Wham! Bam! Yam!

Image Source: Twitter

Written By: Scott Gunnion

May, or Yam as I call her affectionately, must be confident.

Some polls have the Tories as much as 20% ahead, some on double the support of Labour.

She's braver than John Major or Gordon Brown were, both of whom - PMs without an electoral mandate - allowed the life of the Parliament to expire before they put themselves before the electorate. Both, for clarity, expected to lose, though only Brown did.

Yam hopes to bolster her fickle Parliamentary majority in order to make a success of Brexit.

To do so, she must make make a stand and advocate and embrace popular but unfashionable policy stances. She must be unequivocally anti-immigration and commit herself to reduced migration from Europe. She must open the doors to selection in education, committing herself to a new generation of grammar schools. So too must she abandon Cameron's flashy and vacuous commitment to 0.7% of GDP towards foreign aid. It isn't a vote-loser, per se, but it isn't a vote-winner either. Nobody cares. Cut at its throat and throw it overboard. Time for aid to Africa to walk the plank.

But for the first time in an entire generation, there are clear and unequivocal policy differences dividing the two major parties. To put it simply, there is choice. There is contrast over which to debate and deliberate.

As confident as Yam may be, there is no room for complacency. You can't put Corbyn in a corner and he isn't going away anytime soon.

Remember Trump? They all said he would lose, that he was unelectable, lacked credibility, lacked temperament. And still he won. There is no room for complacency; it can't be said enough.

In 2015, the Tories annihilated the Lib Dems in their South West England heartland, cushioning them from losses in the North and helping them on their way to the first majority Tory government in over twenty years.

But the Lib Dem's bounced back in the Richmond by-election post-Brexit riding a wave of pro-European sentiment. They could be headed for a resurgence. Vince Cable could return to reclaim his seat. In fact, I predict he will do just that.

More chance of that than the deeply toxic Esther McVey staging a comeback in Wirral West in what should naturally be a Tory seat, especially at this election.

You have to admit - Yam has balls. She could wind up with a diminished majority - or no overall control - and then what for Hard Brexit?

Irrespective of the outcome of June's election, Yam is safe as leader what with Boris safely distracted with foreign diplomacy, Osborne and Gove already emasculated and Andrea Leadsom well and truly put in her place.

This is indeed the age of Yam - and it isn't over yet, not by a stretch.

Anderson's No Thai Bride - He's A Prize Pig

Image Source: Daily Mail

Written By: Scott Gunnion

It came as no surprise with the news that outgoing Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, had set his sights on the ultra-safe Commons seat of Liverpool Walton, the very seat currently - but only temporarily - being kept warm by Anderson's prevailing rival for the Liverpool Region Mayoralty, Steve Rotheram.

You could call it an official trade - one job for another.

If you ask me, Joe Anderson gets a bad rap.

I often find myself on the receiving end of his (seemingly) insurmountable number of critics. So too do I often absorb innumerate casual references to corruption, incompetence and an alleged penchant for "backhanders". All non-founded and no proof has ever been offered up, from my experience. But said accusations are often condemning by virtue of their very existence.

He hasn't got a bad heart. His suits may be ill-fitted, but his sincerity isn't in doubt.

And I don't think he'll ever be at the centre of "Operation Yam" - the name of a potential future prostitution or abuse scandal like Operation Yewtree and its sister investigation.

Rotheram relinquishing his seat in Parliament - the safest Labour seat in the country - and, by my estimations, the only in which the winning candidate achieved in excess of 80% of the vote, has created a natural opening for Anderson.

Being Labour's safest seat, it would ordinarily be fiercely sought after and contended by the creme de la creme of Labour's most esteemed and distinguished consortium of budding candidates.

But due to the snap election, candidates are likely to be imposed on local constituency associations by central organisations.

It is bluntly obvious that Anderson is the perfect candidate and would be a fierce advocate for the interests of Liverpool Walton.

He would be ill-inclined to divert his attentions away from politics in favour of the enticing carousel of corporate offerings and directorships likely to fall at his feet as he exits the Mayoralty. He has no background in business and, I strongly suspect, no appetite for a second life in the private sector.

It is nothing but a natural progression for somebody who, for five years as Major, has enjoyed an imposing public profile and enviable name recognition.

Being Mayor of Liverpool offers an unparalleled bully pulpit. There is a minimal number of big city mayors in the UK. Liverpool is unique in its full frontal embrace of the big city mayoralty and always has been.

Anderson is a dependable fixture on the Sunday morning news programmes, bestowing upon him the fruits of a largely unrivalled platform from which to speak up for the city, the region and its interests.

Anderson's fierce doggedness and obvious passion would make for a ferocious backbencher in what is likely to be a strong Tory government with an imposing majority.

So too would Anderson's well-fined media skills make him both high-profile and high-calibre. He would stand out in what is likely destined to be a shrunken parliamentary party, bereft of talent with the mass exodus of experienced MPs in marginal seats and the high number of largely-inexperienced, novice newly-elected MPs potentially likely to be elected lacking the benefits of his extensive local government experience and the skills and talents that come with it.

Walton could do far worse than Anderson. If anything, he is the ideal candidate.

Reports of Jeremy Corbyn's son Seb being parachuted in by the central party should be cause for concern.

But when push comes to shove - rather the bitch than the pup.

But that's just my opinion.

HIV - RIP?

Image Source: Glamour

Written By: Scott Gunnion

It must have been a slow news day when the front page of the Echo was reserved, albeit on a Sunday, to cover the matter of rising levels of HIV in Liverpool.

There can be no doubt that the rise in HIV infections across Merseyside, as alleged in the article, is acutely linked to the increased and ever-increasing popularity of online dating apps. This matter was covered and tackled in Sunday's Echo on the front page and on page 5.

But that alone is not to blame. The way I see things, there have been three generations of gay men throughout the AIDS epidemic.

The first generation found themselves infected unknowingly and eventually died. The second generation were acutely aware of the virus and, consequently, became incredibly vigilant and resistant. The third generation, the current generation, haven't grown up around HIV/AIDS and therefore haven't taken it seriously or ever really acknowledged its presence or its potential impact. It is this generation that finds itself impacted.

And though it has never been easier or more casual to get tested, it is still the case that a stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS dominates and perseveres.

Grindr, Bendr, Hornet, and so on, and so forth. The mobile dating apps have taken over, and the gay scene has suffered indisputably.

Online dating apps have replaced face-to-face dating, irreversibly so. People who would once go out religiously on a Saturday night in search of 'the one', for example, are now content to sit at home tapping away on apps like Grindr without leaving the comfort of their own front room. People who would once cross eyes across a bar now vet one another by their profile pictures and the stats that accompany them.

These apps all have similar sounding names. I've always liked the idea of Koshr for Jewish singles, Burkr for Muslims and Bangra for lonely hearts of Indian descent.

As for rising levels of HIV, with levels of infection rising persistently, I only hope that those at risk get tested at an early stage before the disease has the chance to take hold.

HIV rates may be on the rise, but early testing might squash the burgeoning epidemic. As for online dating apps, a return to traditional dating rituals might go some way to calming the storm.

Yes, online dating apps are partly to blame, but they merely replace the role traditionally played by gay cruising areas. Gay men have a habit of engaging in risky behaviour; they always have done. Mobile dating apps are just the next phrase in the trajectory of inevitably risky gay cruising habits.

If people used condoms, then we wouldn't be faced with these issues. They're given out for free on the gay scene, so there's no excuse.

If we are to fight rising levels of HIV infection, then the gay community has to abandon its inclinations towards risk and embrace safe sex. It isn't hard, but it's imperative if we are to combat the rising epidemic with which we are faced.

The imminent ascent of Rotheram

Image Source: Twitter

Written By: Scott Gunnion

To be frank, I am both surprised and slightly taken aback by the mock furore surrounding Steve Rotheram's latest campaign leaflet that takes aim at the Tories, as striking and glossy as it may be.

I've been left largely confused.

What did it say that hadn't already been said hundreds of times of before, and that is a conservative estimate?

Liverpool is anti-Tory to its core. Unapologetically so.

The leaflet was both visually striking and acutely (indeed effortlessly) tuned to the concerns of its target electorate.

If anything, the leaflet is flawed only in that it neglectfully restricts Merseyside's woes to the well-documented traumas of the 1980s and fails to acknowledge that Liverpool did not suddenly rise like a Phoenix to become a cultural and economic powerhouse under 13 years of Labour rule. Liverpool was no heir to Blair and remained stale and in decline under Brown.

The fact that the Conservatives routinely receive as little as 5-10% of the vote across the length and breadth of Liverpool is plainly indicative of the fact that they do not, have never, and can (probably) never hope to identify with the voters of the Liverpool city region.

The leaflet spoke to and delved deeply into Liverpool's deep anti-Tory sentiment.

It is and will no doubt be a vote-winner, not a loser, in what is reliable Labour territory. Will it increase turnout? No. But will it encourage those already inclined to vote? Yes. Of that, I am in no doubt.

The epic dominance of Labour in the Liverpool city region leaves a vacuum that needs to be filled. But it poses this question: how do you establish and define yourself against an enemy when your nearest rival is polling as little as 10% and fortune happens that you enjoy a monstrous majority exceeding 50%, even on a disappointing day?

Rotheram's leaflet is confident, albeit unremarkable, in most respects, completely unexceptional.

Nothing fresh, nothing new, but reassuring to the voters it seeks to appeal to in its frank familiarity.

It marks him out as a forceful leader with a deep understanding of his constituency's past and a towering, infinite zeal for the passion and ideas that will drive its future.

To the council members on the opposing side of this debate, I say: quit your bitching and quit your biting. Accept that new leadership is on the horizon and make a conscious effort to be part of the solution and not the problem. It is far easier to protest than it is to make a positive contribution. Distinction is found in devotion, not dissent.

The Corbyn Conundrum

Image Source: Twitter

Written By: Scott Gunnion

The uber-left wing of the Labour Party is enjoying its moment in the sun. And it has much to celebrate. Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader, not once but twice - and on the second occasion, with an increased share of the vote. He is the clear choice of party members and of a pious minority of Labour MPs.

Party members have twice had the opportunity to select the safe and reliable Andy Burnham, the more obvious and conventional candidate, and twice they have turned their noses up and said 'no thank you'. Even in 2010, they opted for Ed Miliband, the candidate deemed to be closest to the left of the party, against the favoured candidate David Miliband.

And so we find ourselves blessed or burdened - depending on your political inclination - with Jeremy Corbyn as leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. The consequences of this are significant. For the first time in my lifetime, there are clear, conflicting policy differences separating the two major parties. The comfortable centrist consensus synonymus with the Blair and Cameron eras no longer marries the Labour and Conservative parties to the political centre.

The culmination of increasingly divergent policy positions is one of deep and significant division.

Corbyn is obviously a deeply principled individual. He believes what he believes and he stands doggedly by those beliefs. That is something to be admired, irrespective of which side of the political divide you find yourself. He seems averse to compromise and doesn't yield to the pressure of constant criticism in the media and from the majority of his own MPs, many of whom refuse to serve in his shadow cabinet or acknowledge the legitimacy of his leadership.

Defiant of the established political order and against all expectations, he has seized control of the Labour party and steered it firmly to the left of the political spectrum. His instincts and ideology correspond closely with the politics of the 1980s and the trendy posturings and pious idealism befitting of the student union. In this respect, he is a relic of a bygone era, one largely forgotten and rendered irrelevant by the realignment of the Thatcher years. Those sympathetic to his leanings are largely extinct.

His ideological purity is unquestionable. He is an unreconstructed liberal. The singular heir of an uncelebrated era of thinking. It's fair to say he doesn't seem to have adapted or moderated his convictions since his days as a student.

The parliamentary Labour party is a disobedient beast. Opposition to Corbyn's leadership is brazen and a substantial number of MPs make no attempt to conceal their disapproval and open contempt.

Corbyn was a perpetual rebel during the Blair/Brown years and could be depended on to disobey the party line. The scale of his rebellion was immense by any measure. Now, the tables have turned. Corbyn now finds himself at the helm of a parliamentary party that is restless, disobedient, barren of restraints and beyond his control. His efforts to whip his MPs and establish party unity are futile and largely in vain. He lacks credibility.

Corbyn has used his leadership to revive the big debates of yesteryear, nuclear disarnament and nationalisation being prime examples. These issues, once pressing, have largely been addressed, rendered irrelevant over time and consigned to the history books.

There is an overwhelming sense that Jeremy Corbyn leads a largely lonely existence. His parliamentary party rejects him and holds him in contempt and refuses to serve in his shadow cabinet. They don't want to be tainted by association.

So what now for Jeremy Corbyn? If he can't inspire confidence in his immediate subordinates, then how can he hope to inspire the confidence of a skeptical electorate?

The onus is on Corbyn to display nothing other than constant, uncompromising competence from now until the next election and to develop credible policy positions on issues relevant to the electorate of today, not the electorate of a time gone by. He must learn to understand the issues important to voters and put aside the unresolved personal concerns that no longer inspire the passion of voters in the here and now.