Looking at how Tory members were able to hold local MPs to account, and in certain instances effectively de-select them over Brexit, and comparing it to goings-on with Labour in Bristol last night, it becomes pretty obvious which party has a greater belief in democracy.
The centre & centre-left have an in-built assumption that they are the good guys, and frequently this manifests itself in a gleeful desire to override democracy because they are right (in a number of instances this powered the 2nd referendum stuff).
It's so unlikeable!
Same elements of centre complain about Tory cronyism & disregard for democracy but to be frank I can't see much difference. It's just highlighted more frequently with Tories because they are better at getting power.
They are the same, just the centre think they are virtuous.
Thatcher became leader in 1975 with the support of *one* member of the shadow cabinet. But there was nothing like the internal wrecking thrown at Corbyn after she won.
Even 40 years later Labour MPs couldn't do that. Why do they think they are so much better?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Surprisingly little has changed for Labour under Starmer. In Scotland & Wales it’s standing still while it’s making no inroads with 2019 Tory voters. Importantly, voter preference by age remains hugely polarised.
Full interview here. I found Horton a really informed, accessible guest on the whole topic of Covid.
Horton’s point here a straightforward one. Had Covid 19 emerged in India or much of sub-Saharan Africa the effects would have been much worse. That it happened it China, and East Asia more generally, slowed down spread and allowed a scientifically advanced country to sequence >
Covid-19 has 10 times the fatality rate of influenza, imagine if it was a 100 times?
An age of climate change will also be one of pandemics. That is why helping the poorest countries provide free, universal healthcare is in the interest of the wealthiest. novaramedia.com/2021/02/07/cov…
White-nose syndrome is crashing bat populations around the world, while chytridiomycosis, caused by the chytrid fungus, is doing something similar to a number of amphibian species.
The threat of climate change & future pandemics should not be viewed in isolation from one another: a world of rising temperatures, and further deforestation, also means more pandemics. These threats should be viewed as additive rather than distinct.
As a political journalist there are such immensely interesting (& terrifying!) stories out there, from the interface of technology & politics, to climate change, an epochal social upheaval & rise of China.
This is all more important, & interesting, than whining about Twitter.
Does anyone really think it adds value to their audience to constantly whine about people they don’t like? Does anyone think people will want to pay for that?
I don’t agree with them on much but you have to appreciate quality press that doesn’t do this like the Economist & FT.
For me this explains the success of Monocle magazine since 2008. It’s overpriced and the articles often aren’t anything special but you read it and see people doing interesting things all across the world. You put it down feeling refreshed and optimistic.
Labour won't back the NEU and won't offer anything which differs from the Tories.
That's been Starmer's plan since he became leader, & everything is mood music until 2024. This isn't dithering, it's the plan.
Will it work? Who knows. But for now there isn't an opposition.
The model here is the Tories in opposition during the global financial crisis. But the difference is that unlike now Labour actually dealt with that. The equivalent would have been Brown allowing complete economic meltdown and opposition shrugging soldiers.
It's particularly odd seeing Starmer supporters like @paulmasonnews outlining smart, radical and necessary policies in response to the next few months ahead.
Labour won't adopt any of them. Again, Paul, that *is* the project for Starmer until 2024. He's been very open about it.