The Labour party is not in a good place. On almost every issue there are strong voices within the party calling for a decisive policy/strategy move. Problem is, these voices are calling for moves in diametrically opposite directions. 1/5
If it is to recover, it needs to discover a sense of purpose and narrative. That is a huge task (and I'm not going to go there now).
But. 2/5
There are (to be simplistic) two reasons why Labour is losing. One is that the Labour offer doesn't appeal. The other - much more significant factor - is that the Johnson offer does appeal. 3/5
The arguments against Johnson - the lies, the corruption, the words not matched by deeds, the constitutional vandalism, the illegalities - do not seem to be cutting through. 4/5
Even if Labour can't discover its purpose, can it not, in coordination with other parties, do a better job of giving people reasons *not* to vote for Johnson? 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My corner of twitter seems to be dominated by the internal Labour party debate between supporters of Corbyn and Starmer. I agree fully with @sturdyAlex that it is not a productive use of anyone's time.
Here though are 2 things Labour party supporters *should* be doing. 1/7
1. They should be striving to understand *why* a large % of voters (in Hartlepool and elsewhere) are still supporting Boris Johnson's government, and *what* might make them change their vote. 2/7
2. They should be thinking not only about vote shares, but also about vote distribution, and how they can *win* elections. If Johnson's vote is at c 35-45%, and is 'sticky', how can he be beaten? 3/7
Three thoughts from a football fan:
a) It has been coming;
b) but, the proposal is incoherent; and
c) the Govt's position is... interesting
THREAD 1/10
a) We reap what we sow. Football, at the top level, has long been governed by the relentless search for profit. Links with fans and communities have progressively been weakened. Stories like the @AFCWimbledon story are few and far between. 2/10
The big clubs are owned by millionaires, who want to maximise their profits. They want financial security, and hate risk/jeopardy.
Failing to qualify for the Champions League, or at a different level, relegation from the Premier League, spells financial disaster. 3/10
First, to have a pliant enquiry, and to feign that this issue is taken *very* seriously.
And, second, to seek to draw all politicians (and, better civil servants too) into the mire, and further reduce trust not in them, but in politics. 3/7
There are a growing number of people, on various sides, saying that remainers are to blame for *this* Brexit, because they refused to back Theresa May's Brexit deal, which would have avoided many of the GB/NI border problems.
One thing in particular perplexes me. 1/3
The curious thing is that I have seen very few people seek to level a similar charge at the Govt.
It is, after all, they who made changes to Theresa May's deal, they who insisted that the UK leave the customs union, and they who agreed the NI Protocol. 2/3
It is they who do not have an answer to the Irish border trilemma. If, as they do, you insist on regulatory autonomy, there has to be a border between the EU and the UK - the only question is where to put it. 3/3
Has anyone written anything about the financing of COVID testing?
I'm just reacting to the news stories about people having to pay for multiple tests if they go on holidays abroad. 1/4
We have had *a lot* of testing done so far - for going to school, for going to workplaces, if symptomatic, etc etc. All of that has been free (at least for those being tested). 2/4
So... my questions:
How does one distinguish between situations in which testing is free and not? Are we moving towards more paying for testing? What would the implications be of making all COVID testing free? 3/4
First, he could commit to the NI Protocol and explain the work that is ongoing, within the very limited confines of the TCA, to 'de-dramatise' the GB/NI border. Ideally he might even explain the Protocol, and the reasons why it was agreed. 2/4
Or second, he could respond to the real concerns of the Unionist community, and make promises, incompatible with the NI Protocol and the TCA, not to introduce 'unconstitutional' intrusions onto UK sovereignty. 3/4