think that their own lofty perspective gives them some privileged insight and a phrase like this gives some cover. However partisanship and ideology can be found everywhere, and 'service to the country' can be attached to many different perspectives. If we're going to have contempt for a faction in the Tories, let's be clear what are the ideas and interests at stake. A bit more analysis and less abuse, please.
Yes sure before it existed more people were having more babies. But at that point in time you could buy a house on only one persons salary and still have money left over to live.
These days you need two salaries and recently they are now lending at SIX times annual salary.
Typical narrow thinking about an old fashioned Labour(left)- Tory(right) world. The author needs to embrace the multi-party world . For example, the Lib Dems are to the left of Labour on many economic issues (2 child benefit cap) and offer a more distinctive offer (bottom up) than 2 flavours of top down from Labour+Cons who are actually quite similar in many ways.
The 2 party, left right construct is 20th century thinking at a time when values and 'vibe' matter. The Lib Dems went up to 72 seats in part by offering a positive and optimistic alternative (fun stunts and practical proposals). Wait until the Greens (left) eat into Labour and Reform (right) into Tories.
The Tory Party is choosing a Leader of the Opposition, and not an alternative Prime Minister. I don't think the Tories have really grabbed hold of this. I remember that after 1997, faced with Tony Blair, the Tories went through 4 leaders, Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard and Cameron before they got anywhere near choosing someone who looked like a potential PM, and even then Cameron had to be helped by the Lib Dems to make it. At the moment appealing to the electorate is way off. Sure, they're choosing someone who they hope will appeal to the electorate in 2029, but at the moment they are choosing someone who appeals to themselves. This may be a caretaker leader [like Hague, Duncan-Smith and Howard] And although they are the largest Opposition party, in terms of numbers of MP, don't think they are the main source of opposition to Starmer. Long may they flounder.
George wrote "In an echo of Labour’s Bennites, Jenrick declared that the party “should be at the service of the membership” – the inverse of Starmer’s “country first, party second”". I have no brief for Jenrick, or perhaps even the Bennites. All the same that strikes me as centrist sectarianism at work. One does not have to be a Leninist or whatever the right-wing equivalent is to think that the policies developed by politically minded people might have something to offer in 'the service of the country ', whatever that means. Political journalists and incumbent ministers will often think that their own lofty perspective gives them some privileged insight and a phrase like this gives some cover. However partisanship and ideology can be found everywhere, and 'service to the country' can be attached to many different perspectives. If we're going to have contempt for a faction in the Tories, let's be clear what are the ideas and interests at stake. A bit more analysis and less abuse, please.
Re Kemi and maternity pay.
Yes sure before it existed more people were having more babies. But at that point in time you could buy a house on only one persons salary and still have money left over to live.
These days you need two salaries and recently they are now lending at SIX times annual salary.
Typical narrow thinking about an old fashioned Labour(left)- Tory(right) world. The author needs to embrace the multi-party world . For example, the Lib Dems are to the left of Labour on many economic issues (2 child benefit cap) and offer a more distinctive offer (bottom up) than 2 flavours of top down from Labour+Cons who are actually quite similar in many ways.
The 2 party, left right construct is 20th century thinking at a time when values and 'vibe' matter. The Lib Dems went up to 72 seats in part by offering a positive and optimistic alternative (fun stunts and practical proposals). Wait until the Greens (left) eat into Labour and Reform (right) into Tories.
Unlike the author, the times are a-changin.
The Tory Party is choosing a Leader of the Opposition, and not an alternative Prime Minister. I don't think the Tories have really grabbed hold of this. I remember that after 1997, faced with Tony Blair, the Tories went through 4 leaders, Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard and Cameron before they got anywhere near choosing someone who looked like a potential PM, and even then Cameron had to be helped by the Lib Dems to make it. At the moment appealing to the electorate is way off. Sure, they're choosing someone who they hope will appeal to the electorate in 2029, but at the moment they are choosing someone who appeals to themselves. This may be a caretaker leader [like Hague, Duncan-Smith and Howard] And although they are the largest Opposition party, in terms of numbers of MP, don't think they are the main source of opposition to Starmer. Long may they flounder.