Indeed , but IMO its deeper than a 'narrative' , its about actual consistent transfers of resources + power- when Labour stopped delivering rentable housing, career jobs in nationalised industries , rising wages etc etc- when they became 'these' people (Edgerton), they unmoored themselves

For sure , but that's not just "the weather", its also choices parties made -Labour didn't start off with lots of loyalty from trade unionists or progressive activists or working people in general, it fought for loyalty from those groups by appealing directly to them and 'bringing home the bacon'

No doubt , but what's not "exactly the same " is what resources, what loyalties, what enthusiasms can this Labour govt mobilise against this campaign? They are much reduced from the 40s, 60s or 70s because this Labour leadership has gone further out of its way to attack its base .

The point of Thatcher's speech is she was saying the family is a nursery, hospital, school etc because she wanted to cut govt spending on nurseries, hospitals and schools , it fits her "no such thing as society " only "individual men and women and families "

Idgi a whole column on why UK should rejoin the EU that admits Centrist Labour won't back it , but completely ignores the politician who does bsky.app/profile/zack...

Maybe it will cause enough leftish Labour members to resign to make a Wes Streeting level right winger stand a better chance of winning, a kind of Party Management by shock social engineering

Maccabi are the 2nd most Racist fans in Israel 's premier league, which has a bad racism problem in general www.nif.org/stories/shar...

The memo reads very much like it was written by Jonathan Rutherford (69) or the relatively youthful Maurice Glasman (64)

Surely what Labour need to do faced with an (exaggerated but not unreal) 'spectacle of decay' is create a 'spectacle of renewal' by doing public investment, then Ministers publicly visit brushed up high st., new social housing, breakfast clubs etc (they do too little investment + visits rn)

Its not one Team Starmer see. They want Reform to be the main opposition because they want to say 'all liberals, lefts must accept our Centrism & get Reform" and "we must also be Reform-lite to head them off' - its the Macron strategy

Because the alternative- try beat Farage by taxing the rich/investing in the public real/rallying liberals against bigots- is anathema to them, a hateful idea. They are very committed to the Macron-y strategy - Vote for us & our centrism or get Reform , while we have to be a bit Reformy anyway -

Isn't the issue you are avoiding here is how did this supposed 'admirable fighter for underdogs' become so vacuously right wing? -maybe cos that would mean admitting the media (inc.Guardian) pushed Starmer on his supposed decent-underdog-vibes, ignoring the left saying he was a foil for the right ?

When Labour tried to move left, you sided with Tom Watson and his fake document claiming it was all "Trotsky entryists" . I hope you learn the lesson that if you don't want a "moral vacuum" you need to back Labour's left ( or parties to the left of Labour or Polanski in the Greens etc if you prefer)

If you want the "Progressives on the pitch", the kind who might back ANL/RAR type pushbacks John wants, then you both surely need to back "Progressives" like Zack Polanski in the Greens, Left Labour or left-of-Labour MPs etc. Backing Chowns/ Ramsay or Tom Watson respectively got you here

Oh for sure , the BBC banned anarchy in the UK & God Save the Queen, while some local councils banned the Sex Pistols playing (by licensing laws), but no input from Govt or MPs

Indeed , but also the "censor punk rock " thing was mostly done by local councillors, not the actual Prime Minister