The BBC 1 'Prime Minister' debate

[Stanfordian]

Multiple neighbours have reported they heard the argument, I find it difficult to imagine they coordinated their responses. Also police advice is to call them in those kinds of circumstances.

I find the fact that Johnson refuses to say when the 'recent' photograph was taken an indication that an old photo was released to attempt to hoodwink the public. I think he's arrogant enough to believe the photo would stem any enquiries.

So why report it to the Guardian?

There are a lot more dirty tricks going on than anyone might normally imagine and it could come from a number of sources. Politics is a dirty business.

[ardcarp]

But what is this "middle ground" exactly?

'Exactly' obviously isn't a useful term, as 'middle-ground' is necessarily fuzzy, and as you say, it shifts. That's one reason I suppose that it's easy for the 'middle-ground' to be lampooned by the press. But we seem to be in an era of extremes, both in Europe and potentially here. By definition, the 'middle-ground' must be larger than usual, i.e. a pool [mixed metaphor alert] of moderate people who wish to avoid those extremes.

[Richard Barrett]

But we seem to be in an era of extremes, both in Europe and potentially here.

Again, a word like "extremes" does once more imply a symmetry that isn't there. Also: the Blair/Brown governments put a lot of effort into being at the political "centre", yet they pretty much continued the policies of Thatcher/Major before them. Tariq Ali in a 2015 book coined the term "the extreme centre" to denote a political system where two political parties are basically carrying out the same policies. Hence, the political categories of 'left' and 'right' have been replaced by the 'extreme centre': a neoliberal consensus distinguished primarily through a compliant service to the market. In the UK this would comprise the Tories, Lib Dems and Faragists, and until recently Labour too. There's actually nothing "moderate" about it at all: it's an ideology that succeeds through convincing people that it isn't an ideology at all, but just common sense, even though it's a "common sense" that is relaxed about all kinds of inequality and injustice...

[Barbirollians]

Again, a word like "extremes" does once more imply a symmetry that isn't there. Also: the Blair/Brown governments put a lot of effort into being at the political "centre", yet they pretty much continued the policies of Thatcher/Major before them. Tariq Ali in a 2015 book coined the term "the extreme centre" to denote a political system where two political parties are basically carrying out the same policies. Hence, the political categories of 'left' and 'right' have been replaced by the 'extreme centre': a neoliberal consensus distinguished primarily through a compliant service to the market. In the UK this would comprise the Tories, Lib Dems and Faragists, and until recently Labour too. There's actually nothing "moderate" about it at all: it's an ideology that succeeds through convincing people that it isn't an ideology at all, but just common sense, even though it's a "common sense" that is relaxed about all kinds of inequality and injustice...

I am sorry the idea that Labour from 1997-2010 followed the same policies is specious nonsense.

Substantialincreases in NHS funding
Sure Start
Minimum Wage
Significant increases in benefits
Tax credits
Education maintenance allowance
Significant reduction in homelessness
Schools repairs programme
Estate Action programme - although Labour built far too few new social homes they spent a great deal of money on repairing the existing stock

They are open to much criticism in particular for their acceptance of financial orthodoxy and being relaxed about the filthy rich and getting involved in unwise wars - but to suggest that they were the same or " basically carried out the same policies " is just wrong and revisionist .

[LMcD]

What puzzles me is that they're behaving as if they are trying to win a general election (e.g. extravagant promises) not a partly leadership. If their constituent voters (i.e. Tory Party Members) are as business savvy as we're led to believe, surely they're not going to be coaxed by giveaway sweeties? Are they???

I rather gained the impression that their primary objective is to pick somebody who can see off the threat that is Nigel Farage, and that everything else can wait until he's been outflanked. (Which, some would argue, is how we reached the current deplorable situation in which we find ourselves).

[Joseph K]

I am sorry the idea that Labour from 1997-2010 followed the same policies is specious nonsense.

Substantialincreases in NHS funding
Sure Start
Minimum Wage
Significant increases in benefits
Tax credits
Education maintenance allowance
Significant reduction in homelessness
Schools repairs programme
Estate Action programme - although Labour built far too few new social homes they spent a great deal of money on repairing the existing stock

They are open to much criticism in particular for their acceptance of financial orthodoxy and being relaxed about the filthy rich and getting involved in unwise wars - but to suggest that they were the same or " basically carried out the same policies " is just wrong and revisionist .

And yet, in their pursuit of privatisation (education, NHS PFIs etc.) not only did they accept all of Thatcher's and Major's reforms, they took them further. Inequality also rose under New Labour, even if they took measures to improve the lot of the lowest paid.

In any case, the financial crash pretty much brought down that way of doing things. The Labour right would be committed to austerity, perhaps not as maliciously as the Tories, but there all the same. It all amounts to kicking the can down the road without challenging the economic orthodoxy.

[Serial_Apologist]

And yet, in their pursuit of privatisation (education, NHS PFIs etc.) not only did they accept all of Thatcher's and Major's reforms, they took them further. Inequality also rose under New Labour, even if they took measures to improve the lot of the lowest paid.

In any case, the financial crash pretty much brought down that way of doing things. The Labour right would be committed to austerity, perhaps not as maliciously as the Tories, but there all the same. It all amounts to kicking the can down the road without challenging the economic orthodoxy.

[Jazzrook]

The current Conservative contest for PM is to be decided by 160,000 Tory members who are eligible to vote out of an electorate of around 46.8 million.
According to my maths this is 0.34℅ who are inflicting one of two rightwing millionaires on the remaining disenfranchised 99.66℅ of the electorate.
If Labour were doing this there'd be an outcry from the media and accusations of a leftwing coup.

JR

[ardcarp]

I am sorry the idea that Labour from 1997-2010 followed the same policies is specious nonsense.

Substantialincreases in NHS funding
Sure Start
Minimum Wage
Significant increases in benefits
Tax credits
Education maintenance allowance
Significant reduction in homelessness
Schools repairs programme
Estate Action programme - although Labour built far too few new social homes they spent a great deal of money on repairing the existing stock

They are open to much criticism in particular for their acceptance of financial orthodoxy and being relaxed about the filthy rich and getting involved in unwise wars - but to suggest that they were the same or " basically carried out the same policies " is just wrong and revisionist

. ..and after 2010, how differently things may have turned out if the Lib Dems had refused a coalition and entered into a basic 'confidence and supply' arrangement with Cameron...or even Gordon Brown for that matter. Tuition fees???? Europe??????? That offer to Clegg on a vote for PR was just risible.

Clegg has done OK for himself, but basically screwed the party.

[gradus]

But what is this "middle ground" exactly? As has been said, it isn't always in the same place: in the period 1945-80 it shifted leftwards somewhat and since then it has shofted rightwards quite alarmingly. But in any case surely the real divide is between the many and the few, and most of what goes under the name of politics is orientated towards getting people to throw in their lot with one or the other. People who are young, old, ill, disabled or otherwise vulnerable never benefit from Tory governments, and the latter encourage the idea that when choosing who to vote for one should think only of oneself and not of all those others. That, and the minusculeness of the proportion of the population who actually do benefit from conservative policies, means that the true picture is surely a lot less symmetrical than most of the "left/right/centre" rhetoric one hears tries to lead us to believe. I'm a committed European (having lived on the continent for most of the last 27 years) but I'm a more committed socialist. That means I don't have a "party affiliation" but a set of convictions which might lead to supporting one party or another, depending on how committed they are to bringing society closer to the "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" principle at the heart of socialist thinking. It's pretty obvious which of the main parties in the UK that would be at this point in history. Is that more important than Brexit? Yes I think it is. I would be very surprised if Brexit occurs at the end of October in any recognisable shape or form anyway, as I've said all along.

Surely some of those whom you state never benefit from Tory governments are amongst those who bought 4.5 million council homes at quite considerable discounts, although I can't find any easily available stats on this. Similarly, in 1979 just 3 million people owned shares, 7pc of the adult population. By the end of the Eighties one in four people – 12 million adults – owned shares and I would have thought that many in the categories that you list would be included in that number. Not I would have thought miniscule numbers. As for thinking of oneself, well plainly it is not absent from most people's consideration, even Socialist supporters. Securing a family's future by owning a house instead of paying a lifetime of rent to a council and providing something for one's children in due course has bridged all mainstream political views.

[teamsaint]

And yet, in their pursuit of privatisation (education, NHS PFIs etc.) not only did they accept all of Thatcher's and Major's reforms, they took them further. Inequality also rose under New Labour, even if they took measures to improve the lot of the lowest paid.

In any case, the financial crash pretty much brought down that way of doing things. The Labour right would be committed to austerity, perhaps not as maliciously as the Tories, but there all the same. It all amounts to kicking the can down the road without challenging the economic orthodoxy.

Plus introduce tuition fees, plus handed control of interest rates to the BoE, plus took us into unwarranted wars to feed the MIC, plus plus plus.

When looking at the big ticket items, it really isn't enough to just say " Increase in NHS funding". One really has to look at where that funding ended up, ie was it increased care levels, or more cash for the drug companies, consultants, private providers, contractors, PFI etc.

Just looking at where the likes of Blair and Clegg ended up tells you so much.

[Serial_Apologist]

Surely some of those whom you state never benefit from Tory governments are amongst those who bought 4.5 million council homes at quite considerable discounts, although I can't find any easily available stats on this. Similarly, in 1979 just 3 million people owned shares, 7pc of the adult population. By the end of the Eighties one in four people – 12 million adults – owned shares and I would have thought that many in the categories that you list would be included in that number. Not I would have thought miniscule numbers. As for thinking of oneself, well plainly it is not absent from most people's consideration, even Socialist supporters. Securing a family's future by owning a house instead of paying a lifetime of rent to a council and providing something for one's children in due course has bridged all mainstream political views.

All of which, especially the highlighted, ended up legitimating the me me me society - which it need not have done, had Thatcher insisted on a new council home for every one sold off at a ridiculous discount in market terms - which is what she always claimed to vouch by - while ordering local authorities NOT to spend on such. Hence all the discount sell-offs to the private sector: so much for " free and market-driven capitalism a la Adam Smith. You had to be either (a) pretty ignorant, (b) short-termist to the point of forgetting the map home, or (c) malevolently incentivised in favour of those stashing their goodies away, not to understand the systemic aftermath beckoning in the long, or even not long term: 20 years from privatisation to banking collapse. Some "socialists" I knew even bought shares in their own privatised company, believing dividing workers along company loyalty lines to be a step in the direction of worker's control! They could and should have foreseen the end of that fabrication along with lifetime career pathways, and the coming of short-term and zero-hours contracts, together with reskilling for obsolencence. And who brought in The National Lottery, further legitimising the get-rich-quick availability for all pretence?

[Dave2002]

Surely some of those whom you state never benefit from Tory governments are amongst those who bought 4.5 million council homes at quite considerable discounts, although I can't find any easily available stats on this. Similarly, in 1979 just 3 million people owned shares, 7pc of the adult population. By the end of the Eighties one in four people – 12 million adults – owned shares and I would have thought that many in the categories that you list would be included in that number. Not I would have thought miniscule numbers. As for thinking of oneself, well plainly it is not absent from most people's consideration, even Socialist supporters. Securing a family's future by owning a house instead of paying a lifetime of rent to a council and providing something for one's children in due course has bridged all mainstream political views.

Why is share ownership a good thing?

[MrGongGong]

If we leave the EU these are the delusional sh*ts who will be in charge

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/02/brexit-party-meps-turn-their-backs-european-anthem-ode-to-joy

These are the people who those who voted to leave the EU are empowering
I'm not a violent man but.....

[LeMartinPecheur]

Why is share ownership a good thing?

Well. most people owning big blocks of profitable shares no doubt feel it's a good thing, but how many of the new 9 million are in this category? I got given some shares out of the blue by a company with which I had a life assurance policy. They now earn me a couple of hundred a year - mildly pleasant when the cheque comes but really not any big deal

And surely in this period there has also been a huge increase in small traders setting up very small ltd co's for tax and financial protection reasons. Again, no major boost to the nation's wealth!