Labour and the election

The Labour leadership has been autocratic and diplomatic, a set of principles difficult to apply and a reason for doubt and confidence in international policy. Is it a set of compromising positions for the public, or a reason for doubt that the party can win over non-believers? I suggest it is radical and presupposes the question of risk and undermines consensus. This does not mean it lacks political legitimacy despite claims that it is outside more liberal conceptions of right and wrong.

The Labour election is a poor test of political principle, nevertheless its partial application shows the kinds of real world outcomes a Labour government might get into. Jeremy Corbin dominated headlines and he can be a difficult political friend. The policy and history of Labour sheltered him from this publicity and the recent backdrop of a general election was a cliff face. There was economic decline and the social division over Europe, the EU and Russia raised important deficits.

The leadership has restraining frames on the history of Europe and the policies of irresponsibility in political methods. The restraint of global politics and comments about the USA showed how Labour lacked a safe hiding place on international issues. The power of the domestic agendas needs a platfom and ideology about change, the role of the state as new and the democracy as developing beyond first deductions.

Nevertheless for a radical agenda the policy had vitality, if not acceptance and the positions were democratic, not winner takes all. The sincerity of the politics is not in doubt, nor the realism. This is not the media show however and issues like the state require a following not a cliff fall. The purpose is growth and solutions, and the democracy is known beyond the elite. I suggest it was a brave attempt that simply is becoming a strategic nightmare.

The course of government

The trajectory of organisation is seldom rehearsed, it is a goal of resistance and democratic will. The ambition of leader and public is also a framework for organised threat and the transition in self-defence for powerful resources. The probability that democracy will undermine these methods is unlikely and the democratic system is obligated to denounce it.

The denomination of societal solutions is economic and political, a kind of goal led terrorism, we have just been through an election. The preparation for frameworks is a threat and the reaction social as well as economic. This position is reified by solitude and structure and the power of infrastructure changes its deductions. Terrorism is not a space, a symbol of destruction of the power of denigrating political gaols and isolation.

The course of government is knowledge based frames and the principle background. It must create disadvantages for caution and principles for targets. Government and reaction is mixed and backing the strength of the majority is a complex and directional threat. The risk is power and the public, the intention democracy and the reactive need to find links and frames to challenge.

The resistance to terrorism is knowledge solutions, like frameworks and denunciation. There will always be other ways and identity is organised. This leads to threat and risk. Terrorism charts this course and principle is an experience of many political threats. The danger is not resistance and the principle about threat.

The leaders of the two parties

The Conservative leader is famous for his actions in Iran and Russia, and Labour encourages belief in  the politics of Hamas. The social side is not in their agenda, the political threat to the beliefs of key enemies is. The Conservative worries about making the bridge for western interests and Corbyn is concerned with strengthening links in the South. Both appear oblivious to American interests in funding the rise of peaceful groups in these positions. Their frames are lit by organised growth and deduction on political alliances.

The predictions of political victory are in the frame, the social gain is economic and the public nervous of solitude in economic and educative ways. The interests n the election are low economic growth and social cohesion, this frames redistribution and education on political solutions that fail these tests. The violent edge of this position is growth and dependancy and independent political parties. The approach more of a sellout by the Conservatives.

The Labour narrowing of horizons is growth applicable and socially incremental. The  policy background economy sliding and political stunts a mainstream approach. The ideology less about challenging and more conservative on direction. The resell is about identity and power a must for rebels, structure is solitude and framework a threat to power. Both parties are therefore ready to start the election and legitimacy identifies a structure.

The risk is growth and defeat will alienate the political elite, and social limits weaken ties to the British retreat. Politics has a new discipline and growth is something outside these frames. I argue power lies in education on all these fronts and the contest is liberal recalculation. The dilemma is framed resistance and solitude rehabilitated. The two parties are hierachically .sensitive and the position is socially engineered.

The Russian entry

The power of the Russian threat is undermining confidence in Eastern Europe. Not the organisational issues, but the collapse of world structures and power differentials. The Russian origins were in transitional views pf living and social partnership. The British are more socially isolated and Europe more structurally anticipating change and renewal. This coordination of Russian opposition is based on political;l transition and power dissipation. The consequence is political ideology and social risk. Its is a framed view of the world based on collapse and frameworks. A sort of growth in political and social animosity.

This approach has become enmeshed in the European debate, the EU is too solid and too much unification has collapsed national identity and social resistance. The British withdrawal is not against Russia, but has learnt lessons in democracy and pluralism. The new challenge from the Johnson government is ideological breaks with Russia and a new stance on what it is in European membership  undermines the government. The Russian approach to Britain has been reinforcing to democratic values, and the growth of unity between the countries has not been matched by any other move.

The British approach has been to use caution and time to heal wounds.The east has been challenging British norms and hierarchies, which in Britain have an international outlook. The unity of east and west has been indicated as an issue by Donald Trump,  The mechanics of unification are of course not a public debate, the residue is found in views of east and west in anarchic assertion of growth. The debate has not reinforced integration, and the power has diffused attempts to persevere.

The Russian entry is therefore as an outsider, not in independent notions of sovereignty like assimilation. The position of identity has been situated in positions of perception, and politics has found Russia an ally in media success and framed solutions. The noise of Westminster has been absent in Brussels and this will be used.

The isolation of

The energy of Boris Johnson in competition is a social retreat from the main issues of British politics, the issue of restraint and coordination a mixture for the economic press and the framed issues of reorganisation. The political solutions goad social resentment and the front line positioning is philosophical. The punches are real and this has made Boris the Prime Minister. The economic lessons are underestimated and the technocrisation a political solution. The victory is a response against Boris and  the economic lessons hidden in structure. The power of the Conservative party is societal and the organisation a social matrix.

The phenomenon is social and restraining, a proposal of powerful leaders and framed denunciation on topics like the economy. The welfare is couched in denunciation and respect, and the framework a solution for growth and risk. The goal is neither to cajole or repress, a lesson in getting the issues out and the technology a political frame. The reserve is economic, but the denunciation a social . The knowledge an origin of previous decades and  the deduction a orthodox goal.

The  friendliness of the discussion a political hierarchy and a solution to the political vacume, the messages  are a tool of context and nationality. The position deducted a calculation of caution. Boris is respoding to needs and summarising the aim, the feeling is amiable and the tone is confrontational.   The instinct of the  parties is political and solutions require political backing, he needs to require subtlety from his opponent and good humour persists.  The restraint is solution based, and the politics  is in a frame and retreat is occupational.

The retreat of EU solitude

The solution of Brexit was never an identity for the United Kingdom, it was to undermine political values and social ideas. The solution was never plausible, the answer an abandonment of UK values and employment rigidities. Brexit is not a formula, solitude is, and the division is not possible. The climb back depends on business and the fall maybe through our association with Europe. I argue the politics is racist and the outcome not realistic. Solitude is never a deduction based on trade or solving risk. The power of the state is likely to bring. a decline of subjectivity in solutions based on organisation.

The advance of solutions relies on plurality in the economy end, and social identity on the political. The deduction of economic solvency is never political and the framework is social and competitive. The political allegiance is a forward step in social isolation and the retreat is a basic formula of response. The power of groups to dictate change depended on their relationship to the state, which employs pluralism as a tool, I argue political identity is solved by allegiance, and loyalty is isolationary.

The European Union is plural in its structure and state origins. Leaving is easy, planning much more difficult. The EU is divided on its membership list, new states not old ones dictate loyalties. Solitude also has military risks. Political fratricide is likely in the lone state. Careers in writing and finance are posing issues about acceptance.

The foreign enemies also have a problem, changing coordination and calculation may upset their enemies. The target is political and institutional and the result organised. Recent events in ideological change suggest the consequences are social. The economic calculation is social too,  and decline has featherbedded certain announcements in that area. Solitude is plural and egalitarian, and a social and structural bias.

The identity of Saudi Arabia

The politics of an assassination has dual aims, the purpose of the attempt and the denial it was for the wrong reasons. The position over Khashoggi is real, its method international diplomacy and its denial a role reversal of America and the USSR. No-one is saying anything in Moscow and politics is to distance reality from the occasion. America is undermining faith in resolution of the conflict and Saudi admits logical steps to its guilt. Justice is against it, circumstantial evidence is logical in a reasoned way.

The position of Turkey where the event took place is clearly strong, but like all assassinations the evidence will betray. It comes from the backers of Saudi Arabia and regional partners bear its authenticity. The position is dual, Turkey has. a role in facilitating the death, the body removal and the accusation. The position is duplicitous and the politics is goal driven. The power about the rehabilitation of a. President and the conclusion murder.

Both parties have had a week to consider the script. President and Russia are getting along and positions have been laid on this issue. The threat is of more conflict, why has none arisen. Saudi has an interest, as does Turkey the neighbour. The politics is goal driven on exports and resistance to national enemies. I solve this analogy with a dual conclusion, who gains and who gets away with it. Saudi looses unless other backers have worse to offer it in retrospect.

The power matrix is biased toward targets, and solves the division of authority on social grounds. The political reason is economic and framework is political. The superpowers are easily mistaken as culprits. The position is frameworks based on prediction, one is the King, his recent tenure and the nature of the threat. Another the Turkish President and his reliance on Russia. The superpowers have let bias slip into the equation.

The politics is therefore nothing to do with culprits, the individuals part of a larger frame of social and economic motives. The social is reason and analysis and the economic inferential and supportive. I ask who could have done this, and who had reason to command it, quite different acts. The systems have been held up a  as blame game based on roulette and the purpose a social intention based on position.  I suggest the evidence is social and the principle is evaluative. The identity a sort of risk matrix and the prediction a win.