the policy of the party at that time was made by conference. Not Blair. Blair later changed that but IIRC not until after his first win.

Thats right, Blair changed it so that he, alone, could make LP policy:

3. When in Government the NEC, the seven backbench members of the Parliamentary Committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party (‘PLP’) plus the Chair of the PLP, the Cabinet, the Chair and three vice Chairs of the NPF, two CLP members of the NPF to be elected by CLP delegates to the NPF, and eight Trade Union members of the TULO Contact Group, shall decide which items from the party programme shall be included in the manifesto which shall be issued by the NEC prior to every general election. The joint meeting shall also define the attitude of the party to the principal issues raised by the election which are not covered by the manifesto.

4. When not in Government the NEC, the Shadow Cabinet, the Parliamentary Committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party (‘PLP’) and the Chair and three vice Chairs of the NPF shall decide which items from the party programme shall be included in the manifesto that shall be issued by the NEC prior to every general election. The joint meeting shall also define the attitude of the party to the principal issues raised by the election which are not covered by the manifesto.

🙄

Has this thread overtaken the Scottish Independence thread yet, in no. of posts?

If not, I suspect it will soon and keep running for the forseeable future….still so much bollox to spout from all sides!

(what is the longest ever STW thread BTW?)

THMs I don’t see so I have no idea what level of nonsense he has posted

Is this a premier member feature? I may sign up! 😆

Revisionist History AS Paper 1

All candidates will be expected to ignore the positive impact played by Bliar in the electoral success of the Labour Government 1997-2005. Reference to landslides will be penalised heavily. Higher grade students will be required to overplay his role in its downfall and cite direct evidence of his sole responsibility for it. No reference should be made to the level of vote achieved in relation to the Party’s positioning on the historic notion of the RW/LW political spectrum, nor the personal approval ratings secured in the aftermath of the “People’s Princess” moment, nor the 95% support for the changes from previous Labour administration laid out in the 1997 manifesto.

A* 40-49%
A 35-40%
B 30-35%
C 25-30%
D 20-25%

Extra marks to be awarded for poor spelling and use of inappropriate grammar

Is this a premier member feature? I may sign up!

No its made up – use of blocking software is not allowed in the rules

AA – its a little webby gizmo someone wrote a few years ago that allows you to block certain users. What I see when THM posts is:

teamhurtmore – Member

teamhurtmore said something stupid.

It has two effects. one I no longer see his posts and two it amuses my inner child.

No its made up – use of blocking software is not allowed in the rules

Queensbury?

No the STW version – now the chance to see how consistently they are applied! 😉

Extra marks to be awarded for poor spelling and use of inappropriate grammar

Your shitting me!! Finally a markskeme i can excel in.

Its not made up. this thingy( i think its called a script) was written years ago by a forum member and offered freely to all people on the forum. NO fuss was made by the mods at the time. Its very useful and amusing.

😀

Try to be as ‘comprehensive’ as poss 😉

Rules
In addition to the above guidelines we have a limited number of hard and fast rules that you should familiarise yourself with before posting on any of our forums.

No posts of a sexual nature, including images of a sexual nature or intended to provoke a sexual response.
No Trade or business advertising – except bona fide retailers may respond to genuine enquiries from potential customers.
Usernames or names displayed in forum threads or story comments may not be used to criticise individuals or companies and are subject to the same rules as for any other post or comment on the site. Where a username is in breach of this rule the account will be deleted or the username altered by a moderator.
No posts which, in the Moderators opinion, are likely to cause offence to either an individual, or group, whatever their gender, sexual inclination or ethnicity.
No posts, including links to other sites that are deemed to be of a sexual or distasteful nature, incite racial or sexist behaviour or are in any way discriminatory and/or offensive towards individuals or minority groups.
No abusive or foul language – There is a swear filter on the site that will capture what we consider to be the most offensive vocabulary but any attempt to evade this swear filter will result in that post or thread being deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned. Our swear filter is not exhaustive and the moderators reserve the right to moderate any language regardless of its inclusion or otherwise in the swear filter library.
No posting of referral links and codes where the poster will benefit financially or otherwise
No ‘Paging…’ threads. They only gum up the forum. If a user wants to be contacted their email address will be on their profile page.
No posts which in the opinion of the moderators are solely intended to, or are likely to provoke or abuse any individual or group.
No impersonation of any other poster, or use of another poster’s identity, including letting a banned user post via your account.
Placing images on the forum requires you to link to the site where the image originated from. Read forum help for details on how to achieve this.
Multiple accounts are not allowed. One member – One account. Users who are found to own more than one account may have ALL accounts deleted. At the very least the extra accounts will be deleted and the user’s remaining account will be suspended for at least 48 hours.
The consequences of infringing these rules and guidelines are entirely at our discretion but will generally start with a 48 hour suspension from posting on the forum for which we may or may not give warnings or notify the user of their ban. In addition moderators may suspend any account for any reason they see fit at any time.

I expect you are going to need a high court injunction to make this stick THM!! I suggest trying the European court of human rights quick smart before Brexit. You have the right to make everyone hear your garbage!!

ninfan – Member

And theres me remembering all the fuss about Blair amending Clause IV, when it turns out that apparently this made no difference at all in the 1997 election.

You know that’s a straw man, I didn’t say Blair made no difference at all. But there’s no doubt whatsoever that Smith would have won had he survived, and that alone puts the lie to the myth that “Blair made Labour electable”

Would they won by as big a margin? Probably not. Doesn’t really matter.
Would they have won the next 2 elections? Absolutely unknowable.

Nah, AA, use is daft. Much better to actually read the silly stuff that gets posted. That amuses my inner adult much more!! Why do you think this one keeps going? Its hilarious…..

that alone puts the lie to the myth that “Blair made Labour electable”

It would be more accurate to state that Black Wednesday made the Conservatives unelectable,

Smith took over the leadership just as it happened, but it was that that was pivotal, not Smiths policies. Remember that it was the Kinnock/Smith manifesto that lost at the ’92 election. Blairs manifesto was miles beyond that, and Labour never polled anywhere near the 60% that they were getting under Blair.

It would be more accurate to state that Black Wednesday made the Conservatives unelectable,

Yes, that’s pretty much what I recall. Blair was then able to convince us that New Labour would be a safe pair of hands for the economy. Without that, he wouldn’t have won anything like the landslide he did.

JC isn’t following that path.

ninfan – Member

Smith took over the leadership just as it happened, but it was that that was pivotal, not Smiths policies. Remember that it was the Kinnock/Smith manifesto that lost at the ’92 election. Blairs manifesto was miles beyond that, and Labour never polled anywhere near the 60% that they were getting under Blair.

There’s merit in that argument- I always say it was a team effort, John and John. But you see, it doesn’t actually make any difference- in either case, “Blair made Labour electable” is bobbins. 2 different roads to the same conclusion.

daft is amusing
to a point
but
endless lying
just gets
tiresome
and destroys
any
meaningful discussion
and so
ruins the forum
for everyone
much more corrosive
than swear words
or name calling

Blairism/Blairities is probably as misused at Thatcherism/Thatcherites

Neither were a good/bad as their supporters/detractors make out. Neither -ism stands up to much scrutiny. Still unlike most, they did deliver election success – luck or judgement, you decide.

Mmm. Lovely bike ride marred only slightly by a torn sidewall in a very expensive tyre. 😳

Oh, I’ll actually be with Corbs (doing some photography for one of the speakers at an event tonight) later; anything you lot would like me to ask him? Binners?

Good one for you then Clodhopper

Gaitskell famously said that he “would not wish, for one day, to remain a leader who had lost the confidence of his colleagues in parliament”

Why does Jeremy disagree?

Why does Jeremy disagree?

errrr…. cos this is 2016 and he’s surrounded by a bunch of privileged middle class plastic **** who are determined to ensure that the poor keep their grubby hands off the moolah

that’s just a guess mind

Blairism/Blairities is probably as misused at Thatcherism/Thatcherites

Neither were a good/bad as their supporters/detractors make out. Neither -ism stands up to much scrutiny. Still unlike most, they did deliver election success – luck or judgement, you decide.

..the latter largely luck, the opposition being split into SDP (and Libs) and Labour that had yet to chuck out a few Militant Tendency entryists who’d succeeded in pulling the party into unelectable political territory (nationally, GLC etc notwithstanding). Fwiw I recall ‘traditional’ lab members winging about being regarded as right wing by their constituency parties. Though those left-wing fire-brands Blunket, Banks, Bryant etc – my memory’s only doing Bs – eventually ended up deciding doing things in central govt was better than local govt or complaining.)

Still, it was a great time for going on demos with like-minded folk.

anything you lot would like me to ask him?

Does he feel that his educational achievements assisted him in making fairy cakes today ?

Does he actually have a policy regarding fairy cakes ?

Is he against them ?

Seamus Milne only “middle” class. Yunki you do know how to hit below the belt….

Do you know how much a Winchester education costs?!?!?

Labour that had yet to chuck out a few Militant Tendency entryists who’d succeeded in pulling the party into unelectable political territory

Sssh, the young cuckoos dont know about that. Its best to keep quiet about that “golden” era.

Clodhopper just ask him what the plans is…. as someone who has never had a job or run a business or ever has been required to pay wages and turn a profit I will be really interested what he has to say (oh – no slogans please they don’t pay the bills for ordinary folk)

Christ don’t know why I bothered asking I already know the answer- there won’t be one

Oops he does have to list how much money he has spent in his expenses claim – so some Admin skills. Question is if someone turned up to your business in their 50s with no CV or work history would you give them a job? Would you **** the man’s been on benefits all his life and you want him to run a multi billion budget? No guesses where that will end.

anything you lot would like me to ask him?

can you have a word about that stem on that bike of his?

If his answer is not satisfactory call him a trot and hoof him in the slats whilst chanting their is only one tony blair …one tony blair

Cut him some slack, he has trimmed the roses (?) around the front door. Impressive stuff. I hope no nests were affected as its about a month too early. Nests are delicate things after all…

Oops he does have to list how much money he has spent in his expenses claim – so some Admin skills. Question is if someone turned up to your business in their 50s with no CV or work history would you give them a job? Would you **** the man’s been on benefits all his life and you want him to run a multi billion budget? No guesses where that will end.

What other jobs did Cameron, Gideon, Blair, Brown and Clegg have? Genuinecquestion I have no idea vut I would guess **** all of much worth outside politics. I dont see how having run a factory or whatever would help.

As long as we minimise the impact that any of these folk can have on our lives, does it matter?

Ok we need talent in the main offices of state, but the civil service run the rest and constituency MPs have different roles.

Jeremy who? Which event is he doing? Can’t see him in the scratch race.

Yep few if any have any real world experience

From memory:
Cameron was a PR flack for a media company for a couple of years (Friends of his dad? ) Gideon Eff all IIRC. Blair a lawyer but I am not sure he ever practiced much. Brown nothing outside of politics. Clegg not sure but nothing much I don’t think

Few politicians these days have had proper jobs for long. Sturgeon a lawyer (barrister??)who did practice for a while – law centre for poor folk not in it for the money. Only senior politician who actually worked in the real world as far as I can remember

😀 and 😯

You can fool some of the people ALL of the time

trump
has real world
experience
your ideal candidate
i suppose

Last time I checked Trump wasn’t running for PM… although he probably thinks he can/should. It is interesting that we have no politicians with any definitive work experience (Nicola Sturgeon is a possible exception) none of them would be likley to get a proper job outside parliament

whoosh
last time i checked
it is still possible
to evaluate him
as a
candidate
for the office he is running for

Cameron was a PR flack for a media company for a couple of years (Friends of his dad? ) Gideon Eff all IIRC. Blair a lawyer but I am not sure he ever practiced much. Brown nothing outside of politics. Clegg not sure but nothing much I don’t think

Few politicians these days have had proper jobs for long.

Indeed. But it does make me laugh about people wailing against the ‘Career Politicians’ in modern politics. They then name a group of politicians, like the ones above, who, love them or hate them, were actually quite good at being politicians. Effective. Election Winners. Repeatedly in these cases.

The antidote to these politicians? A man who is… a Career Politician. Its all he’s ever done. The difference to that roll-cal above though, is that his career was little noticed. Successful? Hardly? He never even made it to the rank of junior bag carrier to a junior minister, and won re-election in a constituency where you could paint a wheelie bin red and it’d get elected. He’s only now party leader by accident. 50% a bit of a laugh by some people. 50% administrative error.

And now we know why he never even made it to the rank of junior bag carrier to a junior minister. Because he’s just really really shit at politics. The actual day-to-day job of being a politician. Absolutely pants at it. The work experience lad before him was twice as effective.

He stumbles into every elephant trap set for him by the opposition, like he’s in a Laurel and Hardy film. I mean.. WTF has he been doing all his career if he walked into the Trident trap that Dave set for him as his parting gift? Playing on his phone? Reading the Morning Star App? Everyone except him saw that for what it was. Hence the faces like smacked arses on the labour front bench as he plummeted down the great big floodlit hole that’d been dug for him. You could see it from space FFS! Hardly quick on the uptake, is he? Not exactly the sharpest tool in the box, to say the least.

He mumbles away ineffectually at PMQ’s. His permanently fixed scowl is to the TV cameras what Browns rictus grin was. Electoral kryptonite. And (unsurprisingly) the more that normal people see of his ‘performance’ (excluding weird cult members) the less they trust him to do the job of PM. So his approval ratings amongst voters (excluding weird cult members) continue to plummet, taking the fortunes of the Labour Party with them.

If only Malcolm were still around to give a full and frank appraisal of his performance so far. I think we can guess what he’d (perfectly correctly) say….

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxKFhA3JRwY[/video]

😆