I have such a hard time caring about any of this. Have a plan, have 20, the more the merrier. Knock yourself out. But the idea that a borderline large city, which is what Auckland is becoming, will ever really fix its sewers or transport or anything else is ludicrous. Has Simon Wilson ever lived anywhere else? Because every city has these problems and many others. They are never really fixed. Perfection never arrives, only a series of botched compromises and dealing with those is part of the charm of living in a city.
Meanwhile, on the Spinoff...
I think the perceived view from Auckland and its champions in the media (for which read most of the broadcast and online media) is that Auckland is terribly important and the rest of the country is jolly lucky to have it, so we should be endlessly fascinated about their house prices and traffic jams and crime stories and local government and public transport and sports stadiums. We should be happily handing over colossal quantities of tax revenue to improve life for all who live there. Because really, isn't that better for everyone?
Sarc aside, local print media, National radio and a diminishing number of truly local radio stations are basically all you have left outside Auckland. I suspect a lot of regions would be far better served if they had truly independent media like the ODT which did not exist primarily as a funnel to transfer money to shiny towers with views of the Waitemata harbour.
Labour now has the largest membership of any party in Western Europe. This does mean something – it is highly unlikely in the UK that you would get 500,000 people that have views that are strongly enough held to pay to join an organisation, but at the same time be so completely out of step with public opinion that the party has no future.
Well, we are about to find out, aren't we. But having 500,000 members means nothing if they cannot get millions out to vote Labour. And if Labour does lose badly - as currently seems likely - we will know that having lots of passionate members means very little if they are just a passionate minority who can't attract the support of ordinary voters.
Simple Nick when he voted against he was voting against the neoliberals who had taken it over with their Tory Light policies. Corbyn is a man of strong principles which govern his thinking. Blair was never ever a Socialist, just a wishy washy opportunist
And this, right here, is why the Labour Party is f*cked. I hope the last person to leave will turn out the lights, and leave Corbyn in charge of an empty room. Maybe then he and Momentum will finally be happy.
However, a portion of the blame still has to rest with the parliamentary wing of the party that have not supported him.
I find this endlessly amusing. Some day someone is going to explain to me why a man who voted against his own party over 500 times now deserves the loyalty of his caucus. Sure Corbyn has a mandate. But so did Tony Blair and that never bothered Corbyn. So he is getting exactly what he deserves as far as I can see.
A mixed one. Iraq on the one hand, the end of an armed insurgency in Northern Ireland on the other. And over a decade of economic growth. As Tom Watson pointed out at the Labour Party conference last year, the party achieved a lot in its 3 terms of Government. It wasn't all bad, and much better than 3 more terms of Conservative Government would have been.
What do you think the legacy of Corbyn and Momentum will be?
The collapse in the Labour vote dates from and is the direct outcome of the failed chicken coup by the Blairite dominate UK PLP. Insofar as many of those Blairite cuckoo candidates seem poised to either stand down or lose their seats if Labour takes a bath this election, there may be a silver lining in a Labour defeat.
Just checking but would these Blairites be the ones that won 3 consecutive general elections as opposed to the Militant/Momentum types who have won... ummm... nothing. At all. Anywhere. Ever.
Ok, I'll regret asking I'm sure, but... what exactly are the political instincts of yer average walnut?
One other thing. I have the nagging suspicion that the confidence being displayed by the likes of Corbyn and Diane Abbott is genuine. Not because they think they are going to win the election, but because it will result in annihilation of the Blairite wing of the Parliamentary party. It appears they would rather control a toothless opposition of say 150 MPs than govern. I don't think Corbyn will resign if he loses spectacularly, because he isn't really trying to win control of Parliament - he is trying to win control of his own party and he is more likely to do that by losing than winning.
I hope I'm wrong about that.
Corbyn-Labour not only voted for Brexit, but also for an early election
Not sure they had much choice. Think about the reaction if Labour had opposed an early election.
As for Brexit - this is about the only issue on which I have some sympathy for Corbyn. As far as I can see he has little personal support for the EU, or rather its institutions, regarding as instruments of neoliberal austerity (think Greece). And Brexit turned out to be far more popular amongst rank and file Labour voters than a lot of people expected, particularly in heartland constituencies in the Midlands and further north. So even if he wanted to, I doubt Corbyn could stand on an anti-Brexit pro-EU platform at the election. That's why you will hear him talk about almost anything else during the campaign - health, education, you name it, just not Brexit.