Labour's last gasp?...
Comments
-
we don't elect PM's, they are selected by their parties.0
-
We (as in the electorate) generally don't vote for our local candidate no matter what BS is spun by anyone. At a general election people in general are voting for who theyu want to run the country, not who they want to represent them in the house of commons. Everyone knows that an MP represents their party in the constituency, not their constituency in parliament as a rule of thumb0
-
I didn't know that that you've just asserted.
Surely an MP does represent their constituency in parliament. Certainly mine, Ed Balls, does. Saying that, he also does represent labour in this constituency. So what's your point?
However, I agree that people do vote at a general election for those that they want to run the country as opposed to the representation in the HP...
Fact remains they still represent us in the HP...
.0 -
If they represented us a much wider range of views and concerns would be raised in parliament. Immigration wouldn't have been a taboo subject for the last however many years, ID cards would never have gotten a look in, Trident would be gone, minimum wage would have gone up, benefits controls would have been tightened, police would have a lot less paperwork to do and millions of chavs would have been executed.0
-
If Brown and Clegg did a deal, then it would not be possible to displace Brown, which is why this scenario is highly unlikely, and frankly unattractive to any NL supporter.
Brown will resign, and Cleggeron will have a year or two weathering the perfect storm, which is going to be brutal whoever is in charge, just be grateful if you work in the private sector and earn more tha £35k a year; meanwhile NL will regroup and elect a new leader with a more engaging and potentially popular personality in order to provide a robust opposition during this bleak period ahead of us. Given the huge anti-Brown feeling, the way the media has turned this into a pseudo-presidential race rather than a process of electing a local representative, then frankly nothing less than a Tory landslide should have been the outcome. Since it wasn't, then I would be worried at Tory HQ whatever happens in the next few days. An alliance with LD will only prolong the agony and possibly cast them back into also rans as quickly from where they came.
I work for a private company, and like many we gave up 2-3 days per month unpaid leave in order to retain other jobs during the last 18 months. 'This country has almost elected a gvt that will sack those employees whilst the rest of us continue with unaffected salaries. We have made our choice, good luck to everyone in the public sector0 -
Cressers wrote:Not so, because now the lesson has been demonstrated that tactical voting leads to this impasse. Next time the electorate will return to their tribal loyalties as well as 'punishing' the Lib-dems for not being the force for change that they claimed to be, in the words of Cameron, "Voting for Clegg will get you Brown".
He has been proved right.
were you watching a different election??
The LD vote was down for precisely this reason - Cleggmania didn't materialise.0 -
Imho Clegg has messed up big style. The one thing his party craves above all else is electoral reform, he appears to be aligning himself to Cameron who is fundamentally opposed to this. Cleggs commitment to the party with most votes is honest but odd when you consider policy wise, his party is closer to Labour. The alternative is a major U turn and backing NL. A lib dem leader has exactly what they have craved for 20+ years and immediately he screws it up. He either backs a party with which he has little in common or his first sisnificant political act is that he performs a major U-turn.
I've always thought the wasted vote rhetoric was harsh but all of a sudden it looks very accurate.0 -
morstar wrote:Imho Clegg has messed up big style. The one thing his party craves above all else is electoral reform, he appears to be aligning himself to Cameron who is fundamentally opposed to this. Cleggs commitment to the party with most votes is honest but odd when you consider policy wise, his party is closer to Labour. The alternative is a major U turn and backing NL. A lib dem leader has exactly what they have craved for 20+ years and immediately he screws it up. He either backs a party with which he has little in common or his first sisnificant political act is that he performs a major U-turn.
I've always thought the wasted vote rhetoric was harsh but all of a sudden it looks very accurate.
Actually he has been quite cute
"David, you go first"
Don't like the offer? "Gordon, how about you?"
How to get out of the "I'm not with him" statements that he made which frankly he had to.0 -
Maybe I'm being quite naive but I think he could have only spoken to both parties without any loss of credibility. As it is he has already shown his hand and may need to back pedal...furiously.
Anyhow, on a completely different point. What on earth happened to BBC coverage? Were they getting results passed on by carrier pigeon. As for the party on the boat...WTF? I am amazed to be saying this but ITV are beginning to put the BBC to shame in so many areas. That license fee is looking decidely poor value.0 -
Airbornerodent wrote:I didn't know that that you've just asserted.
Surely an MP does represent their constituency in parliament. Certainly mine, Ed Balls, does. Saying that, he also does represent labour in this constituency. So what's your point?
However, I agree that people do vote at a general election for those that they want to run the country as opposed to the representation in the HP...
Fact remains they still represent us in the HP...
.
He doesn't represent the constituency because he'll vote on issues according to the party whip not what any of constituents believe or desire. This is where it breaks down.0 -
ynyswen24 wrote:Bill Gates wrote:Smokin Joe wrote:
But no money of it's own to pay for it.eh wrote:Hate to tell you but Scotland isn't of much interest to England really, its already got its own parliment, law & education systems, NHS control, football etc.
But Scotland could make a big wad of money from selling it's own oil that it has in its own waters.
The oil's pretty much used up in the North Sea, that's why the UK government (and whichever party forms the next one ) are so keen on the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands.
No we own it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cZOZjWXhlcbagpuss0 -
I expect Clegg will form an alliance with Foggy and Compo0
-
Was that a serious or tongue-in-cheek comment? There are BIG cuts coming in the public sector, not front line (according to Cameron) but in the support areas, eg administration and middle management. There is pain ahead for everyone, be in no doubt about that.SteveR_100Milers wrote:We have made our choice, good luck to everyone in the public sector0 -
Turbo Man wrote:
Was that a serious or tongue-in-cheek comment? There are BIG cuts coming in the public sector, not front line (according to Cameron) but in the support areas, eg administration and middle management. There is pain ahead for everyone, be in no doubt about that.SteveR_100Milers wrote:We have made our choice, good luck to everyone in the public sector
No it was serious. I am on the SS Private Company, so no change to the way we work.
It's not obvious what the difference is between 'frontline' and non frontline workers....have you figured it? If you are employed by the govt you are going to be f****d over in the next 2 years, make no mistake.
The point is who pays...you ( by losing your job outright) or partly you as in we all take a few days off to cut costs.) Socialism isn't some kind of monster that the media would have you think personified by Brown, just lost in the ephemeral ego of pages to sell.
Pain ahead - damn right. Just I'm happy to spread it amongst all of us.0 -
I'm not happy to spread it amongst all of us, I'd rather the people that caused the pain (banks by gambling) sucked it up and paid off the debt they caused. If they don't, force nationalisation upon the ones that have been bailed out so that every penny in profits goes to the treasury.0
-
Hmm.
G B who was such a good chancellor sold off 60 % of the nations gold reserve some years ago.At todays prices I read this sound fiscal move has cost the country about 7 billion.Labour has stripped the cupboard bare of the years,and so all that is left is pain for us all.
Please don't mention pensions ,remember what he did there?
Banking easy to blame.Who removed the controls ?
Who sloped responsibiltiy to the B of E,if it goes tits up they can't blame me.
Yep it's all ture cos the SUN says so. :roll:
Call me a Biggot if you will,it is the mark of a man.{from No 10}
bagpuss0 -
Oh well, looks like we are all feckd either way! I'm getting the last Huey out of here for Somalia. At least there will be a chance of earning some decent money, good job security and a more stable government than whatever un-holy union of a government gets thrown together here. I just need to remember and stay away from the Russian boats..0
-
donnie murdo wrote:Oh well, looks like we are all feckd either way! I'm getting the last Huey out of here for Somalia. At least there will be a chance of earning some decent money, good job security and a more stable government than whatever un-holy union of a government gets thrown together here. I just need to remember and stay away from the Russian boats..
Not sure about going by chopper though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUJ6cxWdZwAbagpuss0 -
guilliano wrote:I'm not happy to spread it amongst all of us, I'd rather the people that caused the pain (banks by gambling) sucked it up and paid off the debt they caused. If they don't, force nationalisation upon the ones that have been bailed out so that every penny in profits goes to the treasury.
Except that "we" the consumer public created the debt, no one made us borrow money we could not afford to repay, it was concious decision by grown adults. You might argue that the banks were irresponsible for lending in the way they did, but ultimately isn't it about time "we" all took responsibility for creating the mess and stop blaming someone else (usually in 'authority')
I don't disagree about bank nationalisation, but that's a bit too left wing perhaps for modern day Europe. Then again, perhaps the public does need to have its a*** wiped for it.0 -
I read on some website (can't remember where) the 1,000 richest people in Britain last year increased their "earnings" by £77billion. No doubt the vast majority of these will be tories and these faceless men in grey suits are the ones (one way or another have more than contributed to the financial mess we're in. They're able to just sit on their wealth and say Recession, what recession? Whilst everyone on who posts on this forum picks up the tab.
This to my total digust happened under the auspices of a so called labour government, who unfortunately for me in their current form are nothing but tories with a red rosette. I still had to vote for them though unfortunately.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Frank the tank wrote:I read on some website (can't remember where) the 1,000 richest people in Britain last year increased their "earnings" by £77billion. No doubt the vast majority of these will be tories and these faceless men in grey suits are the ones (one way or another have more than contributed to the financial mess we're in. They're able to just sit on their wealth and say Recession, what recession? Whilst everyone on who posts on this forum picks up the tab.
This to my total digust happened under the auspices of a so called labour government, who unfortunately for me in their current form are nothing but tories with a red rosette. I still had to vote for them though unfortunately.
+1 but anything more radical simply wasn't palatable to the majority. Most people generally resent having to give away much of their wealth to others, especially if there is a whiff of abuse of the system. Most importantly, the financial markets upon which we and the rest of the free markets revolve around couldn't stomach a radical approach. Personally I think that the standard of living for the majority has raised to the level where there is no desire to close further the gaps in wealth; arguably the traditional working class has disappeared, or at least had in the years of easy credit and home ownership, which has removed the atmosphere which bred strongly polarised extreme political views.
Frankly there was and until now maybe no
place for Old Labour with its out of date trade union orientated stance. Maybe after a few years of savage cuts and job losses we might see a more polarised society once again, let's hope that NL doesn't take a backward step and elect another Michael Foot0 -
Frank the tank wrote:I read on some website (can't remember where) the 1,000 richest people in Britain last year increased their "earnings" by £77billion. No doubt the vast majority of these will be tories and these faceless men in grey suits are the ones (one way or another have more than contributed to the financial mess we're in. They're able to just sit on their wealth and say Recession, what recession? Whilst everyone on who posts on this forum picks up the tab.
This to my total digust happened under the auspices of a so called labour government, who unfortunately for me in their current form are nothing but tories with a red rosette. I still had to vote for them though unfortunately.
Sugar me I am an apprentice. bagpuss0 -
The fact that the rich list has increased in value during the recession is down to the fact that there is more money and opportuinity in a recession, look at Peel Holdings they were started during the recession of the 70's with mills closing down, they bought the asset and created business starter units. It isn't the faceless men in suits who prosper during a recession it is the entrepeneurs, agreed with the exception of bankers awarding themselves bonuses when their banks have been bailed out.0
-
SteveR_100Milers wrote:Frank the tank wrote:I read on some website (can't remember where) the 1,000 richest people in Britain last year increased their "earnings" by £77billion. No doubt the vast majority of these will be tories and these faceless men in grey suits are the ones (one way or another have more than contributed to the financial mess we're in. They're able to just sit on their wealth and say Recession, what recession? Whilst everyone on who posts on this forum picks up the tab.
This to my total digust happened under the auspices of a so called labour government, who unfortunately for me in their current form are nothing but tories with a red rosette. I still had to vote for them though unfortunately.
+1 but anything more radical simply wasn't palatable to the majority. Most people generally resent having to give away much of their wealth to others, especially if there is a whiff of abuse of the system. Most importantly, the financial markets upon which we and the rest of the free markets revolve around couldn't stomach a radical approach. Personally I think that the standard of living for the majority has raised to the level where there is no desire to close further the gaps in wealth; arguably the traditional working class has disappeared, or at least had in the years of easy credit and home ownership, which has removed the atmosphere which bred strongly polarised extreme political views.
Frankly there was and until now maybe no
place for Old Labour with its out of date trade union orientated stance. Maybe after a few years of savage cuts and job losses we might see a more polarised society once again, let's hope that NL doesn't take a backward step and elect another Michael Foot
Where we differ is I believe a lot of the proposals in MF's political agenda are the sort of things I agree with. Unfortunately we've travelled so far down the "free market" rout it's now imposible to turn back to nationalisation.
Still think at the very least the transport system should be nationalised.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Frank the tank wrote:SteveR_100Milers wrote:Frank the tank wrote:I read on some website (can't remember where) the 1,000 richest people in Britain last year increased their "earnings" by £77billion. No doubt the vast majority of these will be tories and these faceless men in grey suits are the ones (one way or another have more than contributed to the financial mess we're in. They're able to just sit on their wealth and say Recession, what recession? Whilst everyone on who posts on this forum picks up the tab.
This to my total digust happened under the auspices of a so called labour government, who unfortunately for me in their current form are nothing but tories with a red rosette. I still had to vote for them though unfortunately.
+1 but anything more radical simply wasn't palatable to the majority. Most people generally resent having to give away much of their wealth to others, especially if there is a whiff of abuse of the system. Most importantly, the financial markets upon which we and the rest of the free markets revolve around couldn't stomach a radical approach. Personally I think that the standard of living for the majority has raised to the level where there is no desire to close further the gaps in wealth; arguably the traditional working class has disappeared, or at least had in the years of easy credit and home ownership, which has removed the atmosphere which bred strongly polarised extreme political views.
Frankly there was and until now maybe no
place for Old Labour with its out of date trade union orientated stance. Maybe after a few years of savage cuts and job losses we might see a more polarised society once again, let's hope that NL doesn't take a backward step and elect another Michael Foot
Where we differ is I believe a lot of the proposals in MF's political agenda are the sort of things I agree with. Unfortunately we've travelled so far down the "free market" rout it's now imposible to turn back to nationalisation.
Still think at the very least the transport system should be nationalised.
same here, but its not very popular. I'd rather have diluted socialism than moneterism.0 -
-
The reason it's not popular is because we've now had two generations that have been brainwashed into believing the current system is the only way.
I believe the only reason I'm so relatively well off today is because my forefathers had the balls to challenge the ruling classes and trade unions. I'll always remember my dad showing me a photo of him his family and friends and they were all dressed in sh1t clothes despite being hard working individuals.
"This is how the tories would have you live, don't ever forget it".
I never have.
It won't be too long before the wheel has tuned full circle and the minions will realise what they really are,Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
bagpusscp wrote:Labour should in these words...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLgdcGEqgcw
"New labour" yes.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
bagpuss0
