Labour Leadership: the quality of the 'front runners'

[IndieHibby]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7825548/Balls-accuses-Darling-of-costing-Labour-the-election.html

Is he really so twisted that he believes that: 'if only we had told [lied to] the electorate that we would not raise VAT and wouldn't be premature with cuts, we would have won'?

Does he really think that I would have believed him? Would you have believed him?

[hibsbollah]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7825548/Balls-accuses-Darling-of-costing-Labour-the-election.html

Is he really so twisted that he believes that: 'if only we had told [lied to] the electorate that we would not raise VAT and wouldn't be premature with cuts, we would have won'?

Does he really think that I would have believed him? Would you have believed him?

Theres nothing 'dramatic', 'bitter' or 'incendiary' about saying

“I believed that if we made a principled case for ruling out a VAT rise, as well as against premature cuts in public spending, it would change the course of the election campaign.”

Another example of a newspaper headline ('Balls accuses Darling of costing Labour the Election') bearing no relation to the content of the interview.

It wasn't that long ago when Labour leadership candidates had proper contests about ideology. Nuclear disarmament, public ownership of utilities and Northern Ireland were up for debate. Seems like another age.

[IndieHibby]

Theres nothing 'dramatic', 'bitter' or 'incendiary' about saying

“I believed that if we made a principled case for ruling out a VAT rise, as well as against premature cuts in public spending, it would change the course of the election campaign.”

Another example of a newspaper headline ('Balls accuses Darling of costing Labour the Election') bearing no relation to the content of the interview.

It wasn't that long ago when Labour leadership candidates had proper contests about ideology. Nuclear disarmament, public ownership of utilities and Northern Ireland were up for debate. Seems like another age.

I'm pretty sure it was a quote from an article he did in the paper, but never mind :greengrin

You're right though, it just shows how out of steam the Labour 'leadership' (in it's embryonic state) is. They haven't got over the fall-out of the last few months/years in power. I think it could take them a while to get that out of their system.

[RyeSloan]

Theres nothing 'dramatic', 'bitter' or 'incendiary' about saying

“I believed that if we made a principled case for ruling out a VAT rise, as well as against premature cuts in public spending, it would change the course of the election campaign.”

Another example of a newspaper headline ('Balls accuses Darling of costing Labour the Election') bearing no relation to the content of the interview.

It wasn't that long ago when Labour leadership candidates had proper contests about ideology. Nuclear disarmament, public ownership of utilities and Northern Ireland were up for debate. Seems like another age.

Northern Ireland - Is there a question here to discuss, surely the continued devolution of power to NI and the relative success of it's self governance has left little to argue over

Public Ownership of Utilities - Again surely the arguement over whether governments should produce electricity, extract and supply oil/gas, be responsible for telecommunications has been had and lost a long time ago?

Nuclear disarmament - I beleive Dianne Abbott is a proponent of the total removal of Britiains nuclear deterent so this is still a topic of discussion in this leadership contest?

Much rather the prospective leaders discussed sensible and realistic ways to create wealth and create a 'fairer society' rather than obscue idealist mantras that would hold little relevance to the electorate in the next election.

[hibsbollah]

Theres nothing 'dramatic', 'bitter' or 'incendiary' about saying

“I believed that if we made a principled case for ruling out a VAT rise, as well as against premature cuts in public spending, it would change the course of the election campaign.”

Another example of a newspaper headline ('Balls accuses Darling of costing Labour the Election') bearing no relation to the content of the interview.

It wasn't that long ago when Labour leadership candidates had proper contests about ideology. Nuclear disarmament, public ownership of utilities and Northern Ireland were up for debate. Seems like another age.

Northern Ireland - Is there a question here to discuss, surely the continued devolution of power to NI and the relative success of it's self governance has left little to argue over

Public Ownership of Utilities - Again surely the arguement over whether governments should produce electricity, extract and supply oil/gas, be responsible for telecommunications has been had and lost a long time ago?

Nuclear disarmament - I beleive Dianne Abbott is a proponent of the total removal of Britiains nuclear deterent so this is still a topic of discussion in this leadership contest?

Much rather the prospective leaders discussed sensible and realistic ways to create wealth and create a 'fairer society' rather than obscue idealist mantras that would hold little relevance to the electorate in the next election.


Obviously i'm not suggesting that they debate the same policy areas as they used to. I'm suggesting there is a narrowness of ideological debate within the Party.

[lucky]

[QUOTE=SiMar;2492745]


Obviously i'm not suggesting that they debate the same policy areas as they used to. I'm suggesting there is a narrowness of ideological debate within the Party.

There is amongst the leadership candidates all very much the same cheeks of the one arse however the grassroots of the party is alive and kicking with lots of political debate taking place. The party membership has rise by 20000 in the UK 2000 in Scotland and by over 100 in Edinburgh North and Leith since the general election. So whilst the leadership is moving slowly against the new government it obvious that people will fight the cuts and the Con/Dems policies locally.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I get the impression Diane Abbot couldn't run a fever.

[RyeSloan]

There is amongst the leadership candidates all very much the same cheeks of the one arse however the grassroots of the party is alive and kicking with lots of political debate taking place. The party membership has rise by 20000 in the UK 2000 in Scotland and by over 100 in Edinburgh North and Leith since the general election. So whilst the leadership is moving slowly against the new government it obvious that people will fight the cuts and the Con/Dems policies locally.

Lucky: I'm interested in quite what these ideological debates may be and how they differ from what the potential party leaders are proposing.

Hibsbollah: I'm interested in what ideological debates you would expect to see the leaders of a national party partake in....

[hibsbollah]

Hibsbollah: I'm interested in what ideological debates you would expect to see the leaders of a national party partake in....

I'm not sure where your question is headed, as the answer is so obvious it hardly needs elucidating:confused:.

The kinds of debates the Left as a whole are having; the future of the Trident missile programme, public sector cuts vs inheritance tax, transport (particularly the on-its-knees train network), environmental policy, housing, Europe, the NHS, you know the sort of thing.

[RyeSloan]

I'm not sure where your question is headed, as the answer is so obvious it hardly needs elucidating:confused:.

The kinds of debates the Left as a whole are having; the future of the Trident missile programme, public sector cuts vs inheritance tax, transport (particularly the on-its-knees train network), environmental policy, housing, Europe, the NHS, you know the sort of thing.

No need to be touchy I was just asking a question!! :wink: :greengrin

I was interested in your point about ideological debate..sure Trident (read nuclear) might be classed as one but the rest are really general policy matters rather than ones that are especially dividing, I think most people and Labour agree that Fast Rail would be nice, the environment needs looking after (they applied plenty 'green' taxes), that there is a housing shortage in Britian (new buiids fell short of Labours own target) etc etc

i genuinely thought you were alluding to much grander thoughts and directions that Labour should have been discussing and was curious as to what you thought those may be!

[hibsbollah]

No need to be touchy I was just asking a question!! :wink: :greengrin

I was interested in your point about ideological debate..sure Trident (read nuclear) might be classed as one but the rest are really general policy matters rather than ones that are especially dividing, I think most people and Labour agree that Fast Rail would be nice, the environment needs looking after (they applied plenty 'green' taxes), that there is a housing shortage in Britian (new buiids fell short of Labours own target) etc etc

i genuinely thought you were alluding to much grander thoughts and directions that Labour should have been discussing and was curious as to what you thought those may be!

I suppose what I mean is within each policy area or 'general policy matter', there is an ideological spectrum across which a Government makes policy. For example, housing is a policy area within which there are hundreds of individual policies/initiatives that a candidate could be talking about (Bringing back into use the 1 million empty homes in the UK, including 50,000 local authority owned homes, is a good example). The taxation on financial transactions is a subject ive banged on about before but is another good example of something ethical, ideological and practical.http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/

Start meaningful debates about policies that reflect your personal beliefs and ideologies, and people might actually want to support your candidature. It might even restore the public's faith in the power of politics as well. I havent seen much of that yet in the campaign.

[RyeSloan]

I suppose what I mean is within each policy area or 'general policy matter', there is an ideological spectrum across which a Government makes policy. For example, housing is a policy area within which there are hundreds of individual policies/initiatives that a candidate could be talking about (Bringing back into use the 1 million empty homes in the UK, including 50,000 local authority owned homes, is a good example). The taxation on financial transactions is a subject ive banged on about before but is another good example of something ethical, ideological and practical.http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/

Start meaningful debates about policies that reflect your personal beliefs and ideologies, and people might actually want to support your candidature. It might even restore the public's faith in the power of politics as well. I havent seen much of that yet in the campaign.

Gotcha now!! :greengrin

I agree the paucity of real debate, not only in the Labour leader election, but between the parties themselves on such issues is a bit dissapointing.

Personally I would love to see a party put a very strong stake in the ground regarding the size and scope of government and the amount that they should be allowed to tax and spend as a percentage of the countries GDP. As part of the process they should discuss the requirements to modernise Britian to make it a fast and efficient place to do business. Creating wealth is the key to future prosperity (and of course tax revenues) but yet I hear almost nothing on making Britian globally competative and hours and hours and hours on ring fencing NHS spending etc which although relevant to the populous does little to actually articulate the vision of a future Britain, it's place in the World and how it proposes to maintain or even increase it's peoples standard of living.

[Beefster]

Having watched the hustings on TV last night, if that's the best of the 'new breed' that Labour has to offer then I don't fancy their chances any time soon.

[Sir David Gray]

I am fed up listening to Diane Abbott. She seems to be of the opinion that she has a right to be a contender for the Labour leadership, just because she is a black female and the rest of them are white males, which I believe is absolutely not correct.

She should be in the running for being leader, if she has the correct qualities to lead the Labour Party and get them back into power, not because of her gender and her skin colour. I get really fed up with all this positive discrimination (and I say that as someone who is disabled), people should be given jobs on the basis of their skills and qualities, not because they are male/female, black/white, disabled/able bodied etc.

I personally would not want to be given a job, or even be considered for a job, just because the company I have applied to work for, wants to hire a token disabled person that will make their diversity/equality records look good. I would want them to hire me because they think I was the best candidate for the position and because I will be an asset to the workforce.

[Mibbes Aye]

I am fed up listening to Diane Abbott. She seems to be of the opinion that she has a right to be a contender for the Labour leadership, just because she is a black female and the rest of them are white males, which I believe is absolutely not correct.

She should be in the running for being leader, if she has the correct qualities to lead the Labour Party and get them back into power, not because of her gender and her skin colour. I get really fed up with all this positive discrimination (and I say that as someone who is disabled), people should be given jobs on the basis of their skills and qualities, not because they are male/female, black/white, disabled/able bodied etc.

I personally would not want to be given a job, or even be considered for a job, just because the company I have applied to work for, wants to hire a token disabled person that will make their diversity/equality records look good. I would want them to hire me because they think I was the best candidate for the position and because I will be an asset to the workforce.

Abbott's a candidate for leader. All that means (without having checked the Party rules) is that she is an MP and has gathered enough nominations from fellow MPs to contest the leadership.

Nothing in that is about positive discrimination so I don't see why you would suggest it was.

So why are you suggesting it was?

[Mibbes Aye]

Having watched the hustings on TV last night, if that's the best of the 'new breed' that Labour has to offer then I don't fancy their chances any time soon.

I suppose we'll see.

I don't particularly like Ed Balls for example and wouldn't vote for him for leader but when you hear him speak at length about the utter contempt for the less well-off, for the disadvantaged, that's inherent in the various strands of Tory thinking and policy, then it's pretty clear that even the less 'popular' of the 'new breed' will be able to illuminate the disregard that Cameron and Osbourne have for the majority of the population who don't have the luxury of privilege and a wealthy upbringing.

As for Clegg, you could almost feel sorry for him if it wasn't for his utter betrayal of much of his vote. A government that within weeks has scrapped the Child Trust Fund, scrapped the Future Jobs Fund and today scrapped a hospital. Yet they said they would get their savings in reducing inefficiency?

[hibsbollah]

As for Clegg, you could almost feel sorry for him if it wasn't for his utter betrayal of much of his vote. A government that within weeks has scrapped the Child Trust Fund, scrapped the Future Jobs Fund and today scrapped a hospital. Yet they said they would get their savings in reducing inefficiency?

Clegg seemed to set out to shaft his Sheffield constituents specifically yesterday. The Retail Quarter project cancelled. The Forgemasters loan cancelled. Thousands of jobs down the swanny.
The sight of Lib Dem Danny Alexander announcing all those cuts with the Tories sitting behind him grinning was risible. Doing their dirty work for them.

[Beefster]

Abbott's a candidate for leader. All that means (without having checked the Party rules) is that she is an MP and has gathered enough nominations from fellow MPs to contest the leadership.

Nothing in that is about positive discrimination so I don't see why you would suggest it was.

So why are you suggesting it was?

It's hardly a unique opinion. McDonnell had more support than Abbott so rather than the desire to have a left-wing candidate, it would appear to be to either get a black person and/or a women on the shortlist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/09/diane-abbott-nomination-tokenism

Or are you suggesting that MPs, who have openly said that they don't want her to win, nominated her for some other reason?

[bawheid]

Clegg seemed to set out to shaft his Sheffield constituents specifically yesterday. The Retail Quarter project cancelled. The Forgemasters loan cancelled. Thousands of jobs down the swanny.
The sight of Lib Dem Danny Alexander announcing all those cuts with the Tories sitting behind him grinning was risible. Doing their dirty work for them.

Yep, sickening.

The Lib Dems are committing a slow and painful suicide with this pact. The Forgemasters decision is just bizarre and smacks of 80s stamp-on-the-workers Conservatism. As long as the City's alright though, eh George?

[Mibbes Aye]

It's hardly a unique opinion. McDonnell had more support than Abbott so rather than the desire to have a left-wing candidate, it would appear to be to either get a black person and/or a women on the shortlist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/09/diane-abbott-nomination-tokenism

Or are you suggesting that MPs, who have openly said that they don't want her to win, nominated her for some other reason?

An MP might nominate her because they want to see a more diverse contest but that's not quite the same as positive discrimination though. There is no policy in the Labour Party that a woman, black or otherwise, must be in the leadership contest. Nor is it preferential treatment as such - she is only in the contest because she chose to put her name forward (and had to gather the requisite number of nominations).

Perhaps instead of people crying "Unfair!!" (and when I say people I suspect they are white men on the whole :wink:), we should maybe ask why women and black people are under-represented in positions of power. It's not as if they are any less capable or competent is it?

[Mibbes Aye]

Yep, sickening.

The Lib Dems are committing a slow and painful suicide with this pact. The Forgemasters decision is just bizarre and smacks of 80s stamp-on-the-workers Conservatism. As long as the City's alright though, eh George?

:agree:

Not all Lib Dem voters/members are daft I'm sure.

They'll see that the Tories are going to allow companies to run schools for profit.

They'll know that no extra money has been announced for this so it will have to come from other schools.

And they'll have seen the Tory government cancelling the extension of free school meals to poorer families.

The Tories aren't hanging about. Wonder how quick the grassroots LibDems will be?

[Leicester Fan]

As for Clegg, you could almost feel sorry for him if it wasn't for his utter betrayal of much of his vote. A government that within weeks has scrapped the Child Trust Fund, scrapped the Future Jobs Fund and today scrapped a hospital. Yet they said they would get their savings in reducing inefficiency?

It was in the Liberal Manifesto, why are you surprised at this?It was only a pathetic gimmick anyway.

As for the cuts, you can't keep spending money you don't have, it's not rocket science.

[Leicester Fan]

And they'll have seen the Tory government cancelling the extension of free school meals to poorer families.



They've cancelled something that hadn't been introduced so nobody is worse off. It was obviously a cynical pre election ploy from Labour that knew it couldn't afford to implement it if they got elected.

[Mibbes Aye]

It was in the Liberal Manifesto, why are you surprised at this?It was only a pathetic gimmick anyway.

As for the cuts, you can't keep spending money you don't have, it's not rocket science.

How much of the Liberal manifesto is being implemented? Oh yes, one bit attacking a policy that favoured children with disabilities and children from lower-income families.

A policy that was universal but still weighted towards those who needed help most. A policy that could genuinely say it promoted social mobility. Jo Grimond must be turning in his grave.

Governments have always spent money they don't have. In such straitened times as these the question is how deep do you go and what impact will that have on the recovery.

What seems clearer by the day is the Tories are still happy to sacrifice the poor and disadvantaged in order to let the better-off become better-off.

[Mibbes Aye]

They've cancelled something that hadn't been introduced so nobody is worse off. It was obviously a cynical pre election ploy from Labour that knew it couldn't afford to implement it if they got elected.

I think the extension of free school meals to poorer familes was costed at £140 million. Not a great deal is it, to give poorer children a better start in life?

Certainly not in comparison to the £700 million the Tories wanted to give away to the 3,000 richest families in Britain with their inheritance tax policy.

Oh, and the extension to free school meals was announced last year, long before the general election.

Same old, same old.

[Leicester Fan]

I think the extension of free school meals to poorer familes was costed at £140 million. Not a great deal is it, to give poorer children a better start in life?

Certainly not in comparison to the £700 million the Tories wanted to give away to the 3,000 richest families in Britain with their inheritance tax policy.


That policy has been abandoned as part of the coalition so it is irrelevant .




Oh, and the extension to free school meals was announced last year, long before the general election.


The election had to held before sometime in June 2010. You can easily announce a policy knowing it couldn't be implemented until after the election.Labour knew the country was in massive debt and had to make major cuts and yet they announced a totally unnecessary spending increase.




Same old, same old.

Exactly.

[Mibbes Aye]

That policy has been abandoned as part of the coalition so it is irrelevant .


The election had to held before sometime in June 2010. You can easily announce a policy knowing it couldn't be implemented until after the election.Labour knew the country was in massive debt and had to make major cuts and yet they announced a totally unnecessary spending increase.



Exactly.

So the Tories planned to give the richest few people in the country another 700 million but couldn't get away with it.

Now they're scrapping free school meals for poorer families and it's been revealed that they wanted to take the money for free school meals and spend it on setting up schools that let their mates turn a profit.

What a bunch of *****.

[Leicester Fan]

So the Tories planned to give the richest few people in the country another 700 million but couldn't get away with it.

Now they're scrapping free school meals for poorer families and it's been revealed that they wanted to take the money for free school meals and spend it on setting up schools that let their mates turn a profit.

What a bunch of *****.

They've not scrapped anything because it wasn't ever implemented, Labour wouldn't have implemented either. If it was so important why didn't they implement it during the boom?The free schools will not be run for profit either.

I'm sure there will be plenty of things to blame the Tories for without you making things up.

[Beefster]

They've not scrapped anything because it wasn't ever implemented, Labour wouldn't have implemented either. If it was so important why didn't they implement it during the boom?The free schools will not be run for profit either.

I'm sure there will be plenty of things to blame the Tories for without you making things up.

C'mon. Labour only had 13 years to sort things out. Hardly enough time.

I see the Government are recruiting left wingers - Will Hutton, John Hutton and Frank Field - to do their dirty work for them. Is there nothing that they'll stop at to destroy the nation?

[Mibbes Aye]

C'mon. Labour only had 13 years to sort things out. Hardly enough time.

I see the Government are recruiting left wingers - Will Hutton, John Hutton and Frank Field - to do their dirty work for them. Is there nothing that they'll stop at to destroy the nation?

You're right - here's what Will Hutton had to say about the Tories, why, just today!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/20/budget-cuts-george-osborne

[Mibbes Aye]

They've not scrapped anything because it wasn't ever implemented, Labour wouldn't have implemented either. If it was so important why didn't they implement it during the boom?The free schools will not be run for profit either.

I'm sure there will be plenty of things to blame the Tories for without you making things up.

Right :agree:

So they've not scrapped ID cards then - because they weren't implemented either, were they? :confused:

[Danderhall Hibs]

Abbott's a candidate for leader. All that means (without having checked the Party rules) is that she is an MP and has gathered enough nominations from fellow MPs to contest the leadership.

Nothing in that is about positive discrimination so I don't see why you would suggest it was.

So why are you suggesting it was?

She wasn't going to get enought votes until the last minute when Milliband offered his and a few of his supporters votes to get her into the election. I don't know if that's classed as positive discrimination or not?

[Mibbes Aye]

She wasn't going to get enought votes until the last minute when Milliband offered his and a few of his supporters votes to get her into the election. I don't know if that's classed as positive discrimination or not?

I would say not - think there's a dfference as described here (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?185357-Labour-Leadership-the-quality-of-the-front-runners&p=2496011&viewfull=1#post2496011) although its subtle.

Still begs the question - why are women under-represented in positions of power and why are black people under-represented in positions of power?

If there's nothing that makes them less competent or capable, then what is it?

And why would we put up with such an injustice? We scream murder when a referee dares give a dodgy penalty to the OF after all :greengrin.

Is it because it doesn't affect us (on the basis that most of "us" are white blokes and generally have never faced real sexism or racism??)

[hibsbollah]

You're right - here's what Will Hutton had to say about the Tories, why, just today!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/20/budget-cuts-george-osborne

Brilliant from Hutton, as usual:agree:

[Leicester Fan]

Right :agree:

So they've not scrapped ID cards then - because they weren't implemented either, were they? :confused:
We were talking about the free schools meals.

As for ID cards being scrapped that has to be the greatest policy decision ever. Not only were they a costly waste of time they were an infringement of our civil liberties.

[Leicester Fan]

You're right - here's what Will Hutton had to say about the Tories, why, just today!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/20/budget-cuts-george-osborne

Somebody in the Guardian disagrees with the Tories????!!!!!! Whatever next?

[Mibbes Aye]

We were talking about the free schools meals. In future I'll include sub titles for the hard of thinking when talking to you.

As for ID cards being scrapped that has to be the greatest policy decision ever. Not only were they a costly waste of time they were an infringement of our civil liberties.


Oooh, get you. It's only someone disagreeing with you on a messageboard :greengrin

You seem to be saying that extending free school meals wasn't scrapped because it was never implemented.

You seem to be saying ID cards were scrapped - but they were never implemented.

You can see your inconsistency surely.

[Leicester Fan]

Oooh, get you. It's only someone disagreeing with you on a messageboard :greengrin


Sorry about that. There was no need.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sorry about that. There was no need.

Well done mate, takes a big man to admit a mistake. :top marks

[Mibbes Aye]

Sorry about that. There was no need.

In fairness, I'm frequently hard of thinking :greengrin. Cheers though:thumbsup:

Getting back to the point, if, as is anticipated, George Osbourne uses the emergency budget to slash benefits to disabled orphans (some sources claim he may in fact be prepared to just "slash disabled orphans"), who is the best candidate in the Labour leadership race?

Or to put it another way, as a Conservativer supporter, who (if any of them) would worry you the most?

[Leicester Fan]

Or to put it another way, as a Conservativer supporter, who (if any of them) would worry you the most?

The thought that any of them could be PM some day worries me. If you're asking me which candidate is the most telegenic or voter friendly I'd have to say Alan Jonson but he isn't standing.

[Mibbes Aye]

The thought that any of them could be PM some day worries me. If you're asking me which candidate is the most telegenic or voter friendly I'd have to say Alan Jonson but he isn't standing.

It's curious. I quite like Alan Johnson. I think he comes across as honest and real (although he is politically savvy, without a shadow of a doubt). He reminds me in some regards of both Ken Clarke and to a lesser extent Alan Duncan. To my mind at least, he wouldn't have an earthly in terms of the leadership - not just because there's been a generational shift but because a gap has arisen as a consequence of being in Opposition - a gap that allows the opportunity to articulate a progressive argument against either a convincing, genuinely 'liberal' argument that a ConLib coalition government could conceivably offer (unlikely IMO); or more likely IMO, a progressive argument against a genuinely conservative retrenchment.

I think either of those arguments require an articulation that in likelihood will come from a Miliband.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Although she isn't in the race, I think Harman has been doing a good job as caretaker PM. The candidates themselves are just too creepy. If a Millibroon gets in - Labour can forget it for a generation, they really need someone with a bit of wit to take the pesh out of the Tories when their primary one economics are shown up for what they are.

[RyeSloan]

Although she isn't in the race, I think Harman has been doing a good job as caretaker PM. The candidates themselves are just too creepy. If a Millibroon gets in - Labour can forget it for a generation, they really need someone with a bit of wit to take the pesh out of the Tories when their primary one economics are shown up for what they are.

Classic...what then does that make Labour's economic theory enacted by Broon...pre school??

[Phil D. Rolls]

Classic...what then does that make Labour's economic theory enacted by Broon...pre school??

Time will tell. :dunno:

[RyeSloan]

Time will tell. :dunno:

Urm I think you might find time has told already!!!

No more boom or bust...prudence...fiscal cycles....40% golden rule...

Broon didn't listen to himself, manipluated the books then overspent at the top of the cycle.

Quite what time will might tell us that we don't already know about the gross mismanagement of Britains finances I would be very interested to hear....

[Phil D. Rolls]

Urm I think you might find time has told already!!!

No more boom or bust...prudence...fiscal cycles....40% golden rule...

Broon didn't listen to himself, manipluated the books then overspent at the top of the cycle.

Quite what time will might tell us that we don't already know about the gross mismanagement of Britains finances I would be very interested to hear....

Let's look at the country in a year's time and see if the cavalier approach that Osborne has take will have saved us money or not.

If we are going in the right direction, I might reconsider his simplistic approach. Right now, I think it's a bit more complex than the answers they have come up with.

[One Day Soon]

It was in the Liberal Manifesto, why are you surprised at this?It was only a pathetic gimmick anyway.

As for the cuts, you can't keep spending money you don't have, it's not rocket science.

I think if you looked into this particular policy more seriously you would find that it was very far from being a gimmick.

[One Day Soon]

C'mon. Labour only had 13 years to sort things out. Hardly enough time.

I see the Government are recruiting left wingers - Will Hutton, John Hutton and Frank Field - to do their dirty work for them. Is there nothing that they'll stop at to destroy the nation?

Well Beefster, now you know what human condoms look like don't you?

[Beefster]

Back on the topic of the quality of the candidates, Abbott was a shambles on This Week......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5uMbMJ2EUQ

I still hopes she wins though!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Back on the topic of the quality of the candidates, Abbott was a shambles on This Week......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5uMbMJ2EUQ

I still hopes she wins though!

I think we could be in for comedy the likes of which we haven't seen since Hague or Michael Foot. (Mind you Broon was getting close towards the end.)

[Leicester Fan]

I think if you looked into this particular policy more seriously you would find that it was very far from being a gimmick.

£250 when you're born and if you are really poor another £250 later that you must save until you're 18. If you're lucky you might get £700/800 quid on your 18th birthday which will achieve what exactly?

For most 18 year olds that will mean a new pair of trainers some G Star jeans and a good piss up on their birthday. Like I said a pathetic gimmick.

[One Day Soon]

£250 when you're born and if you are really poor another £250 later that you must save until you're 18. If you're lucky you might get £700/800 quid on your 18th birthday which will achieve what exactly?

For most 18 year olds that will mean a new pair of trainers some G Star jeans and a good piss up on their birthday. Like I said a pathetic gimmick.

The primary point of the policy was actually to encourage saving rather than being about the amount paid over by the government. It is widely recognised that there are a whole range of benefits from doing this which go well beyond the simplistic "ooh look, £700 quid" analysis. Still, since you seem to be primarily concerned with pro-Tory Daily Mail style interpretations of what the last government did then I guess your view will be Tory good, Labour bad.

[steakbake]

£250 when you're born and if you are really poor another £250 later that you must save until you're 18. If you're lucky you might get £700/800 quid on your 18th birthday which will achieve what exactly?

For most 18 year olds that will mean a new pair of trainers some G Star jeans and a good piss up on their birthday. Like I said a pathetic gimmick.

Buying the vote. :agree:

[Leicester Fan]

The primary point of the policy was actually to encourage saving rather than being about the amount paid over by the government..
Perhaps they should have led by example.


It is widely recognised that there are a whole range of benefits from doing this which go well beyond the simplistic "ooh look, £700 quid" analysis.
Please enlighten me to what they are.

[One Day Soon]

Buying the vote. :agree:

Don't be completely ridiculous. If you were going to try and buy votes that would be aboout the least effective way possible. Apart from anything else you would have to wait 18 years for these kids to reach voting age. If you wanted to try to effectively buy votes you would do something like freeze council tax year on year......oh wait a minute......

[One Day Soon]

Perhaps they should have led by example.


Please enlighten me to what they are.


Really, what is the point?

[Leicester Fan]

Really, what is the point?
You could convince me you could actually think of some of the benefits of the scheme. Or are you just primary concerned with the Guardian interpretation Labour good Tory bad.

[One Day Soon]

You could convince me you could actually think of some of the benefits of the scheme. Or are you just primary concerned with the Guardian interpretation Labour good Tory bad.

I'm afraid I have read enough of your posts to know that you are not going to change your view and if I'm entirely honest I dont really care very much whether you do or not.

I can assure you that the Guardian is just about the very last place I would got to for an opinion on the Labour Party or indeed British politics. This, remember, is the rag that told people to vote Lib Dem at the last election. What a grotesque and appalling sell out of the proudly radical traditions of that paper's history. The editorial staff should be ashamed. But then it is now a thoroughly middle class paper looking to trim toward the prevailing political wind of the middle classes today where previously it would have remained loyal to its radical left roots even when it was unpopular and difficult to do so.

[Leicester Fan]

I'm afraid I have read enough of your posts to know that you are not going to change your view and if I'm entirely honest I dont really care very much whether you do or not.
.

Can't think of any then?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Can't think of any then?

I think he said that the idea of the scheme was to encourage saving. Whether you think they have gone about it the right way or not, you must at least acknowledge that is a good thing.

I think it might just have been a result of genuine altruism by Labour, rather than a cynical way of buying votes. When they came to power they made a big play on social inclusion, and identified that one of the causes of alienation in society was that the poor couldn't access financial services.

By encouraging saving in the likes of credit unions, the poor could jointly help themselves out of poverty. A good savings history is more likely to allow people to access financial services offered by the banks.

[Leicester Fan]

I think he said that the idea of the scheme was to encourage saving. Whether you think they have gone about it the right way or not, you must at least acknowledge that is a good thing.

He also said there were other benefits but he wasn't told us what.

People who can afford to save already can if they chose to. For people who can't this scheme won't change anything. I never said it was a scheme for buying votes (although I suspect that was a large part of it) but the costs to rewards ratio on this bit of public spending means in this economic climate that it has to be one of the first things to go.

Also I'm in a bad mood because it looks like our manager is pissing off.

[Phil D. Rolls]

He also said there were other benefits but he wasn't told us what.

People who can afford to save already can if they chose to. For people who can't this scheme won't change anything. I never said it was a scheme for buying votes (although I suspect that was a large part of it) but the costs to rewards ratio on this bit of public spending means in this economic climate that it has to be one of the first things to go.

Also I'm in a bad mood because it looks like our manager is pissing off.

I honestly think it was a naive attempt to make financial services more accessible to the poor. There are many sects in the Labour church, of which the credit union movement is one.

To lose one manager is unfortunate, to lose two is just careless. :greengrin

[Leicester Fan]

To lose one manager is unfortunate, to lose two is just careless. :greengrin
But to Hull?!

[Phil D. Rolls]

But to Hull?!

Granted it probably takes more depth to deal with that than other things.

[Mibbes Aye]

Granted it probably takes more depth to deal with that than other things.

Bit stern IMO.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Bit stern IMO.

Certainly reads that way, I can only put it down to my ongoing sleeping problems. Been waking at the same ridiculously early hour for the last week or so.

I was thinking of a line from the sitcom "Boys from the Bush". It was meant to be funny, but I just didn't write it that way.

[Mibbes Aye]

Certainly reads that way, I can only put it down to my ongoing sleeping problems. Been waking at the same ridiculously early hour for the last week or so.

I was thinking of a line from the sitcom "Boys from the Bush". It was meant to be funny, but I just didn't write it that way.

:greengrin

Sorry FR - my post using 'stern' was in response to your post about 'depth' in relation to 'Hull'

I mistakenly thought a nautical punfest was on the cards :agree:

[ballengeich]

:greengrin

Sorry FR - my post using 'stern' was in response to your post about 'depth' in relation to 'Hull'

I mistakenly thought a nautical punfest was on the cards :agree:

Bow, then drink a glass of port.

[Leicester Fan]

Bow, then drink a glass of port.
Are you sticking your oar in?

[Phil D. Rolls]

:greengrin

Sorry FR - my post using 'stern' was in response to your post about 'depth' in relation to 'Hull'

I mistakenly thought a nautical punfest was on the cards :agree:

Sorry for such a rum reply. Hoist by my own petard etc:greengrin

[Betty Boop]

Looks like the hot money is on Ed Milliband.

[Betty Boop]

Ed Milliband elected as new Labour leader.

[Pretty Boy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11412031

Story here.

He got my vote so chuffed to bits.

[heretoday]

Ed seems to resemble a human being. Not a great speaker I'd say but a nice lad. I hope he does a good job.

[steakbake]

Ed Miliband seems like a nice guy, but I worry for Labour that they've just elected this century's equivalent of Neil Kinnock.

[heretoday]

Just seen the speech. Nothing much of substance in it of course. He's a nice chap. Boyish. Arouses the protective instinct.

I can't help thinking Labour have shot themselves in the foot though not electing his brother who is not so nice but scares the Tories more.

[steakbake]

Just seen the speech. Nothing much of substance in it of course. He's a nice chap. Boyish. Arouses the protective instinct.

I can't help thinking Labour have shot themselves in the foot though not electing his brother who is not so nice but scares the Tories more.

Agreed. I would say Miliband David would have had the Tories worried. Ed seems like a nice guy and he's articulate enough but I really don't see him being anything other than a continuity leader until the next election defeat and they may recover after that.

[hibsdaft]

disagree.

you're mistaking gravitas for a lack of confidence/ (arrogance) imo

Dmiliband would have got up folks back sooner rather than later, and his Tony Blair routine would soon have been seen through badly. all the hype around him, what does it actually stem from? the guys a squirt. he's done hee-haw except dither over whether to stab Brown in the back. he missed what chance he ever had.

Emiliband has stature, composure, and has already pinpointed Labour's worst failings from 97-2010, which Dmiliband would never even have admitted to himself, he's that arrogant.

[heretoday]

I like Edmilson.

Maybe he'll grow into it and be a historic figure. He's a better speaker than either Cameron or Clegg. Far more conversational and personable. I can see the women of a certain age going for him.

I hope his brother doesn't take the huff and go off to the IMF or whatever. They need him.

[Woody1985]

At least David stood up to that cretin Harman tonight by asking why the hypocritical creepy, sly, weirdo was clapping about Ed denouncing the war when she supported it.

If one woman (or man) could be wiped out of politics by any means, and I mean any, then it would be here. Horrible, horrible, witch woman looking woman. She literally makes me boak when looking at her and hearing the pish she talks. :jamboak:

[Mibbes Aye]

I would be nervous if I was Cameron. It's going to be near-impossible for him to satisfy his party.

His neo-liberal wing want to get rid of the state, regardless of how many people on less than 40K a year (let alone those who earn less than 20K, god help them) are trampled underfoot as a consequence. He has to appease this huge force within his party. But even then, the announcement on the spending cuts still won't meet the demands of the Tory right who essentially want to privatise society, and damn us all to a 'sink or swim' existence. Cameron needs them for his survival.

He has genuine would-be reformers in Duncan-Smith and Clarke who have pragmatic ideas about how to deal with welfare, how to deal with the criminal justice system, even if those ideas are debatable. Ideas that are opposed by the Treasury on cost grounds and opposed by the right of his party for being' soft'. Dissent beckons, and it beckons from within.

And of course he has the Lib Dems because of course he needs them. The smugness of the Cleggs of this world will disappear when they realise the greater number of those who voted LibDem didn't do so because they were grounded in Enlightenment liberalist principles, but were people who are centre-left but didn't want to be Labour as they associated it with the old two-party system and it didn't speak for them, especially following Iraq.

Now that barrier's gone there will be a certain sense of schadenfreude at LibDem results in the by-elections to come. More importantly, the Tories will find it harder and harder to defend their slash-and-burn approach to public services.

Unnecessary cuts, aimed hardest at the weakest and poorest, affecting all of us but the extremely wealthy. That's what the Tories promise.

Ed Miliband should be able to point that out. I think he will do okay.

[hibsbollah]

I liked Milibands speech, although I warmed to him as the campaign went on anyway so he may have won me over whatever he said.

On the Nicky Campbell programme this morning he was deliberately neutral and deliberately unoffensive on a lot of points but two answers seemed quite revealing on two subjects; 1. he wouldnt necessarily agree that Palestinians have a 'right of return' to their pre 1967 land (unnecessarily middle of the road in my pro-Palestinian opinion-it is established UN policy that those ejected from their homes have a right of return), but in quite a surprising statement he also said that 'we need to look at whether Trident is a necessary system', which i was quite encouraged by and is a bit of a departure i think from previous policy. I wonder if the major news channels will pick up on it?

[bawheid]

Unnecessary cuts, aimed hardest at the weakest and poorest, affecting all of us but the extremely wealthy. That's what the Tories promise.

Ed Miliband should be able to point that out. I think he will do okay.

Superb post Mibbes. :top marks

[steakbake]

The guy will need to have some time to bed in, pick his team and set up a system.

[ancienthibby]

The guy will need to have some time to bed in, pick his team and set up a system.


He's already deid in the water!!

More than 50% of the Labour Party don't want him (given various polls) so he has to struggle with making a Shadow Cabinet of some existing Members who voted for the war into Iraq against his own views.

The Labour Party is morally bankrupt, but that may be a good position for them to be in given the state of the Labour Party of Westminster in Scotland!!

[LiverpoolHibs]

It really has been an absolutely hilarious defeat for the Blairites in the L.P. There is absolutely no way that Miliband major's decision not to stand for the Shadow Cabinet has anything to do with an altruistic desire to save his brother from an already hostile press.

They are absolutely bealing at this; reading anything written by John Rentoul usually isn't a very good idea if you're hoping to hold onto your last meal but this (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/john-rentoul/john-rentoul-the-party-voted-for-david-miliband-but-got-the-panda-instead-2089971.html) is so sweet. You can pretty much see his bottom lip trembling as you read it.

I don't have particularly high hopes for E.M. but he's been pretty positive so far. Uncompromising on Iraq (the D.M./Harriet Harman set-to is fantastic, what a ****ing creep that woman is), addressing immigration by attacking flexible labour markets rather than the awful dog-whistling that Balls went in for during his campaign and relatively strong criticism of New Labour.

N.B. Good post by M.A.

[The_Todd]

He's already deid in the water!!

More than 50% of the Labour Party don't want him (given various polls) so he has to struggle with making a Shadow Cabinet of some existing Members who voted for the war into Iraq against his own views.

The Labour Party is morally bankrupt, but that may be a good position for them to be in given the state of the Labour Party of Westminster in Scotland!!

But you could say that about anybody who won, and besides you voted for who you did want, not who you didn't.

I'm pretty sure that if you asked the party membership right now if they're happy enough I'm sure most of them will be.

The way you've phrased that is as if there was a box labelled "NO! I do NOT want Ed Miliband!" and 50% of the party ticked that. There was no such option.

[One Day Soon]

He's already deid in the water!!

More than 50% of the Labour Party don't want him (given various polls) so he has to struggle with making a Shadow Cabinet of some existing Members who voted for the war into Iraq against his own views.

The Labour Party is morally bankrupt, but that may be a good position for them to be in given the state of the Labour Party of Westminster in Scotland!!

How utterly trite. Do you wear saltire underpants too?

[One Day Soon]

It really has been an absolutely hilarious defeat for the Blairites in the L.P. There is absolutely no way that Miliband major's decision not to stand for the Shadow Cabinet has anything to do with an altruistic desire to save his brother from an already hostile press.

They are absolutely bealing at this; reading anything written by John Rentoul usually isn't a very good idea if you're hoping to hold onto your last meal but this (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/john-rentoul/john-rentoul-the-party-voted-for-david-miliband-but-got-the-panda-instead-2089971.html) is so sweet. You can pretty much see his bottom lip trembling as you read it.

I don't have particularly high hopes for E.M. but he's been pretty positive so far. Uncompromising on Iraq (the D.M./Harriet Harman set-to is fantastic, what a ****ing creep that woman is), addressing immigration by attacking flexible labour markets rather than the awful dog-whistling that Balls went in for during his campaign and relatively strong criticism of New Labour.

N.B. Good post by M.A.

Reading anything in that revolting, smug, pseudo radical rag called The Independent usually isn't a good idea if you're hoping to hold on to your last meal.

Rentoul's analysis on this occasion is pretty much exactly right. The only thing that would make that sweet reading is if you are the kind of person who rejoices in the fraudulent oppositionalist futility of articulating for 'pure' socialism while happily allowing those less priviledged to endure the practical consequences of what will genuinely be a right wing, reactionary political period.

Ed Miliband, while a very nice guy, is not capable of stepping up to the mark of Leader of the Opposition. I'd rather have had Ed Balls than Ed Miliband and that is saying something. There are only two relative certainties from this outcome. One, Labour will lose the next election. Two, go to the bookies now and get your money on Ed Balls to be the next leader of the Labour Party.

Still, nice to see Harman being publicly found out. Another visiting well off do-gooder from planet patronising 'Do as I say, not as I do' middle class. Anyway she had to clap, her husband was organising the union votes for Ed.

To paraphrase you... I don't have particularly high hopes for E.M. and he's been pretty awful so far.

[GhostofBolivar]

Reading anything in that revolting, smug, pseudo radical rag called The Independent usually isn't a good idea if you're hoping to hold on to your last meal.

Rentoul's analysis on this occasion is pretty much exactly right. The only thing that would make that sweet reading is if you are the kind of person who rejoices in the fraudulent oppositionalist futility of articulating for 'pure' socialism while happily allowing those less priviledged to endure the practical consequences of what will genuinely be a right wing, reactionary political period.

Ed Miliband, while a very nice guy, is not capable of stepping up to the mark of Leader of the Opposition. I'd rather have had Ed Balls than Ed Miliband and that is saying something. There are only two relative certainties from this outcome. One, Labour will lose the next election. Two, go to the bookies now and get your money on Ed Balls to be the next leader of the Labour Party.

Still, nice to see Harman being publicly found out. Another visiting well off do-gooder from planet patronising 'Do as I say, not as I do' middle class. Anyway she had to clap, her husband was organising the union votes for Ed.

To paraphrase you... I don't have particularly high hopes for E.M. and he's been pretty awful so far.


The Independent's a fantastic newspaper.

I really couldn't live without Mark Steel, Simon Carr, James Lawton and Robert Fisk.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Reading anything in that revolting, smug, pseudo radical rag called The Independent usually isn't a good idea if you're hoping to hold on to your last meal.

Rentoul's analysis on this occasion is pretty much exactly right. The only thing that would make that sweet reading is if you are the kind of person who rejoices in the fraudulent oppositionalist futility of articulating for 'pure' socialism while happily allowing those less priviledged to endure the practical consequences of what will genuinely be a right wing, reactionary political period.

So, given that you like the article (that's a turn up for the books) what is the point of the bizarre diatribe against the Independent? It has absolutely no connection to anything.

[hibsbollah]

The Independent's a fantastic newspaper.

I really couldn't live without Mark Steel, Simon Carr, James Lawton and Robert Fisk.

:agree:They have some excellent writers. Mark Steel is routinely hilarious and no-one knows the Middle East like Robert Fisk. I get the impression most people who slag off the Guardian or the Independent, do so because they dont like their their editorial policy, nothing to do with the actual content, which is regularly intelligent and excellent.

I also 'like' most of the writing in The Spectator or The Economist, even though its not my ideological cup of tea.

[ancienthibby]

How utterly trite. Do you wear saltire underpants too?

So your response to what you consider to be a trite post, is to post an even more trite reply, with an added dollop of personal abuse!!
:bye::bye::bye:

[heretoday]

:agree:They have some excellent writers. Mark Steel is routinely hilarious and no-one knows the Middle East like Robert Fisk. I get the impression most people who slag off the Guardian or the Independent, do so because they dont like their their editorial policy, nothing to do with the actual content, which is regularly intelligent and excellent.

I also 'like' most of the writing in The Spectator or The Economist, even though its not my ideological cup of tea.

The New Statesman's gone down a bit. I got it last week and it wasted several pages with a "50 most powerful people" feature, which included Lady GaGa for heavens sake!

Despite it being the week before the Labour conference the paper had very little imaginative stuff about policy, just speculation on the leadership election.

I suppose they don't want to be too intellectual these days.

[easty]

So your response to what you consider to be a trite post, is to post an even more trite reply, with an added dollop of personal abuse!!:bye::bye::bye:

Why can't anybody take anything with a pinch of salt on this site...people are complaining about recieving personal abuse almost every day...some people need to just chill out before running away crying that someones called them a name or something like that. Seriously.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Why can't anybody take anything with a pinch of salt on this site...people are complaining about recieving personal abuse almost every day...some people need to just chill out before running away crying that someones called them a name or something like that. Seriously.

sod off ya ******:greengrin

[BroxburnHibee]

Reading anything in that revolting, smug, pseudo radical rag called The Independent usually isn't a good idea if you're hoping to hold on to your last meal.

Rentoul's analysis on this occasion is pretty much exactly right. The only thing that would make that sweet reading is if you are the kind of person who rejoices in the fraudulent oppositionalist futility of articulating for 'pure' socialism while happily allowing those less priviledged to endure the practical consequences of what will genuinely be a right wing, reactionary political period.

Ed Miliband, while a very nice guy, is not capable of stepping up to the mark of Leader of the Opposition. I'd rather have had Ed Balls than Ed Miliband and that is saying something. There are only two relative certainties from this outcome. One, Labour will lose the next election. Two, go to the bookies now and get your money on Ed Balls to be the next leader of the Labour Party.

Still, nice to see Harman being publicly found out. Another visiting well off do-gooder from planet patronising 'Do as I say, not as I do' middle class. Anyway she had to clap, her husband was organising the union votes for Ed.

To paraphrase you... I don't have particularly high hopes for E.M. and he's been pretty awful so far.

Point one - you may well be right but I don't see how you can be so definite about it.

Point 2 - if EM does lose the next election then I think his brother will be unsurprisingly and (kind of) reluctantly coerced back to put his name back in the frame.

No way will it be Ed Balls. Sorry but Primeminister Balls will never work :wink:

[Leicester Fan]

Another visiting well off do-gooder from planet patronising 'Do as I say, not as I do' middle class.

.

Isn't that the Labour Party anyway?

[bighairyfaeleith]

I think it's probably too early to pass judgement on Ed, however I think he will certainly enjoy a boost in the polls just due to the current policies of the condems, question is whether or not he can build on it.

[One Day Soon]

The Independent's a fantastic newspaper.

I really couldn't live without Mark Steel, Simon Carr, James Lawton and Robert Fisk.

The only decent newspaper in this country is the FT. The rest are just a collection of political opinions filtering news and presenting their own highly selective take while masquerading as independent commentators which they aren't. That makes them no different to products like fridges, cars and mars bars.

[One Day Soon]

So, given that you like the article (that's a turn up for the books) what is the point of the bizarre diatribe against the Independent? It has absolutely no connection to anything.

I didn't say I liked it I said the analysis was pretty much exactly right. You need to realise that simply because you disagree with someone's opinion does not automatically render that person's opinion as a 'bizarre diatribe'. Added to which my comments on the so-called Independent constitute barely one tenth of my post. I do agree with you though that really the Independent has absolutely no connection to anything.

[One Day Soon]

:agree:They have some excellent writers. Mark Steel is routinely hilarious and no-one knows the Middle East like Robert Fisk. I get the impression most people who slag off the Guardian or the Independent, do so because they dont like their their editorial policy, nothing to do with the actual content, which is regularly intelligent and excellent.

I also 'like' most of the writing in The Spectator or The Economist, even though its not my ideological cup of tea.

The editorial policy of any newspaper is at the very core of what makes it what it is. The content is regularly w4nky self-regarding, posturing affluent leftist guff. Had enough of that in the 1980's and first bit of the 1990's. It was called opposition and too many people paid the price for it.

The Spectator went off the scale for me in January when it allowed Andrew Gilligan a free run at Blair over Iraq. Talk about the indefensible being platformed by the insensible. I would have thought Gilligan would have been finished after the fiasco of his attack on Campbell at the BBC - but then he is editing the Telegraph group now so that tells you where he was coming from all along.

[One Day Soon]

So your response to what you consider to be a trite post, is to post an even more trite reply, with an added dollop of personal abuse!!
:bye::bye::bye:

Just answer the question. See you Jimmy hat and saltire underpants - yes or no?

[One Day Soon]

Isn't that the Labour Party anyway?

I think you are confusing Labour with the Lib Dems. Which is odd because its the Tories and the Lib Dems who are indistinguishable these days. Who would have thought the 'radical' Lib Dems would have been so comfortable with a rabid right wing economic orthodoxy, slavering to hack public services to pieces, dressed up as fiscal responsibility?

Well, me for one.

[steakbake]

I think you are confusing Labour with the Lib Dems. Which is odd because its the Tories and the Lib Dems who are indistinguishable these days. Who would have thought the 'radical' Lib Dems would have been so comfortable with a rabid right wing economic orthodoxy, slavering to hack public services to pieces, dressed up as fiscal responsibility?

Well, me for one.

So I take it that would you not welcome them back into the fold to prop up a Scottish Labour executive after May 2011?

It's a distinct possibility.

[hibsdaft]

The only decent newspaper in this country is the FT. The rest are just a collection of political opinions filtering news and presenting their own highly selective take while masquerading as independent commentators which they aren't. That makes them no different to products like fridges, cars and mars bars.

:top marks:top marks:top marks:top marks
:top marks:top marks:top marks:top marks
:top marks:top marks:

[bighairyfaeleith]

So I take it that would you not welcome them back into the fold to prop up a Scottish Labour executive after May 2011?

It's a distinct possibility.

I wouldn't, and I'm not sure the lib dems will have enough votes next year to make any difference, I know I for one will not be voting for them because of there allegiance with the tories.

[steakbake]

I wouldn't, and I'm not sure the lib dems will have enough votes next year to make any difference, I know I for one will not be voting for them because of there allegiance with the tories.

I think you're not alone. I reckon a lot of people will go that way as well.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I didn't say I liked it I said the analysis was pretty much exactly right. You need to realise that simply because you disagree with someone's opinion does not automatically render that person's opinion as a 'bizarre diatribe'. Added to which my comments on the so-called Independent constitute barely one tenth of my post. I do agree with you though that really the Independent has absolutely no connection to anything.

So the Rentoul article was exactly right but you didn't like it? Why?

Who said that I disagreed with your opinion? I have absolutely no interest in a debate on the merits or otherwise of the Independent - I'm not sure I can think of anything more boring; it was a bizarre diatribe because it was completely unconnected to the topic at hand. I posted an article pertaining to the Labour leadership elections - the subject of the thread - and for some reason this prompted you into labelling the paper in which the article was published (one that you thought was exactly right, let's not forget) 'revolting, smug and pseudo-radical'. For what reason I presume only you know.

[One Day Soon]

So the Rentoul article was exactly right but you didn't like it? Why?

Who said that I disagreed with your opinion? I have absolutely no interest in a debate on the merits or otherwise of the Independent - I'm not sure I can think of anything more boring; it was a bizarre diatribe because it was completely unconnected to the topic at hand. I posted an article pertaining to the Labour leadership elections - the subject of the thread - and for some reason this prompted you into labelling the paper in which the article was published (one that you thought was exactly right, let's not forget) 'revolting, smug and pseudo-radical'. For what reason I presume only you know.

Surely you can grasp the difference between agreeing with something and liking it?

I can certainly think of something a LOT more boring.

My reply to your post was mostly about the leadership contest rather than the Independent but don't let the facts get in the way. You will need to brush up on your comprehension work you know.

[hibsbollah]

The editorial policy of any newspaper is at the very core of what makes it what it is. The content is regularly w4nky self-regarding, posturing affluent leftist guff. Had enough of that in the 1980's and first bit of the 1990's. It was called opposition and too many people paid the price for it.

The Spectator went off the scale for me in January when it allowed Andrew Gilligan a free run at Blair over Iraq. Talk about the indefensible being platformed by the insensible. I would have thought Gilligan would have been finished after the fiasco of his attack on Campbell at the BBC - but then he is editing the Telegraph group now so that tells you where he was coming from all along.

Out of interest, do you have any enthusiasm for anything, politically speaking? so many of your posts seem to come across as sneering cynicism. Which is a good tactic for disguising the absence of any personal political values or ethics, but doesnt actually help with a broad understanding of politics and how it works.

[One Day Soon]

Out of interest, do you have any enthusiasm for anything, politically speaking? so many of your posts seem to come across as sneering cynicism. Which is a good tactic for disguising the absence of any personal political values or ethics, but doesnt actually help with a broad understanding of politics and how it works.

Of course I do. If I am cynical - and I AM cynical - it is because I have a very well informed knowledge of how the political system does and does not work. All my experience has been on the left and that is by and large a disappointing place to be. Long periods of waiting, optimism and heartbreak punctuated by occasional days in the sun and a lot of being disappointed. A lot like being a Hibs fan really.

I have grown to despise the glib, posturing politics of those who play at it as a kind of amusing parlour game and for whom the consequences of Lentilista self-indulgence are no more than a day's headlines. Those left to pay the price of the failure to harness practical radical politics with power are generally poorer, voiceless and less prone to the luxury of protracted debate.

So I admire a diverse group of politicians - Mowlam, Skinner, Clinton, Blair for example - generally those who want to change the world, not just talk about it.

[heretoday]

Of course I do. If I am cynical - and I AM cynical - it is because I have a very well informed knowledge of how the political system does and does not work. All my experience has been on the left and that is by and large a disappointing place to be. Long periods of waiting, optimism and heartbreak punctuated by occasional days in the sun and a lot of being disappointed. A lot like being a Hibs fan really.

I have grown to despise the glib, posturing politics of those who play at it as a kind of amusing parlour game and for whom the consequences of Lentilista self-indulgence are no more than a day's headlines. Those left to pay the price of the failure to harness practical radical politics with power are generally poorer, voiceless and less prone to the luxury of protracted debate.

So I admire a diverse group of politicians - Mowlam, Skinner, Clinton, Blair for example - generally those who want to change the world, not just talk about it.

Fair enough.

[ancienthibby]

Of course I do. If I am cynical - and I AM cynical - it is because I have a very well informed knowledge of how the political system does and does not work. All my experience has been on the left and that is by and large a disappointing place to be. Long periods of waiting, optimism and heartbreak punctuated by occasional days in the sun and a lot of being disappointed. A lot like being a Hibs fan really.

I have grown to despise the glib, posturing politics of those who play at it as a kind of amusing parlour game and for whom the consequences of Lentilista self-indulgence are no more than a day's headlines. Those left to pay the price of the failure to harness practical radical politics with power are generally poorer, voiceless and less prone to the luxury of protracted debate.

So I admire a diverse group of politicians - Mowlam, Skinner, Clinton, Blair for example - generally those who want to change the world, not just talk about it.

Mowlam is deserving of plaudits from all sides. Here, we would call her a 'bonny fechter' who did a fine job in very difficult personal circumstances.

Dennis Skinner is/was a complete maverick, incapable of influencing any government in power.

Bill Clinton - did any other President of the US of A more disgrace the Oval Office than this man!!??

Blair, or more correctly B Liar, the personal glory-seeking prosecutor of an illegal war in Iraq and and a man, who since leaving office, has demonstrated an incredible affection for personal gain, based purely on being the so-called Prime Minister of this country.

[One Day Soon]

Mowlam is deserving of plaudits from all sides. Here, we would call her a 'bonny fechter' who did a fine job in very difficult personal circumstances.
There was much more to her than that - and not all good either. But she was pretty single minded and a lot of fun.

Dennis Skinner is/was a complete maverick, incapable of influencing any government in power.
You are clearly not aware of the relationship he had with Blair then. A much cleverer man than his accent and manner gulls people into thinking.

Bill Clinton - did any other President of the US of A more disgrace the Oval Office than this man!!??
One of the finest intellectual minds to hold the office and the substance of his administration particularly on the economy was superb. He took a republican nation and got it to vote for him and then had the bravery to try for health reform. A star. The personal failings and the way the republicans ladled on all the crap about dishonour to the Whitehouse was hilarious. Politicians also want to ****. Get a life I say.

Blair, or more correctly B Liar, the personal glory-seeking prosecutor of an illegal war in Iraq and and a man, who since leaving office, has demonstrated an incredible affection for personal gain, based purely on being the so-called Prime Minister of this country.

The achievements of the Labour governments from 1997 make a long list. No Blair means no New Labour and no Labour governments. He gets right up some people's noses. Good. I hope he stays right up there. He wasn't the so called Prime Minister, he was the Prime Minister, it wasn't an illegal war and if he was demonstrating incredible affection for personal gain why is he giving away the profits from his autobiography to charity? One of the many things I like about him is that he won three elections in a row, stood down on his own terms undefeated and neither the far right or far left ever managed to lay a glove on him. Superb.

And that B Liar thing is one of the more contrived lefty devices of recent years. Its like the saddos with their personal number plates which don't actually spell the names or words they are supposed to.

[steakbake]

The achievements of the Labour governments from 1997 make a long list. No Blair neans no New Labour and no Labour governments. He gets right up some people's noses. Good. I hope he stays right up there. He wasn't the so called Prime Minister, he was the Prime Minister, it wasn't an illegal war and if he was demonstrating incredible affection for personal gain why is he giving away the profits from his autobiography to charity? One of the many things I like about him is that he won three elections in a row, stood down on his own terms undefeated and neither the far right or far left ever managed to lay a glove on him. Superb.

And that B Liar thing is one of the more contrived lefty devices of recent years. Its like the saddos with their personal number plates which don't actually spell the names or words they are supposed to.

I think it's fair to say that from what you write and the angle from which you argue with people, it's very clear that you are a Labour party supporter. Maybe even a member. However, your feelings about Blair are possibly very different to how people who aren't as closely interested in the Labour party might feel.

While there's not much you can say about Ed Miliband, what there was in his speech something which has been missing over the last few years in the Labour party: a bit of humility.

Labour have introduced some things which have changed the UK for the better. Devolution, the minimum wage, there have been some startling achievements in the field of education - a fairly lengthy list. However, what irks me about political animals (not just you but others, so don't take this personally) is the sheer bloody mindedness of their own self conviction and self importance, regardless of what party they support.

I am bored with the kind of name calling that goes on in Scottish politics and amongst people who debate it. If you look at Gray vs Salmond in Scottish Minister's Question Time, it's actually pretty embarrassing all round. They kind of shout and jibe each other. Half in a huff with each other because they can't stand what each others' parties represent - even though the only main issue which divides them is the sovereignty of Scotland. Apart from that, they are both left of centre. Part of the very problem is the party political system. It needs discipline to hold it together and politicians cannot really speak their minds to disagree with their own party. Therefore, parties are often defined as much about what they are not about, than by what they actually offer. One of the few things that binds people is a common enemy which is far more effective than a common cause.

To me, as someone who has actually been a card-carrying member of the Labour party in the past and have supported other parties since the Iraq war which for me was a grave mistake, it makes about as much sense to set about running a country with one fixed set of source ideas as it does trying to mend the various problems in a house with only one tool out the toolbox.

All the various parties could probably make a go of things and run the country to the relative satisfaction of most people. All parties sure as hell make huge mistakes. Labour's mistakes included Iraq - for absolute certain in mine and in many many reasonable, reasoned and educated people's views, that was an enormous mistake.

YET, there is a faction of the Labour party who fail to understand how it could be considered a failing or could consider how anyone would think it was the wrong decision.

A bit of humility and less bluster and name calling between the various strands of arguments would go a long way to restore a bit of credibility to politics in general. There is nothing more off putting for lay-people than to see people bleating away at each other because they have to, because they are in different political parties and that's what they do.

[One Day Soon]

I think it's fair to say that from what you write and the angle from which you argue with people, it's very clear that you are a Labour party supporter. Maybe even a member. However, your feelings about Blair are possibly very different to how people who aren't as closely interested in the Labour party might feel.

While there's not much you can say about Ed Miliband, what there was in his speech something which has been missing over the last few years in the Labour party: a bit of humility.

Labour have introduced some things which have changed the UK for the better. Devolution, the minimum wage, there have been some startling achievements in the field of education - a fairly lengthy list. However, what irks me about political animals (not just you but others, so don't take this personally) is the sheer bloody mindedness of their own self conviction and self importance, regardless of what party they support.

I am bored with the kind of name calling that goes on in Scottish politics and amongst people who debate it. If you look at Gray vs Salmond in Scottish Minister's Question Time, it's actually pretty embarrassing all round. They kind of shout and jibe each other. Half in a huff with each other because they can't stand what each others' parties represent - even though the only main issue which divides them is the sovereignty of Scotland. Apart from that, they are both left of centre. Part of the very problem is the party political system. It needs discipline to hold it together and politicians cannot really speak their minds to disagree with their own party. Therefore, parties are often defined as much about what they are not about, than by what they actually offer. One of the few things that binds people is a common enemy which is far more effective than a common cause.

To me, as someone who has actually been a card-carrying member of the Labour party in the past and have supported other parties since the Iraq war which for me was a grave mistake, it makes about as much sense to set about running a country with one fixed set of source ideas as it does trying to mend the various problems in a house with only one tool out the toolbox.

All the various parties could probably make a go of things and run the country to the relative satisfaction of most people. All parties sure as hell make huge mistakes. Labour's mistakes included Iraq - for absolute certain in mine and in many many reasonable, reasoned and educated people's views, that was an enormous mistake.

YET, there is a faction of the Labour party who fail to understand how it could be considered a failing or could consider how anyone would think it was the wrong decision.

A bit of humility and less bluster and name calling between the various strands of arguments would go a long way to restore a bit of credibility to politics in general. There is nothing more off putting for lay-people than to see people bleating away at each other because they have to, because they are in different political parties and that's what they do.

Don't disagree with most of that to be honest Mr Bake. I do disagree with some key parts but not most of it. I get very tired with the inaccurate crap people talk about politics and political issues and the way that received wisdom is parroted as the truth.

Ed Miliband's speech by the way was awful. He will be lucky to be Labour leader by the time of the next election. I mean if you wanted Nick Clegg you would just go out and vote for the actual Nick Clegg surely?

[hibsbollah]

. I mean if you wanted Nick Clegg you would just go out and vote for the actual Nick Clegg surely?[/B]

This is probably the strangest bit of analysis yet:confused: Nick Clegg has modelled himself, down to every fake inflection, the 'y'knows', the dropping the vowels, the hand movements, on Blair, the vacuous, artificial oaf who you so admire. Clegg is Blair-Lite, if such a thing is possible.

I see little of Clegg in Ed Miliband, thankfully.

[One Day Soon]

This is probably the strangest bit of analysis yet:confused: Nick Clegg has modelled himself, down to every fake inflection, the 'y'knows', the dropping the vowels, the hand movements, on Blair, the vacuous, artificial oaf who you so admire. Clegg is Blair-Lite, if such a thing is possible.

I see little of Clegg in Ed Miliband, thankfully.

As I recall you think Ed Balls is a great guy so your capacity to assess Blair as a "vacuous, artificial oaf" is at best suspect. Still, you've met Balls and assessed him on that basis. When did you meet Blair to come to your informed conclusion? Have you been listening to the Radio 4 series on the Brown premiership? Almost every single contributor who was on the spot at the time has made it abundantly clear how destructive and divisive Balls was - a point I made in an earlier exchange.

Clegg's style in the election was to pander to everyone on almost every issue. Miliband's speech was the same. That's fine if you are a marginal party with no hope or intent of forming a government - its just embarassing otherwise. And that was the sanitised version of the speech. It will come unstuck fast. It is utterly pointless to pull the wagons round and embark upon a dialogue aimed solely at Party members but that is what he has done. His chances of reaching out and creating a consensus between the core vote and the middle class based on aspiration are now very substantially lower.

He's locked into a variety of sectional interests - particularly the unions - and they will cash in their IOUs sooner or later. His only chance is if he gets a very good team round him and he hasn't started well on that score.

[hibsbollah]

As I recall you think Ed Balls is a great guy so your capacity to assess Blair as a "vacuous, artificial oaf" is at best suspect. Still, you've met Balls and assessed him on that basis. When did you meet Blair to come to your informed conclusion? Have you been listening to the Radio 4 series on the Brown premiership? Almost every single contributor who was on the spot at the time has made it abundantly clear how destructive and divisive Balls was - a point I made in an earlier exchange.

Clegg's style in the election was to pander to everyone on almost every issue. Miliband's speech was the same. That's fine if you are a marginal party with no hope or intent of forming a government - its just embarassing otherwise. And that was the sanitised version of the speech. It will come unstuck fast. It is utterly pointless to pull the wagons round and embark upon a dialogue aimed solely at Party members but that is what he has done. His chances of reaching out and creating a consensus between the core vote and the middle class based on aspiration are now very substantially lower.

He's locked into a variety of sectional interests - particularly the unions - and they will cash in their IOUs sooner or later. His only chance is if he gets a very good team round him and he hasn't started well on that score.

I wouldnt agree that its necessary to meet a politician in person in order to form a judgement of him, especially if you follow politics in any detail. (I havent met Tony Blair, but its hard not to be aware of him and what he stands for, unless you've been in a vegetatve coma during the last 15 years:greengrin).

I'm a massive admirer of Ed Balls because of his economic policy development work mostly in the early days of the regime.He's also incredibly likeable, which flies in the face of what you tend to read. Its very possible he's a bit high-mac, which is to a certain extent what you need to be in politics. I accept its sometimes a fine line between being schemeing and manipulative that allows you to defeat your enemies to achieve great things, and being schemeing and manipulative that just irritates your colleagues. I havent caught the Radio 4 series, i'll try to listen it sometime.

[One Day Soon]

I wouldnt agree that its necessary to meet a politician in person in order to form a judgement of him, especially if you follow politics in any detail. (I havent met Tony Blair, but its hard not to be aware of him and what he stands for, unless you've been in a vegetatve coma during the last 15 years:greengrin).

No but I think it helps if you are going to dismiss them as a vacuous artificial oaf which is a much more personal than political analysis. What do you think Blair stands for because I think it is hard other than in either a very right wing Daily Mail style or a very left wing Lentilista style to dismiss him in such casual terms given that there was a lot to all three of his administrations which was demonstrably substantive and radical?

I'm a massive admirer of Ed Balls because of his economic policy development work mostly in the early days of the regime.He's also incredibly likeable, which flies in the face of what you tend to read. Its very possible he's a bit high-mac, which is to a certain extent what you need to be in politics. I accept its sometimes a fine line between being schemeing and manipulative that allows you to defeat your enemies to achieve great things, and being schemeing and manipulative that just irritates your colleagues. I havent caught the Radio 4 series, i'll try to listen it sometime.

He appears to be "incredibly likeable" unless you have to work with him. It seems strange that you are happy to give him the highlighted 'get out of jail free' card above but don't apply that to Blair. Are you a Party member?

[One Day Soon]

Point one - you may well be right but I don't see how you can be so definite about it.
I know it very, very well.

Point 2 - if EM does lose the next election then I think his brother will be unsurprisingly and (kind of) reluctantly coerced back to put his name back in the frame.
See the Shadow Cabinet election results and how Balls polled. He is the next leader unless D Miliband can be persuaded to stay or unless Ed fails before the next election.

No way will it be Ed Balls. Sorry but Primeminister Balls will never work :wink:
I agree that Prime Minister Balls would not be a good thing but for different reasons.

[hibsbollah]

He appears to be "incredibly likeable" unless you have to work with him. It seems strange that you are happy to give him the highlighted 'get out of jail free' card above but don't apply that to Blair. Are you a Party member?

If you're trying to suggest that im not being consistent in applying standards to Blair and Balls you're I think you're chasing your tail. Its perfectly consistent; I like what one of them stands for, and I dislike what the other one stands for.

By the way, if you're going to use terms like 'lentillista' in your posts I wish you'd include definitions. I suspect its a Richard Littlejohn-invented phrase, but I really dont know to what or whom it refers.

Edit-in the interests of qualitative research ive just googled 'lentillista' and there are only 9 entries, the top 2 are hibs net posts (I assume yours) and the rest appear to be in spanish. I'm intrigued!

[One Day Soon]

So I take it that would you not welcome them back into the fold to prop up a Scottish Labour executive after May 2011?

It's a distinct possibility.

Its a racing certainty I'd say. I have no objection to their propping up a left of centre government in Scotland, why would I?

[One Day Soon]

If you're trying to suggest that im not being consistent in applying standards to Blair and Balls you're I think you're chasing your tail. Its perfectly consistent; I like what one of them stands for, and I dislike what the other one stands for.

By the way, if you're going to use terms like 'lentillista' in your posts I wish you'd include definitions. I suspect its a Richard Littlejohn-invented phrase, but I really dont know to what or whom it refers.

Yes that's what I'm suggesting. Scheming behaviour in one is just how you get things done apparently but its something different in the other? You would struggle to put much substantive policy distance between Blair and Balls.

Lentilista is a substitute term for 'Trot' since there is some sensitivity on here about the use of that term. One of my very own and I quite like it. However it describes a much more comfortably middle class form of Trot. I doubt Richard Littlejohn coined it and if he had I wouldn't know - never read him or listen to him.

You didn't engage in the rest of the post. Are you a Party member?

[hibsbollah]

You didn't engage in the rest of the post. Are you a Party member?

No. My previous employer was a left-of-centre economic think tank so I did have some dealings with the individuals involved a few years back. I like to think I can assess politicians and their ideas without any tribal affiliations to parties or factions, which I find amazingly boring.

[One Day Soon]

No. My previous employer was a left-of-centre economic think tank so I did have some dealings with the individuals involved a few years back. I like to think I can assess politicians and their ideas without any tribal affiliations to parties or factions, which I find amazingly boring.

Yes, you can assess it but you can't truly understand it. Its like the difference between watching Hibs play competitively and playing for Hibs competitively - two completely different experiences of exactly the same thing. In addition - and I don't mean this badly - if you have a view over, for example, who the party leader should be or what policy should be then it matters to an extent if you are a member and it matters not at all if you are not. If you are a punter then you are a passive recipient of those things.

I find the views of non members, and again I am not trying to be antagonistic, amazingly boring when it comes to personalities and policies. The discussion just takes place on two completely different levels. Its the same as television political correspondents telling us what is happening inside the Parties, they don't really know - they're just punting an informed guess.

[hibsbollah]

Yes, you can assess it but you can't truly understand it. Its like the difference between watching Hibs play competitively and playing for Hibs competitively - two completely different experiences of exactly the same thing. In addition - and I don't mean this badly - if you have a view over, for example, who the party leader should be or what policy should be then it matters to an extent if you are a member and it matters not at all if you are not. If you are a punter then you are a passive recipient of those things.

I find the views of non members, and again I am not trying to be antagonistic, amazingly boring when it comes to personalities and policies. The discussion just takes place on two completely different levels. Its the same as television political correspondents telling us what is happening inside the Parties, they don't really know - they're just punting an informed guess.

I think its a shame if you can only acknowledge politcal views from other Party members. You may end up with a very narrow range of opinions.

There is another argument, specifically about the Labour Party, which is that the Party belongs to the Left as a whole, regardless of whether you are a member or not. This traditional, historical interpretation is at odds with the views you express above, although you may consider them an anachronism in today's New Labour world, I don't know.

On a personal level, Labour is certainly more reflective of my political beliefs than any other Party, and I've thought about getting involved from time to time. I dont know if that will change.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Alan Johnson gets the Shadow Chancellorship. Should probably have seen that coming.

Balls - S. Home Sec.

Cooper - S. Foreign Sec.

Seems Harman's applause paid off - stays deputy leader and gets S. International Development.

[One Day Soon]

Alan Johnson gets the Shadow Chancellorship. Should probably have seen that coming.

A weak decision so no surprise there. We will have no consistent, clear position on Tory/Lib Dem cuts.

Balls - S. Home Sec.
A nice position from which to build his long term leadership bid.

Cooper - S. Foreign Sec.
Knows nothing about it, v good.

Putting Balls and Cooper both into such powerful roles says a lot about how much he is scared of their strength.

Seems Harman's applause paid off - stays deputy leader and gets S. International Development.
Never mind, her days are numbered once David takes over.

Those who prefer Labour in opposition rather than government should be happy.

[hibsbollah]

Balls sidelined from his natural economic portfolio, and Caroline Flint and Eagles twins have come across as unremittingly rubbish every time ive seen and heard them. Not immediately impressed.

[Mibbes Aye]

Putting Balls and Cooper both into such powerful roles says a lot about how much he is scared of their strength.


Once he makes the decision that neither is to be Shadow Chancellor then it's hard to see any other outcome than giving them Home and Foreign. Cooper topped the poll, Balls is heavyweight and has only reinforced that with his performances against Gove.

Arguably there was strength shown in appointing neither to shadow Osborne. Balls and Cooper have depth as economists but it's easy to overlook the fact that Miliband has a similar background.

Before Gordon it was commonplace for party leaders to have primacy over their chancellor on economic matters. Maybe we're seeing a return? :greengrin