|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 9, 2017 18:06:07 GMT
Its just such a lazy AND cowardly approach, which - as is pretty evident wherever you look - hasn't done the liberal-left (here or elsewhere) any electoral favours either. Not endorsing "no compromise with the electorate" is one thing, never even attempting to entice them in a better direction quite another. We live in a world where the public say they want more ideological politicians and then scream when one gets into power. That goes for Left and Right alike. I'm having trouble thinking of an ideologue who's currently in power (at least officially - there's a decent case to be made that Bannon is the one actually in charge of Trump's administration). |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 9, 2017 18:29:58 GMT
We live in a world where the public say they want more ideological politicians and then scream when one gets into power. That goes for Left and Right alike. I'm having trouble thinking of an ideologue who's currently in power (at least officially - there's a decent case to be made that Bannon is the one actually in charge of Trump's administration). We've had some in government in recent times. A prime example would be Gove, or the Swedish Moderates in the last administration, or arguably early Hollande. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Feb 9, 2017 18:43:04 GMT
The North begins at Bristol. Hear hear. Some sense at last. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Feb 10, 2017 6:58:53 GMT
This reminds me of an event where a Labour MP justified cutting disability benefits, not because the beliefs people held about them were true - he admitted they weren't - but because 'that's what people think'. I just don't accept that way of thinking - it does beg the question of what is the point in existing at all Ah! You casually end Mike with the 'Big One'! Why are we here? Who made us? What is the 'point' of it all? There is no point Mike. All is either chance or a form of chaotic determinism within misunderstood but firmly balanced physical rules? Take your choice. Your decision doesn't matter. None of us matter. We are here because we are here because we are here. We're here to love and serve God and be happy with Him forever in Heaven which is why Christ sacrificed Himself for your sins. But there's also by-election statistics. They're fun. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Feb 10, 2017 8:07:33 GMT
The North begins at Bristol. Hear hear. Some sense at last. Rubbish! The North ends just south of Sheffield! Beyond that is heathen wilderness! |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,786 
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Feb 10, 2017 13:43:11 GMT
This reminds me a someone I knew who called anyone not from Manchester as either a Southern Bastard (he included Liverpool here) or a Scottish Git (starting at and including Bolton)!
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,438
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 10, 2017 15:15:31 GMT
South of Birmingham, East of Bristol = London.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 10, 2017 19:26:09 GMT
South of Birmingham, East of Bristol = London. Isn't that why they speak of Inner and Outer London? Inner London starts at Reading, Milton Keynes, Chelmsford etc  |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 10, 2017 19:27:08 GMT
London starts at Temple Bar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 10, 2017 19:49:01 GMT
The South is everywhere south of the Thames.
The Midlands is anywhere north of the Thames that has a SW, WC or EC postcode.
Beyond that is the North.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 10, 2017 19:56:37 GMT
He didn't forget Warwickshire or Worcestershire. And he doesn't consider Oxfordshire to be part of the Midlands (Oxford certainly isn't, but Banbury could be considered to be). Banbury is in South East England then the question was a bloody silly one. These are pointless descriptions. Unless it has changed since I lived there (which admittedly was a long tine ago) Banbury definitely feels like the Midlands. Not least because (unlike Oxford) it gets Birmingham telly. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 10, 2017 20:00:06 GMT
Banbury is in South East England then the question was a bloody silly one. These are pointless descriptions. Unless it has changed since I lived there (which admittedly was a long tine ago) Banbury definitely feels like the Midlands. Not least because (unlike Oxford) it gets Birmingham telly. Banbury definitely felt Midlands when I was last there. Which was at 1857, on a train to Manchester. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Feb 10, 2017 20:12:44 GMT
Unless it has changed since I lived there (which admittedly was a long tine ago) Banbury definitely feels like the Midlands. Not least because (unlike Oxford) it gets Birmingham telly. Banbury definitely felt Midlands when I was last there. Which was at 1857, on a train to Manchester. It's in 1857, not at. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 10, 2017 20:16:04 GMT
Banbury definitely felt Midlands when I was last there. Which was at 1857, on a train to Manchester. It's in 1857, not at. I'm not carlton43! |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 10, 2017 21:47:46 GMT
South of Birmingham, East of Bristol = London. By that definition, I lived in London for the first two and a half years of my life. That part of Gloucestershire still isn't quite considered London commuter territory even now, let alone three decades ago! |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 10, 2017 21:51:16 GMT
Don't come it Figgis. I know where you live! |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Feb 10, 2017 21:56:44 GMT
South of Birmingham, East of Bristol = London. By that definition, I lived in London for the first two and a half years of my life. That part of Gloucestershire still isn't quite considered London commuter territory even now, let alone three decades ago! Who cares. Basically everything (north)east of a line Bristol - Weymouth Poole* is either London or the North, and I don't care where the exact border between those two is. All you need to know really is that Bournemouth and Christchurch aren't Dorset, and that the Tamar is the Amazon. * Feeling generous tonight. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 10, 2017 22:01:08 GMT
By that definition, I lived in London for the first two and a half years of my life. That part of Gloucestershire still isn't quite considered London commuter territory even now, let alone three decades ago! Who cares. Basically everything (north)east of a line Bristol-Weymouth is either London or the North, and I don't care where the exact border between those two is. All you need to know really is that Bournemouth and Christchurch aren't Dorset, and that the Tamar is the Amazon. I care. Mike's calling me a Londoner!  A Bristol-Weymouth line sounds a bit fairer than a straightforward 'south of Birmingham, east of Bristol' distinction, mind you. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 11, 2017 20:06:36 GMT
Again, a partial answer but far from a total one. There are plenty of formerly safe Labour wards in the south where the Lib Dems have never had any support but where we now get badly beaten by the Tories. Some of our problems are local and organisational, but I suspect there's a larger problem that we just don't appeal much to poorer southern working-class areas, largely because what we're offering doesn't seem relevant to them. Given that the country as a whole is moving towards a more 'southern' economy (fewer large employers, more SMEs, a larger service sector), this strikes me as a serious medium-term problem. But if what is 'relevant' to them isn't in line with our values, then that's simply a sign of the continuing dominance of both individualism and the current trend towards populist nationalism. I can't see the point of existing if we have to justify those mistaken beliefs This would be a fair objection, if everybody in the south was a raving Poujadist. As it is, it's a load of bollocks. The problem is not values - plenty of Labour voters in our heartlands are in favour of crackdowns on benefits, and you'll find plenty of people holding firmly left-wing positions in the south. In fact studies of public policy preferences show pretty much no regional variation whatsoever. The problem is that the way we express those values ignores the issues that are most relevant in the south, and often we exacerbate it by behaving as if we were a Northern/London regionalist party - most of our MPs don't do this quite as obviously as you do, but it's a too frequent subtext. You see it in the way we talk about industrial strategy - underlying it all is the idea that you have one or two huge local employers, basically functioning as a modern replacement for coalmines and shipyards, which is a model that won't work for the bits of the south that most need such a strategy. You see it in how we talk about public transport - commuter rail gets all the attention, but in the south that's overwhelmingly about office jobs in London, whereas our target voters get the bus or have to drive because the bus isn't reliable. You see it in the lack of focus on small towns, where there are voters who are very receptive to our economic values, but who don't see anything actually directly aimed at them. Not coincidentally, the south has more small towns and fewer large towns and conurbations than the north (though frankly, we ought to be doing better in small northern towns too.) You see it in the talk about rebalancing our economy away from London and the South-East, which is not a message received gratefully in poorer south-eastern towns, and which could easily be altered to make it clear that the problem is stockbrokers rather than scaffolders, if only anybody could be arsed. None of these things are difficult to fix. In fact a lot of it is about presentation - it's not like a Labour government of any stripe would freeze all public investment in towns like Thetford. But there is a problem that we aren't bothering to present it properly, and too frequently people blame southerners for our failure to try to communicate coherently with them. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Feb 11, 2017 20:26:15 GMT
Excellent use of "Poujadiste" there, East Anglian Lefty, I'm surprised the word isn't more frequently used in these days. I think you're onto something. I was struck by McDonnell's recent comments about investing in the north of England. Nothing wrong per se but too often the impression given is that England consist of London and The North, and if you wan't to redress the balance between London and the rest that means the North. It's not surprising that the LDs do well in the South-West and in parts of Norfolk. I suspect it is partly a Northern thing. When talking to northerners (and Scots, for that matter) I often get the impression that they think absolutely everyone in the south lives in London or at very least the Home Counties and that, say, Portsmouth is an extension of Croydon. And of course all Londoners have a tendency to think the world ends at the M25. Maybe that has fed through into the PLP due to the large number MPs from those areas and become slightly self-perpetuating, despite the long Labour hsitory in palces such as Plymouth and parts of East Anglia? |
|
