The great thing about having a leader is that the leader can have a leadership team, who nobody voted for, and they can stop stuff happening that the leader doesn't want. Or they don't. And the leader can say "I know I said that, but now is not the time. Thanks for your support." Another thing about The Leader is that the media can talk about how the leader is doing. How other people think the leader is doing. Who wants to be leader. And who wants the Leader not to be leader. And how the leader should maybe have politics that's more to the media's liking

I could understand why they wouldn't want to but there is a case for the Greens and Your Fiasco Is Magic focussing on why the Villa thing is evidence that establishment parties are riddled with people who are unfit for any kind of public role because they are utterly delusional We've seen political correspondents supporting calls for MPs to be deported, Labour MPs & councillors and Tory MPs calling independent MPs "domestic terrorists" and countless commentators refusing to acknowledge footage that contradicts their argument.

This is Unwellness.

"Are you trying to tell me that parents can't leave work, rush to school, buy a pizza on the way and stand at the gate feeding it to their kids during the lunch break then go back to work and make up time lost? Are you trying to convince me schools should have to provide lunch?" There's never any consideration with these people that a) providing a breakfast at home might be difficult for timing reasons because of work b) Expenditure on a single item which has a cheap looking unit price is bound up with *all other household spending*

People complain, rightly, about AI mangling language and meaning.

But nobody does slop like this vaccuous fraud. The people shouting loudest for "patriotism" and waving flags more than you, you fucking charlatan, are calling for White Supremacism, illegal forced deportation of British citizensns and to be allowed to be as racist as they want to be.

That is not "national renewal", you twat

Attlee was the first person to be made Deputy PM in 1942, during a wartime coalition. The second was Michael Heseltine in 1995. Since then there have been 8 Deputy PMs. 6 of them in the last 4 years. It's not a real job, it's a place to put people for party management purposes. The closest analogue to Rayner is John Prescott, who was the 3rd person to be made Deputy Prime Minister, in a government where there was a power struggle between Blair and Brown and their unelected advisers. Prescott was given the non job to appease Old/Union/Soft Left people

People dewy eyed with "the UK used to be so good" nostalgia for 1985 when some rich guys did a show to try to get food and supplies to alleviate a famine as the UK government didn't give a shit because it was too busy waging class war on unions, inner city residents and hippies. This latest bout of "I remember this and everything about the country was completely perfect, the best time in all history not like now" nostalgia for 1985 coming on one day after a different group of human goldfish were recalling the absolute bliss of life in 1996.

Damn it. Sly Stone. Damn it. Damn it. Damn it. He was so fucking good. That band was so magical. It's mimed but it's beautiful.

Social Democracy had a tripartite training system that involved government/employers/unions. Unions got smashed, employers pulled out of most of their responsibilities and started demanding government repeatedly "reform" compulsory and lifelong learning to meet its needs only.

https://twitter.com/OfSymbols/status/1932061885639053645

I mean, ok, that's a somewhat broad brush and generalising view but so is the nonsense that gets talked about "delivering skills" to meet "business needs" Which are hugely varied and ill served by government programmes in design, development, funding, delivery and pace of change.

My issue with this line is that while a lot of voters *do* want nationalisation, many don't look at the actual politics of self promoting King Actors like Farage, (or Johnson). They think he's a guy who'll do what other people won't and he'll do what they think needs to be done. It's why Johnson was able to stage the ludicrous pantomime of "levelling up," which was against all his instincts and beliefs, because your aim is just to convince people - with your act, that they like - that you're the *type of leader* who will give them what they want.

Food drops, the Berlin Airlift. These things used to be part of the discourse around civilian populations caught up in wars and disasters. Its a glaring absence from discussion. A world where Aid Workers are targetted for execution and "the international community" does nothing. Hard not to draw comparisons with the 1930s. Organisations set up to act beyond national government self interest unable to act to save lives and forced to defend themselves from political attack from nation states within "the international community".

These are Fascist times.

The "patriotic working classes" *wasn't* your base. It was the base of the Tory party. The Working Class Tory vote in those constituencies, which always existed and meant that even during Post War Social Democracy in the 50s and early 60s, Labour was out for 13 years. Blue Labour are charlatans just as much as Reform. It could talk about (green, clean) industrial strategy to rebuild a productive base for regional development. It doesn't. It dangles the same promise to bring back an imagined mid 20th Century though "patriotism" and "tradition"

The right wing media and The City broke the Tories. The right wing media still supports Brexit and The City wants continuity neoliberalism from Labour. A popular, progressive coalition could defeat Reform. It would also need to depose the Labour leadership and most of the PLP A "popular, progressive coalition" wouldn't include much of the Labour Party, wouldn't listen to the Centrist commentariat. It wouldn't be led by Central Banker figures. It would be much more like 2017. It would have to attack all the "progressives" who undermined that coalition.

Absolute 100% sure fire, nailed on sign that you don't understand how people feel. You type or say "I get it". What is this "it" that you "get". A lot of people who voted Reform want to deport UK citizens for racist reasons. Others want "good jobs round here" for life. Neither of which is "deliverable". Some voted Green because they don't want neoliberalism. What is the common "it" here?

Sometimes I think we could reflect a little more on how we haven't really had a "Labour" government since March 1976* Certainly this one is only slightly more zealous in ensuring that many wrongs make a Right wing government than the last 3 and 2 fifths.

(possibly October 1951?)

https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1917534005412380991

I mean I wouldn't want to get into a boring debate about the merits of governments prior to Callaghan taking over. But his capitulated to Neoliberalism and was hostile to the post 68 left and the ones that came after him actively embraced it while being increasingly authoritatian

I keep seeing this and the phrase "alienating its natural supporters" leaps off the screen more each time. Who are the "natural supporters" of party led by a professional class authoritarian who had to be "taught" economics by an inner coterie of people who embraced Thatcherism. Who are the "natural supporters" of a party led from within by a minority clique of anti democrats, whose strategy is devised by a professional liar and conspirator whose other job was to get money from "high net worth" business people?

Not sure its who journalists think it is.

in the immortal words of Nigel Tufnell "I've been working with this for a while, now and ..."

Ok, one thing, the maths the Tories did in the 50s was predicated on high 70s% turnout. For the "modernisers" of 87, similar. What was done in 2024 was predicated on suppressing turnout Which is the 2001/2005 model. And means you are also taking into account "middle class people" who you were trying to get to not vote Tory, not vote at all, or vote Lib Dem. Not to vote for you. Which isn't really "appeal". Or if it is, it's "your assets aren't going to do worse"

I know UBI causes beef and this is a selfish point of view, but as a 58 year old who lives on his own if I had it I could keep doing my low, variable income job but also do things I cannot not do now, like fix things that need fixing, watch some cricket, have a few days away I just spent 3 days deciding and undeciding whether to buy the cheapest possible chainsaw so I can sort out a tree in a garden (landlord's garden). And thinking I need to fix lots of other stuff to make it nicer. And not doing any of it because Council Tax kicks back in today.

This guy is a cunt. And there's no reason to engage with his bad faith left baiting bullshit. However 1) polls for "who would you vote for" don't "suggest" the same thing as "what policies do you think are important". In which typical left policy areas and proposals are supported 2) The polls that get prioritised, "who would you vote for?" don't ask "why". In a council election this week Reform (+ 44%) gained a seat from the Lib Dems (- 35%). It's reasonable to suggest this could involve a transfer of "protest" rather than a uniform swing to the Right

a) "Taking on the blockers" is such a shit line.
b) "Get more money in people's pockets" is such a shit line.
c) "I am still not satisfied with the growth rate" Like it's someone's homework. Oh and also the economy *shrank* in the last quarter
d) Just fuck off.

https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1887489021258973197

Community doesn't like plans for housing estate of 4 and 5 bedroom houses at the bottom of a hill on wetlands and is concerned how the extra volume of traffic is going to be accommodated by existing roads.

"Ooh, I'm going to take on these blockers to get money in your pocket"