Johnson was a good campaigner and that's why he enjoyed the backing and support of so many Conservatives who had grave doubts about his abilities
He was a great campaigner based entirely on his personality, being “good old Boris”, but incapable of answering questions thinking on his feet. This was shown when he hid in fridge to avoid being interviewed when he saw a TV crew, and when he refused to take part in the live television debate with the other party leaders.
I think you have to reckon with the fact that most people don't pay much attention to politics, and unless the media makes a huge fuss about things like that (which they didn't at the time) they fail to cut through.
I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that the media used Johnson and studiously ignored or downplayed his faults because they (a) wanted Brexit and (b) loathed the idea of a Corbyn government.
Boris didn't get a free pass other than in the usual suspect media. The Mail. The Telegraph.
And the Express, Times, Sky, ITV and, despite what tories may think, the BBC.
@Arethosemyfeet, do you think those in charge of the BBC were pro-Brexit and were trying the influence the referendum result? I get the accusation of false balance and trying to air “both sides” over issues of fact, but grouping the BBC with the right-wing media in deliberate attempts to bring about Brexit seems surprising to me - but I’m an outsider.
@Arethosemyfeet - here was @stonespring's question which was addressed to you and to which I was responding.
It was to do with Brexit and not the 2019 General Election, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn's ability never to equivocate (Brexit anyone?), only ever speak his mind, dictate Holy Writ, miraculously Feed The Five Thousand and jog along the surface of the canal on his way home.
I was explaining my previous comment which @stonespring quoted and seemed to think was about the referendum (it was not). For clarity I don't think the BBC intentionally enabled Brexit, though their practice of false balance during the referendum campaign was an important factor.
Although I think their coverage was a far bigger factor in shaping the aftermath than in the referendum itself, primarily by both siding and platforming some very unrepresentative voices.
Technically, I am given to understand that recognizing a party as the official Opposition is within the gift of the Speaker,
Now that seems like a bit of a constitutional weakness! How is this managed in other countries? Is "Leader of the Opposition" even a post in France or Germany, for example?
I was explaining my previous comment which @stonespring
Although I think their coverage was a far bigger factor in shaping the aftermath than in the referendum itself, primarily by both siding and platforming some very unrepresentative voices.
I've still to receive anything from our Tory MP in the way of campaign advertising (I guess they realise at long last that they have nothing to offer), but I have received emails and YouTube feeds from the Greens, and from Labour.
The LibDems used to be fairly prominent on our local Council until the infamous coalition with the Tories, since when they've been something of a spent force, but they are fielding candidates for all three constituencies covering Our Town and environs.
I will always remember the BBC's shameful depiction of Corbyn in a Russian hat in front of an image of the Kremlin.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Russian money was going to Brexit campaigns and the Tories. There was even an organisation called The Conservative Friends of Russia. (I believe they still exist, but the Ukraine war prompted a change of name.)
This was, of course, barely mentioned. Indeed, I don't recall the BBC ever mentioning any of these things at all.
BBC? Unbiased? Don't make me laugh! They're not even unbiased on football, and seek as many clicks as possible from fans of three teams. Hence their style of coverage in that area, about as neutral as the Gestapo was.
I don't think anyone is claiming that any media outlet is neutral and unbiased but comparing the BBC with the Gestapo shows how out of touch with reality or any sense of proportion some Shipmates are.
If the LibDems win more seats than the Tories and become the official opposition, would they really be able to oppose a Labour government and do PMQs every week as just a party of local issues, civil liberties, good government, the care economy, sewage in your local water, etc., which seems to be what they are running on, and not bigger economic issues of right vs left? Nick Clegg came from the pro-market wing of the party, so economically a bit to the right even of New Labour, and after the coalition when a lot of left-leaning LibDem voters abandoned the party, is it safe to say that if the party were forced by official opposition status to define itself as more than just a bunch of local MPs and as something different than Starmerite Labour, it would do so as an economically center-right party, just one with a more friendly, humane, internationalist face than the Tories?
If the LibDems win more seats than the Tories and become the official opposition, would they really be able to oppose a Labour government [on] bigger economic issues of right vs left?
Why must the national debate be centered on the "bigger economic issues of right vs left", and who defines "right" and "left"?
If the Lib Dems became the Opposition, then perhaps the national debate on economic issues takes place between two vaguely centrist parties, and we shift the Overton Window a bunch.
It's not necessary for the two main parties to have significantly different opinions on economics.
Those are good questions and make more sense than comparing the BBC to The Gestapo.
I've heard senior Lib Dem figures argue that a right-leaning Labour administration works in their favour. They claimed that membership grew during the Blair years. There may be some truth in this. I began to vote Lib Dem at that time, admittedly in local elections at first, partly because I saw the Lib Dems doing things locally for which Labour claimed the credit, and partly because Kennedy's Lib Dems appeared more radical than Blair's 'New Labour.'
Iraq put the tin lid on it for me.
I have my own issues with the hard left but do believe Starmer is leaning way too far to the right to distance himself from that.
The Lib Dems have a job and a half on their hands to articulate a clear message and define what they're about. You've identified both strengths and weaknesses and yes, it's a broad church. I meet Lib Dem voters who are hardly liberal in any sense I'd recognise.
But then, a lot of Labour voters are highly socially-conservative.
If the Lib Dems did become the main opposition party they'd very quickly have to come up with something other than, 'We work hard at the local level. We are the nice guys.'
If the Lib Dems did become the main opposition party they'd very quickly have to come up with something other than, 'We work hard at the local level. We are the nice guys.'
Those are good questions and make more sense than comparing the BBC to The Gestapo.
I've heard senior Lib Dem figures argue that a right-leaning Labour administration works in their favour. They claimed that membership grew during the Blair years.
Yeah but they were bouyed up at the time by a leader who was genuinely to the left of Blair, and had a number of left wing policies on the books that had yet to disappear in the bright haze of the coalition government.
Whereas Davey is from the opposite end of the Liberal Party to Kennedy.
If the LibDems win more seats than the Tories and become the official opposition, would they really be able to oppose a Labour government [on] bigger economic issues of right vs left?
Why must the national debate be centered on the "bigger economic issues of right vs left", and who defines "right" and "left"?
If the Lib Dems became the Opposition, then perhaps the national debate on economic issues takes place between two vaguely centrist parties, and we shift the Overton Window a bunch.
It's not necessary for the two main parties to have significantly different opinions on economics.
This might be more possible in a system that wasn’t FPTP and in a time that wasn’t dominated by polarization, media/social media bubbles, and the rise of populism. Unless Labour goes fully right wing populist and absorbs the remnants of the Tories and co-opts Reform UK, I don’t see Labour as becoming the new party of the right in a two party-dominant system. Which means that the opposition to Labour will need to be to its right either on a traditional economic axis or on the new(?) axis of internationalist institutionalist liberalism vs ethnonationalist populism. The Lib Dems seem less likely than Labour even to go in the direction of Reform UK, so I’m guessing that their best hope of succeeding as the main opposition to Labour is as a sensible and pragmatic center right party - not that I want that to happen.
If the Lib Dems did become the main opposition party they'd very quickly have to come up with something other than, 'We work hard at the local level. We are the nice guys.'
If Labour win a healthy majority, it isn't going to matter if it is LD or the Tories who are the Opposition.
The struggle for Starmer will be to avoid getting bogged down in a controversial Rwanda type policy and instead and move forward with making change.
He ought to be able to do it without worrying too much about the opposition parties, more likely the debate will mostly be occurring within Labour and dodging attack lines from the Mail and Telegraph.
If the result leaves the Lib Dems as second party in the Commons, then there will be so many Labour MPs that they will be able to designate 100 backbenchers as the Opposition.
Those are good questions and make more sense than comparing the BBC to The Gestapo.
I've heard senior Lib Dem figures argue that a right-leaning Labour administration works in their favour. They claimed that membership grew during the Blair years.
Yeah but they were bouyed up at the time by a leader who was genuinely to the left of Blair, and had a number of left wing policies on the books that had yet to disappear in the bright haze of the coalition government.
Whereas Davey is from the opposite end of the Liberal Party to Kennedy.
Of course.
I don't think 'bright haze' is an accurate description of the Coalition, though - although some Lib Dems were temporarily dazzled. I don't think many Lib Dems seriously thought that the glare ahead was the glimmer of Sunlit Uplands but more the white heat of corrosive Conservative lava flows coming down the slopes towards us.
We got our backsides burnt and many saw the punishing losses of 2015 as salutary but an opportunity to regroup and hopefully redefine ourselves but the damage was done and most knew it would take a generation at least to recover.
All we could do was play to our core strengths - which tend to lie at local level - and to come up with a far more consistent line on Remain than most of the other parties - including yours.
The downside there was that we effectively became a single issue party for a time.
I don't anticipate the Lib Dems becoming the main opposition to an impending Labour government, but if they did I'd find it highly conflicting - unless Labour continued further along its rightward trajectory.
I'm no fan of the hard left but I would like to see Labour come up with some actual left-wing policies for a change. On a local level, I always saw myself more as a 'critical friend' to Labour than its opposition, as it were.
But Labour lets itself down.
I'm far less involved in local politics these days as I want to concentrate on other things while I'm spared.
FWIW I can see some recovery for the Lib Dems in some areas but no great gains under the present electoral system.
If Labour win a healthy majority, it isn't going to matter if it is LD or the Tories who are the Opposition.
The struggle for Starmer will be to avoid getting bogged down in a controversial Rwanda type policy and instead and move forward with making change.
He ought to be able to do it without worrying too much about the opposition parties, more likely the debate will mostly be occurring within Labour and dodging attack lines from the Mail and Telegraph.
I disagree.
Labour will always have to fight the Mail, Telegraph and Express. However, if Sir Ed is the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it will be a very different debate on most issues than we are used to.
Probably the more important factor though is the approach of the Labour leadership. There's a good argument that Labour '97-'01 were too timid because Blair et al. feared being a one-term government. Arguably they were only flirting with authoritarian policies later when the threat was different.
This is why I think that a big Labour majority might be a genuinely good thing. It is certainly imaginable that Starmer could feel comfortable and confident enough to be quite radical.
It is also possible that the effective lack of accountability could be very detrimental to the government and the country.
Again, the data is pointing to a Labour majority, with the real jepody being around the size of said majority. In terms of how such a government functions, I suspect 150 Tories is much the same as 60. In the short term. So a result whereby the LDs have more MPs is not to be feared.
The more difficult question to answer is how the Tories respond post election. I am fairly certain they're gonna go right for a few years - which again should give Starmer breathing space - but how much they splinter and how crazy they go is probably hugely influenced by the number of residual MPs. Not least because they have to choose a leader from that rump and many of the best candidates might not be MPs.
If Labour win a healthy majority, it isn't going to matter if it is LD or the Tories who are the Opposition.
The struggle for Starmer will be to avoid getting bogged down in a controversial Rwanda type policy and instead and move forward with making change.
He ought to be able to do it without worrying too much about the opposition parties, more likely the debate will mostly be occurring within Labour and dodging attack lines from the Mail and Telegraph.
I disagree.
Labour will always have to fight the Mail, Telegraph and Express. However, if Sir Ed is the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it will be a very different debate on most issues than we are used to.
Yes, Starmer will attack them as liberal and tack right
If Labour win a healthy majority, it isn't going to matter if it is LD or the Tories who are the Opposition.
The struggle for Starmer will be to avoid getting bogged down in a controversial Rwanda type policy and instead and move forward with making change.
He ought to be able to do it without worrying too much about the opposition parties, more likely the debate will mostly be occurring within Labour and dodging attack lines from the Mail and Telegraph.
I disagree.
Labour will always have to fight the Mail, Telegraph and Express. However, if Sir Ed is the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it will be a very different debate on most issues than we are used to.
Yes, Starmer will attack them as liberal and tack right
If Labour win a healthy majority, it isn't going to matter if it is LD or the Tories who are the Opposition.
The struggle for Starmer will be to avoid getting bogged down in a controversial Rwanda type policy and instead and move forward with making change.
He ought to be able to do it without worrying too much about the opposition parties, more likely the debate will mostly be occurring within Labour and dodging attack lines from the Mail and Telegraph.
I disagree.
Labour will always have to fight the Mail, Telegraph and Express. However, if Sir Ed is the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it will be a very different debate on most issues than we are used to.
Yes, Starmer will attack them as liberal and tack right
That does not make sense.
Starmer having gone into an election with a 20%+ lead is currently attacking Sunak as 'the most liberal prime minister on immigration', I think that's a reasonable guide to how they'll behave in office.
Sunak has made another unforced error - leaving the D-day events early to do a political interview. Like announcing the election outside in a downpour, this was something he had total control of in terms of timing.
He has come out with an apology, but none the less it is an absolute gift to his opponents and will really piss off the kind of people his national service policy was supposed to appeal to.
Sunak has made another unforced error - leaving the D-day events early to do a political interview.
The interview won't be aired till Wednesday of next week, it should have been possible to re-schedule, especially for an event of this magnitude (80th anniversary, possibly the last at which any veterans are present in numbers).
If Labour win a healthy majority, it isn't going to matter if it is LD or the Tories who are the Opposition.
The struggle for Starmer will be to avoid getting bogged down in a controversial Rwanda type policy and instead and move forward with making change.
He ought to be able to do it without worrying too much about the opposition parties, more likely the debate will mostly be occurring within Labour and dodging attack lines from the Mail and Telegraph.
I disagree.
Labour will always have to fight the Mail, Telegraph and Express. However, if Sir Ed is the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it will be a very different debate on most issues than we are used to.
Yes, Starmer will attack them as liberal and tack right
That does not make sense.
Starmer having gone into an election with a 20%+ lead is currently attacking Sunak as 'the most liberal prime minister on immigration', I think that's a reasonable guide to how they'll behave in office.
No it isn't. You're taking that out of context.
Do not misunderstand me, Labour's immigration policy is not what I think it should be. I want to see a big shift towards sanity and humanity.
Right, Starmer said that in the context of a debate in which Sunak had claimed two things: 1. He was reducing immigration (which is what he promised and what he says people want) and 2. Labour would reverse all his great policies and not control immigration at all.*
In that context, having said that he opposes the Rwanda plan, Starmer said, accurately, that Sunak has failed in his own terms. He has presided over the biggest rises in all forms of migration. Hence the charge sticks.
That does not imply that Starmer would use the same argument in a different debate.
I will state - again accurately - that Osborne completely failed to eradicate the deficit from 2010-2015. Now, I know that this was a stupid and meaningless aim. However, I will point out when defenders of austerity claim success, that they failed, even in their own terms. By the measure they set, by the standard they said was vital to avoid absolute disaster, they failed. Starmer is doing the same thing.
This brings me back to my original point. There is a constant argument that the threat from the right will drag Labour rightwards. Especially as the Conservative Party has become more akin the UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform Ltd/Farage's-vanity-project. There is some truth in that. But somehow having a meaningful opposition from the left would make Labour tack right? Seriously?
If the LibDems become the Official Opposition (and it's still a big IF) then clearly that changes the dynamic and makes it easier for Starmer to tack left rather than right and potentially puts pressure on him to do so.
That's not the same as saying he inevitably will, of course.
AFZ
*And yes, he was, once again deliberately conflating economic migration with visas and asylum-seekers coming here irregularly.
If Labour win a healthy majority, it isn't going to matter if it is LD or the Tories who are the Opposition.
The struggle for Starmer will be to avoid getting bogged down in a controversial Rwanda type policy and instead and move forward with making change.
He ought to be able to do it without worrying too much about the opposition parties, more likely the debate will mostly be occurring within Labour and dodging attack lines from the Mail and Telegraph.
I disagree.
Labour will always have to fight the Mail, Telegraph and Express. However, if Sir Ed is the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it will be a very different debate on most issues than we are used to.
Yes, Starmer will attack them as liberal and tack right
That does not make sense.
Starmer having gone into an election with a 20%+ lead is currently attacking Sunak as 'the most liberal prime minister on immigration', I think that's a reasonable guide to how they'll behave in office.
No it isn't. You're taking that out of context.
Do not misunderstand me, Labour's immigration policy is not what I think it should be. I want to see a big shift towards sanity and humanity.
Right, Starmer said that in the context of a debate in which Sunak had claimed two things:
He repeated exactly the same line the following morning.
If Labour win a healthy majority, it isn't going to matter if it is LD or the Tories who are the Opposition.
The struggle for Starmer will be to avoid getting bogged down in a controversial Rwanda type policy and instead and move forward with making change.
He ought to be able to do it without worrying too much about the opposition parties, more likely the debate will mostly be occurring within Labour and dodging attack lines from the Mail and Telegraph.
I disagree.
Labour will always have to fight the Mail, Telegraph and Express. However, if Sir Ed is the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it will be a very different debate on most issues than we are used to.
Yes, Starmer will attack them as liberal and tack right
That does not make sense.
Starmer having gone into an election with a 20%+ lead is currently attacking Sunak as 'the most liberal prime minister on immigration', I think that's a reasonable guide to how they'll behave in office.
No it isn't. You're taking that out of context.
Do not misunderstand me, Labour's immigration policy is not what I think it should be. I want to see a big shift towards sanity and humanity.
Right, Starmer said that in the context of a debate in which Sunak had claimed two things:
He repeated exactly the same line the following morning.
Expanding a little; this isn't a singular event, this is very much in the vein of everything else they've said, including keeping legislation that criminalises those arriving via a small boat (Yvette Cooper last month).
In the scenario you outline the papers will continue to play the tune of immigration (doubly so if Farage makes any headway at all), and in response Labour will continue to make tough statements (think New Labour era, with fewer ideas).
If Labour win a healthy majority, it isn't going to matter if it is LD or the Tories who are the Opposition.
The struggle for Starmer will be to avoid getting bogged down in a controversial Rwanda type policy and instead and move forward with making change.
He ought to be able to do it without worrying too much about the opposition parties, more likely the debate will mostly be occurring within Labour and dodging attack lines from the Mail and Telegraph.
I disagree.
Labour will always have to fight the Mail, Telegraph and Express. However, if Sir Ed is the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it will be a very different debate on most issues than we are used to.
Yes, Starmer will attack them as liberal and tack right
That does not make sense.
Starmer having gone into an election with a 20%+ lead is currently attacking Sunak as 'the most liberal prime minister on immigration', I think that's a reasonable guide to how they'll behave in office.
No it isn't. You're taking that out of context.
Do not misunderstand me, Labour's immigration policy is not what I think it should be. I want to see a big shift towards sanity and humanity.
Right, Starmer said that in the context of a debate in which Sunak had claimed two things:
He repeated exactly the same line the following morning.
And?
He was willing to repeat it outside the context of that particular debate, which was your defence. This isn't particularly difficult.
If Labour win a healthy majority, it isn't going to matter if it is LD or the Tories who are the Opposition.
The struggle for Starmer will be to avoid getting bogged down in a controversial Rwanda type policy and instead and move forward with making change.
He ought to be able to do it without worrying too much about the opposition parties, more likely the debate will mostly be occurring within Labour and dodging attack lines from the Mail and Telegraph.
I disagree.
Labour will always have to fight the Mail, Telegraph and Express. However, if Sir Ed is the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it will be a very different debate on most issues than we are used to.
Yes, Starmer will attack them as liberal and tack right
That does not make sense.
Starmer having gone into an election with a 20%+ lead is currently attacking Sunak as 'the most liberal prime minister on immigration', I think that's a reasonable guide to how they'll behave in office.
No it isn't. You're taking that out of context.
Do not misunderstand me, Labour's immigration policy is not what I think it should be. I want to see a big shift towards sanity and humanity.
Right, Starmer said that in the context of a debate in which Sunak had claimed two things:
He repeated exactly the same line the following morning.
And?
He was willing to repeat it outside the context of that particular debate, which was your defence. This isn't particularly difficult.
The following day is debate spin.
Now, I don't like where Labour is on immigration at all. However, to assert that because Labour tacks right under pressure from the right means that they will definitely tack right under pressure from the left, is not logical. Your evidence for how Labour would respond to pressure from the left, is how they behave with pressure from the right. I wouldn't describe what I wrote as a 'defence' but if you want to characterise it that way, it is unchanged by the phrase being repeated. It is still an example of Starmer responding to pressure from the right.
I don't know how Starmer might respond to Davey as LOTO but the questions would be very different for a start. Thus, I suspect the debate would be very different.
Expanding a little; this isn't a singular event, this is very much in the vein of everything else they've said, including keeping legislation that criminalises those arriving via a small boat (Yvette Cooper last month).
In the scenario you outline the papers will continue to play the tune of immigration (doubly so if Farage makes any headway at all), and in response Labour will continue to make tough statements (think New Labour era, with fewer ideas).
Do you have a link to what Cooper said? The only definite things I've seen are scrapping Rwanda and processing properly those the new law has put in limbo (I.e. offering asylum to those that qualify and deporting those that don't). Which is quite different.
I trust the Tories on Immigration 2%. They will almost always choose the worst option. I trust Labour about 20%. I am constantly looking for them to be better. They are not good enough. However, they are still lightyears better than the Tories.
If Labour win a healthy majority, it isn't going to matter if it is LD or the Tories who are the Opposition.
The struggle for Starmer will be to avoid getting bogged down in a controversial Rwanda type policy and instead and move forward with making change.
He ought to be able to do it without worrying too much about the opposition parties, more likely the debate will mostly be occurring within Labour and dodging attack lines from the Mail and Telegraph.
I disagree.
Labour will always have to fight the Mail, Telegraph and Express. However, if Sir Ed is the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it will be a very different debate on most issues than we are used to.
Yes, Starmer will attack them as liberal and tack right
That does not make sense.
Starmer having gone into an election with a 20%+ lead is currently attacking Sunak as 'the most liberal prime minister on immigration', I think that's a reasonable guide to how they'll behave in office.
No it isn't. You're taking that out of context.
Do not misunderstand me, Labour's immigration policy is not what I think it should be. I want to see a big shift towards sanity and humanity.
Right, Starmer said that in the context of a debate in which Sunak had claimed two things:
He repeated exactly the same line the following morning.
And?
He was willing to repeat it outside the context of that particular debate, which was your defence. This isn't particularly difficult.
The following day is debate spin.
Actually I made a mistake, it was prior to the debate (which further underlines the point that it was outside the context of the debate itself):
Now, I don't like where Labour is on immigration at all. However, to assert that because Labour tacks right under pressure from the right means that they will definitely tack right under pressure from the left, is not logical.
I think - because of the newspapers being the way they are - the pressure will continue to come from the right. PMQs, for instance, has long played as a sideshow to the real argument being made elsewhere, you answer the question the media is asking, not the one you've just been asked.
As a side note; it's instructive to look up which current Labour MPs defended Phil Woolas when he attacked the Lib Dems for being soft on immigration.
Expanding a little; this isn't a singular event, this is very much in the vein of everything else they've said, including keeping legislation that criminalises those arriving via a small boat (Yvette Cooper last month).
In the scenario you outline the papers will continue to play the tune of immigration (doubly so if Farage makes any headway at all), and in response Labour will continue to make tough statements (think New Labour era, with fewer ideas).
If Labour win a healthy majority, it isn't going to matter if it is LD or the Tories who are the Opposition.
The struggle for Starmer will be to avoid getting bogged down in a controversial Rwanda type policy and instead and move forward with making change.
He ought to be able to do it without worrying too much about the opposition parties, more likely the debate will mostly be occurring within Labour and dodging attack lines from the Mail and Telegraph.
I disagree.
Labour will always have to fight the Mail, Telegraph and Express. However, if Sir Ed is the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it will be a very different debate on most issues than we are used to.
Yes, Starmer will attack them as liberal and tack right
That does not make sense.
Starmer having gone into an election with a 20%+ lead is currently attacking Sunak as 'the most liberal prime minister on immigration', I think that's a reasonable guide to how they'll behave in office.
No it isn't. You're taking that out of context.
Do not misunderstand me, Labour's immigration policy is not what I think it should be. I want to see a big shift towards sanity and humanity.
Right, Starmer said that in the context of a debate in which Sunak had claimed two things:
He repeated exactly the same line the following morning.
And?
He was willing to repeat it outside the context of that particular debate, which was your defence. This isn't particularly difficult.
The following day is debate spin.
Actually I made a mistake, it was prior to the debate (which further underlines the point that it was outside the context of the debate itself):
Now, I don't like where Labour is on immigration at all. However, to assert that because Labour tacks right under pressure from the right means that they will definitely tack right under pressure from the left, is not logical.
I think - because of the newspapers being the way they are - the pressure will continue to come from the right. PMQs, for instance, has long played as a sideshow to the real argument being made elsewhere, you answer the question the media is asking, not the one you've just been asked.
As a side note; it's instructive to look up which current Labour MPs defended Phil Woolas when he attacked the Lib Dems for being soft on immigration.
Expanding a little; this isn't a singular event, this is very much in the vein of everything else they've said, including keeping legislation that criminalises those arriving via a small boat (Yvette Cooper last month).
In the scenario you outline the papers will continue to play the tune of immigration (doubly so if Farage makes any headway at all), and in response Labour will continue to make tough statements (think New Labour era, with fewer ideas).
It's very difficult to know what Cooper means by that, she was quite imprecise. The text in the tweet is wrong, she didn't say that the Illegal Immigration Act wouldn't be revoked. She also didn't say it would be. Her reference to the law about it being an offence to arrive by irregular means was vague and not strictly correct.
I agree about the media pressures. I fear Labour will not be brave enough to do the right thing.
However, to return to my original point, having the LibDems as Official Opposition would change the shape of the game. How big a change, I think is the real question.
It occurs to me that the Lib-Dems could simply choose to be liberal.
Despite the construct 'Liberal-Left' imported from Yankee land and spewed out by every tedious bore, the Labour Party is not necessarily liberal, and many socialists are very far from liberal. They believe, in simple terms, in an enlightened vanguard that guides the less enlightened. (Honesty compels me to say that I see the cogency of that argument, given the simplistic understanding of many of the electors.)
Liberals are not necessarily of left or right. (Remember the ghastly Orange Book, which put me off this lot for a long time.) What they have to be is liberal. That gives them a huge range of flexibility. Moreover, like all big parties, they are a coalition. I am not at all sure that a typical LD in (say) Dorset has the same vision of the state as one in (say) Colne. The party has lots of options as to which buttons to push.
I agree that there is no particular reason why a socialist should also be liberal. They can go together but need not; in fact in some ways I think the underlying principles can come into conflict.
But you are making a point that I'd be shouted down for were I to make it, and that's how authoritarian some on the left can be.
At last someone's been prepared to be open about that.
At the same time, I think it's a ghastly caricature you're drawing of the Labour left as
But an enlightened socialist elite leading the unenlightened masses towards a bright socialist future.
Although reading some posts on these boards ... 😉
But yes, it would be nice to see some liberal policies from the Lib Dems and some socialist ones from Labour ... 😉
However, to return to my original point, having the LibDems as Official Opposition would change the shape of the game. How big a change, I think is the real question.
Given the number of exits on the Tory benches, I suspect the biggest change the other side of the election will a reduction in the level of scrutiny as relatively inexperienced ministers end up shadowing fairly large portfolios.
And this will apply whether it's the Lib Dems or Tories in Opposition.
However, to return to my original point, having the LibDems as Official Opposition would change the shape of the game. How big a change, I think is the real question.
Given the number of exits on the Tory benches, I suspect the biggest change the other side of the election will a reduction in the level of scrutiny as relatively inexperienced ministers end up shadowing fairly large portfolios.
And this will apply whether it's the Lib Dems or Tories in Opposition.
That's an interesting point.
However, we've had 5 years of inexperienced/incompetent ministers rather than shadows. I say that about the past 5 years because of how Boris purged his party of a lot of talent, and then made allegiance to Brexit rather than ability the criteria for a ministerial post. It is also accurate to say that neither Truss nor Sunak have improved the situation.
However, to return to my original point, having the LibDems as Official Opposition would change the shape of the game. How big a change, I think is the real question.
Given the number of exits on the Tory benches, I suspect the biggest change the other side of the election will a reduction in the level of scrutiny as relatively inexperienced ministers end up shadowing fairly large portfolios.
And this will apply whether it's the Lib Dems or Tories in Opposition.
That's an interesting point.
However, we've had 5 years of inexperienced/incompetent ministers rather than shadows. I say that about the past 5 years because of how Boris purged his party of a lot of talent, and then made allegiance to Brexit rather than ability the criteria for a ministerial post. It is also accurate to say that neither Truss nor Sunak have improved the situation.
AFZ
In fairness (I know, right?) given Johnson did indeed purge the ‘talent’ from the parliamentary party prior to the 2019 GE, how were the two Prime Ministers that followed him in the subsequent parliament supposed to address that?
Truss wouldn’t at all for the same reasons as Johnson, I suppose Rishi could have offered the ‘talent’ peerages and got them back that way….
<snip>
It's very difficult to know what Cooper means by that, she was quite imprecise. The text in the tweet is wrong, she didn't say that the Illegal Immigration Act wouldn't be revoked. She also didn't say it would be. Her reference to the law about it being an offence to arrive by irregular means was vague and not strictly correct.<snip>
AIUI clandestine entry without the requisite visas or permission has been an offence for a long time, but a genuine claim for asylum (genuine does not mean successful) is a defence to the charge.
The change proposed by the present government has been to prevent clandestine entrants from applying here for asylum, but instead to ship them to Rwanda from where they would have to make any claim.
I take Yvette Cooper to mean that the previous law about illegal entry (with the existence of a defence of claiming asylum) would not be changed.
<snip>
It's very difficult to know what Cooper means by that, she was quite imprecise. The text in the tweet is wrong, she didn't say that the Illegal Immigration Act wouldn't be revoked. She also didn't say it would be. Her reference to the law about it being an offence to arrive by irregular means was vague and not strictly correct.<snip>
AIUI clandestine entry without the requisite visas or permission has been an offence for a long time, but a genuine claim for asylum (genuine does not mean successful) is a defence to the charge.
The change proposed by the present government has been to prevent clandestine entrants from applying here for asylum, but instead to ship them to Rwanda from where they would have to make any claim.
I take Yvette Cooper to mean that the previous law about illegal entry (with the existence of a defence of claiming asylum) would not be changed.
Me too but there is a certain ambiguity there.
One interpretation of all her statements is that she's deliberately saying things like this so she can be more humanitarian but avoid the political fight now.
An alternative view is that she intends to be very draconian and wants to avoid the political fight now.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
AFZ
P.s. IANAL by I have previously read the law. It is illegal to enter the UK without the appropriate paperwork and official processing but prior to the Illegal Immigration Act, there was a specific defence for all, if one claimed asylum upon arrival. Importantly that also means that unsuccessful claimants haven't broken any laws either, unless and until they fail to leave when the claim is ajudged invalid and they have exhausted appeals.
<snip>P.s. IANAL by I have previously read the law. It is illegal to enter the UK without the appropriate paperwork and official processing but prior to the Illegal Immigration Act, there was a specific defence for all, if one claimed asylum upon arrival. Importantly that also means that unsuccessful claimants haven't broken any laws either, unless and until they fail to leave when the claim is ajudged invalid and they have exhausted appeals.
Yes that is my understanding also, and that is what I was saying.
<snip>
It's very difficult to know what Cooper means by that, she was quite imprecise. The text in the tweet is wrong, she didn't say that the Illegal Immigration Act wouldn't be revoked. She also didn't say it would be. Her reference to the law about it being an offence to arrive by irregular means was vague and not strictly correct.<snip>
AIUI clandestine entry without the requisite visas or permission has been an offence for a long time, but a genuine claim for asylum (genuine does not mean successful) is a defence to the charge.
The change proposed by the present government has been to prevent clandestine entrants from applying here for asylum, but instead to ship them to Rwanda from where they would have to make any claim.
I take Yvette Cooper to mean that the previous law about illegal entry (with the existence of a defence of claiming asylum) would not be changed.
Me too but there is a certain ambiguity there.
One interpretation of all her statements is that she's deliberately saying things like this so she can be more humanitarian but avoid the political fight now.
An alternative view is that she intends to be very draconian and wants to avoid the political fight now
<snip>P.s. IANAL by I have previously read the law. It is illegal to enter the UK without the appropriate paperwork and official processing but prior to the Illegal Immigration Act, there was a specific defence for all, if one claimed asylum upon arrival. Importantly that also means that unsuccessful claimants haven't broken any laws either, unless and until they fail to leave when the claim is ajudged invalid and they have exhausted appeals.
Yes that is my understanding also, and that is what I was saying.
Yep, we agree. And potentially, it's returning to that status quo ante is what Cooper meant.
However, to return to my original point, having the LibDems as Official Opposition would change the shape of the game. How big a change, I think is the real question.
Given the number of exits on the Tory benches, I suspect the biggest change the other side of the election will a reduction in the level of scrutiny as relatively inexperienced ministers end up shadowing fairly large portfolios.
And this will apply whether it's the Lib Dems or Tories in Opposition.
That's an interesting point.
However, we've had 5 years of inexperienced/incompetent ministers rather than shadows. I say that about the past 5 years because of how Boris purged his party of a lot of talent, and then made allegiance to Brexit rather than ability the criteria for a ministerial post. It is also accurate to say that neither Truss nor Sunak have improved the situation.
AFZ
In fairness (I know, right?) given Johnson did indeed purge the ‘talent’ from the parliamentary party prior to the 2019 GE, how were the two Prime Ministers that followed him in the subsequent parliament supposed to address that?
The other way of looking at this is while everyone blames the party rank and file, the shortlist of Sunak vs Truss was the product of the post 2019 parliamentary party and they really don't catch enough opprobrium for this.
Although - to touch on a previous topic - the BBC was happy to portray Sunak in the guise of a superhero.
However, to return to my original point, having the LibDems as Official Opposition would change the shape of the game. How big a change, I think is the real question.
Given the number of exits on the Tory benches, I suspect the biggest change the other side of the election will a reduction in the level of scrutiny as relatively inexperienced ministers end up shadowing fairly large portfolios.
And this will apply whether it's the Lib Dems or Tories in Opposition.
That's an interesting point.
However, we've had 5 years of inexperienced/incompetent ministers rather than shadows. I say that about the past 5 years because of how Boris purged his party of a lot of talent, and then made allegiance to Brexit rather than ability the criteria for a ministerial post. It is also accurate to say that neither Truss nor Sunak have improved the situation.
AFZ
In fairness (I know, right?) given Johnson did indeed purge the ‘talent’ from the parliamentary party prior to the 2019 GE, how were the two Prime Ministers that followed him in the subsequent parliament supposed to address that?
The other way of looking at this is while everyone blames the party rank and file, the shortlist of Sunak vs Truss was the product of the post 2019 parliamentary party and they really don't catch enough opprobrium for this.
Although - to touch on a previous topic - the BBC was happy to portray Sunak in the guise of a superhero.
Comments
Although I think their coverage was a far bigger factor in shaping the aftermath than in the referendum itself, primarily by both siding and platforming some very unrepresentative voices.
Now that seems like a bit of a constitutional weakness! How is this managed in other countries? Is "Leader of the Opposition" even a post in France or Germany, for example?
The LibDems used to be fairly prominent on our local Council until the infamous coalition with the Tories, since when they've been something of a spent force, but they are fielding candidates for all three constituencies covering Our Town and environs.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Russian money was going to Brexit campaigns and the Tories. There was even an organisation called The Conservative Friends of Russia. (I believe they still exist, but the Ukraine war prompted a change of name.)
This was, of course, barely mentioned. Indeed, I don't recall the BBC ever mentioning any of these things at all.
BBC? Unbiased? Don't make me laugh! They're not even unbiased on football, and seek as many clicks as possible from fans of three teams. Hence their style of coverage in that area, about as neutral as the Gestapo was.
I don't think anyone is claiming that any media outlet is neutral and unbiased but comparing the BBC with the Gestapo shows how out of touch with reality or any sense of proportion some Shipmates are.
Why must the national debate be centered on the "bigger economic issues of right vs left", and who defines "right" and "left"?
If the Lib Dems became the Opposition, then perhaps the national debate on economic issues takes place between two vaguely centrist parties, and we shift the Overton Window a bunch.
It's not necessary for the two main parties to have significantly different opinions on economics.
I've heard senior Lib Dem figures argue that a right-leaning Labour administration works in their favour. They claimed that membership grew during the Blair years. There may be some truth in this. I began to vote Lib Dem at that time, admittedly in local elections at first, partly because I saw the Lib Dems doing things locally for which Labour claimed the credit, and partly because Kennedy's Lib Dems appeared more radical than Blair's 'New Labour.'
Iraq put the tin lid on it for me.
I have my own issues with the hard left but do believe Starmer is leaning way too far to the right to distance himself from that.
The Lib Dems have a job and a half on their hands to articulate a clear message and define what they're about. You've identified both strengths and weaknesses and yes, it's a broad church. I meet Lib Dem voters who are hardly liberal in any sense I'd recognise.
But then, a lot of Labour voters are highly socially-conservative.
If the Lib Dems did become the main opposition party they'd very quickly have to come up with something other than, 'We work hard at the local level. We are the nice guys.'
What, like this? https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan
Yeah but they were bouyed up at the time by a leader who was genuinely to the left of Blair, and had a number of left wing policies on the books that had yet to disappear in the bright haze of the coalition government.
Whereas Davey is from the opposite end of the Liberal Party to Kennedy.
This might be more possible in a system that wasn’t FPTP and in a time that wasn’t dominated by polarization, media/social media bubbles, and the rise of populism. Unless Labour goes fully right wing populist and absorbs the remnants of the Tories and co-opts Reform UK, I don’t see Labour as becoming the new party of the right in a two party-dominant system. Which means that the opposition to Labour will need to be to its right either on a traditional economic axis or on the new(?) axis of internationalist institutionalist liberalism vs ethnonationalist populism. The Lib Dems seem less likely than Labour even to go in the direction of Reform UK, so I’m guessing that their best hope of succeeding as the main opposition to Labour is as a sensible and pragmatic center right party - not that I want that to happen.
That's Fair. Fair do's mind. Fair's Fair you've provided a link that Fairly sets out the Lib Dem manifesto.
In Fairness ...
The struggle for Starmer will be to avoid getting bogged down in a controversial Rwanda type policy and instead and move forward with making change.
He ought to be able to do it without worrying too much about the opposition parties, more likely the debate will mostly be occurring within Labour and dodging attack lines from the Mail and Telegraph.
Of course.
I don't think 'bright haze' is an accurate description of the Coalition, though - although some Lib Dems were temporarily dazzled. I don't think many Lib Dems seriously thought that the glare ahead was the glimmer of Sunlit Uplands but more the white heat of corrosive Conservative lava flows coming down the slopes towards us.
We got our backsides burnt and many saw the punishing losses of 2015 as salutary but an opportunity to regroup and hopefully redefine ourselves but the damage was done and most knew it would take a generation at least to recover.
All we could do was play to our core strengths - which tend to lie at local level - and to come up with a far more consistent line on Remain than most of the other parties - including yours.
The downside there was that we effectively became a single issue party for a time.
I don't anticipate the Lib Dems becoming the main opposition to an impending Labour government, but if they did I'd find it highly conflicting - unless Labour continued further along its rightward trajectory.
I'm no fan of the hard left but I would like to see Labour come up with some actual left-wing policies for a change. On a local level, I always saw myself more as a 'critical friend' to Labour than its opposition, as it were.
But Labour lets itself down.
I'm far less involved in local politics these days as I want to concentrate on other things while I'm spared.
FWIW I can see some recovery for the Lib Dems in some areas but no great gains under the present electoral system.
I disagree.
Labour will always have to fight the Mail, Telegraph and Express. However, if Sir Ed is the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it will be a very different debate on most issues than we are used to.
Probably the more important factor though is the approach of the Labour leadership. There's a good argument that Labour '97-'01 were too timid because Blair et al. feared being a one-term government. Arguably they were only flirting with authoritarian policies later when the threat was different.
This is why I think that a big Labour majority might be a genuinely good thing. It is certainly imaginable that Starmer could feel comfortable and confident enough to be quite radical.
It is also possible that the effective lack of accountability could be very detrimental to the government and the country.
Again, the data is pointing to a Labour majority, with the real jepody being around the size of said majority. In terms of how such a government functions, I suspect 150 Tories is much the same as 60. In the short term. So a result whereby the LDs have more MPs is not to be feared.
The more difficult question to answer is how the Tories respond post election. I am fairly certain they're gonna go right for a few years - which again should give Starmer breathing space - but how much they splinter and how crazy they go is probably hugely influenced by the number of residual MPs. Not least because they have to choose a leader from that rump and many of the best candidates might not be MPs.
This really could be a watershed election.
AFZ
Enormous Labour majority with LibDems as opposition
Discontent with Labout leads to LibDem government in 5 years' time
PR is introduced
from Turquoise Daydream Land
Yes, Starmer will attack them as liberal and tack right
That does not make sense.
Starmer having gone into an election with a 20%+ lead is currently attacking Sunak as 'the most liberal prime minister on immigration', I think that's a reasonable guide to how they'll behave in office.
He has come out with an apology, but none the less it is an absolute gift to his opponents and will really piss off the kind of people his national service policy was supposed to appeal to.
The interview won't be aired till Wednesday of next week, it should have been possible to re-schedule, especially for an event of this magnitude (80th anniversary, possibly the last at which any veterans are present in numbers).
No it isn't. You're taking that out of context.
Do not misunderstand me, Labour's immigration policy is not what I think it should be. I want to see a big shift towards sanity and humanity.
Right, Starmer said that in the context of a debate in which Sunak had claimed two things: 1. He was reducing immigration (which is what he promised and what he says people want) and 2. Labour would reverse all his great policies and not control immigration at all.*
In that context, having said that he opposes the Rwanda plan, Starmer said, accurately, that Sunak has failed in his own terms. He has presided over the biggest rises in all forms of migration. Hence the charge sticks.
That does not imply that Starmer would use the same argument in a different debate.
I will state - again accurately - that Osborne completely failed to eradicate the deficit from 2010-2015. Now, I know that this was a stupid and meaningless aim. However, I will point out when defenders of austerity claim success, that they failed, even in their own terms. By the measure they set, by the standard they said was vital to avoid absolute disaster, they failed. Starmer is doing the same thing.
This brings me back to my original point. There is a constant argument that the threat from the right will drag Labour rightwards. Especially as the Conservative Party has become more akin the UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform Ltd/Farage's-vanity-project. There is some truth in that. But somehow having a meaningful opposition from the left would make Labour tack right? Seriously?
If the LibDems become the Official Opposition (and it's still a big IF) then clearly that changes the dynamic and makes it easier for Starmer to tack left rather than right and potentially puts pressure on him to do so.
That's not the same as saying he inevitably will, of course.
AFZ
*And yes, he was, once again deliberately conflating economic migration with visas and asylum-seekers coming here irregularly.
He repeated exactly the same line the following morning.
And?
In the scenario you outline the papers will continue to play the tune of immigration (doubly so if Farage makes any headway at all), and in response Labour will continue to make tough statements (think New Labour era, with fewer ideas).
He was willing to repeat it outside the context of that particular debate, which was your defence. This isn't particularly difficult.
The following day is debate spin.
Now, I don't like where Labour is on immigration at all. However, to assert that because Labour tacks right under pressure from the right means that they will definitely tack right under pressure from the left, is not logical. Your evidence for how Labour would respond to pressure from the left, is how they behave with pressure from the right. I wouldn't describe what I wrote as a 'defence' but if you want to characterise it that way, it is unchanged by the phrase being repeated. It is still an example of Starmer responding to pressure from the right.
I don't know how Starmer might respond to Davey as LOTO but the questions would be very different for a start. Thus, I suspect the debate would be very different.
Do you have a link to what Cooper said? The only definite things I've seen are scrapping Rwanda and processing properly those the new law has put in limbo (I.e. offering asylum to those that qualify and deporting those that don't). Which is quite different.
I trust the Tories on Immigration 2%. They will almost always choose the worst option. I trust Labour about 20%. I am constantly looking for them to be better. They are not good enough. However, they are still lightyears better than the Tories.
AFZ
Actually I made a mistake, it was prior to the debate (which further underlines the point that it was outside the context of the debate itself):
https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1797940607945687275
I think - because of the newspapers being the way they are - the pressure will continue to come from the right. PMQs, for instance, has long played as a sideshow to the real argument being made elsewhere, you answer the question the media is asking, not the one you've just been asked.
As a side note; it's instructive to look up which current Labour MPs defended Phil Woolas when he attacked the Lib Dems for being soft on immigration.
https://x.com/jrc1921/status/1633375273851682818
It's very difficult to know what Cooper means by that, she was quite imprecise. The text in the tweet is wrong, she didn't say that the Illegal Immigration Act wouldn't be revoked. She also didn't say it would be. Her reference to the law about it being an offence to arrive by irregular means was vague and not strictly correct.
I agree about the media pressures. I fear Labour will not be brave enough to do the right thing.
However, to return to my original point, having the LibDems as Official Opposition would change the shape of the game. How big a change, I think is the real question.
AFZ
Despite the construct 'Liberal-Left' imported from Yankee land and spewed out by every tedious bore, the Labour Party is not necessarily liberal, and many socialists are very far from liberal. They believe, in simple terms, in an enlightened vanguard that guides the less enlightened. (Honesty compels me to say that I see the cogency of that argument, given the simplistic understanding of many of the electors.)
Liberals are not necessarily of left or right. (Remember the ghastly Orange Book, which put me off this lot for a long time.) What they have to be is liberal. That gives them a huge range of flexibility. Moreover, like all big parties, they are a coalition. I am not at all sure that a typical LD in (say) Dorset has the same vision of the state as one in (say) Colne. The party has lots of options as to which buttons to push.
But you are making a point that I'd be shouted down for were I to make it, and that's how authoritarian some on the left can be.
At last someone's been prepared to be open about that.
At the same time, I think it's a ghastly caricature you're drawing of the Labour left as
But an enlightened socialist elite leading the unenlightened masses towards a bright socialist future.
Although reading some posts on these boards ... 😉
But yes, it would be nice to see some liberal policies from the Lib Dems and some socialist ones from Labour ... 😉
Given the number of exits on the Tory benches, I suspect the biggest change the other side of the election will a reduction in the level of scrutiny as relatively inexperienced ministers end up shadowing fairly large portfolios.
And this will apply whether it's the Lib Dems or Tories in Opposition.
The Labour left as Wolfie Smith from 'Citizen Smith.'
1970s sit-coms as a guide to contemporary politics.
We only need Farage to bring back 'Love Thy Neighbour' to complete the set.
That's an interesting point.
However, we've had 5 years of inexperienced/incompetent ministers rather than shadows. I say that about the past 5 years because of how Boris purged his party of a lot of talent, and then made allegiance to Brexit rather than ability the criteria for a ministerial post. It is also accurate to say that neither Truss nor Sunak have improved the situation.
AFZ
In fairness (I know, right?) given Johnson did indeed purge the ‘talent’ from the parliamentary party prior to the 2019 GE, how were the two Prime Ministers that followed him in the subsequent parliament supposed to address that?
Truss wouldn’t at all for the same reasons as Johnson, I suppose Rishi could have offered the ‘talent’ peerages and got them back that way….
Well yes, but even so he had to all that with the MPs he inherited rather than ones he might have got better help from…
The change proposed by the present government has been to prevent clandestine entrants from applying here for asylum, but instead to ship them to Rwanda from where they would have to make any claim.
I take Yvette Cooper to mean that the previous law about illegal entry (with the existence of a defence of claiming asylum) would not be changed.
Me too but there is a certain ambiguity there.
One interpretation of all her statements is that she's deliberately saying things like this so she can be more humanitarian but avoid the political fight now.
An alternative view is that she intends to be very draconian and wants to avoid the political fight now.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
AFZ
P.s. IANAL by I have previously read the law. It is illegal to enter the UK without the appropriate paperwork and official processing but prior to the Illegal Immigration Act, there was a specific defence for all, if one claimed asylum upon arrival. Importantly that also means that unsuccessful claimants haven't broken any laws either, unless and until they fail to leave when the claim is ajudged invalid and they have exhausted appeals.
Me too but there is a certain ambiguity there.
One interpretation of all her statements is that she's deliberately saying things like this so she can be more humanitarian but avoid the political fight now.
An alternative view is that she intends to be very draconian and wants to avoid the political fight now
Yep, we agree. And potentially, it's returning to that status quo ante is what Cooper meant.
Or is *Square One* the state of things before Brexit?
The other way of looking at this is while everyone blames the party rank and file, the shortlist of Sunak vs Truss was the product of the post 2019 parliamentary party and they really don't catch enough opprobrium for this.
Although - to touch on a previous topic - the BBC was happy to portray Sunak in the guise of a superhero.
100% agree with both points
Sunak, of course, will just carry on telling whatever Hideous Fibs leap into his mind.
There's a been a certain amount of faux outrage, but it's still a Grade A cock-up on the part of the Tories.