1. Critiquing the Lockdown Left
2. Yvette Cooper's Peculiar Fandom
3. Keir Starmer's "Prime Ministerial" Address
4. Why That Party Matters
5. Tory Anti-Mask Libertarianism
The critique of some of the left's attitude to restrictions ruffled a few feathers, if the day wasted responding to responses in Twitter was anything to go by. But also doing the business this month was a consideration of why Yvette Cooper is so overrated. It's all about the feels, and the possibility her advancement would float the boats of other careerists further down the ladder. Then we see Keir Starmer's national address hit the numbers. Naturally, the Starmer stans loved it but what might ordinary punters might think? Not a lot, by the looks of things. Tory tanking is thanks to their self-inflicted misfortunes, and has nothing to do with Starmer himself. Which brings us on to the dread Christmas party (parties). How is it a few soirees have done more damage to the government than 148,000 dead? Click on the link to find out why. And coming in at the end is a consideration of the political imaginary of anti-mask Tory backbenchers. Someone has to go there, and it might as well have been me.
What deserves a second look? In the spirit of know your enemy, I'd humbly suggest an acquaintance with Liz Truss is worth your time. At the moment, she's the one most likely to replace Johnson if his career is pushed out of a window. And I'll stick the meditation of dead cats on the tray for your consideration too.
Okay, 2022 is here. It's time to get down to business.
Image Credit
All good reads. Thanks Phil. Have a great New Year.
ReplyDeleteOlwen.
«Tory tanking is thanks to their self-inflicted misfortunes, and has nothing to do with Starmer himself.»
ReplyDeleteOf course: since the attacks on Johnson are personal attacks on him by another faction of the right; even if Starmer's "sponsors" and their media have been helping.
«Which brings us on to the dread Christmas party (parties). How is it a few soirees have done more damage to the government than 148,000 dead?»
Because since the attacks on Johnson are from within the right, they are not attacks on the Conservatives and their policies, especially as the policies in NHS England have been copied by NHS Wales, run by New Labour, and by NHS Scotland, run by the SNP, and the libDems like the other major parties have unopposed them.
Apart from the number of the dead, 10-100 times higher than it could have been, what is amazing is how the "fatalistic liberalism” policies endorsed by all major parties have hit hard the Conservative-voting small businesses in many sectors, driving many to bankruptcy, and this has hardly dented the support for the Conservatives. It is also amazing that none of the major parties has made an issue of all the damage done to so many small businesses by the half-baked lockdown cycles, such is their complicity with the Conservatives in upholding "fatalistic liberalism".
Serious question - would you be willing to put your criticism of the anti-lockdown left to an outlet like Red Star Radio for discussion/debate ?
ReplyDeleteTheres a lot of back and fourth on social media,with people commenting, liking and disliking and re-twitting, but what we need is open discussion like on a panel, where people really have to engage with each other, and spectators can draw their own conclusions.
«criticism of the anti-lockdown left»
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as an "anti-lockdown left" if the argument is not based on test-trace-isolate, both "pro-lockdown" and "anti-lockdown" are right-wing positions, from a tory or whig perspective.
And arguably the test-trace-isolate vs. pro-lockdown/anti-lockdown is not even a left-right issue, it is one simply of grater or lesser levels of civilization: most of the test-trace-isolate governments have been sterling right-wing ones, and yet they have done the right thing, even if ideologically is not that right-wing, simply because it was the civilized thing to do.
«even if ideologically is not that right-wing, simply because it was the civilized thing to do»
ReplyDeleteThe same point was made in a different form by Ian Duncan-Smith as to Cameron's and Osborn's social insurance politics:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12199805/IDS-sparks-rift-at-heart-of-Tory-party.html
«He said he resigned because he lost the ability to influence where the cuts will fall, adding: “The truth is yes, we need to get the deficit down, but we need to make sure we widen the scope of where we look to get that deficit down and not just narrow it down on working age benefits [...] otherwise it just looks like we see this as a pot of money that it doesn’t matter because they don’t vote for us, and that’s my concern. I think it [the Government] is in danger of drifting in a direction that divides society rather than unites it. And that I think is unfair. [...] This is not the way to do government.”»
Emphasis on “not the way to do government”. In that IDS was in effect referring to Gramsci's concept of the "general class".
“And arguably the test-trace-isolate vs. pro-lockdown/anti-lockdown”
ReplyDeleteThis is the kind of false dichotomy I would expect from the Telegraph or Lawrence Fox or Sajid David or Lord Boffy
"fatalistic liberalism”
There used to be a saying in the years NuBC (before Covid). It went something like this:
“If you have your health that is all that matters”
In the years after covid (AR - anno regni nostri virum), the saying now goes something like this:
“If Weatherspoons can open that is all that matters”
That is progress for you!