Anna Soubry confirms my story from yesterday. Change’s 5 MPs will not vote for any govt led by Corbyn and doesn’t commit to even supporting a no confidence motion.
The hyper remainer MPs suffer the same delusions as the hyper Brexiters. They forget that the vast majority of the House of Commons is not like them.
Their plan seems to be that some dreamy government of national unity can be formed with someone of their choosing, bypassing the Leader of the Opposition etc.
But remind me, just who is supposed to provide most of the votes for this govt?
Oh yeah, the Leader of the Opposition.
Moreover this idea of getting a People's Vote instead of a general election is even more fanciful. Even in the outlandish scenario the votes are there to form GNU as soon as you try and legislate for a referendum, you lose a few dozen. No majority for it.
Any administration which tries to last more than a few weeks would have zero legitimacy and will struggle to attract the support necessary to set it up. It would have virtually no majority and almost certainly fall quickly.
Soubry in her email repeats the cliche that "an election won't solve anything."
Some might say that's rather convenient for those almost certain to lose their seats. The fundamental problem is the Commons is too finely split.
Of course an election might solve it.
It used to be said that the Tory eurosceptics "couldn't take yes for an answer."
The remainists have gone the same way. Corbyn has offered them everything they wanted for a 4 week administration, incl. offer of a ref if they win. If they don't want to take it then...
...well, as I keep saying, they either have to come up with a feasible alternative (of which I've seen no evidence) or live with a no deal. It's that simple.
The remainists, like the Brexiters, have gone down the route of forgetting other people have politics too, that that is perfectly legitimate and you have to accommodate it (and if you want to achieve your ends) navigate it. That is literally what politics is.
The fact that (without irony) some can call for a "national unity govt" which would be comprised of people who solely agree with them is testament to this sad transition.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
With every passing day, the decision of Starmer and his cabinet a) not to join the Iranian war b) to delay access to bases looks wiser and wiser. Trump’s press conference last night shows he has no real idea what the objectives are and its duration is arbitrary. And if it does endure the economic consequences may prove ruinous, something he would have had to own if he had backed the effort.
The truth is for all of the bluster and fury of a fair bit of the press, politically Starmer ended up in precisely the right place. Domestically he indicated to a highly sceptical public he was firmly against. At the same time, the UK gave the US enough not to destroy relations. Through luck and/or judgment, a crisis so far managed well.
In a year of disaster, last night was finally a very good night for Democrats
-sweeping the board in Virginia and New Jersey (two states where they went seriously backwards in 24)
-near supermajority in Virginia General Assembly
-Mamdani win
-California redistricting win
Foreshadows potential blue wave in midterms
Mamdani will get all the attention (he’s an extraordinary and charismatic candidate) but the VA/NJ results probably more significNt for the dynamics of US politics over next year
Shows once again that in off presidential years Dem base is now more committed than GOP’s. There has been much pessimism for Democrats about even taking back the House. With the California redistricting win and clear signs of Trump backlash, Dems will find fundraising and candidate recruitment easier.
Newsom emerges a big winner. He gambled on a redistricting strategy, showed some fight and won. The party will remember and be grateful. The prospect of a Dem House and even competitive Senate election will anger and incentivise Trump to play dirtier in run up to midterms. He’s been used to complete power in his second term and will abhor the idea of a Dem Congress coming after him again. Who knows what he’ll try and pull off to keep voters away from polling stations.
Anyone covering/interested in digital ID would be well advised to look for insight on it anywhere but X. Yet another example of where this site/online right opinion is fevered/way off the beat with the public.
Guess who need digital/reliable ID most? Those in poverty.
Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
I’m well aware of how hopeless government IT systems/data protection can be. Earlier in the year I helped uncover one of the biggest data loss scandals in UK govt history. But the digital economy/world is a fact, and govts have to respond. Right now it’s a wild west, with the population left to fend for themselves, usually handing vast amounts of data over to unknowable massive Silicon Valley companies. At least the UK govt and what they do with our data is accountable to us, as citizens.
More than half think her sentence was too lenient or about right. Only a third that it was too harsh.
Only 18% think politicians should associate themselves her, while 51% think they should actively distance themselves from her.
Turns out the preoccupations of the online right don’t mirror the way population thinks at large- who knew!
Conservative voters are more than twice as likely to say politicians should create distance between themselves and Connolly (48 per cent), than associate themselves with her (22 per cent).
Globally, we're moving back towards an aristocracy of wealth, more akin to the 19th century than the 20th.
Anyone who cares about social justice, about moving away from higher and higher levels of taxation on work, should be very concerned. Time to do something about it.
-The top 10% of UK households hold 57% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% own less than 5%.
-The top 1% alone controls 23% of wealth
-Inheritances are soaring: projected to double from £100bn a year (2020) to £200bn by 2040
-Half of all wealth in the UK is now inherited rather than earned, up from about 25% in the 1970s.
-Children of the wealthiest 20% are seven times more likely to remain in the top 20% as adults than children from the poorest fifth
Meanwhile working people are paying higher and higher taxes on their labour. We need to shift towards taxation on inherited wealth and a reduction in taxes on work and consumption. Both for moral and economic reasons. Let's allow people to keep more on what they do NOT what they inherit.
Lots of people accusing me of being communist. No- it's a liberal argument. On this I'll defer to John Stuart Mill, who wrote this in 1848 and would be dismissed as a "commie wanker" today:
"The principle of inheritance… is chiefly grounded on the duty of parents to provide for their children. But that duty has certain limits; and when these are exceeded, the right ceases. Beyond a certain point, to permit the transmission of enormous fortunes is nothing less than to establish a monopoly of wealth, and is wholly opposed to the spirit of a free and equal society.”
I'm being intentionally provocative when I propose a 100% rate. But I certainly think the rate should be much higher than it is today. It has been before in British history (go back to the 1920s) and in other societies- see Japan, S Korea.