The election 2015

Prescott is going to present top gear ;)

This lot has gone way over my head ( I know that won't surprise any of you) I don't pretend to know the slightest thing about politics - but what I don't get is why Harriet Harman isn't there, how can she be acting leader or whatever they call it, yet not want to put herself forward for it properly? Is she standing down completely soon or has she been abducted by aliens or something?
 
Last edited:
She was abducted by aliens years ago. Sadly the Labour government (for reasons I've never understood) paid the inter galatic ransom, which is what brought about the current account deficit. Before you get too smug though, have you seen Teresa May recently? No. There you are. Think about it.
 
Maybe it's Teresa may I meant - whoever the woman is who is meant to be in charge of them at the moment.
Slytheen in Parliament isn't so far fetched.....
 
Burnham is dreadful. last week he says that Corbyn will split the labour party (true) and this week says he would be welcome on his team and praises his vision (what ??? )

Hes not up to up it all.

They are now going to hide the number of mps who vote for each leader. No surprise there. A bit embarrasing to find a leader with just Flabbot and Denis W*nker as support in the house
 
Burnham said Corbyn could split the party if he was elected as leader. Bit of a difference between being one of a team and being the leader of the party. FWIW, my choice would be Cooper.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. It depends of course what role he had but if he was as divisive in the plp as most suspect, he would be an issue. Foreign Secretary? Chancellor? home secretary?

No one rushed to give Livingstone a role did they?
.
 
You say "nonsense" and then "it depends...what role." Aren`t you, effectively, agreeing with me in that there is a great deal of difference in being the leader of the party than, perhaps, being a minor member of the team? Stands back and awaits the inevitable tirade of juvenile abuse:D.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty obvious that Burnham is saying Corbyn would split the party if he (Corbyn) were leader, whereas if I (Burnham) were leader he wouldn't, precisely because its a completely different scenario. He is of course also suggesting at the same time that only he can therefore bring the factions together etc because Corbyn would split it, and because the Cooper/ Kendall option would refuse to work with the Corbyn faction, so vote for me (Burnham)

The idea of bringing opposing factions with whom you don't agree into a government is nothing new. Lyndon Baines Johnson talked about having people inside the tent pissing out, rather than outside pissing in, and the Tsarina of Finchley herself appointed 4 or 5 "wets" in her first cabinet even though she disagreed with them but realised she needed to build a semblance of unity before she could go mad. John Major appointed 3 "bastards" in order to appease a faction too, even though he would happliy they not have been there, and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that David Cameron really wanted the Liberals as partners of choice in a coalition (even if you might be able to argue he'd prefer to deal with Nick Clegg than his own UKIP tendancy). What might interesting there of course is how Corbyn would steer Labour party policy on Europe (that could be hysterical)

The question should be (and no one has really sought to ask it in any depth) is would Corbyn serve under a leadership where he'll be out voted at Cabinet? I wouldn't assume he would
 
The idea of Corbyn in a Shadow Cabinet is just about believable. There's no way any sane elected Labour PM would ever have Corbyn in a real cabinet that did real things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I agree les. No experience to offer and frankly you don't have to have every tiny faction in the cabinet at all. corbyn represents very very few MPs and if burham wants someone from the left he should looking at a forward thinker such as crudas. Not a token
 
Although, to be fair, Blair did have Frank Field in govt (junior minister), with the remit to think the unthinkable on welfare. He did just that - and was then sacked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Yes but field is an entirely different animal to corbyn. He was stupid enough to nominate him but has made clear he agrees with little that he says.
 
A friend sent me this article which makes some good points in my opinion.



Corbyn stands out among Blairite cardboard cutouts
BRIAN FEENEY WEDNESDAY COLUMN KC NEWS

Jeremy Corbyn is speaking at the west Belfast Féile tonight. It’s a safe bet that his presence will attract a lot more attention than expected when he was first booked to participate in the ‘West Belfast Talks Back’ session.Then he was billed as, ‘veteran old Labour socialist and trade unionist’. Now he’s ‘Labour leadership candidate’ or, more accurately, the Labour leadership favourite. Good publicity for both the Féile and for Corbyn.
Corbyn has been packing venues all over England ever since he was nominated as a last-minute candidate because he couldn’t muster enough MPs’ votes to get on the slate. He only made it after some MPs decided it would be better to have a wider contest than just competing Blairite clones. How they must be kicking themselves.
Corbyn is a supremely decent guy. He’s only coming to Belfast because he promised he would before he realised how much in demand he is. There are no votes for him here.
Last night he was in Croydon. Tomorrow he’s back in London, then Norwich. The only question is whether the venues his supporters have booked are big enough to hold the crowds. Corbyn’s popularity has provoked blind terror in the Labour party. The other candidates are running around like headless chickens.
How has it happened? There are at least two reasons. The first and most obvious is that after an election defeat the Labour party always divides into those who believe they lost because they were too left wing and those who believe it was because they weren’t left wing enough. The big trade unions fall into that category, which explains why they have all endorsed Corbyn.
The second reason is much more complicated. There’s a mighty backlash among party members against Blairism. Not only because of the social and economic policies Blair and his acolytes pursued in government and still do but because the Blairites have abused the Labour party as their personal possession.
They used to say that in some constituencies they didn’t count Labour votes, they weighed them: places such as south Wales, Glasgow, Tyne Tees, Liverpool. For the past 20 years or so the Blairite leadership took advantage of those places’ unthinking tribal support for Labour and parachuted in ‘professional’ politicians and policy wonks, people who had no connection with the districts they represented.
Ed Miliband himself is a good example. A north London intellectual and politics geek he is MP for Doncaster. What was Peter Mandelson doing being MP for Hartlepool?
Most of this political class never had a job outside politics moving seamlessly from Oxbridge to party policy work, to special adviser then MP. The latest development has been for the children of Blairites – the ‘red princes’ – to win nomination for ‘safe seats’ which this time turned out to be not so safe. Neil Kinnock’s son won Aberavon but the sons of Jack Straw and John Prescott and daughter of Hilary Benn all failed to get elected in May.
Peter Hain, who conducted a review of the party’s strategy, concluded Labour was disconnected from its electorate. He said what was happening with people like the ‘red princes’ winning selection was that the “political class was now reproducing itself”.
Support for Corbyn is a rebellion against this political class that dominates Labour. The party’s MPs are not like the people who vote in the constituencies they represent. They don’t look like them or speak like them and they need local guides to find their way round the constituency.
Furthermore they are robotic, formulaic, colourless. None of the three Blairite candidates displays a personality let alone any charisma. They act like Stepford Wives. Andy Burnham, described on Mumsnet as ‘an underwhelming career politician’, had to deny that he uses mascara and dyes his hair. No-one can remember a word he says or knows what his policies are but they know what he looks like.
In contrast Jeremy Corbyn looks like a normal human being. ‘Authentic’ is the word supporters use to describe him. ‘Plastic’ is the best word for his opponents.
One conclusion is certain. If the Labour party is afraid Jeremy Corbyn will make them unelectable, choosing cardboard cut-outs like Burnham or Yvette Cooper will guarantee a decade in the wilderness.
 
labour "grassroots" are always more left in general but certainly not exclusively, but so are conservatives rightwimg. So what? They are a small proportion of those that matter. Voters

The last line is totally wrong. Same was said about john major for instance . Voters rarely want idealogues.only thatcher I last fifty years would fit that bill to any extent at all

its condescending and insulting rubbish to state that cooper (who is smart) for isntance would not have the ability to win an election.
 
Last edited:
There is a good piece in the times today by Dominic Lawson that given corbyns reflex anti west instincts over security ( I also see he liaises with Argentina over the flaklands w) and past ( as well as probably current ) support for terrorism against british subjects then there is a major problem going forward.

A ,lott of security information and certain military matters have to be shared with the leader of the opposition but clearly that Is now impossible

what if there was due to be military action to defend the Falklands or security to defend a Hezbollah attack in a uk synagogue (as they did in Argentina, coincidentally) ?

i have no doubt that it will not be an issue because Cameron will be well aware of the risks but it would come to something that a leader could not be trusted.

Meeting good jewish business contact for lunch tomorrow. hes well versed and liberal in views. I'm sure he will have plenty to say.

Who knows? In six or so years time such meetings might not be allowed to take place
 
Last edited:
labour "grassroots" are always more left in general but certainly not exclusively, but so are conservatives rightwimg. So what? They are a small proportion of those that matter. Voters

The last line is totally wrong. Same was said about john major for instance . Voters rarely want idealogues.only thatcher I last fifty years would fit that bill to any extent at all

its condescending and insulting rubbish to state that cooper (who is smart) for isntance would not have the ability to win an election.

The current group of Labour MPs come across as robots. Every single thing they say and do appears to have been programmed. The effect is eerie, a bit like trying to have a conversation with a Speak Your Weight machine. You're never going to find the real person. It's not because they lack ability; most of them are very bright, went to the best schools and universities and got good degrees. If anything they're too good and too polished at what they do.

John Major was a wooden speaker and was not exactly bursting with charisma but he was his own person. Nobody would say he put his whole energy into only saying what pollsters said people wanted to hear.
 
Agree in many ways grey. Trained to be politicians. Major had a highly unusual background too and was well liked. Oddly enough im in oval pavillion typing this and hes almost certainly here too
 
Always helps when you're in politics with firm convictions.

Cameron became and MP and soon after decided he wanted to tear Labour apart, win power and impose his austerity agenda.

Although older than Cameron, and someone who has been an MP for a long time, Corbyn has his own convictions and that does shine through.

Burnham, Cooper, and even the Hunt's and Chuka's of the world's problem is, their convictions and political beliefs don't shine enough.

Look at Farage, even someone like the former and present leaders of the Green party...they're making inroads because people like what they're saying and understand where their convictions come from.

Being in the grey areas of politics doesn't win votes nowadays, just look at Nick Clegg.

I'll personally just be interested to know how long the public continue to back austerity agenda's under Cameron.

I supported it in 2010 and I was involved in local politics myself around that time, but I won't be backing it in 2020.

The alternative to austerity seems to be to back Corbyn, which supports my earlier point, politics is fragmenting off into the extremes again.
 
Last edited:
Dead right archie. Votera go for competence over conviction any time. It also annoys me greatly that conviction can be only seen as the extremes. Its a naive view
 
You mean like Maggie Thatcher and Adolf Hitler, Arch? :)

My point was, whether its an extreme conviction or not Clivex, to have a conviction is better than to not have one conviction at all.

Granted though, Cameron and even more so Osbourne has brought conviction politics to new levels, telling the public he's balancing the books whilst at the same time stifling any real economic growth for a generation of mostly young and poor folk. :)

This is more 'convincing politics' than conviction stuff really.
 
Last edited:
The majority of labour voters believe in the debt being paid down. These so called austerity measures are barely going to affect the vast majority of Voters. I think some of the cuts are unfair (personally I would have further slashed public sector staff) but I dont believe there is a big backlash imminent
 
Hs now suggesting "right to buy" for private tenants. Could you think of anything less likely to seize up the housing supply? Who on earth would want to develop and invest in property if their right to obtain a fair price at their bidding is taken away?

people can moan all they like about developers and landlords but they are keep the market active. This would grind it to a halt

i actually believe it could be legally challenged too.

also the "no compensation" for shareholders in nationalised industries is straight out of zimbabwe or venezuela. This is lunantic thinking. For a start shareholders would effectively have their assets seized by the government which is getting quite close to totalitarian thinkigand furthermore it would wreck pensions and create a total collapse in confidence giving way to shattered share prices and investment. It is pretty clear that if one industry is to be seized in such a manner then others would follow and business would dessert the uk. No wonder the intelligent wing of labour are slamming him on this.

No one ever accused the far left of having the intellect to think things through

Only cretins could vote for this

hes economically illiterate
 
Last edited:
Back
Top