Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My view as an outsider, and with only passing knowledge of UK politics, is that Labour needs to stop running away from the Blair years. Yes, he was all kinds of prat, but the UK actually did pretty well while he and Brown ran the show. The one issue I do know is debt, where the performance of the UK under Blair and Brown was nothing as dire as the popular perception.

This kind of thing seems to be a fate of most centrist governments, once they lose power. The other side of parliament keeps hammering them, and the now defeated party tries to back away from the defeated and on the nose government as quick as possible.

 sebster wrote:
My view as an outsider, and with only passing knowledge of UK politics, is that Labour needs to stop running away from the Blair years. Yes, he was all kinds of prat, but the UK actually did pretty well while he and Brown ran the show. The one issue I do know is debt, where the performance of the UK under Blair and Brown was nothing as dire as the popular perception.

This kind of thing seems to be a fate of most centrist governments, once they lose power. The other side of parliament keeps hammering them, and the now defeated party tries to back away from the defeated and on the nose government as quick as possible.

Tony Blair is still pretty toxic in the UK, more so for the company he keeps these days with various dictators the world over. If I were Labour, I would keep running away from the Blair years.

The UK might have done pretty well under Blair, Sebster, but its economic foundations were made of sand, and far from ending the boom and bust economic cycles, we're worse off now than in those years, due to their financial ineptitude.

I think people forget, and for those outside the UK might just be unaware, that when we rolled into Iraq a second time on the GWB bandwagon, it very nearly topped the government and brought Blair down. The majority were against it, there were huge protests across the country and his own party were revolting against him in the ranks.

Blair is utterly toxic and totally unforgivable in the eyes of the electorate. We will likely never look back at those years with a fond nostalgia.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Blair is utterly toxic and totally unforgivable in the eyes of the electorate. We will likely never look back at those years with a fond nostalgia.

This. I have no love for the Tory gits, but my god, I'd do some self mutilation before I vote labour in again. Also, people forget Broon's, er, contribution to the whole debacle. That individual was a spiteful, mean spirited toxic arse and the country is infinitely better off without him anywhere near a position of power.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I think people forget, and for those outside the UK might just be unaware, that when we rolled into Iraq a second time on the GWB bandwagon, it very nearly topped the government and brought Blair down. The majority were against it, there were huge protests across the country and his own party were revolting against him in the ranks.

Blair is utterly toxic and totally unforgivable in the eyes of the electorate. We will likely never look back at those years with a fond nostalgia.

For me, the tragedy of the Labour party is that they had one of the biggest majorities in British history, had more cash than nearly any other government in British history, and took office during a time of economic nirvana. With those 3 elements, they could have made Britain a special place to live.

They could have brought in a bullet-proof living wage, sorted the housing crisis, repealed some of the worst excesses of the Tory's trade union laws, scrapped the Lords, given us a written constitution, given us an elected upper house, built critical infrastructure and gave us a federal system that probably would have killed Scottish nationalism for ever.

Instead, they blew it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zedmeister wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Blair is utterly toxic and totally unforgivable in the eyes of the electorate. We will likely never look back at those years with a fond nostalgia.

This. I have no love for the Tory gits, but my god, I'd do some self mutilation before I vote labour in again. Also, people forget Broon's, er, contribution to the whole debacle. That individual was a spiteful, mean spirited toxic arse and the country is infinitely better off without him anywhere near a position of power.

Spot on.

 zedmeister wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Blair is utterly toxic and totally unforgivable in the eyes of the electorate. We will likely never look back at those years with a fond nostalgia.

This. I have no love for the Tory gits, but my god, I'd do some self mutilation before I vote labour in again. Also, people forget Broon's, er, contribution to the whole debacle. That individual was a spiteful, mean spirited toxic arse and the country is infinitely better off without him anywhere near a position of power.

Thirded. New Labour was all smoke and mirrors. Even by increasing taxes and riding a wave of economic prosperity, they didn't have the money for all the cash they splashed, and Blair and Brown both had crippling God complexes. Lord only knows I'm no fan of the Tories, but they have some sort of substance regardless of what you think of them. They actually have beliefs and policies. New Labour turned into a 'What can I announce to get a new headline' party, and that was as far as they ever thought anything.

I mean, Christ, you listen to them now, 'If you vote Corbyn, we'll be un-electable!' Since when was politics about being elected above all else? Labour mutated into a bunch of champagne faux-socialists who view a sniff of power as their highest priority, and you can thank Blair and Brown for that.

Lord only knows I'm no fan of the Tories, but they have some sort of substance regardless of what you think of them. They actually have beliefs and policies

Points and laughs at Ketara

In my lifetime, the only Tory policies I've ever seen are get yourself and your friends rich at the nation's expense (privatization) and bash the workers.

In that, they are remarkably consistent.

I think Newsthump summed up the effect Blair has pretty well.

Jeremy Corbyn’s bid for the Labour leadership looks unstoppable after some genuinely dreadful people came out against him.

Tony Blair was the first truly awful person to really stand up against him.

In a studio interview the former ‘Ugly Rumours’ bassist and war-criminal called for all supporters of Corbyn to have their hearts cut out of their bodies, a strategy it is understood he first planned for all supporters of Gordon Brown during his time as Prime Minister.

This was followed by John McTernan making equally strong comments against Mr Corbyn, which everyone ignored until they remembered that he was chief of Staff to Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy. A man who’s performance in Scotland was worse than Edward the First.

Yesterday Alistair Campbell, or as he’s better known; Satan, recommended the Labour party adopted an ‘Anyone but Corbyn’ strategy, failing to recognise that Ed Miliband was ‘anyone but Corbyn,’ and that could have worked out better.

Jeremy Corbyn’s team are naturally thrilled at this.

“Well, it’s brilliant,” said a Corbyn insider.

“If someone could organise Gordon Brown or Ed Balls to have a go at Jeremy then I don’t think we’d even have to bother campaigning anymore.”

“But we’d probably do it anyway to annoy Tony Blair.”

Corbyn is going to get utterly torn to shreds if* he gets the job for loads of reasons, but mainly the following;

1) He's not exactly the worlds best debater. It's one thing to spend 30 years speaking at anti-war, left-wing protests and so on -- where everyone agrees with you - and quite another to stand in front of Cameron and 300 jeering Tories every Wednesday. He can't even handle a few relatively soft ball questions from TV hacks without spluttering.

2) He's spent decades hanging around with some very, very unsavoury sorts. Every kook, crank and loon he's shared a platform with will be dug up (and you'll have notice the Tories have been keeping their powder dry on this) and thrown back at him. IMO, this alone should have been reason enough for him to never have been allowed on the ballot. It's an infantile, student-union form of politics that utterly unbecoming of a statesman.

3) His economic ideas are ludicrous. 'Peoples Quantitative Easing' (aka money printing), nationalising industry, and his fantasy figures on tax evasion.

There's a reason Kinnock, John Smith and Blair took their party towards the centre - and it's not because they're moustache twirling, top-hatted robber barons it's because they realised you can't implement policies as a ideologically pure, but permanent, opposition.

*And I don't think it's certain. Not after the polling balls up in May, which had a far greater dataset than the few polls for the Labour leadership.

Is it just me or does corbyn look like the chancelor out of the film V. (No pic my computer is slowly dying.)

Either way it makes a change for the labour party to actually have someone who has conviction even trying for power.

Skullhammer wrote:
Is it just me or does corbyn look like the chancelor out of the film V. (No pic my computer is slowly dying.)

Either way it makes a change for the labour party to actually have someone who has conviction even trying for power.

You mean John Hurt?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Lord only knows I'm no fan of the Tories, but they have some sort of substance regardless of what you think of them. They actually have beliefs and policies

Points and laughs at Ketara

In my lifetime, the only Tory policies I've ever seen are get yourself and your friends rich at the nation's expense (privatization) and bash the workers.

In that, they are remarkably consistent.

Tories stand for (generally speaking) minimal government, Smithian concepts of free trade and market capitalism, and mild xenophobia along with the assorted policies that go with it (anti-EU, immigration, etc). That's generally seen as 'get rich and bash the workers', because it often results from the above beliefs, but they are consequential effects as opposed to the driving cause.

So for example, they removed subsidies from British industries because they believe the state has no affair subsidising businesses, and should keep State interference in the market to a minimum. But because those businesses weren't competitive without the subsidies, they folded, throwing millions out of work. There were other economic factors as well, but you see what I'm driving at.

Despite what many papers and pundits would like you to belive, Cameron doesn't sit around quaffing champagne, laughing at the proles, and devising his next devilish scheme to get his best mates rich. But because the vast majority of the nation has no understanding of economics (or indeed, even political ideology), the Tories just get simplified down 'get rich and bash the poor'.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Lord only knows I'm no fan of the Tories, but they have some sort of substance regardless of what you think of them. They actually have beliefs and policies

Points and laughs at Ketara

In my lifetime, the only Tory policies I've ever seen are get yourself and your friends rich at the nation's expense (privatization) and bash the workers.

In that, they are remarkably consistent.

Tories stand for (generally speaking) minimal government, Smithian concepts of free trade and market capitalism, and mild xenophobia along with the assorted policies that go with it (anti-EU, immigration, etc). That's generally seen as 'get rich and bash the workers', because it often results from the above beliefs, but they are consequential effects as opposed to the driving cause.

So for example, they removed subsidies from British industries because they believe the state has no affair subsidising businesses, and should keep State interference in the market to a minimum. But because those businesses weren't competitive without the subsidies, they folded, throwing millions out of work. There were other economic factors as well, but you see what I'm driving at.

Despite what many papers and pundits would like you to belive, Cameron doesn't sit around quaffing champagne, laughing at the proles, and devising his next devilish scheme to get his best mates rich. But because the vast majority of the nation has no understanding of economics (or indeed, even political ideology), the Tories just get simplified down 'get rich and bash the poor'.

I gave a simplified response, because I was in a rush for a bus, but now that's I've got time on my hands, a more detailed response will be forthcoming

The idea that the Tories are a party of Adam Smith, free market, low government etc etc might have been true years ago, but is total hogwash in this day and age.

it was Conservative governments under Heath, Major, and ironically, Thatcher, that pushed us into further integration with Europe, and all the resulting bureaucracy that followed.

On the subject of bureaucracy, the DWP are expanding at a rate of knots as Duncan Smith's crackdown on benefit claimants speeds up.

On the subject of personal liberty - the Tories have done nothing to repeal the intelligence community's powers to spy on ordinary Britons, the Tories and Labour are one and the same on this, and by all accounts, it seems to be increasing. Let us not forget, that it was a Tory, Boris Johnson, who introduced water cannons into London.

They've done nothing for democracy in regards to scrapping the Lords and replacing it with an elected senate. In fact, only the other week, the Tories stuffed the lords with new peers, some of whom had been donating to the Tory party.

For a party of personal liberty, their opposition to a proper, written constitution is utterly baffling.

With regard to privatization, they are dead against state control of industry, but are happy to allow EON, a French company owned by the French government to operate in Britain, and a company owned by the Dutch government to operate Scotland's railways.

And of course, when Royal Mail was flogged, the public footed the bill for Royal mail pensions, and George Osborne's best mate walked away with millions when the shares floated...

People rightly say that the Labour party is a hollow shell of what it used to be, but so too are the Tories. As the saying goes, Labour and Conservatives are two cheeks of the same ass!

PS

Still waiting for the Tories to build those new homes they promised to build when they allowed people to buy their council houses in the 1980s

It's been 35 years

 Ketara wrote:


Tories stand for (generally speaking) minimal government, Smithian concepts of free trade and market capitalism, and mild xenophobia along with the assorted policies that go with it (anti-EU, immigration, etc). That's generally seen as 'get rich and bash the workers', because it often results from the above beliefs, but they are consequential effects as opposed to the driving cause.

So for example, they removed subsidies from British industries because they believe the state has no affair subsidising businesses, and should keep State interference in the market to a minimum. But because those businesses weren't competitive without the subsidies, they folded, throwing millions out of work. There were other economic factors as well, but you see what I'm driving at.

Despite what many papers and pundits would like you to belive, Cameron doesn't sit around quaffing champagne, laughing at the proles, and devising his next devilish scheme to get his best mates rich. But because the vast majority of the nation has no understanding of economics (or indeed, even political ideology), the Tories just get simplified down 'get rich and bash the poor'.

Yeah, I'd broadly agree with this. The modern Tory party is a mix of various different factions - the anti-EU-ers, old school Thatcherites, the Cameron/Osborne metropolitan liberal wing, etc. Frankly I'm surprised Camerons managed to keep this lot, relatively organised. Everyone keep predicting that they are going to start smashing into themselves over the EU, but I don't think it's going to happen myself.

But, by and large, they've largely purged their party of the real nutters.

Some of the more...ahem.. enthusiastic Corbynistas argue that there's this large, untapped section of the electorate ready to elect in an old school Left Wing government. Ain't gonna happen! And the more realistic say that winning elections isn't all that matters (indeed, we've had that very argument in this thread), but what's the point of being a political party if you don't want to govern? Just become a debating society and be done with it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I gave a simplified response, because I was in a rush for a bus, but now that's I've got time on my hands, a more detailed response will be forthcoming

The idea that the Tories are a party of Adam Smith, free market, low government etc etc might have been true years ago, but is total hogwash in this day and age.

it was Conservative governments under Heath, Major, and ironically, Thatcher, that pushed us into further integration with Europe, and all the resulting bureaucracy that followed.

Europe was viewed as more of a way of securing trade and business standards between nations in Britain originally . The legislation-spewing, nation-eroding behemoth it has become, and even more importantly, the perception of it as such is a relatively recent phenomenon.

On the subject of personal liberty - the Tories have done nothing to repeal the intelligence community's powers to spy on ordinary Britons, the Tories and Labour are one and the same on this, and by all accounts, it seems to be increasing. Let us not forget, that it was a Tory, Boris Johnson, who introduced water cannons into London.

This is a very thorny issue (speaking as someone who wrote their undergrad dissertation on cyber-intelligence/warfare capabilities), and trying to boil it down to 'Government wants to watch you online' is a very simplistic view of things indeed.

As for water cannon, let us not forget it was Theresa May, another Tory, who told him to get rid of the things. That one's more of a hubris project of Johnson then it is related to any sort of party ideology. It's about as Tory-centric as the new buses or his vision of an airport in the Estuary.

They've done nothing for democracy in regards to scrapping the Lords and replacing it with an elected senate. In fact, only the other week, the Tories stuffed the lords with new peers, some of whom had been donating to the Tory party.

That's because they're outnumbered. It's a political necessity at the moment, as any attempt to reform the HoL will be voted down by them each time most likely, and dealing with it will spark off several conflicts within the party as the Lords pull strings. Cameron really doesn't want to have to deal with it right now (as he has his hands full with Europe).

For a party of personal liberty, their opposition to a proper, written constitution is utterly baffling.

That's a baffling link. I'm a person who believes strongly in personal liberty, but I'm happy without one. Quite frankly, I think America has shown how bloody stupid Constitutions can get, in several regards.

With regard to privatization, they are dead against state control of industry, but are happy to allow EON, a French company owned by the French government to operate in Britain, and a company owned by the Dutch government to operate Scotland's railways.

They're opposed to the British Government running things. Why would they be opposed to how other Governments choose to frame their links with business? It has nothing to do with them. As long as they're functioning as private enterprises within Britain, that's all the relevance it has to us.

And of course, when Royal Mail was flogged, the public footed the bill for Royal mail pensions, and George Osborne's best mate walked away with millions when the shares floated...

Yes, because the whole reason behind the sale of Royal Mail was so Osborne could make his mates a few quid....

*sighs*

This sort of reasoning makes me sad. You've just pulled half a dozen peripherally, or unrelated issues out and woven them together into an 'corrupt evil unprincipled Tories' tapestry.

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


Tories stand for (generally speaking) minimal government, Smithian concepts of free trade and market capitalism, and mild xenophobia along with the assorted policies that go with it (anti-EU, immigration, etc). That's generally seen as 'get rich and bash the workers', because it often results from the above beliefs, but they are consequential effects as opposed to the driving cause.

So for example, they removed subsidies from British industries because they believe the state has no affair subsidising businesses, and should keep State interference in the market to a minimum. But because those businesses weren't competitive without the subsidies, they folded, throwing millions out of work. There were other economic factors as well, but you see what I'm driving at.

Despite what many papers and pundits would like you to belive, Cameron doesn't sit around quaffing champagne, laughing at the proles, and devising his next devilish scheme to get his best mates rich. But because the vast majority of the nation has no understanding of economics (or indeed, even political ideology), the Tories just get simplified down 'get rich and bash the poor'.

Yeah, I'd broadly agree with this. The modern Tory party is a mix of various different factions - the anti-EU-ers, old school Thatcherites, the Cameron/Osborne metropolitan liberal wing, etc. Frankly I'm surprised Camerons managed to keep this lot, relatively organised. Everyone keep predicting that they are going to start smashing into themselves over the EU, but I don't think it's going to happen myself.

But, by and large, they've largely purged their party of the real nutters.

Some of the more...ahem.. enthusiastic Corbynistas argue that there's this large, untapped section of the electorate ready to elect in an old school Left Wing government. Ain't gonna happen! And the more realistic say that winning elections isn't all that matters (indeed, we've had that very argument in this thread), but what's the point of being a political party if you don't want to govern? Just become a debating society and be done with it.

It's true that the most hard core eurosceptics have joined UKIP, and thus acted as a pressure value, which has helped Cameron. Even I agree to that, but if you think the Tories are quiet over Europe, you ain't seen nothing yet!

I lived through the John Major years, and it was not pretty.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I gave a simplified response, because I was in a rush for a bus, but now that's I've got time on my hands, a more detailed response will be forthcoming

The idea that the Tories are a party of Adam Smith, free market, low government etc etc might have been true years ago, but is total hogwash in this day and age.

it was Conservative governments under Heath, Major, and ironically, Thatcher, that pushed us into further integration with Europe, and all the resulting bureaucracy that followed.

Europe was viewed as more of a way of securing trade and business standards between nations in Britain originally . The legislation-spewing, nation-eroding behemoth it has become, and even more importantly, the perception of it as such is a relatively recent phenomenon.

On the subject of personal liberty - the Tories have done nothing to repeal the intelligence community's powers to spy on ordinary Britons, the Tories and Labour are one and the same on this, and by all accounts, it seems to be increasing. Let us not forget, that it was a Tory, Boris Johnson, who introduced water cannons into London.

This is a very thorny issue (speaking as someone who wrote their undergrad dissertation on cyber-intelligence/warfare capabilities), and trying to boil it down to 'Government wants to watch you online' is a very simplistic view of things indeed.

As for water cannon, let us not forget it was Theresa May, another Tory, who told him to get rid of the things. That one's more of a hubris project of Johnson then it is related to any sort of party ideology. It's about as Tory-centric as the new buses or his vision of an airport in the Estuary.

They've done nothing for democracy in regards to scrapping the Lords and replacing it with an elected senate. In fact, only the other week, the Tories stuffed the lords with new peers, some of whom had been donating to the Tory party.

That's because they're outnumbered. It's a political necessity at the moment, as any attempt to reform the HoL will be voted down by them each time most likely, and dealing with it will spark off several conflicts within the party as the Lords pull strings. Cameron really doesn't want to have to deal with it right now (as he has his hands full with Europe).

For a party of personal liberty, their opposition to a proper, written constitution is utterly baffling.

That's a baffling link. I'm a person who believes strongly in personal liberty, but I'm happy without one. Quite frankly, I think America has shown how bloody stupid Constitutions can get, in several regards.

With regard to privatization, they are dead against state control of industry, but are happy to allow EON, a French company owned by the French government to operate in Britain, and a company owned by the Dutch government to operate Scotland's railways.

They're opposed to the British Government running things. Why would they be opposed to how other Governments choose to frame their links with business? It has nothing to do with them. As long as they're functioning as private enterprises within Britain, that's all the relevance it has to us.

And of course, when Royal Mail was flogged, the public footed the bill for Royal mail pensions, and George Osborne's best mate walked away with millions when the shares floated...

Yes, because the whole reason behind the sale of Royal Mail was so Osborne could make his mates a few quid....

*sighs*

This sort of reasoning makes me sad. You've just pulled half a dozen peripherally, or unrelated issues out and woven them together into an 'corrupt evil unprincipled Tories' tapestry.

It makes perfect sense to me!

I hope you're not confusing me for some diehard Labour voter, because as far as I'm concerned, Labour are just as big a disgrace as the Tories. It's increasingly difficult to separate the two parties, in the way you could years ago. I'm no fan of the Tories, but at least years ago, Tories were Tories, and Labour was Labour. You knew where you stood with regard to ideology.

As for personal liberty I'm not simplifying things, and in fairness to Cameron, Labour were no better, but the Conservatives are happy to go along with current surveillance powers, and wouldn't bat an eyelid at increasing them. Of course, all governments are like this, but let's not pretend the Tories are a party of liberty. They, and Labour, are nothing of the sort.

As for Osborne's mates making money - it's all about perception. It looks bad, and makes the government look corrupt, even if it wasn't Osborne's intentions to enrich his friends.

With regards to privatization, it's double standards to allow foreign governments to own British companies, but the Tories to be against British ownership.

We all know what privatizations means in this country. They keep the profits, and when they need a bailout in the bad times, the taxpayer foots the bill. That's not private enterprise, that's state subsidy in another form.

I admit that the use of the word evil, verges on hyperbole, but when you read about disabled people being sent work assessment forms asking them if they can work (one guy with down's syndrome can't even speak, read, or write, but still got a form) then it's difficult not to portray the Tories as selfish gits.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



It's true that the most hard core eurosceptics have joined UKIP, and thus acted as a pressure value, which has helped Cameron. Even I agree to that, but if you think the Tories are quiet over Europe, you ain't seen nothing yet!

I lived through the John Major years, and it was not pretty.

Oh, I've no doubt I could be spectacularly wrong on this, but my hunch (real scientific) is that they'll bitch and moan but most of them will fall in line.

Honestly, part of me thinks that Labour might be done. They've been coasting on empty for years now, political parties only exist as long as they represent a notable part of the electorate. If they do spend the next few years plotting/backstabbing each other and we get a modern version of the SDP and a rump labour full of Citizen Smith types at least it'd end this interminable debate about who's PROPER labour and who's a fifth column saboteur.

None of this would be happening if there was a mainstream candidate who was worth their salt. Burnham, Cooper and the other one are 3rd rate careerist hacks. Burnham especially.

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



It's true that the most hard core eurosceptics have joined UKIP, and thus acted as a pressure value, which has helped Cameron. Even I agree to that, but if you think the Tories are quiet over Europe, you ain't seen nothing yet!

I lived through the John Major years, and it was not pretty.

Oh, I've no doubt I could be spectacularly wrong on this, but my hunch (real scientific) is that they'll bitch and moan but most of them will fall in line.

Honestly, part of me thinks that Labour might be done. They've been coasting on empty for years now, political parties only exist as long as they represent a notable part of the electorate. If they do spend the next few years plotting/backstabbing each other and we get a modern version of the SDP and a rump labour full of Citizen Smith types at least it'd end this interminable debate about who's PROPER labour and who's a fifth column saboteur.

None of this would be happening if there was a mainstream candidate who was worth their salt. Burnham, Cooper and the other one are 3rd rate careerist hacks. Burnham especially.

What about David Miliband?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


What about David Miliband?

Hah - not after that idiot brother of his permanently tarnished the family name!*

That's the problem isn't it? Not exactly stuffed with talent is modern Labour?

*I met Dave Milliband once at a parliament do I'd blagged my way into with a mate. He deigned to speak to us plebs for about three seconds, then when he found out we were nobody important immediately buggered off to go find someone else to network with/suck up to. Quite made my day when he lost the leadership. Still makes me smile actually.

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


What about David Miliband?

Hah - not after that idiot brother of his permanently tarnished the family name!*

That's the problem isn't it? Not exactly stuffed with talent is modern Labour?

*I met Dave Milliband once at a parliament do I'd blagged my way into with a mate. He deigned to speak to us plebs for about three seconds, then when he found out we were nobody important immediately buggered off to go find someone else to network with/suck up to. Quite made my day when he lost the leadership. Still makes me smile actually.

I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


What about David Miliband?

Hah - not after that idiot brother of his permanently tarnished the family name!*

That's the problem isn't it? Not exactly stuffed with talent is modern Labour?

*I met Dave Milliband once at a parliament do I'd blagged my way into with a mate. He deigned to speak to us plebs for about three seconds, then when he found out we were nobody important immediately buggered off to go find someone else to network with/suck up to. Quite made my day when he lost the leadership. Still makes me smile actually.

I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!

50:50 on Tories, but all of the Lib Dems (who? ) were stuck-up gakkers. It's strange, you'd have thought it would be the other way around!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!

Yeah, say what you will about Corbyn (and I will -- at length!) but he's at least capable of talking to the peasants like a normal human being.

Ed Milliband - when forced to interact with the scum - often had a look of barely contained terror on his face. I half expected him to burst into tears.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


What about David Miliband?

Hah - not after that idiot brother of his permanently tarnished the family name!*

That's the problem isn't it? Not exactly stuffed with talent is modern Labour?

*I met Dave Milliband once at a parliament do I'd blagged my way into with a mate. He deigned to speak to us plebs for about three seconds, then when he found out we were nobody important immediately buggered off to go find someone else to network with/suck up to. Quite made my day when he lost the leadership. Still makes me smile actually.

I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!

50:50 on Tories, but all of the Lib Dems (who? ) were stuck-up gakkers. It's strange, you'd have thought it would be the other way around!

Yeah, I've always found Lib Dems to be...strange

No disrespect to Lib Dem voters on dakka.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!

Yeah, say what you will about Corbyn (and I will -- at length!) but he's at least capable of talking to the peasants like a normal human being.

Ed Milliband - when forced to interact with the scum - often had a look of barely contained terror on his face. I half expected him to burst into tears.

Yeah, there was a few images from the GE when he had to talk to the peasants. He looked terrified

I'm never even going to consider voting for Labour until they purge all the Old Guard of former New Labour ministers. There are still far too many of them in senior positions in the party for my liking. Harriet Harman for one. Andy Burnham. Yvette Cooper etc (is she a candidate?). So roll on a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet! It'll be good to see the back of new labour once and for all.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm never even going to consider voting for Labour until they purge all the Old Guard of former New Labour ministers. There are still far too many of them in senior positions in the party for my liking. Harriet Harman for one. Andy Burnham. Yvette Cooper etc (is she a candidate?). So roll on a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet! It'll be good to see the back of new labour once and for all.

It may be politically expedient of him to retain one or two of them, if only to appease the Blairites and stop them from stabbing him in the back.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


What about David Miliband?

Hah - not after that idiot brother of his permanently tarnished the family name!*

That's the problem isn't it? Not exactly stuffed with talent is modern Labour?

*I met Dave Milliband once at a parliament do I'd blagged my way into with a mate. He deigned to speak to us plebs for about three seconds, then when he found out we were nobody important immediately buggered off to go find someone else to network with/suck up to. Quite made my day when he lost the leadership. Still makes me smile actually.

I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!

50:50 on Tories, but all of the Lib Dems (who? ) were stuck-up gakkers. It's strange, you'd have thought it would be the other way around!

Yeah, I've always found Lib Dems to be...strange

No disrespect to Lib Dem voters on dakka.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I've met a few Tory and Labour MPs in my time, and ironically, it's the Tories who will stand and talk to the commoners!

Yeah, say what you will about Corbyn (and I will -- at length!) but he's at least capable of talking to the peasants like a normal human being.

Ed Milliband - when forced to interact with the scum - often had a look of barely contained terror on his face. I half expected him to burst into tears.

Yeah, there was a few images from the GE when he had to talk to the peasants. He looked terrified

I met Alan Milburn once former health minister) on an A Level politics trip to Parliament. Was years ago, so I don't remember much, and i didn't speak to him (I kept quiet and didn't contribute much) but he seemed like a nice chap. My mom who works in an NHS PCT had a high opinion of him too.

We also got a guided tour of the House of Commons! Wouldn't let us sit on the benches though. And It's surprisingly tiny.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm never even going to consider voting for Labour until they purge all the Old Guard of former New Labour ministers. There are still far too many of them in senior positions in the party for my liking. Harriet Harman for one. Andy Burnham. Yvette Cooper etc (is she a candidate?). So roll on a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet! It'll be good to see the back of new labour once and for all.

Well I admire your dedication to The Cause chap, but a Corbyn cabinet isn't exactly going to be crammed full of political viagra. Read somwhere (might have been the speccie) that Corbyn had about 20 MP nominations from people who actually supported him, so he doesn't have a bottomless pool of talent to drawn from. And some of the others have said they will refuse to serve in a Corbyn shadow cab. Going to be interesting to see how he's going to square that circle.

Who knows - maybe there's a whole generation of promising young bucks waiting for their moment to shine? But he's going to have a hell of a task leading his party - even if he utterly smashes it in the first round of the vote most of his MPs don't want him as leader.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


It makes perfect sense to me!

I hope you're not confusing me for some diehard Labour voter, because as far as I'm concerned, Labour are just as big a disgrace as the Tories. It's increasingly difficult to separate the two parties, in the way you could years ago. I'm no fan of the Tories, but at least years ago, Tories were Tories, and Labour was Labour. You knew where you stood with regard to ideology.

On this, we agree. I think the Tories have shuffled more towards the Liberal end, and Labour says anything to anyone for a vote. I don't believe you're some hardcore Labourite, but at the same time, I feel you're conflating/simplifying a lot of issues in such a way as to skew/ignore certain facts. So for example:-

As for personal liberty I'm not simplifying things, and in fairness to Cameron, Labour were no better, but the Conservatives are happy to go along with current surveillance powers, and wouldn't bat an eyelid at increasing them. Of course, all governments are like this, but let's not pretend the Tories are a party of liberty. They, and Labour, are nothing of the sort.

Cyber-intelligence/warfare capabilities (which is what you mean when it comes surveillance, I'm presuming) is an incredibly recent, and complicated field. I have a good friend in the Defence Studies Institute at King's College who specialises in this department, and the morality of mass surveillance, and the methods for doing so are quite murky and intricate. When many academics who devote all their time to trying to codify and unravel these things have yet to make much headway into it, I'm really not surprised that the politicians and lawmakers are content to let the status quo stand, especially when it's not a pressing political issue.

But in your eyes, that neglect is proof of how they're a party against 'personal liberty'. To look for another example here:-

As for Osborne's mates making money - it's all about perception. It looks bad, and makes the government look corrupt, even if it wasn't Osborne's intentions to enrich his friends.

I'm currently examining in depth the early twentieth century armaments industry in Great Britain, and the relationships between private companies and the Government. If you pull out half a ton of literature produced over a forty year period by disarmament campaigners, you have them all brandishing proof as to how an MP is on a directors board for a steel firm, or an Admiral is good friends with the owner of a shipbuilding company as evidence that the whole thing is corrupt, and designed to put money into the pockets of rich industrialists.

But where I'm sitting, with the evidence from both sides of the fence (personal correspondence, official minutes, and many other things these campaigners had no access to), the Government makes the industrialists run ragged, and corruption/personal benefit is next to non-existent. Now whilst I'm not saying that's 100% the case today, what I'm trying to illustrate is that it's very easy to point to circumstantial facts in this sort of thing, and jump to conclusions (Private Eye does it for a living). But it isn't really proof of anything when you really get down to it.

The Tories are rich boys, which means they have rich connections, and because they're all influential, they tend to stay in contact with other influential people. That's as true a hundred years ago as it is now. It doesn't necessarily mean anything, is what I'm getting at.

With regards to privatization, it's double standards to allow foreign governments to own British companies, but the Tories to be against British ownership.

I completely disagree on this point, I'm afraid. In fact, from a certain perspective, it means foreign governments are bankrolling our companies, so our own doesn't have to! Money saved!

We all know what privatizations means in this country. They keep the profits, and when they need a bailout in the bad times, the taxpayer foots the bill. That's not private enterprise, that's state subsidy in another form.

It depends. Yes for things like banks and power. No for things like steel and coal. That's why there's a decent argument for the state retaining certain industries/levers, but not others. Which is where corbynomics is now coming in.

I admit that the use of the word evil, verges on hyperbole, but when you read about disabled people being sent work assessment forms asking them if they can work (one guy with down's syndrome can't even speak, read, or write, but still got a form) then it's difficult not to portray the Tories as selfish gits.

You're talking about the ATOS debacle right? Because that sorry story has several sides. It was a stupid thing to outsource, and a stupid thing to push, but I don't think if you sat Osborne down and said, 'Are you trying to make disabled people unable to survive' he'd say, 'Damn straight!' I don't think he'd be thinking it either.

I think the main problem the Tories suffer from is that they often have no real perspective as to how their actions impact on the populace, because they've led such sheltered lives (for the top cadre at least). They think they do, but they don't, and that's half the problem.

I can't say I'm a huge fan of Blair, but when you look at some of the things that happened under his premiership, things like minimum wage, freedom of information act, devolution for Scotland and Wales, civil partnerships, the good Friday agreement, ban on fox hunting... There is a lot of good stuff. I don't agree with many of the economic decisions, especially with regards to deregulation of financial institutions. Though perhaps that was more Brown's doing. I think the real problem with the Blair government was Iraq. The decision to go to war was hugely unpopular, and it felt like the people didn't get a say in it. I think that's what really soured feelings towards the labour government. I thought that the coalition government had been annoying enough for labour to bounce back, and I think it actually was, but it seems like the Tories won the election at a local level. I really feel that the voting system in the UK needs reform, but the last time it came up it wasn't the type of reform anyone wanted.