Emily Thornberry. Perfect Example of labour

You really are a prat arent you.

whats silly about it? Its a big news story and labour candidates have slammed it.Not that it will make much difference

even the guardian said "Emily Thornberry's tweet may be the most devastating message Labour has managed to deliver in the past four years.'

and given your inability to read, i have criticised whelan too for his comment, which came after my first post

idiot and as ever, complete timewaster.
 
Last edited:
Now, now Mr Angry:D....nothing silly about the story just your "tarring" all Labour with the same brush. Perhaps you meant to say "some" Labour supporters? Stands back and awaits the inevitable sneering and insulting response:rolleyes:...
 
Can't help thinking she looks like a younger Hyacinth Bucket ............ and has a similar attitude to the snobbish Hyacinth, also. (But that's probably a generalisation as well). :whistle:

Anyway, along with Labour, I reckon the Lib Dems were the big losers in Rochester -- losing their deposit. Again. Surely they are on the verge of extinction?
 
Desperate Dan said:
Now, now Mr Angry:D....nothing silly about the story just your "tarring" all Labour with the same brush. Perhaps you meant to say "some" Labour supporters? Stands back and awaits the inevitable sneering and insulting response:rolleyes:...
Click to expand...

Backtracking badly now that you have had to have finally understood the story?

But does it really need pointing out that it doesn't have to be all labour candidates? The image sticks and that's the problem isn't it? And regardless of that it is a general perception amongst voters that is reinforced.

the real sneer is perhaps not at working class (whatever that is these days) but the despised white van man. Those that dare to work hard for themselves.
 
Last edited:
icebreaker said:
Can't help thinking she looks like a younger Hyacinth Bucket ............ and has a similar attitude to the snobbish Hyacinth, also. (But that's probably a generalisation as well). :whistle:

Anyway, along with Labour, I reckon the Lib Dems were the big losers in Rochester -- losing their deposit. Again. Surely they are on the verge of extinction?
Click to expand...

No. Even in the past they have always had a core of seats with strong personal votes. Such as mine right now.
 
Colin. I keep my vote to myself :)

Vincent cable is local mp. He will be fine. Aside from his high profile he is actually a good local mp (his predesessor was awful).

Its interesting in my area. Used to be totally liberal council (every seat at one point) and Tory mp. Both were shocking performers (over time) and now Tory council (who are pretty switched on) and liberal mp.
 
clivex said:
No. Even in the past they have always had a core of seats with strong personal votes. Such as mine right now.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
TBH, I thought the verbal gaffe by that LidDem guy was on a par with Thornberry's one for sheer unthinking-ness. The guy who on the same day as the Rochester by-election labelled anyone complaining about the extra £750 million in foreign aid as a "little englander"
 
icebreaker said:
Anyway, along with Labour, I reckon the Lib Dems were the big losers in Rochester -- losing their deposit. Again. Surely they are on the verge of extinction?
Click to expand...

I think you're going to be very hard pushed to suggest the Tories were winners? But I look forward to hearing the rationale - please, I'm curious

Any clear minded person can see three losers and one winner
 
Yes but he wasn't relevant and an image sticks. It is hugely damaging because it reinforces perceptions and it will be repeatedly be referred to up until the election

Im sure you can see why this is true (even if the other posters, who have never pulled up trees, could not)

even the guardian said "Emily Thornberry's tweet may be the most devastating message Labour has managed to deliver in the past four years.'
 
Tories broke even IMO. Reckless obviously would have taken across a large personal vote. Labours vote halved from 2010.

Labour did appallingly given that they are supposed to be the serious party of opposition. No question. Liberal dem vote is extraordinarily low
 
Last edited:
What am I backtracking from? Just trying to guide you to see how see how silly your original post was.Perhaps you should engage your brain and think a little before posting such childish comments. You are in danger of becoming Cartoon Clive...a caricature of yourself.
 
Why do you post? All you come out with is drivel. I cannot recall you having one opinion on anything anywhere at any time that is of any interest whatsoever.

Perhaps the news reporting is "childish " too? millibands reaction too?

I think you would be better off thinking about the balls up that your precious party has made and their bad showing last night and commenting on that. Not that anyone is holding their breath
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
I think you're going to be very hard pushed to suggest the Tories were winners? But I look forward to hearing the rationale - please, I'm curious

Any clear minded person can see three losers and one winner
Click to expand...
Never my intention to suggest that Tories were "winners" in this election. (merely when posting, was considering the comparative performance of the three losers -- hence the descriptor "big losers" given to the LibDems). I'm clear-minded enough to understand that in a first-past-the-post race that there can only be one winner.
But, realistically, now that you draw it up, the Tories 35% of the poll wasn't too shabby at all considering all the circumstances, was it? Beaten by a majority of ~ 2,800 votes isn't an absolute thrashing. As Clive says above, Labour's performance was worse. But with 349 votes surely the LibDem's result makes them the biggest loser, no?


From this far remove where I live, I venture to suggest that the Kippers are becoming an unstoppable force. There seems only one game in town at the moment, and it's owned by Ukip.
 
clivex said:
Yes but he wasn't relevant and an image sticks. It is hugely damaging because it reinforces perceptions and it will be repeatedly be referred to up until the election.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's true indeed.
The one thing that is in my mind, tho', is will the public perception of the house-owner with the flags change? When they see photo of the guy himself -- will they begin to wonder if he is a real patriotic fella in the American style of flying a Stars 'n Stripes on the porch, or do the St George Cross flags draped on his house indicate some other agenda ( if you know what I mean).
 
No, the Tories said they'd make a stand at Rochster, and "throw the kitchen sink at it". They ran a nasty personal campaign against Reckless (deservedly imo) and even resorted to desperate tactics of telling people how much a UKIP vote would damage the price of their house.

You could argue Labour need to be competitive in these types of seats to win an election. I think there's truth in that, but if Labour need to be competitive, then the Tories need to be thinking in terms of the size of their majority, not whether they can even win it and what level of defeat constitutes an accpetable level of performance.

The inponderable is how many of Labour's vote switched into tacticals for UKIP? We don't know. We've always known that tactical votes could be used in our system, but we've only ever seen it happen in by elections or specific high profile seats. The scene is set fair however for such a move nationwide in this better connected world

I live in a marginal and despite having taken to spoiling papers at the risible choice this country offers for about 10 years now, I'm considering voting positively for the first time in ages (don't see why I should be forced into endorsing any of them though). I'd rather vote against a party and have a vote wiped off one

I think you'd get a much better reflection of what people think then, even if it means politicians winning with minus figures!!
 
Last edited:
I would disagree with last bit Ice. Look at many past by elections. They have a momentum of their own. Voters retrench to parties that can actually govern at the general election. I think they are still a rag bag and very open to attack. Their link up with that Polish party (which even the French Front national recolied from ) is a case in point. I suspect they will do a lot worse at the general election than expected
 
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 2357987E00000578-2842783-image-3_1416523330650.jpg
    2357987E00000578-2842783-image-3_1416523330650.jpg
    71.4 KB · Views: 30
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
 
clivex said:
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ster-byelection-ukip-tories#start-of-comments

Fantastic.

the only down side is that it's all power to ukip. But aside from rotherham, what could be a better example of the contempt labour have for the white working class.

As they say

No snob like a (small l) liberal snob
Click to expand...


To be fair its not reflecting every Labour MP's view is it? Thats like saying that because some MP's fiddled their expenses then it reflects what all MP's are like. You are falling for the spoon fed nonsense you usually don't like..but because it suits your argument you will use it as a stick to beat Labour...they don't need beating Clive..everyone knows they don't represent working people any more. Its like you suddenly found something really surprising here.

It reflects one person's view..and to be fair..any person looking at it also has to make some assumptions as to what she is meaning. My take is she doesn't think much to UKIP voters who she clearly sees represented in the image. Someone else will just think she is a snobby person who looks down on people she judges by image without even knowing the people involved.

I don't need an image like that to tell me that the Labour party stopped being of interest to people like me..my interest in the Labour party ended with Blair...and when they changed to New Labour they should actually have completely changed the name because New Labour has nothing to do with the traditional Labour Party. This woman comes across as a typical Tory to me with the "looking down" attitude...which is exactly why the tories and labour look so similar these days..i don't really know why they don't just merge into one.

To me UKIP supporters are hopefully voting for them to shake the two parties up..i really hope so because if anyone seriously thinks they are some kind of representatives of working people then we really do have a lot of extremely thick people in this country.

If people will vote for a turncoat like Reckless..then i pity them tbh...to me thats the story here..people voting for him...other parties are in a real mess if a muppet like this can beat them..a real mess..never mind some daft picture fodder for the masses to get all hot under the collar about.

The Lib dems totally bombed..like i said before..Clegg will be going same way..but still people think he has a safe seat..there is no such thing whilst you have folk voting for this shower of charlatans.
 
Last edited:
I wouldnt disagree EC but do tories look down on self employed "white van" men? Thatcher certainly didnt...

Labour is seen as the party of the islington dinner parties, celtic fringe and public sector as much as anything else, all of whom would sneer at a tradesman with a st georges flag. The gap is massive.
 
I have had that feeling about Labour for 20 years Clive..its what turned me off them years ago...they are clinging on to a faint hope now that labour followers will cling on to the past..their big problem now is that some older Labour supporters will still vote for them..oh i've always voted Labour..all family have through the years...but the newer younger set of voters have not got that allegiance to old Labour that someone my age might have

they have been changing through the years..shittin on their traditional supporters and expecting them to keep voting nilly willy..well..a lot of the old guard voters have passed away now...and a lot of the younger voters have no allegiance to them...so they now judge them on what they are doing now...and if i had no history of Labour and was looking them up as a young person now..i wouldn't be liking what i see.

that picture though..isn't that relevant imo..Labour have done a lot worse than that through the years as a party to turn people off.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top