Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Oh you're absolutely right.

But it is unfortunately a fairly often repeated cycle for Labour after it's been in government (in the 30s, 50s, 80s and 2010s) - and right now Starmer has been absolutely ruthless (particularly in selecting candidates) in purging the left.

So, after the next period of Labour government, when the disappointment returns and the left make a comeback I'd expect them to be just as ruthless (though they've only won the leadership once). The main criticism of Corbyn on the left is that they didn't press their advantage enough.

[Josquius]

The big long article- very mixed views, some stuff I really disagree with others less so.

Such failure offered an opportunity for something new, the author argued. "The old parties cannot face the future because they have run out of answers, energy and leadership. Now is the time for Britain to move on and face the future." A new "movement" to bring forward "a new political class" was needed. This new political class would then "scale the social innovation that is already happening in our communities" while "incubating solutions not ideology".

Such solutions are then set out in distinctly New Labour language: early years education to reduce inequality; universal child care to help people back to work; a strong NHS and affordable housing. Planning reform is also mentioned, or what the author calls "rezoning land up, out and in". Taxes should be on land, not work; the economy remain open; and "meaningless immigration caps" removed. Britain must also reclaim its role "as a global leader" by tackling international challenges such as climate change. "We can move on to this future, but only if we have the courage to face it." As worthy as these policies may or may not be, they seem unlikely to form the basis of a great new popular uprising.

McSweeney's view, according to those who know him well, is even harsher, seeing the document as everything that is wrong with progressive politics today, attempting to tap into an anti-political sentiment with a clarion call for a new political class wrapped in language seemingly from another era. At the core of his disagreement, however, is the document's attitude to class. "Every century in Britain, a new force in politics has emerged as a result of big shifts in society," the document declares. "These shifts create the new coalitions upon which a new politics can be built." And the big shift in the 21st century?"The growing dominance of the middle classes and university graduates". Among these "rising social groups" as the document calls them — "graduates, middle-class professionals, and ethnic minorities" — there is an openness to the world not found among those from "the once-dominant but now fast-declining groups" listed as "older white voters, the working classes, and school leavers".

The central argument for the proposed new political party, therefore, is that class is no longer the central divide in democratic politics. "A voter's views on multiculturalism, diversity, immigration and the internet are now a better predictor of political allegiance than economic interests," the document argues. A majority of "open" voters in every region of the UK believe "multiculturalism, social liberalism, feminism, environmental sustainability, immigration, globalisation and technology" are positive.

1: As the dominance of the middle class in the traditional meaning of the word- yes, absolutely.
But at the same time we've "Lost" the middle class.
These days there's not really much of a divide at all between those in middle class and working class jobs. They live next door to each other, hanging out together, they're much of a muchness.
This is good on one level, but on another it is a key part of the problems we face in this country today; rising to the "middle class" has never been easier.... but this means fuck all. You don't see much of an increase in quality of life for your efforts.
Rather than working-middle-upper class, the divides today are lumpen-working/middle-rich.
I do think this is core to the rise of populism, this lack of hope in the future, a belief that no matter how hard you try you're never going to measurably improve your situation, the world isn't going to get any better.

2: The electoral map is hinted at here but not really mentioned in the article much that I notice. Labour's problem pre-Starmer was as Sheilbh says an inefficient vote. Piling up supporters in the cities with young working/middle people, whilst the grey ex-industrial towns wavered, large chunks of the traditional labour support base were.
A: Educating themselves and getting the fuck out.
B: Retiring reasonably well off and selling out to paranoia over modernity.
C: Dropping below the working class into being lumpen wastes who rarely vote, and if they do its for the easy answers that don't require thinking about complex problems.

3: The way they word it here in terms of openness is one way of looking at it. I see it kind of relatedly in terms of hope for the future vs. a coalition of nostalgia and nihilism.
The big divide is in those who think we actually can make the world a better place and those who think its irreversibly stuck as a zero sum game and all they can do is fight for the biggest share of the scraps.

As such "for the first time in a century, a new national force in British politics could thrive". To get such a movement off the ground, a charismatic leader was needed and an army of new supporters. Oh, and money — hence the proposal. The document suggested offering free membership to all with a higher £5.99-a-month "founder" tier with the offer: "Found the new politics for the same price as a Netflix subscription."

The system naturally frowns on such things. Its curious though you never really hear any talk of how Labour supplanted the Liberals for an example of how such things can happen in the British system.
The answer I suspect is one that whatever divides we have today they just don't compare to those of pre-WW2 Britain.

McSweeney found a place failed both by its Labour council and its Labour government. At the centre of the borough was Becontree, once the biggest council estate in the world, supported by the Ford car plant in nearby Dagenham. By the time Blair became prime minister in 1997, however, deindustrialisation and right-to-buy had undermined its social fabric. Homes had been bought by landlords, divided up and rented out, often to new immigrant families attracted to the cheapest housing in London. As the area became more transient, it became less maintained. As tenants came and went, landlords would simply dump their unwanted belongings in front gardens. When residents complained, the council produced pamphlets disproving this "disinformation", and emphasising how much they had spent cleaning up the area. Enter the BNP, who simply blamed the foreigners.For McSweeney the problem was not one of communication, but of reality. The area had got worse. Families who had lived here for generations were embarrassed that the houses next to them were suddenly a mess. They were also angry that absentee landlords from Hackney, Islington, Essex and beyond were able to act with impunity, while they could barely change the colour of their front door without council permission. In response, McSweeney encouraged the removal of the existing council leader and helped deliver one of the most popular policies in local government history: the "eyesore gardens policy", proposed by the new council leader Liam Smith, whereby the local council sent in workers to remove the rubbish outside people's homes — and then charged the landlords for the trouble. In 2006, the BNP had stood 13 candidates in the local elections and won 12 seats. In 2010, they lost them all as Labour swept the board winning every single seat in the borough.

Oh yes I've seen this.
Its so bad it often seems intentionally so- these shit exploitative right to buy landlords often renting to foreigners, usually packing them into HMOs. Its just so easy to blame the renters who are disproportionately non-local than the faceless landlords.
This stuff needs a huge crackdown.
I like the Dutch system of placing price caps on rent for the quality of a home.

Curious they speak of it in the past tense though. Now its sorted in London its sorted? Its really not up here....

McSweeney's lesson from Barking was not just that voters should be listened to because that was good politics, but that voters should be listened to because they knew what they were talking about. They were right about Barking and the council had been wrong. Nationally, however, a similar story was playing out, McSweeney believed.

Yes. But with a huge but.
Just listening to the voters is a path of populism. Joining in with the pitch fork waving mob.
But listening intelligently, figuring out the actual problem from what they're saying...100% the correct path.

In 2010, the Labour Party had gone into the election telling voters the recession wasn't their fault because it was caused by a global crisis; they were acting like a giant Barking Borough Council. Voters had every right to blame the Labour government for the reality of falling living standards. Something new was needed, but Labour wasn't offering it.

Gordon Brown saved the world. We need to stop letting the Tories write history.

There were other projects available, he admitted. One alternative was what he called the "rabbit hole of identity politics". But the other was more pointed. "You could even completely unmoor from the concerns of working people," Starmer said as Blair watched on. "That sounds ridiculous to me, but some people did seriously suggest it after the Brexit referendum." Starmer here, is of course conveniently skating over his own support for a second referendum at this time, but there is little doubt where his remarks were pointing. Starmer then went on to add that, while he agreed with Blair that the technological revolution would be game-changing, there was "one place where I do take issue with Tony: the idea that this is somehow beyond Left and Right. No, for me, this is a progressive moment."

It seems to be hinting at the myth here that working people support brexit?...
And that amongst those who do this is a deeply held concern?
This I will not agree with.

I think this also captures the essence and problem of Blairism and what I think it got wrong and why it's not an answer now. For all the fact that he is very much in the centre, there is something determinist and teleological about Blair that is almost Marxist - a lot of his idea of politics is that the forces driving societies are broadly beyond political control. They are deep, structural shifts and the job of a "progressive" leader is to embrace those inevitable and progressive changes and place their country in the vanguard. In the 1990s and 2000s it was globalisation, increasingly in Blair's interviews it's now tech. Attempting to temper or adjust the course of history is Canute-ish - at best you'll fail and disappoint your voters, at worst you'll actively harm the country.

I'd argue it has always been about technology.
The third industrial revolution which we're still seeing now started off way back in the mid 20th century. Harold Wilson and his white hot heat of technology speech and all that.
Globalisation was merely a way in which the core technology change issue showed itself- other countries doing a better job of embracing modern technology than we did, the massive drop in number of workers needed for the same jobs meaning just a few companies in the world could do their job for everyone, etc...

Running with the Canute analogy I'd introduce one of my own we should seek to embrace: Holland.

As he points out the divide isn't left-right but, in Blair's phrasing, open or closed - or perhaps radical v conservative.

Not sure on radical vs. conservative. I'd say more forwards vs. backwards.
We're currently in a pit of shit. In which direction should we head to get out.

The problem with that is that I think in practice it created vulnerabilities with the crash and the combination o the global financial crisis and the war on terror (including Iraq) I think undermine Blair's "inevitability" analysis. I also think that in the last 15 years it has become even clearer the importance of contingency, the open-ness of the future which means trying to shape it rather than simply embracing and being the cutting edge of current trends - and I don't think Blair has really adjust/been able to adjust to that.

I also fundamentally think that any analysis of democratic decisions that just end up saying "voters were wrong/have been duped" is at best a dead end politically. And without getting too Marxist, you can't change the coalition of a party of the left to not include the working class without fundamentally changing the nature of that party and the politics it will pursue. I think Blair is fine with that - I'm less comfortable.

Yes. You absolutely need to take care of working people for myriad reasons.
Even if some brain wave came along and made it so everyone on less than 30k a year was suddenly a horrible racist and this rule would remain in place forever...the sensible thing to do would be not to ignore them but to try and uplift as many of them as possible out of this.

[Gups]

Oh you're absolutely right.

But it is unfortunately a fairly often repeated cycle for Labour after it's been in government (in the 30s, 50s, 80s and 2010s) - and right now Starmer has been absolutely ruthless (particularly in selecting candidates) in purging the left.

So, after the next period of Labour government, when the disappointment returns and the left make a comeback I'd expect them to be just as ruthless (though they've only won the leadership once). The main criticism of Corbyn on the left is that they didn't press their advantage enough.

The left also won the leadership in 1983 and had an awful lot of power 74-76 with Wilson effectively leaving a gaping hole in place of a leader.

I didn't really understand the article. Obviously the international openness of the Labour Government of 1997 onwards is not and could not be replicable. We have acompletely different world now - tariffs, Trump, Xi, Brexit. Who on earth is saying otherwise?

There is a lot to learn from Labour's domestic policies in the Blair government largely pursued by Brown in terms of progressive policies where spending was severely restrained - minimum wage; sure start, free museum entry, smoking ban, human rights act. 

We don't know much about the policies that Starmer will pursue but there are good signs on planning and on health. The absolutely no 1 priority has to be increasing productivity. We can't afford to do anything otherwise.

[Josquius]

I didn't really understand the article. Obviously the international openness of the Labour Government of 1997 onwards is not and could not be replicable. We have acompletely different world now - tariffs, Trump, Xi, Brexit. Who on earth is saying otherwise?

Corbynites and the like I guess.
I have seen many of them moaning about Starmer being Blair again.
Which...
1: That would be fine.
2: But he isn't.

[Sheilbh]

It's interesting that I wasn't sold on Starmer and thought Nandy would be the better option primarily because I thought she'd be more reformist while Starmer was running as "Corbynism without Corbyn", while you were convinced with him.

Now there's this long read on the Mandelson to Starmer's Blair and I think their analysis and approach is right, while you have doubts.

I suppose it points to the criticism of Starmer made by the left - which is sort of fair (although I'm not sure how fair) - that he basically lied. If we're talking about dishonesty/lies in public life, Starmer running for leader on a 10 point list and basically dumping all of them within 2-3 years is up there. I get the Truss disaster gives a good alibi for getting rid of spending pledges but it is striking. Also striking, people don't care if you're winning and I see it as refreshingly ruthless

But it's one of those things where I think there's a bit of truth at the heart of that. If he becomes PM there will be scandals, there will be questions of dishonesty and I think when his poll numbers are down, what's currently perceived as ruthlessness/realism will become cynicism/dishonesty. I could be wrong, but I suspect that'll end up being a complaint about Starmer as PM.

I'd argue it has always been about technology.
The third industrial revolution which we're still seeing now started off way back in the mid 20th century. Harold Wilson and his white hot heat of technology speech and all that.
Globalisation was merely a way in which the core technology change issue showed itself- other countries doing a better job of embracing modern technology than we did, the massive drop in number of workers needed for the same jobs meaning just a few companies in the world could do their job for everyone, etc...

I think there are similarities and differences with Blair's view of technology and Wilson's. In both cases I think there's a degree of political advantage-seeking - to claim "science" and modernity and progress for Labour. I also think in Wilson's case the Labour Party at the time was quite divided between the right and the left (plus ca change) and technology was useful for a leadership that was trying to straddle that divide. But it was technology at the service of the country - to modernise the economy, to improve life of workers etc.

Blair's current obsessions are AI, digital IDs and digitisation of health. Everyone notes that Larry Ellison who has major investments in all of these areas is also a big funder of the Tony Blair Institute. I don't think that's cynical, but I think there is a conflict of interests particularly in TBI seconding entire teams into African governments as "delivery units" (based on Blair's own "delivery unit" in Number 10).

I don't think Blair sees technology (or globalisation before it) as a tool to fix the country. I think he sees them as one way, inevitable historical forces that you can't really control, alter or mitigate - the best you can do is re-distribute the proceeds (I think this might be part of the problem, in retrospect). I think for Blair it is more teleological and determinist. The question isn't what they can do for the country. But how can you put the country at the cutting edge of these forces because they are inevitable and the future so that is the "progressive" thing to do and your country will reap the benefits more.

Running with the Canute analogy I'd introduce one of my own we should seek to embrace: Holland.

Didn't expect you to back Johnson's idea of reclaiming Doggerland as a centre for off-shore wind power. I mean I'm game but...

The left also won the leadership in 1983 and had an awful lot of power 74-76 with Wilson effectively leaving a gaping hole in place of a leader.

Fair but Kinnock was on the soft left - he'd opposed Benn's deputy leadership run and was less open to the non-parliamentary left, while Corbyn ran Benn's campaign and his bit of the party was always for a "no enemies to the left" approach.

Also it's true on 74-76 but Wilson's cabinet was a balancing act. You had Benn who was very much on his journey - but you also had Healey, Jenkins etc with Callaghan, like Wilson, as someone who could work with both sides.

I didn't really understand the article. Obviously the international openness of the Labour Government of 1997 onwards is not and could not be replicable. We have acompletely different world now - tariffs, Trump, Xi, Brexit. Who on earth is saying otherwise?

I think there's lots of people who basically just want the 90s back and the politics of it. I think Blair is an extreme example (though, as I say, I think he's moved from globalisation to tech), but I think you see it in quite a lot of commentary. And also I think you still see a lot of framing for Starmer around Blair and 97 (in a way I don't think happened with Blair and Wilson).

The US has moved on totally so it's not just Trump but also Biden. I think there's a new consensus on trade and openness as national security issues in competition with China in the US that in Europe we're still catching up with.

There is a lot to learn from Labour's domestic policies in the Blair government largely pursued by Brown in terms of progressive policies where spending was severely restrained - minimum wage; sure start, free museum entry, smoking ban, human rights act. 

Obviously not in style but I think they could also do worse than look at Gove in education and to a lesser extent justice for what you can do in terms of reform without necessarily having to increase spending significantly.

I'm a bit of a heretic on free museum entry because I'm not sold on the value of free entry to "national" museums (often in London) which have huge visitor numbers including from tourists while small and local museums across the country are struggling.

But as you say the focus has to be productivity and growth - as Starmer and Reeves bang on about, but that's going to be tough. I think planning is a good example of something that would have an impact but not necessarily cost much money, I also think they should look at Brown's policies to film and TV because that's an example of industrial policy in the UK that has really worked. And possibly at whether there's areas we can usefully diverge from Europe (on AI we definitely should, for example). I also just hope they kind of embrace the country we are and the strengths we have economically: services (especially financial and professional services), higher education, culture and, to an extent, tech. I think for a lot of the last 8 years especially the key areas of the UK economy where we have an advantage and do well have been denigrated - either because everyone hates them (bankers) or because they're too culturally lefty/woke/remainy (higher education and culture). Just starting from trying to work with what we've got rather than aspiring to simply be Germany would be helpful.

[Josquius]

It's interesting that I wasn't sold on Starmer and thought Nandy would be the better option primarily because I thought she'd be more reformist while Starmer was running as "Corbynism without Corbyn", while you were convinced with him.

Now there's this long read on the Mandelson to Starmer's Blair and I think their analysis and approach is right, while you have doubts.

I suppose it points to the criticism of Starmer made by the left - which is sort of fair (although I'm not sure how fair) - that he basically lied. If we're talking about dishonesty/lies in public life, Starmer running for leader on a 10 point list and basically dumping all of them within 2-3 years is up there. I get the Truss disaster gives a good alibi for getting rid of spending pledges but it is striking. Also striking, people don't care if you're winning and I see it as refreshingly ruthless

But it's one of those things where I think there's a bit of truth at the heart of that. If he becomes PM there will be scandals, there will be questions of dishonesty and I think when his poll numbers are down, what's currently perceived as ruthlessness/realism will become cynicism/dishonesty. I could be wrong, but I suspect that'll end up being a complaint about Starmer as PM.

It definitely hurts that Starmer tossed out desperately needed things. But I wouldn't say this is lying so much as adapting to a changing situation.
Certainly I have no time for the internal infighting stuff when the Tories are actively destroying the country day by day. That only becomes acceptable once the party is in power.
Fingers crossed that as the first term draws to a close and things are looking up Starmer can get back to bringing free movement in and other good stuff. But priority has to be steadying the ship before we can even think of moving forward.

m a bit of a heretic on free museum entry because I'm not sold on the value of free entry to "national" museums (often in London) which have huge visitor numbers including from tourists while small and local museums across the country are struggling.

A lot of museums around the world will offer different entry prices for citizens and visitors- usually cheaper for citizens though in Japan I recall seeing some where foreigners were cheaper, weirdly.
I recall seeing a museum in Brighton where if you live in Brighton you got cheaper entry but otherwise we don't do it.
That should be the way to go with the big national museums IMO. Free for Brits and students, others pay up. This could actually be a Brexit benefit in Europeans being clustered under the rest rather than getting the British price.

[Richard Hakluyt]

That seems to be the rule, any economic activity in which Britain is actually good is to be denigrated... we should be making washing machines instead 

We are lucky, the economic activities the country is good at are hard to emulate by emerging countries. We should play to those strengths.

[Tamas]

That seems to be the rule, any economic activity in which Britain is actually good is to denigrated... we should be making washing machines instead 

We are lucky, the economic activities the country is good at are hard to emulate by emerging countries. We should play to those strengths.

That sounds very anti-coal mines. 

[Duque de Bragança]

That seems to be the rule, any economic activity in which Britain is actually good is to denigrated... we should be making washing machines instead 

We are lucky, the economic activities the country is good at are hard to emulate by emerging countries. We should play to those strengths.

That sounds very anti-coal mines. 

Tamas bringing the coals to Newcastle, again. 

[Gups]

Fair but Kinnock was on the soft left - he'd opposed Benn's deputy leadership run and was less open to the non-parliamentary left, while Corbyn ran Benn's campaign and his bit of the party was always for a "no enemies to the left" approach.

Also it's true on 74-76 but Wilson's cabinet was a balancing act. You had Benn who was very much on his journey - but you also had Healey, Jenkins etc with Callaghan, like Wilson, as someone who could work with both sides.

Sorry I meant 1979 when Foot won. Kinnock was viewed as of the left but given the scale of the defeat in '83 continued his journey towards the centre.

We perceive Healey as being on the right of the party but up until 1976 he was on the left economically (but not on foreign policy or defence). Wiki has a good summary here (if you have Eric Heffer critcising you for being too left wing you are probably not on the right of the party!)

Healey was appointed Shadow Chancellor in April 1972 after Roy Jenkins resigned in a row over the European Economic Community (Common Market). At the Labour Party conference on 1 October 1973, he said, "I warn you that there are going to be howls of anguish from those rich enough to pay over 75% on their last slice of earnings".[33] In a speech in Lincoln on 18 February 1974, Healey went further, promising he would "squeeze property speculators until the pips squeak." He alleged that Lord Carrington, the Conservative Secretary of State for Energy, had made £10m profit from selling agricultural land at prices 30 to 60 times as high as it would command as farming land.[34] When accused by colleagues including Eric Heffer of putting Labour's chances of winning the next election in jeopardy through his tax proposals, Healey said the party and the country must face the consequences of Labour's policy of the redistribution of income and wealth; "That is what our policy is, the party must face the realities of it".[35]

Healey became Chancellor of the Exchequer in March 1974 after Labour returned to power as a minority government. His tenure is sometimes divided into Healey Mark I and Healey Mark II.[36] The divide is marked by his decision, taken with Prime Minister James Callaghan, to seek an International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan and submit the British economy to IMF supervision. The loan was negotiated and agreed in November and December 1976, and announced in Parliament on 15 December 1976.[37][38] Within some parts of the Labour Party the transition from Healey Mark I (which had seen a proposal for a wealth tax) to Healey Mark II (associated with government-specified wage control) was regarded as a betrayal. Healey's policy of increasing benefits for the poor meant those earning over £4,000 per year would be taxed more heavily. His first budget saw increases in food subsidies, pensions and other benefits.[39]

[Gups]

In other news another Tory MP defects to Labour while Monty Panesar resigns his caditure for Galloway's party on teh basis that he needs to spend some time learning about politcis (amongst other things he said hat leaving NATO would allow us to control our borders)

[crazy canuck]

I suspect one of the issues with Labour/the British left is that we have intergenerational beefs (and before that it was probably Bevan v Attlee or the incredibly virulent fights between the four Trot sects) And both sides probably a little bit would see each other as the main enemy a lot of the time

Speaking as someone from the right... there is a time and place for wanting your own internal enemies to lose so badly that it is "worth it" to cede power to your ideological enemies in order to see your internal them defeated.  I thought it in the 80-90s in Canada, I think it's happening now in the US.

But you have to remember that is the trade-off your making.

The majority of the time a half loaf is better than none.

Whenever I pointed out that this is exactly what you Reformers were doing, you have characterized it as me attacking you personally.

Maybe you forgot that you had denied it or maybe you've just decided to come clean after all these years.

[Sheilbh]

Sorry I meant 1979 when Foot won. Kinnock was viewed as of the left but given the scale of the defeat in '83 continued his journey towards the centre.

Oh fair. My understanding is his election was in part because it was felt he was the candidate who could basically keep the party going and relatively united. In the end there was a split, but Healey would possibly have provoked an even bigger problem. Although maybe there was a bit of Corbyn about him with a slight "magic grandpa" element.

Although even then I'd still argue Foot was on a slightly different bit of the left to Benn, Corbyn, Heffer. I think there is a line between radical left but believe in a "parliamentary route to socialism" v "no enemies to the left" group who are open to working with the revolutionary/extra-parliamentary left. And I think Foot is firmly parliamentary.

The investigations into Militant start under Foot and the "editorial board" or party leadership of Militant were expelled under Foot. His basic view was that the Cripps or Bevans of an earlier age were not organising a separate party within a party. It is another of those cycles. I think Nye opposed "purges" of communists during the 30s but supported them in the 50s, at which point Foot opposed them but started the process in the 80s (I think one of the rare moments he broke with Bevan).

We perceive Healey as being on the right of the party but up until 1976 he was on the left economically (but not on foreign policy or defence). Wiki has a good summary here (if you have Eric Heffer critcising you for being too left wing you are probably not on the right of the party!)

That's fascinating because I absolutely associate him with the Labour right and with the bailout. I knew he was a student communist but I had no idea his move to the right was only really as Chancellor dealing with the IMF.

Also yeah not only is Heffer attacking him from the right - but also for hurting electability

That sounds very anti-coal mines. 

I'm not particularly convinced on the "imperial nostalgia" diagnosis, but I think we do have a bit of an "industrial nostalgia". Fully aware that the economics behind that were buttressed by empire, but I don't think people are necessarily making that connection - I think they just think producing things, making things is somehow almost morally better than services.

That seems to be the rule, any economic activity in which Britain is actually good is to be denigrated... we should be making washing machines instead 

We are lucky, the economic activities the country is good at are hard to emulate by emerging countries. We should play to those strengths.

Yeah I think it's really unfortunate the way we don't like the things we're good at.

And as you say, lots of these are sectors other countries would give their right arm to have a similar advantage.

I always mention it but the article in the FT a year or two ago about billions of pent-up investment in life sciences for firms that want to expand, or invest but can't because they can't find enough lab space just seems like an incredibly indulgent act of self-harm. Again I've mentioned it before (and this is from the project's backers so take with a pinch of salt) but the OxCam triangle proposal should boost our GDP over the next decade by 3% - for context Brexit's on course to make it 4% lower than otherwise over the same period - so, inevitably, the government cancelled it. I can understand why re-opening a very contentious issue, probably having another referendum and lost half-decade of all energy focusing on that issue makes  politicians reluctant on Brexit. I can't really understand why the risk of pissing off some Lib Dem councils seems to provoke the same response.

Separately I slightly wonder if this is a benefit of Metro Mayors - I was thinking with Street and Houchen it's really striking that the two Tories who did best basically bang the drum about their region, boast about building stuff and attracting business etc. Burnham is similar in Manchester. And that's normal politics. But with council elections I feel like a lot is about boasting about blocking things "save x brownfield site". There's been studies that basically negative views on an issue are higher salience for voters than positive views. So I wonder if the Metro Mayors because they're higher profile get a higher turnout so you get people who are passively in favour of things while with councils, because they're lower turnout they pander to the minority of people who really really care about stopping things?

It definitely hurts that Starmer tossed out desperately needed things. But I wouldn't say this is lying so much as adapting to a changing situation.

Yeah I suppose it's how you interpret it.

Did Starmer run on a leadership platform reflecting what he really wanted to do and got mugged by reality, or did he run on a platform he knew he'd never deliver and, perhaps, got mugged by opportunity as winning a Labour majority moved from a two term project to one term? He has had to do what Kinnock, Smith and Blair did in 14 years in 4 which is very impressive.

And obviously those possibly have consequences for expectations of him as PM. On the one hand he's perhaps a bit naive but honest, on the other he's maybe a bit deceptive but absolutely ruthless and focused on doing whatever he needs to win. My reading is that it's the latter.

A lot of museums around the world will offer different entry prices for citizens and visitors- usually cheaper for citizens though in Japan I recall seeing some where foreigners were cheaper, weirdly.
I recall seeing a museum in Brighton where if you live in Brighton you got cheaper entry but otherwise we don't do it.
That should be the way to go with the big national museums IMO. Free for Brits and students, others pay up. This could actually be a Brexit benefit in Europeans being clustered under the rest rather than getting the British price.

There are some councils that do it in particular I think to encourage engagement with other cultural venues - so Tower Hamlets used to give you free entry to the Tower of London if you evidenced you were a Tower Hamlets resident, with a Tower Hamlets Library Card.

But yeah it is normal in the rest of the world (Mexico has a huge difference which makes perfect sense) and I just feel like we should be using the massive tourist attraction museums with millions of visitors to subsidise other museums rather than the other way round.

[Jacob]

In other news another Tory MP defects to Labour while Monty Panesar resigns his caditure for Galloway's party on teh basis that he needs to spend some time learning about politcis (amongst other things he said hat leaving NATO would allow us to control our borders)

I know Galloway is a prat of the highest order, but I know nothing about Panesar. Resigning his candidature because he realizes he doesn't know what's going on in politics seems... refreshingly self-aware. Or is that an overly generous reading?

[Sheilbh]

Also just on the should you fight internally or not it is challenging.

I am biased - and as I say had more arguments than I care to remember about Corbyn. His supporters and the left would always say that everyone should just unite behind him so we could fight the Tories. But I genuinely do not think Corbyn was fit to be PM. I think he was at best indifferent towards growing anti-semitism. I think his associations in the past were unacceptable (whether with the IRA, his "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah, Black September, or President of Stop the War at a point when they were saying Iraqi resistance killing British soldiers was justified). I think he had some very sinister allies - Seumas Milne, Andrew Murray who leaped from 40 years of Communist Party of Great Britain membership to a role in the Labour leaders office.

I felt the same way about Corbyn that anti-Johnson Tories felt about him. So I couldn't just go along and accept it. I think that was common with a lot of people (although I do remember lots who made these points until 2017 when he did surprisingly well and then went very quiet) - my lesson on that was that I shouldn't have moaned so much from an electability perspective and should have said more I disagree with him and I don't think he's fit for office.

I disagree with them, but I fully get why the Labour left feel that Starmer's a monster who lied to become leader, is now rigging loads of selections to exclude the left from office as much as possible even if I disagree with him that he's a crypto-Tory.

So I get the party unity piece in theory, but it is challenging in practice when you do fundamentally disagree.