Skip to main content

Corbyn might have edged it

So, did we learn much from the election debate between Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn and Tory Boris Johnson?  No, of course not.  We never really do.  The spin doctors scurry around in the aftermath, trying to convince the media and press that their man won.  We won't know what impact it has if any for a few days.  In the past, the quick spin has not reflected the real impact on voters.

We go through a charade of questions which are mostly of the 'when did you stop beating your wife' kind.  They specifically cannot be answered clearly.   I think that is why they are chosen.

Broadcasters have this notion that they will get more appealing questions from 'ordinary' members of the public.  They don't.    They get simplicities thrown up by the press.

Thus the question on Prince Andrew and the Monarchy had little to no relevance to the election.  It was simply topical.   No politician trying to be elected Prime Minister is going to attack the Head of State, although Jeremy Corbyn did come up with a good answer if only I could remember what it was.

Boris Johnson blustered.  His people will be pleased because he stuck in the groove and repeated his main line of 'getting Brexit done' against more 'dither and delay'.  Safe to say, he lost no ground.

The problem for Johnson is that he has probably scooped up all the votes he is going to get.  He certainly didn't reach out beyond the issue of Brexit.  Instead, he seemed to blame Brexit for the NHS crisis.   By some miracle, the NHS will be made better if only we got Brexit out of the way.   The fact that it has been underfunded and now suffers from critical staff shortages isn't, according to Johnson, because of the Tory cuts, but because of 'not getting Brexit done.'

Boris' claim that they were building 40 new hospitals was deftly taken apart by Corbyn.

Corbyn, whilst perhaps struggling with Brexit, at least reached out across the divide.  It is a message that does have some chance.  He won the debate simply by not losing it.

The polls may begin to move more solidly in his favour.   Boris will consolidate his 40%.  Corbyn has the possibility to edge up.  If he does, we might get back into hung parliament territory.  Whatever they might feel about his Brexit position, those who want to remain in the EU will more likely see their best chance is through a second referendum, and that means a Corbyn led government.   They may yet swing behind the Labour leader.

The Tories are clearly worried about that possibility, which is why he raised the spectre of a Corbyn deal with the SNP and a Scottish Independence referendum.   This was robustly denied by Corbyn, but we shall see, or not, as the case may be.

Johnson was on the defensive against Jeremy Corbyn's charge that he will sell the NHS down the river for a US trade deal.   Corbyn was effective in waving a heavily redacted Freedom of Information obtained document setting out the current state of talks on a trade deal.  They want to be able to tender for NHS services and pharmaceutical provision.   Boris did not sound convincing in hs denial.

This is Boris Johnson's election to lose.  Corbyn's to gain.   Boris didn't do anything that would lose him the election, but Corbyn would have made some ground.    Corbyn might have edged it.  We will see.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …