• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Emily Thornberry. Perfect Example of labour

"Despised white van man." Typical right wing tabloid clichéd nonsense from Cartoon Clive....the man with the sneer and offensive childish insult for virtually every occasion.
 
Last edited:
i'll have to be honest here...the White Van man thing has completely eluded me..at first i didn't see a relevance. It seems to me to be a the sort of stereotype that if aimed at a minority group would surely have some people shouting racism would have thought

my only thought was back in the day you could buy cheap goods off a man out of back of a van...a bit like a Del boy thing..i didn't realise it was such a strong stereotype until today.
 
How many posts is that now on this thread where you have said absolutely nothing?

So slow to pick up the subject that you cannot even see that that was precisely what the shadow cabinets ministers tweet was conveying.

Her excuse waa priceless too
 
Last edited:
aye..i googled it...seems an odd stereotype to me.. its based on very little..a stereotype shouldn't need explaining it should be obvious..to be a proper one:) ...maybe its just me
 
clivex said:
How many posts is that now on this thread where you have said absolutely nothing?

So slow to pick up the subject that you cannot even see that that was precisely what the shadow cabinets ministers tweet was conveying.

Her excuse waa priceless too
Click to expand...

Better to say nothing than post childish and silly comments? I wouldn`t have much objection if you had confined your comments to the person responsible but you didn`t...you tried to tar all Labour with the same brush. Rather silly, methinks!
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
I wouldnt disagree EC but do tories look down on self employed "white van" men? Thatcher certainly didnt...
Click to expand...

It's a bit too simplistic Clive, but not sure I'm going to get the time to tell you why, but is was closer to a Faustian pact based around the arithematic of the electorate which in the case of the UK has to come with a geographic dynamic to convert it

The Tories most definitely do look down on the petit bourgeois (privately) but publicly they have to pretend that they regard them as something else. Labour do exactly the same as Thornbury has demonstrated. Society equally does the same, as do the media. The Tories require alot of aspirants to buy into the badge but for the most part their real constituent interest lies in big business of finance. Even major industrialists will come a poor second

I'm reminded of an Alan Clark quote (hiow he got away with it heaven knows) but he was accused of being a fascist which he took great exception to

"Fascists are shopkeepers" he explained "I'm more of a nazi"

Mind you, it says much about the time and the Prime Minister he served that he wasn't required to resign for that one
 
Well maybe that would have been fairer but the point is the public wont see it that way. That's the issue.

Blair was very adept at reaching out to voters beyond the usual constituency. In fact he was a top class strategist. Labour seems a million miles away from that now. Its not just Millibands image thats askew but the fact that he never ever seems to reach out to aspiration. I dont think he gets it at all.
 
Warbler said:
It's a bit too simplistic Clive, but not sure I'm going to get the time to tell you why, but is was closer to a Faustian pact based around the arithematic of the electorate which in the case of the UK has to come with a geographic dynamic to convert it

The Tories most definitely do look down on the petit bourgeois (privately) but publicly they have to pretend that they regard them as something else. Labour do exactly the same as Thornbury has demonstrated. Society equally does the same, as do the media. The Tories require alot of aspirants to buy into the badge but for the most part their real constituent interest lies in big business of finance. Even major industrialists will come a poor second

I'm reminded of an Alan Clark quote (hiow he got away with it heaven knows) but he was accused of being a fascist which he took great exception to

"Fascists are shopkeepers" he explained "I'm more of a nazi"

Mind you, it says much about the time and the Prime Minister he served that he wasn't required to resign for that one
Click to expand...

And thats way too simplistic

Tories that mattered, is thatcher Major Heath, all came from that background. They did not look down. quite the opposite

Alan Clark was ultimately a nobody. And a cnt too

he Tories require alot of aspirants to buy into the badge but for the most part their real constituent interest lies in big business of finance.

what?For a start they have that vote pretty well sown up and beyond that it is hardly a huge number of voters and even then spread across relatively few consituencies

Of course the so called "petit bourgoiuse" (very old fashioned label) is far more numerous and far more influential in electoral terms

But finance is an industry too. its by far our biggest earner and by far biggest tax contributor. It is the one major industry we are absolute world leaders in. Of course it has to be a factor. The other myth is that somehow "finance" runs these parties and its all one big conspiracy. its bollocks frankly.
 
Last edited:
That's very, simplistic Clive.

Electioneering is only part of it. That's the temporary bit when you have to "manage them" (Thatchers words) every 4 or 5 years. The bit in between is when you see who really matters to them. You govern to them, not for them. You do the minimum necessary to keep them onside whislt the elite rob the rest blind. In this case it isn't confined to the vote therefore, but a more complicated trade off of which voting is one factor. That's the bit the politician needs ultimately to sustain their model, but it doesn't follow that they govern for that constituent. Actually, the more I look at the way the nazis and the conservatives are structured with a thick seam of class consciousness running through the leadership the more similarities I see. The nazi leadeship had quite a few aristocrats in it (had quite a few from lower stock too) but they ultimately needed the numbers on the streets to sustain their popularity and that means reaching out to them some how. It doesn't mean that these people were the party though. What they becoem is a temporary and slightly uncomfortable allie in your pursuit of another agenda. Hitler whipped race hate and nationalism. Thatcher played into greed and found a natural allie (all the little Sids) she was pursuing a totally different end game agenda, which temporarily at least, suited them and allowed them to buy into her model.

And please stop peddling this myth that Thatcher was a humble greengroucers daughter. Alderman Roberts was hardly your cornershop merchant
 
Ok. Which tory leaders have been aristos in recent times?

We will go back to Douglas Hume and finish with cameron. Both are from your so called elite

Heath No way
Thatcher No way
Major You must be joking
IDS God knows what he was
Howard welsh FFS
Hague No way

six out of the last seven were certainly not aristos in any sense of the word. Even if we are talkig public school (let alone top public schools) that rules out Thatcher Major and Heath just from memory. Hague too i think
 
Last edited:
And chancellors since that time. We have Osbourne now

but

Macleod
Major (again)
Clarke
Barber
Lamont
Howe
lawson

You would struggle to call any of those aristocratic. at least three were grammar school boys for a start
 
Again, you're making the mistake of thinking the leader actually leads the party. They're puppets for the most part (all parties are, particularly those that rely donations) and Thatcher was little different, she was a particularly pliable puppet in the hands of big business and also military interests in her particular case. It's only in the later couple of years of her premiership when she tried to make more of her own decisions that the decision was taken to remove the mad mongoose until then she'd been putty in the hands of others and certainly in her early years when she was being run by the likes of Keith Joseph in the knowledge that he himself was unelectable
 
Warbler said:
Again, you're making the mistake of thinking the leader actually leads the party. They're puppets for the most part (all parties are, particularly those that rely donations) and Thatcher was little different, she was a particularly pliable puppet in the hands of big business and also military interests in her particular case. It's only in the later couple of years of her premiership when she tried to make more of her own decisions that the decision was taken to remove the mad mongoose until then she'd been putty in the hands of others and certainly in her early years when she was being run by the likes of Keith Joseph in the knowledge that he himself was unelectable
Click to expand...

Yes. These unseen puppetmasters. One minute its the aristos , then the banks and now the donors.

Aside from that doesnt it evet occur to you that an economy growing right across the board is what benefits bankers the most? and donors?
 
Does anyone know how the guy above actually voted?

Once again on the 'Daily Politics' there were no believable answers, especially from the Labour spokeswoman.

When asked about the resignation and the photo, her remark was 'I don't know why/what the photo was meant to mean. So, Labour sacked a frontbencher for unknown reasons. PLONKERS or what (and I have always been drawn to Labour as first choice).
MR2
 
Of course it is. It's a whole malange of interwoven mutual interests that come together in a confluence of convenience and rely on leading the electorate, its hardly an original insight. Whole books have been written on the subject, and I'm not about to start writing another one for your benefit. It isn't of course restricted to a single country either

I remember sitting in Oxford pubs (a one time hobby of mine) and you'd certainly hear the occasional conversation amongst under graduates carving up jobs for themselves. One of my favoutires was "Oh you can't be serious, he's just political fodder". The context was that they were going to be bankers (the higher rung) the middle strata were the future permanent secretary's who could keep an eye managing the environment) and the lowest with the least talent for whom they had no discernable use would become politicians

Do government's grow the economy incidentally? Strange that one isn't it?. When we're in recession its the global economy that's responsible (the Euro crisis etc) as that is the engine of economic growth in our joined up international world, yet when GDP picks up it's nothing to do with globalisation, suddenly it becomes the responsibility of the government's policies. I note incidentally that Osborne and Cameron are preparing the ground early for the next recession. Doubtless that will we be down to market led issues outside their control, yet when the next the cycle turns favourably it'll be they that did it guv.

The whole thing is a charade and con
 
Go on I'll start (organisers feel free to delete if unacceptable):

'Emily only took a photo for confirmation after I told her she had a bigger a*se than the back of my van'

MR2
 
Warbler said:
Of course it is. It's a whole malange of interwoven mutual interests that come together in a confluence of convenience and rely on leading the electorate, its hardly an original insight. Whole books have been written on the subject, and I'm not about to start writing another one for your benefit. It isn't of course restricted to a single country either

I remember sitting in Oxford pubs (a one time hobby of mine) and you'd certainly hear the occasional conversation amongst under graduates carving up jobs for themselves. One of my favoutires was "Oh you can't be serious, he's just political fodder". The context was that they were going to be bankers (the higher rung) the middle strata were the future permanent secretary's who could keep an eye managing the environment) and the lowest with the least talent for whom they had no discernable use would become politicians

Do government's grow the economy incidentally? Strange that one isn't it?. When we're in recession its the global economy that's responsible (the Euro crisis etc) as that is the engine of economic growth in our joined up international world, yet when GDP picks up it's nothing to do with globalisation, suddenly it becomes the responsibility of the government's policies. I note incidentally that Osborne and Cameron are preparing the ground early for the next recession. Doubtless that will we be down to market led issues outside their control, yet when the next the cycle turns favourably it'll be they that did it guv.

The whole thing is a charade and con
Click to expand...

of course government policy influences the economy. How can it not?

its clearly not a case of whether it grows or not but by how much, either way. And it's long term too. Infrastructure, rule of law, culture, freedom of markets.... All big factors in economic success


and deciding not to join the euro. Isn't the euro the perfect example of how politicians can completely wreck economies? Of course it was cross party consensus in one state that did seem to understand economics that saved us from that farce.
 
Last edited:
montyracing2 said:
Go on I'll start (organisers feel free to delete if unacceptable):

'Emily only took a photo for confirmation after I told her she had a bigger a*se than the back of my van'

MR2
Click to expand...


nice one...

(Not what some were hoping for I suspect)
 
clivex said:
I would doubt that many labour votes tactically switched. I would suspect that a good few labour voters who voted UKIP feel they made the right decision after that tweet
Click to expand...

It looks like one of the easier votes to explain on simple extrapolation

In 2010 the total votes cast was 47,431. In 2014 it was 40,065, a decline of 7,416

In 2010 the Liberals polled 7800 and yesterday they polled 349. Their vote fell by a remarkably similar number, 7451. Just 35 in it. The liberal vote simply stayed at home. Mixed news for the Cameron party. Clearly the spirit of coalition doesn't extend to Rochester and Strood, but then Labout isn't picking the disaffected liberal either. They're abstaining.

UKIP however have found 16,867 votes from somewhere.

Well if we say that they aren't liberal, and the lower turnout would lead us into believing they aren't new voters, logic says they've come from the other two parties.

Conservative vote fell by 9,657 (or 14%)
Labours vote fell by 6,938 (or 11%)

add them together and we get 16,595 which is pretty damn close to UKIP's polling figure of 16,867 (272 difference) albeit we've got English Democrats clouding the issue slightly from 2010

Now we're guessing

If these are Labour voters turning to UKIP then Miliband has a problem. But this was never a Labour seat even if they held it once on the old boundaries and might have entertained some narrow hope in a classic squeeze. If these were Labour voters turning to UKIP tactically though, then Cameron's got the problem.

Cameron is going to lose more votes to his sister party than Labour (as he did here). There is still too much that's incompatiable with UKIP for Labour voters to make that transfer philosophically. They might pick up the working class immigation vote, but that's about the only common ground they'll appeal to. The Tories have a bigger rump of nationalist voters anyway, not to mention that they'll be more plugged into a lot of UKIP's other policies. As these get examined under a proper campaign the more Labour voters will withdraw from UKIP. Will the Tories though? Less so I'd have said

Something tells me we haven't heard the last of the tactical vote, becuase this is the critical issue, the Tories will certainly have no qualms about using it themselves. The pyscology of the tactical vote is different. The Tories will be more disposed towards voting for UKIP to unseat Labour MP's (possibly something we recently saw with a near miss in Chorley) but Labour voters will be more preapred to do it if they can convince themselves that its a duty to beat the Tories. They'll only do it though if they can see that the Tories are beatable in southern England to this tactic, and that requires Tories (as they have at Clacton and Rochester) to put some fuel into the UKIP boliers

Those who end up on the high mile ground might be the liberals yet when they throw George Osbornes AV literarture back at him which pointed out that FPTP wouldn't let this sort of thing happen. We could easily end up with AV yet
 
These threads are so depressing. Are we not getting to the stage where people are getting the message that we don't really need politicians and Government the way we used to. Fifty years down the line will people still be having the same discussions about Labour/Tories? It all seems so redundant to me.
 
That's a bit of paralysis by analysis. Too much accounting and not enough big picture. Ukip will not win by election levels of voting at the general election because voters think very differently on the big day. That has always been the case.

There is no point in looking at by election stats with a view to the general election.

What you can determine is whether parties did as well as they could have expected under these special circumstances. Some would argue that in fact none of them did. Even ukip. Lib vote is catastrophic but labour have to worry. They are so disconected from the south (and maybe midlands) now that they risk losing this constituency for a very long time.

the tweet was of course the perfect illustration of the attitude of many in that party.
 
Last edited:

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top