I want to criticise Teresa May more...

But what if people think I'm only doing it because she's a woman? There will definitely be men out there (possibly some women too) who are more critical of the Prime Minister because she's a woman. For me, this is not an issue, in fact I'm delighted that we have a female Prime Minister. Of course, I can't possibly support a Tory PM because they want a very different UK to the one I want but it's worse than that: Teresa May is proving to be completely incompetent.

David Cameron was a useless Prime Minister too: he failed on his own terms (he said he would sort out our economy and it's now in a worse state than 2010), he brought us Brexit and he's probably caused the perfect conditions for a second Scottish independence referendum which this time will result in the break-up of the UK. But at least he managed to sort things out for himself by leaving at the right time. Teresa May has come into office with Brexit to deal with, the largest national debt we've ever had (and by some margin), a divided party and no idea about how to deal with any of it.

It's a shambles. She's very lucky that all of the mainstream media is focusing on Jeremy Corbyn.

The people have spoken, we need to listen but most of all, understand.

Former leading politicians including Tony Blair and David Cameron have piped up recently about Brexit, Trump and what is going on in Western politics.

I've been left pondering this sizeable question: do these two have any clue of their place in our new, post-truth, post-expert, populist world? My best guess is that, somewhere at the back of their minds - for these are intelligent men, their superegos are saying "and you are partly to blame". But clearly these men have tuned little superego out: if they hadn't done that Britain would look very different right now.

In a way, I'm delighted for the "ordinary working people" who voted for Brexit and for Trump. For too long they have been either lied to or ignored. This time, they've been lied to and then they've been heard. And that's not my way of saying that those people have been mislead and have made the wrong decision (although there are certainly some for whom that is true): many have been lied to but would have voted the same way anyway as their way of telling the establishment that they won't be ignored any more.

So let's go back to Cameron and Blair. Cameron has been saying that victories for Brexit and Trump were part of a "movement of unhappiness" and he's absolutely right, but I wonder whether he realises how much of that (in the UK at least) is his fault?! Meanwhile Blair has been defending the free market against ideas - from the left - that successive governments on both sides of the Atlantic have looked after business rather than people. These two men are an example of precisely where politics has gone wrong. Blair and the people around him switched Labour's focus from the public and onto business. At first, it worked, but in the long-run it left people feeling that none of the main parties looked after their interests. Cameron used Blair as a template and seemed to be taking the Tories to the centre ground in a bid to defeat Labour. But after the economic crash happened, the Tories seized their opportunity to shrink the state and blame benefits claimants, immigrants and union action for the state of the economy. The cuts that have been made since have hit the poorest and most vulnerable hard whilst the richest have become richer.

Blair's government worked hard for business and didn't address the potential for disaster in the financial industry while allowing areas with less opportunities to stagnate. Cameron's cuts fell hardest on those areas and, yes, people are unhappy! With neither Labour nor Tories doing anything to improve things for them, and with local amenities and infrastructure suffering from cuts (when they needed more money not less) and feeling the strain, it was easy for UKIP and the right wing media to convince people in these areas that immigration was the problem. Thus, it was inevitable given these conditions, that people in these former "Labour heartlands" would vote overwhelmingly for Brexit.

I'm guessing that similar scenarios in the US have led to Trump's victory.

Going back to an earlier point: I'm pleased that people finally felt they had something they wanted to vote for, I'm just desperately sad that they wanted Brexit and Trump. We need to understand why they voted this way and work out how to address the real issues behind these results. Blair is dead wrong when he argues against the left's views on neoliberalism and supporting big business: if our financial industry and large corporations are as fantastic as he would have us believe, then the public money poured into those areas isn't needed and can instead be spent on infrastructure in less prosperous areas and trying to bring the poor out of poverty with education, training, opportunities and most of all, HOPE. Then people might be less unhappy. Then they will be less likely to cheer on and vote for opportunists like Trump and the Brexit right. Blair is also wrong to suggest (as he did in October this year) that there should be a second vote on Brexit. As much as I don't want the UK to leave the EU, one of the biggest reasons for this vote was disillusionment with the political system: so imagine what would happen if the political system turned around and ignored the result!

The thing that sickens me most is the amount of money Blair and Cameron (and those who worked with and around them) will be making out sharing their ideas which have proven so out-of-date as to have caused the very issues they're professing to know how to fix.

Singling out one journalist for criticism

In a sea of bad journalism, it seems odd to pick out one person who actually writes well-considered pieces for a good newspaper but Simon Jenkins really gets up my nose. He seems to have a line in contrary commenting: "A total ban on the ivory trade would be disastrous for elephants", "Amber Rudd was right to leave Orgreave in the past", "Stop obsessing about trains and planes and start using roads better."

He probably doesn't write the headlines and for example, the ivory trade article is about how a total ban would drive the value up and that Africans should be allowed to farm elephants. So whilst I don't always disagree with his take on a topic, it is his apparent desire to find the opposing view which makes him appear that rather than seeking to make a good point, he merely wants to stand out from the crowd. Which is annoying.

"Labour must now unite"

Now Corbyn has won again, with an increased mandate, everyone waits with baited breath to see what the Labour 'moderates' will do next. It turns out most of the MPs who have spent the last 12 months rubbishing their democratically elected leader in the media, undermining him at every turn, conspiring against him and generally turning the party in on itself and letting the Tories off the hook have decided that the party must now unite.

What they clearly mean is "our coup failed; our attempts to get Corbyn off the ballot failed and our leadership challenge failed, so we insist the leadership change their policies to keep us happy." There have been no apologies, no concessions and no humility. 'Moderate' MPs carried on criticising Momentum as "a party within a party" whilst turning up and in some cases, speaking at Progress fringe events, seemingly unaware of the hypocrisy.

(Just as an aside, there are three differences between the two campaign groups: 1) Progress has been around a lot longer than Momentum; 2) Progress has a few very large donors whilst Momentum relies mainly on many small donations; 3) attendance at Momentum events was huge whilst Progress events mainly catered to a few 'Moderate' MPs and their hangers-on).

It seems that the 'moderates' will stick to their 1990s Thatcherite consensus politics. They are willing to try and convince people that more of the same identikit politicians is better than anyone offering a genuine alternative but unwilling to try and convince people that austerity is not necessary and that trickle-down economics doesn't work.

The world is moving on. People don't want Blairy-Camerony leaders anymore and if the UK public has any collective common sense, they'll elect someone from the left quickly before some Faragey-Trumpy character comes along and convinces everyone that hell in a handcart is going to happen without them, before delivering it personally.

Mind the gap (Labour's anti-Corbyn brigade STILL don't get it)

The Labour Party have a lot of building to do, and they're trying to do it on shifting political sands.

Parties in countries with strong economies can continue to cling onto the centre ground, for now at least. In many countries across Europe, under weak economic conditions, electorates are primed for change and unhappy voters look for anyone who they believe is offering it. Political parties often detect but rarely manage to capitalise quickly enough on the desire for fresh ideas and those on the right, whose simple ideas are seemingly accepted without serious consideration or detailed analysis, take advantage. In some countries, the rise of the far right has mobilised a similar movement on the left. Disillusionment with centrist governments and mainstream opposition parties grows due to austerity and falling living standards and with clearly different politics on offer, a chasm begins to appear in the centre ground where once most voters found a viable party to vote for. The Labour 'moderates' want to take that ground but fail to see that the electorate have had enough of one-size-fits-all politics (after losing general elections in 2010 and 2015 and losing the leadership election to a rank outsider you'd think they might have taken the hint).

I am not saying that Labour's 13 years in power were not successful: I have been a member in the past and have voted for them at every general election since I reached voting age. However, I do feel that they lost touch with their priorities: Labour, above all else, should support the interests of the majority of the British public; the Conservatives will always look after the richest first. Anyone wishing to dispute my thoughts on this should consider that whilst the economy on the whole was growing, those at the top took a hugely disproportionate share of the rewards. Under Labour, income inequality grew out of all prior proportion (in the modern era at least). House prices started to become unaffordable for ordinary people. Wages stagnated for everyone except those at the top (the minimum wage was a great thing but did not keep up with the rising cost of living). Long-term unemployment increased. Areas destroyed when industries collapsed under Thatcher are still in long-term decline. The financial industry benefited from the woes of every day people whose lives were not improved by the economic boom. Personal debt via loans and credit cards soared as people sought lifestyles sold to them as achievable. Labour lost touch with its roots. We are constantly hearing how 'traditional labour heartlands' have started voting UKIP and how they overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU. Centrist New Labour left millions of people behind.

With the conservatives using our economic woes to sneak quietly yet relentlessly to the right ('Go Home' vans, the EU referendum - pledged to fend of Farage's right-wing UKIP surge, the 'Snoopers' Charter, cutting back of state services across the board, attacking Union rights, the list goes on), Labour's response was to cling desperately to the centre ground and though they failed to bring in David Milliband, the management of the party managed to keep Ed Milliband under control. His own more left-wing ideals were stifled and the 2015 manifesto was a mess of austerity-lite and confusing messages on immigration. Instead of arguing against Tory policies, they legitimised them with their own slightly-less harsh manifesto which was not clear on how they would improve the lives of the majority of British people.

The 2015 election result was a surprise at the time but after getting over the shock of seeing a right-wing Tory party win a majority, it became clear that the centre ground was not a safe position for any of the traditional three major parties.

UKIP's surge created a centre of gravity that has dragged the Tories further to the right - and many in the party are only too willing to shift in that direction. In doing so, the Tories retained support amongst those sold on the ever-more reactionary Daily Mail and Sun newspapers' tales of immigrants and poor people out to steal from them, change their way of life and maybe even blow them up.

Labour actually did surprisingly well in England, with many people (myself included) choosing to vote for them knowing that they still provided the only hope of keeping the Tories out. Not so in Scotland, where there was an alternative. The SNP had failed to convince the country to vote for independence but they had convinced the Scottish people that the Westminster parties did not act in their interests. Their manifesto came across as anti-austerity and progressive while Labour's offered little hope after five years of Tory cuts. Labour were destroyed, losing all but one of their 41 seats.

The Lib Dems, the traditional centre party, were annihilated right across the UK and only managed to retain 8 of their 57 seats.

We live in an age where trust in politicians is at an all-time low. Most people are no longer content to vote for a smartly-dressed career politician, trying to please everyone with well-rehearsed soundbites. The era of the neoliberal consensus, where Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats agree to look after the few at the top while letting our climate suffer, our industries die, wages stagnate, homelessness rise, and our public services crumble and fail, is almost over.

Labour members realise this and voted overwhelmingly for Jeremy Corbyn last year and look set to do the same again. Despite their attacks on him, the anti-Corbyn brigade in the PLP (and associated groups, such as Progress) realise it too. This is why, after failing to force him out, they have decided to promote a hitherto unknown opponent without any awkward political history, such as supporting the Iraq war, for example. And despite a CV that really doesn't sound like that of a socialist, his campaign is all about how he is "just as radical" as Jeremy Corbyn. Members will not be convinced that a Labour party led by him would really push for left-wing policies because they see the people behind his leadership campaign are those who wanted Corbyn out from the start and who don't want Labour to return to the left.

Talk of Trotskyite entryists and other hard-left infiltrators is a distraction. Perhaps there are small numbers of new members who Labour might not want amongst their ranks but there are probably also a few members whose opinions might fit more neatly in the Conservatives or even UKIP but who, perhaps for reasons of family background, chose to become Labour members. Instead of focusing on a tiny fraction of the membership, the 'moderates' should get their own house in order and mount their own credible campaign to excite and appeal to new members and voters. The hard fact is that Corbyn came from nowhere because he offered something fresh and genuine, whilst his leadership opponents - then and now - haven't convinced anyone that their soundbites will translate into actual credible policies which will benefit the ordinary working people of this country.

The idea that Labour need more effective leadership has some truth but those behind the party 'moderates' couldn't organise a fire in a match factory. They lost in 2010. They lost in 2015. Three leadership candidates were trounced by someone who most people had never heard of and who they claim is unelectable. They organised a coup and failed. They tried to keep the incumbent leader off the ballot paper and failed. They appealed and failed. They changed rules to prevent new members getting a vote in the leadership election and had that decision overturned. They have wasted members' money and turned the party into a laughing stock at a time when the opposition should be holding the Tories to account.

The 'moderates' will lose the leadership campaign again and if they break the party apart and head for the centre ground, they could find themselves lost in a political netherworld that they themselves helped to create.

Labour do not need to pull in voters from the right

What is it with this assumption that Labour needs to convert Tory and UKIP voters? It's an idea peddled by pundits on tv, newspaper columnists and seemingly a lot of the public too but it's totally wrong.

In the last general election and in the one before, there were more eligible voters who didn't vote for anybody than there were votes for the Conservatives.

Graphic courtesy of www.votenone.org.uk

The assumption of course, is that non-voters will always be non-voters. But a popular topic over the last few years has been voter apathy, disengagement and disenfranchisement and many people say they would vote if only someone represented them. So that suggests that at least some non-voters could be convinced to turn out and from looking at the figures above, Labour only needs 12% of non-voters to vote for them to wipe out the Tories' advantage entirely.

And while we're dealing with assumptions, I think we can say that some people who formerly voted Labour and now vote Green could be convinced to vote for a more socialist Labour party. And what about UKIP voters? Much talk of voter disenfranchisement has focused on UKIP's ability to capitalise on those who feel left behind by the main parties. Corbyn's Labour could win some of them back too, albeit probably only a small number.

And what about young people? Contrary to false initial stats, the EU referendum got a large section of young people out to vote and the decision to leave the EU will have motivated many to become more engaged with politics. And they are much more likely to vote Labour - especially under Corbyn - than the Tories.

So using assumption-based 'analysis', which is after all what political pundits and columnists do when talking about perceived electability, it's not hard to argue that a turn-around in favour of a Corbyn-led Labour, though difficult, is certainly achievable.

If only the PLP would get behind their leader.

Regardless of the internal Labour mess, the idea that Labour has to try to win over Tory voters is absurd. These voters seem to think that the following policies and failures are ok:

• Cuts to disability benefits 
• The bedroom tax 
• Hounding sick people into work (there are countless cases of people dying just after being declared fit for work) 
• Big cuts to council budgets (predominantly in poorer areas) 
• Hidden cuts to the NHS
• Public money being spent on driving vans around areas with high immigrant populations with the words "GO HOME" in big letters
• The snoopers charter
• Reducing the power of trade unions by insisting they need 50% of members to vote for strike action (this coming from a government with 24% of the vote)
• A doubling of the national debt 
• Loss of the UK's AAA rating
• Huge rise in food banks
• Huge rise in homelessness

It's safe to assume people who vote for these policies will not vote Labour unless Labour themselves introduce similar policies. Perhaps that's what the Labour plotters have in mind.

Since the Tories were last voted into power, the party has reneged on promises over tax credits, ignored all expert advice and forced an unfair contract on junior doctors, performed several policy u-turns, fallen out over the EU and had an almost complete change in personnel. Next time, Tory voters will be expected to vote for a government including the following:

• A Foreign Secretary who lied to the entire British public in the run up to the EU referendum, stepped out of the race to be PM seemingly on realising he would have to clear up his own mess, and has insulted most of the planet in his newspaper columns over the years. Oh, and he was also previously sacked from the Tory shadow cabinet by Michael Howard for lying about an affair he'd had (one of many, we're led to believe)
• A Health Secretary who has alienated almost the entire medical profession
• A Secretary of State for International Trade who had to resign from his post as Defence Secretary after giving a lobbyist far too much access to the department and taking him on trips around the world. He was also one of the worst offenders in the expenses scandal, over-claiming huge sums for mortgage payments amongst other things that he wasn't entitled to claim back
• A DEFRA Secretary who, as well as having no clue about her role, thinks that men should not be allowed to look after children because they might be paedophiles

The others aren't much better.

Labour need to reach out to those who are sick of the same sort of people in power who don't speak for them. Labour need to have policies that help working people and show that a Labour government would invest in the majority of this country, not just the richest and most influential. They do NOT need to court Tory voters who have allowed the government to help out their rich friends and donors while hitting the most vulnerable people hard.

There will be no bank of Mum and Dad for the next generation

Housing: a perpetual boom.

A common theme in the news (although perhaps not quite as common as it ought to be) is the issue of the cost of housing and the fact that many young people rely heavily on financial assistance from parents (and sometimes grandparents). A recent study (see article in the Independent here) shows that even renters are borrowing from their parents to meet the soaring costs of housing in the UK.

We also know that people are now earning less than their parents' generation. So how are the next generation going to be able to afford to buy or even rent a home?

Clearly what is currently being protected at all costs is house prices. Baby boomers are, albeit unintentionally, keeping the value of their own homes high by helping their children to buy at those inflated prices.


Later parenthood and postponement of retirement.

Housing is not the only issue. It is well-known that many parents rely on grandparents for childcare, partly because of the rising cost of childcare, partly because of working commitments - which is often as a result of high house prices and mortgage commitments.

We also know that people are having children later in life, again often as a result of lower wages and higher cost of housing. So the next generation will find it harder to call on grandparents for childcare because grandparents will be significantly older. For example: my parents became grandparents for the first time in their late forties and for the final time in their sixties. If my son becomes a parent at the same age I did, I will be in my 70s and my health may hinder my ability to help with childcare. Add in the huge increase in obesity and conditions such as diabetes and future grandparents may be less fit than their own.

On top of this, given the much-discussed state pensions shortfall which almost certainly means retirement age being put further and further back, grandparents who are still fit and healthy enough may be unable to help with childcare because they will still be working.

--

We can't wait for the issues of falling wages and rising cost of housing and childcare to present themselves because then it will be too late to do anything about it.