There's lots of thinking about a so-called progressive alliance. It is perhaps useful to distinguish between various forms of progressive alliance. Let me set out three versions - there are clearly many varieties within each. 1/12
First, a bottom-up strategy, relying on voters to make the sensible choice, and coalesce behind the candidate most likely to beat the Conservative. This may be accompanied by a non-aggression pact (of sorts) and an absence of campaigning in non-target seats. 2/
Second, a more formal electoral alliance between the opposition parties, with agreements not to stand candidates in particular seats. 3/
Third, a full-throated progressive alliance, with agreements not only as regards the election, but also as regards the policy programme to be pursued post a putative GE win. This is where PR may come in. 4/
These are very different - in at least three respects. First, as regards possible electoral appeal. Second, as regards feasibility. And third, as regards what might happen post this putative GE win. 5/
The arguments in relation to each are finely balanced. 6/
First, it may be, as perhaps shown by Chesham and Amersham, that a weak alliance of the first type will win seats; and that Tory voters may be disinclined to offer their vote to stronger alliances. 7/
And/or it may be that people will only be persuaded to back the 'sensible choice' if they know that it has the (strong) backing of 'their' party's leadership. 8/
Second, is it feasible to expect the opposition to reach agreement, and if so, what limits might there be on that? Any attempt to carve out which candidate sits in which seats and with what support from whom is fraught with difficulty. 9/
And third, it seems obvious that the post-GE landscape would be much easier to navigate if the parties know what they are looking to achieve. (The 2019 GNU foundered around these sorts of questions.) 10/
Of course, agreement would again be difficult... and there may be a desire to work these things out only the other side of the GE. 11/
I'm not at all sure how these arguments might play out - but I think it is useful to distinguish different sorts of progressive alliance, and to think about how they might play out at different stages. 12/12
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I was struck by the part on the EU - whether it will continue to try to find flexibilities and compromises, or whether it will start taking a much tougher line. 1/8
The post references the Orbanized flavour of the Johnson regime... and the EU faces similar questions as regards both the UK and Poland and Hungary. 2/
The UK is determinedly seeking to avoid its obligations under the NI Protocol, seeking to free itself from the chamber it has gotten itself into. Attempts to enforce the Protocol will be slow and difficult. 3/
A quick thread on coronavirus restrictions and universities - which are, I was reminded, just 12 weeks away from welcoming students for the new academic year in September.
The postponement of 'freedom day' has a number of serious implications. 1/8
There was a lot of focus on 'double-jabbing' in order to slow the increase in transmission rates in yesterday's briefing.
Will UK-based school leavers be double-jabbed by September? 2/8
Will unis be able to responsible for ensuring that students have been vaccinated (and is there a link between that and the ability to run lectures of up to 500 students; or will those be online only)?
Brexit is topping the news again today. But it is puzzling to see how the arguments are framed.
We are not 'back in 2019', though we face the same challenges as we did then. 1/7
In case people have forgotten, Brexit was 'done'. The Withdrawal Agreement, the NI Protocol, and, later, the TCA (Trade and Cooperation Agreement) were agreed - by the EU and the UK. 2/7
These agreements involve a lot of commitments on both sides. They establish a set of Committees in which ongoing issues will be addressed. They include dispute resolution procedures. 3/7
The endless comparisons between Boris Johnson and Winston Churchill are wide of the mark.
All the while there has been an obvious historical parallel hiding in plain sight.
Henry VIII. 1/3
✅ Known for his many marriages
✅ Schism with the Church/Treaty of Rome
✅ Investing in the Royal Navy
✅ The divine right of Kings
✅ (For the lawyers...) Clauses
✅ Rocky relations with Chief Ministers 2/3
And, to quote the venerable wikipedia:
✅ An extravagant spender, continually on the verge of financial ruin
✅ Numerous 'costly and largely unsuccessful' wars
✅ Frequently characterised in his later life as a 'lustful, egotistical, paranoid and tyrannical' monarch 3/3
This is a bit different; some thoughts about how we *listen* to people. I'm putting it here because it may, as I'll try to explain, have political resonance. THREAD 1/15
We listen (and read) for lots of different reasons, and in lots of different contexts.
I think that, fundamentally, we can listen in 2 ways, and that those 2 ways are markedly different. 2/
We can listen either from our perspective, with our own frame of reference in place, seeking to work out how what is being said interacts with our own world view. 3/
A quick thread on the Cummings evidence - and what it tells us about Brexit. 1/10
(This is very much a preliminary view; all thoughts very welcome).
The bit I want to focus on is the bit where he rails against the chaos and incompetence at the heart of Govt and the dangers of group-think. If he had hair, he would have been tearing it out. 2/10
His response was to seek to bring in 'talent' from outside. To create a plan and to operationalise it. To galvanise the state into action. 3/10