I would compare what is happening within the UK Labour Party with what has happened to the conservative movement in Alberta.
Politicians no longer represent the interests of their constituents. Instead special interests join established mainstream political parties and demand members, including leaders, to fall in line or lose the leadership or nomination to run for the party.
I do not think the UCP is socialist. It has nothing to do with ideology. Whether Liberal, Conservative or Labour all mainstream parties seem to be struggling to meet the demands of an increasingly fractured electorate.
Actually, ideology does play a part. The parties are having an identity crisis so they seem to be vulnerable to special interests who have large loyal followers who can be called upon to vote as directed. Unfortunately, once in government the moderates within the parties seem to think they can manage the ideologues that is where they are wrong.
Power won through the promise of free stuff is always tenuous. As a former PM pointed out: "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money".
MacDougall certainly does sound like a Conservative party strategist. It looks like the table is being set for Nigel Farage--Nigel fucking Farage-- and, given the clear connection between Brexit and Britain's newfound political instability, the irony of that should not be lost on anybody.
Farage and Reform might just implode under the weight of the many stories about their dodgy finances (see today in the Guardian, for example). The point being, Burnham needs to be an expert on administration and delivery, not TikTok
They aren’t twins. PP offered significant policy changes. Like every western country, Canada voted for the status quo. Unfortunately, change will come when the bond markets say so, which is a much tougher road to travel. Oh well.
I definitely heard all the slogans from PP. Care to share a couple of the significant policy changes? I do like how he stood up to Trump on Joe Rogan. He said he wished Trump would "knock it off". Very effective!
Yes, his first week were a lot of unfunded baubles that wouldn't survive a basic economics test (lower energy bills for everyone, including for the rich who don't need it, and lowering the incentive for everyone else to cut down on energy use; lower business rates for pubs, which will allow the landlords to raise the rents). His vibe was wanting to back to the 1970s, before Margaret Thatcher and the rise of liberalism, and increasing social housing and social care (but only if government does it directly, with no private sector involvement). As for foreign policy, he said he regretted that Starmer's Labour government was insufficiently pro-Palestine and critical of Israel. So far, it's all image, and no evidence of deep thinking.
"He is a political lifer. A staffer at the age of 23, an MP at the age of 31, and a minister at the age of 37...." Gee, I wonder who this sounds like.... so similar.... can't put my finger on it.....
It's worth remembering that this isn't a neutral political analysis. Andrew MacDougall is a longtime conservative strategist who served as Stephen Harper's Director of Communications and continues to write from a clearly conservative perspective. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but readers should recognize that this column reflects a particular ideological viewpoint rather than an objective assessment of Andy Burnham's government. The tone of the piece makes it clear that MacDougall had largely decided Burnham would fail before he even took office.
The irony is that MacDougall criticizes modern politics for being driven by communications and "vibes," yet much of his own column relies on sarcasm and ridicule rather than engaging seriously with Burnham's policies. Burnham has been prime minister for little more than a week. Whether his agenda succeeds or fails remains to be seen, but dismissing every initiative as "lipstick on the pig" before his government has had any real opportunity to govern is less a reasoned analysis than an expression of ideological opposition. Britain undoubtedly faces enormous challenges, but it's far too early to conclude that Burnham's premiership is destined to fail simply because a conservative columnist says so.
Burnham needs to give Britons a clear set of priorities that they can agree with (a la Tony Blair, pre-Iraq War) , plus an economic strategy, including a trade strategy. I still like the simple elegant solution of a customs union between the UK and Europe. The market and its attendant trade bureaucracy, but not all of the bureaucracy coming from Brussels. The outer ring of EU membership should be a customs union, no more and no less.
The European Union would likely be receptive to negotiating a comprehensive customs union with Britain, but only if it were convinced that the UK had adopted a stable, long-term policy rather than one that could be reversed after the next election or when this next sitting of Parliament finishes. Brussels is less concerned with who occupies Downing Street than with whether Britain has reached a durable political consensus on its future relationship with Europe. The concept is not unprecedented—Turkey has participated in a customs union with the EU for decades—although Britain would undoubtedly seek a broader and more sophisticated arrangement.
In return, I think it likely that the EU would almost certainly require the UK to adopt the common external tariff on goods, maintain close alignment with relevant product standards and customs rules, and accept a robust dispute-resolution mechanism. Those conditions would represent the price of restoring largely frictionless trade with Britain's largest export market while preserving its political independence outside the European Union.
To be clear, I don't think any government can survive or function properly in an attention economy. We have built an information economy that is inhospitable to good government. Everyone will fail until we dismantle the attention economy.
I would compare what is happening within the UK Labour Party with what has happened to the conservative movement in Alberta.
Politicians no longer represent the interests of their constituents. Instead special interests join established mainstream political parties and demand members, including leaders, to fall in line or lose the leadership or nomination to run for the party.
Not sure I agree with you there - I actually don't see the similarity at all given that the UCP is not a socialist party. But you-do-you I guess?
I do not think the UCP is socialist. It has nothing to do with ideology. Whether Liberal, Conservative or Labour all mainstream parties seem to be struggling to meet the demands of an increasingly fractured electorate.
Actually, ideology does play a part. The parties are having an identity crisis so they seem to be vulnerable to special interests who have large loyal followers who can be called upon to vote as directed. Unfortunately, once in government the moderates within the parties seem to think they can manage the ideologues that is where they are wrong.
Power won through the promise of free stuff is always tenuous. As a former PM pointed out: "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money".
MacDougall certainly does sound like a Conservative party strategist. It looks like the table is being set for Nigel Farage--Nigel fucking Farage-- and, given the clear connection between Brexit and Britain's newfound political instability, the irony of that should not be lost on anybody.
Farage and Reform might just implode under the weight of the many stories about their dodgy finances (see today in the Guardian, for example). The point being, Burnham needs to be an expert on administration and delivery, not TikTok
Farage has to get by Count Binface first.
Burnham and Polliviere are twins, save Burnham was a mayor for 9 years. How do you like them apples Cons (and I am one....)
They aren’t twins. PP offered significant policy changes. Like every western country, Canada voted for the status quo. Unfortunately, change will come when the bond markets say so, which is a much tougher road to travel. Oh well.
I definitely heard all the slogans from PP. Care to share a couple of the significant policy changes? I do like how he stood up to Trump on Joe Rogan. He said he wished Trump would "knock it off". Very effective!
Burnham's most direct comparison is to Boris Johnson, I reckon. And that didn't end well.
Yes, his first week were a lot of unfunded baubles that wouldn't survive a basic economics test (lower energy bills for everyone, including for the rich who don't need it, and lowering the incentive for everyone else to cut down on energy use; lower business rates for pubs, which will allow the landlords to raise the rents). His vibe was wanting to back to the 1970s, before Margaret Thatcher and the rise of liberalism, and increasing social housing and social care (but only if government does it directly, with no private sector involvement). As for foreign policy, he said he regretted that Starmer's Labour government was insufficiently pro-Palestine and critical of Israel. So far, it's all image, and no evidence of deep thinking.
Good column. Next, the UK will eventually elect a benevolent AI and all will be solved.
"He is a political lifer. A staffer at the age of 23, an MP at the age of 31, and a minister at the age of 37...." Gee, I wonder who this sounds like.... so similar.... can't put my finger on it.....
Yep. PP - and JT too: "Now politicians apply a vibe to government. Instead of policy driving comms, comms is driving policy."
Pity poor Britain, being stuck with an vacuous hybrid like that...
100%
It's worth remembering that this isn't a neutral political analysis. Andrew MacDougall is a longtime conservative strategist who served as Stephen Harper's Director of Communications and continues to write from a clearly conservative perspective. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but readers should recognize that this column reflects a particular ideological viewpoint rather than an objective assessment of Andy Burnham's government. The tone of the piece makes it clear that MacDougall had largely decided Burnham would fail before he even took office.
The irony is that MacDougall criticizes modern politics for being driven by communications and "vibes," yet much of his own column relies on sarcasm and ridicule rather than engaging seriously with Burnham's policies. Burnham has been prime minister for little more than a week. Whether his agenda succeeds or fails remains to be seen, but dismissing every initiative as "lipstick on the pig" before his government has had any real opportunity to govern is less a reasoned analysis than an expression of ideological opposition. Britain undoubtedly faces enormous challenges, but it's far too early to conclude that Burnham's premiership is destined to fail simply because a conservative columnist says so.
Burnham needs to give Britons a clear set of priorities that they can agree with (a la Tony Blair, pre-Iraq War) , plus an economic strategy, including a trade strategy. I still like the simple elegant solution of a customs union between the UK and Europe. The market and its attendant trade bureaucracy, but not all of the bureaucracy coming from Brussels. The outer ring of EU membership should be a customs union, no more and no less.
The European Union would likely be receptive to negotiating a comprehensive customs union with Britain, but only if it were convinced that the UK had adopted a stable, long-term policy rather than one that could be reversed after the next election or when this next sitting of Parliament finishes. Brussels is less concerned with who occupies Downing Street than with whether Britain has reached a durable political consensus on its future relationship with Europe. The concept is not unprecedented—Turkey has participated in a customs union with the EU for decades—although Britain would undoubtedly seek a broader and more sophisticated arrangement.
In return, I think it likely that the EU would almost certainly require the UK to adopt the common external tariff on goods, maintain close alignment with relevant product standards and customs rules, and accept a robust dispute-resolution mechanism. Those conditions would represent the price of restoring largely frictionless trade with Britain's largest export market while preserving its political independence outside the European Union.
To be clear, I don't think any government can survive or function properly in an attention economy. We have built an information economy that is inhospitable to good government. Everyone will fail until we dismantle the attention economy.
Sometimes I read comments like this and think I read a completely different column. But I am anti-socialist, so I guess there's that.