Forum menu
...what hope for a return to a Labour Government or LabLib coallition in 2015?
...or if the coallition implodes before then?
Most opinion polls since the last general election have given Labour a lead, with the suggestion that Labour would win any election called. I doubt whether they will need support from the LibDems - it was fairly untypical for the Tories as the party with the largest amount of votes not to win the election.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8280050.stm
folks have such short memories 🙁
No doubting they would win another election tomorrow,
also no doubting they would continue to **** the country and curtail your liberties just like last time 🙁
folks have such short memories
I have always assumed that the Tories failed to get a majority and win the general election in May 2010 [i]precisely[/i] because people don't have such short memories - no ?
A flock of rampaging rabid grey squirrels would do better in the polls (actually, better in general) than the Tories.
Milipede is a frighting thought though, a lame duck in opposition--- what does he stand for ?? --fairness !!!! he is some brave plain speaking alternative --not
@ernie + 1
No danger of the Lib Dems being in any coalition, they are going to be obliterated. I expect a full renaming/rebranding from them after the next election.
To be honest Labour lack a solid leader, lack clear cohesive policies, lack drive and have a recent history which is less than peachy.
On the plus side, they're not the tories. Lib dems will disapeer back into obscurity having proven that the third party were there for a reason.
Really, its time for the greens to get their act together and form a proper party and become a real opposition.
Really, its time for the greens to get their act together and form a proper party and become a real opposition.
To be fair the Greens [i]have[/i] got their act together and become a proper party - beyond merely environmental issues. They now have a real commitment to social justice and peace.
What's now required is that people vote for them. They can't do much more until that happens.
Cameramoon ,Cleggy and millipede.
What damm idea have they got of running a corner shop let alone the country.
id vote for the rampaging rabid grey squirrels anytime, at least you can feed them and they are fun to watch, unlike the current shower.
I would love to have a government made up of specialists in their respective fields - business would be the old Tesco chairman or similar, defence would be a decent ex-military person, overseas aid by a mix of alan sugar and oxfam types. We could let greenpeace types run the environment. It may not work, who knows?, but at least we would be run by experts and not a load of politicians who often have little experience in general aside from squirming their way through the party system.
I would love to have a government made up of specialists in their respective fields - business would be the old Tesco chairman or similar, defence would be a decent ex-military person, overseas aid by a mix of alan sugar and oxfam types. We could let greenpeace types run the environment. It may not work, who knows?, but at least we would be run by experts and not a load of politicians who often have little experience in general aside from squirming their way through the party system.
Sounds like a bloody good idea to me.
the greens science policy is wackier than jeremey hunt being health secretary
I would love to have a government made up of specialists in their respective fields
Ones who didnt go to a fee paying school,
who had never experienced being short of money,
ones who actually had a job that was seen as worthwhile to other people around them,
ones that had to use public transport, and understood what a bus was,
someone who had been made redundant from a job,
someone who had to claim benefits to keep the roof over his head and to buy food,
someone who had relatives in a care home and had been ripped off by uncaring private care home companies.
and someone who had experience of life from the working class side of the fence.
Sounds like a bloody good idea to me
+1
right person for the job is pretty key to success in anything, running the country seems like an important thing to try and get right to me!
all overseen by our grand leader stephen fry of course
What is "science policy" ? Never heard of it.
Project , won't be many who fulfil that criteria standing for election, maybe a handful of Labour candidates, i'm more in favour of a dictatorship of the proletariat 😉
Prime minister, Stephen Fry
Minister for transport, Jeremy Clarkson,
Minister for inovation and engineering, James May,
Health Minister,Drac
Social Services, Jeremy Kyle,
Finances, Lord Sugar,
Sport, Mark cavendish/Steve Peat, and Bradley Wiggins,
Treasury,Carol Vorderman
ernie_lynch - MemberWhat is "science policy" ? Never heard of it.
definately a green party supporter 😉
specifically im talking about their stance on animal testing, gm crops and nuclear power
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/29/green-party-science-policy
definately a green party supporter
I'm not a Green supporter beyond voting for them. And that's purely on the basis that their candidates were the only ones on my ballot paper standing on a social democratic platform - which kind of made it easy to decide.
As far as "science policy" is concerned I'm fairly sure I've never seen the term used in the manifesto of any party - including the Green Party. But I see from your link to the Guardian article that the term is used there in an all embracing nonspecific way, even with respect to education.
So I'm pleased that you've now narrowed it down to animal testing, gm crops and nuclear power. Yep, if those issues are particularly important to you, and you oppose the Green Party's policies on them, then the Green Party is clearly not for you.
Ones who didnt go to a fee paying school
Why the bigoted attitude to fee paying schools? The state schools are utterly useless where I live. I go without to send my kids to a fee paying school and I'm lucky that I can just about afford to. So now they should be discriminated against for having a decent education? Sounds like the politics of envy to me!
I agree totally with the point about having experience of "real life" in a "real job" and not having only ever worked in the Westminister bubble. Ed Milliband, apart from being a bare faced liar, he misled parliament when he was energy secretary re carbon scrubbing technology in new coal fired power stations, has never had a "real job" outside politics.
If you look into whose done what in both the cabinet and the shadow cabinet you may be very surprised to find how many on both sides are from "privileged" backgrounds, fee paying and grammar school boys and girls mostly. And lets not forget the Oxford University educated Elite that dominates the shadow cabinet
There is one current Minister of State who was a squadie, then a builder, then a fireman before going to uni and getting a degree at 35.
And guess what he's a Tory. I don't believe nu-labour has one of those in its shadow cabinet.
Will they get re-elected in 2015? Not a cat in hell's chance unless the economy turns round and quickly.... which leaves us with the Union Elected and union funded Ed Silliband and his miserable shower.
No danger of the Lib Dems being in any coalition, they are going to be obliterated. I expect a full renaming/rebranding from them after the next election.
Yes, sadly (have always voted LD) - a vote for them will be wasted.
I am sure there will be a change of Labour leader before the next election, as Millipede isn't up to the job. As long as that **** Balls isn't his replacement, I'll be breaking with tradition and voting Labour next time.
Andy
[i]Edit - that should read that condescending, background-pretty-much-identical-to-the-Tory-front-bench (including the public school education he'd like everyone to forget about, and the all-male Oxbridge drinking club), bullying **** Balls, and his equally odious wife[/i]
which leaves us with the Union Elected and union funded Ed Silliband and his miserable shower.
This might come as a shock to you but trade unions are actually legal organisations in this country, it's not the IRA that's funding Labour you know ?
Furthermore it's common knowledge that trade unions fund Labour so if that's a problem for anyone they are perfectly free not to vote for them 💡
Furthermore it's common knowledge that trade unions fund Labour so [b]if that's a problem for anyone they are perfectly free not to vote for them[/b]
Well, that's just quite splendid news.
It's news to you too ? I thought it was probably just Gweilo.
Sounds like the politics of envy to me!
And have you actually thought why this phrase is back in fashion again with a tory government in power? Good for you that you can send your offspring to be privately educated, others who are obviously envious can't afford to do so and have to send them to those "utterly useless" schools you refer to.
As you have pointed out, the political parties are full of those who have been educated privately, and many of the public see this as been advantageous to gaining jobs which are out of reach to mere mortals. That's why you send your kids to be educated this way. Nobody likes a fair fight.
I would love to have a government made up of specialists in their respective fields
Ones who didnt go to a fee paying school,who had never experienced being short of money,
ones who actually had a job that was seen as worthwhile to other people around them,
ones that had to use public transport, and understood what a bus was,
someone who had been made redundant from a job,
someone who had to claim benefits to keep the roof over his head and to buy food,
someone who had relatives in a care home and had been ripped off by uncaring private care home companies.
and someone who had experience of life from the working class side of the fence.
That's the labour party out then.
This might come as a shock to you but trade unions are actually legal organisations in this country, it's not the IRA that's funding Labour you know ?
At least the IRA are upfront about wanting to destroy our country.
I see, trade unions are obviously even worse than the IRA.
How old are you Gorehound ?
Looks like from now on every election is going to be won by shutting the * up, not mentioning anything that could be possobly construed as anything resembling an actual 'policy'. But instead just pointing at whoevers presently in power , and saying "at least I'm not that * eh?"
Oh Jesus! Gorehound's spoken. I'm sure he'll shortly be lambasting John Redwood for being a yoghurt knitting, pinko, lefty commy pussy! He's like the distilled effluent of Norman Tebbits foaming spittle
This might come as a shock to you but trade unions are actually legal organisations in this country, it's not the IRA that's funding Labour you know
And do you know how the election for labour leader worked Ernie?? I assume you don't so I'll enlighten you.
If your a member of the labour party you get a vote
If your a member of an organization affiliated with the labour party you get another vote, or votes if your in more than one organization
If your a member of a union, they get to block vote for you
A friend of mine got 4 votes in the labour leadership election... One man 4 votes seems somehow wrong to me.
I won't even respond to your pathetic IRA comment as it seems to be your usual trolling
Ah, Tories still blaming those big bad unions, while conveniently forgetting the villains who actually brought the country to it's knees contribute a large amount of money to their party.
Why are you going on about the links between some trade unions and the Labour Party Gweilo, it's not news - everyone knows about it.
You've obviously got a problem with it. So don't vote Labour.
it's not the IRA that's funding Labour you know
Nope, it was the KGB wasn't it?
I'm not a Green supporter beyond voting for them
Classic!
I've come to the conclusion, that all of them, are useless bunch of ****ing ****ers.
Whoever ends up in power, the rich get richer, and the rest get screwed.
El-Bent I think its utterly wrong that any kids get a sub-standard education in poorly equipped schools in this day and age. They all deserve a decent education, in decent schools, without political interference a la Gove and the GCSE results
Like I said I'm lucky I can just about afford private education, and they're not at a Harrow or Eton or even Rugby girls, as they are both girls. I choose to educate them that way as its my duty as a parent to give them the best start in life I can. And you're right its not a fair fight but what in the real world is?
To be fair the Greens have got their act together and become a proper party - beyond merely environmental issues. They now have a real commitment to social justice and peace.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, you're serious?
Great, now they just need to define what "social justice" is if it's not communism, and what exactly they intend to do with the MOD under their definition of 'peace'.
And what exactly would they do if they became the leaders of the country? Once they've turned the powerstations off and made the MOD redundant?
define what "social justice" is if it's not communism
😆
Nope, it was the KGB wasn't it?
Who along with Gadaffi funded the IRA.
Ones who didnt go to a fee paying school,who had never experienced being short of money,
ones who actually had a job that was seen as worthwhile to other people around them,
ones that had to use public transport, and understood what a bus was,
someone who had been made redundant from a job,
someone who had to claim benefits to keep the roof over his head and to buy food,
someone who had relatives in a care home and had been ripped off by uncaring private care home companies.
and someone who had experience of life from the working class side of the fence.
Looks like project is voting for me seeing as I meet all the criteria
😀
I'd love to have a minimum age limit for politicians - say 45 or 50. No one can hang around on their arses to that age so must go about making a living in some way. We would have a houses of parliament full of ex business people, military, scientists, engineers etc etc. People who have lived a life. And no full career politicians - what's not to like?
Gwelio, you can afford to send your children to a fee apying school , because you obviously have a well paid job that allows you to earn quite good money.
What happens if you lose that job..........
Back to the general schooling most of us had for them i suppose.
I'm hoping that the rush of kids into private education will allow the state schools to start doing a better job with more money per head for fewer students. Poor levels of state education is a funding problem, isn't it?
project - Member
What happens if you lose that job..........Back to the general schooling most of us had for them i suppose.
that is exactly the case and to use an old phrase "there but for the grace of god go i"
and for the record I'm from a working class background and grew up in a flat on a council estate in West London. No silver spoons and old money here. And bugger all money after the fees lol
Poor levels of state education is a funding problem, isn't it?
Some of its funding, some of its assorted forms of selection be that 11+ or by parents playing the system and thereby taking resources away form schools they would otherwise have got. And the worst of it is political interference and meaningless league tables.
Yes I know I'm guilty of playing the system, but wouldn't you?
Is it Labours turn already?
You do know that the Labour and Tory parties are simply operating a good cop/bad cop scam on you, don't you? The Tories are obviously the "baddies" in this instance. They implement all the nasty policies while the Labour party stand on the sidelines whinging. After a while, they "pop out for a coffee" and in come Labour, talking all friendly and pally but not actually undoing anything the Tories did. They are both complicit in this - it's to give the electorate [i]the impression[/i] that they actually have a say in how the country is run via the ballot box and both parties need each other to survive.
Is it Labours turn already?
You do know that the Labour and Tory parties are simply operating a good cop/bad cop scam on you, don't you? The Tories are obviously the "baddies" in this instance. They implement all the nasty policies while the Labour party stand on the sidelines whinging. After a while, they "pop out for a coffee" and in come Labour, talking all friendly and pally but not actually undoing anything the Tories did. They are both complicit in this - it's to give the electorate the impression that they actually have a say in how the country is run via the ballot box and both parties need each other to survive.
Cannot agree more
How are you playing the system by sending your kids to private school? It's not like you've gone for a tactical baptism, you're just making a simple choice to pay for their education. That's the opposite of playing the system - you're shelling out fees out the bazoo for results you'll have to convince yourself are worth it.Some of its funding, some of its assorted forms of selection be that 11+ or by parents playing the system and thereby taking resources away form schools they would otherwise have got. And the worst of it is political interference and meaningless league tables.Yes I know I'm guilty of playing the system, but wouldn't you?
There's so much I'll never forgive the last Labour government for, not least the nasty habit they had of blatantly attempting to mislead the public on several occasions, most notably about WMD in Iraq. I voted for them once and will never, ever do so again.
That said, I've never voted Tory...it would feel completely wrong somehow, like selling your own grandmother. I don't trust them and really don't want them in power at all.
What we really need is something new, a party that isn't so mired in it's own dogma that it cannot even begin to make sensible policy.
Yes I know I'm guilty of playing the system, but wouldn't you?
NO
What Druidh said
Can you really envisage any other system than the one we have now, if we did find a political party that could bring in economical stability and create the fair and equal society we all want, would we then end up with a one party state?
We all know what happens to them !
Our system is deeply flawed though. We're onto the second generation of career politicians with no real world experience, Westminster life cocoons them from it. Both parties are victims of their own dogma to the point that they'll foist a counter intuitive policy on the public rather than just doing the sensible thing in the first place.
Moreover, to win an election, you only have to appear to be slightly less rubbish than the incumbents. The public readily accept that pre-election pledges will be reneged on, there's no binding way of forcing parties to stick to their promises.
Competition in politics is good, but there isn't enough of it. We've allowed two parties to dominate and in doing so they've both stagnated beyond usefulness.
"Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are, in principle, under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist, that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level... Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I am opposed to economic fascism. I think that until the major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy".
Noam Chomsky
And you're right its not a fair fight but what in the real world is?
I believe that education should be a level playing field, then we will see who's best. But no one wants a fair fight, least of all those who can pay for it. I mean, how else are going you get someone with a history degree running the treasury?
Can you really envisage any other system than the one we have now, if we did find a political party that could bring in economical stability and create the fair and equal society we all want, would we then end up with a one party state?
Or the possibility that other parties would have to clean up their act to compete. At the moment we have political parties who no doubt take the view that the public knows their all lying toe rags. They don't have to live up to much then.
Or you could get the other parties doing the complete opposite. Bit like the GOP and the democrats in the US. They seem to be trying to garner votes for completely different people. Two nations in one state.
druidh - Member
Is it Labours turn already?
You do know that the Labour and Tory parties are simply operating a good cop/bad cop scam on you, don't you? The Tories are obviously the "baddies" in this instance. They implement all the nasty policies while the Labour party stand on the sidelines whinging. After a while, they "pop out for a coffee" and in come Labour, talking all friendly and pally but not actually undoing anything the Tories did. They are both complicit in this - it's to give the electorate the impression that they actually have a say in how the country is run via the ballot box and both parties need each other to survive.
+1
The illusion should have been blown by the formation of "the coalition", between a party to to the right of Labour and a party to the left of Labour. Anything to maintain the charade.
The natural allies in a coalition should surely have been Labour in the middle and one of these other two next to them , not the parties furthest apart politically from their manifestos. And due to their results it had to be the Conservatives.
So, a Labour-Conservative coalition?
But even the sheep would have noticed, so we end up with this. An even more contrived charade.
It's pantomime politics, at best.
Can't believe it's only 9 points.
Pretty poor show given the situation!
My fear is Boris, god forbid the evil this man could bring.
The system is flawed in many ways.
However as Labour's only policy to date seems to be "We wouldn't have done/cut/changed that" then it will probably get a lot closer nearer the time.
It was well forecast that whoever won the last election would loose the following one as the amount of cuts etc was inevitable. Perhaps from a Labour perspective a good one to loose - like the good cop bad cop routine above.
I like the way everyone seems to blame politicians for the politicians we have and never the electorate who actually chooses them.
Opinion polls repeatedly suggest that the Tories would do considerably better in an election if David Cameron was replaced by Boris Johnson. This isn't because Boris Johnson has "better policies" than David Cameron, in fact I doubt very much whether many people can differentiate between the policies of the two.
It is quite simply because Boris Johnson is seen by many as a bumbling clown with unkempt hair who amuses them in a way that David Cameron doesn't. Nothing else.
If the Tories replace David Cameron with Boris Johnson and win the next general election I will blame the electorate for the fact that Britain is governed by a clown, not the Tory Party.
Competition in politics is good, but there isn't enough of it.
On the contrary, competition is bad in politics - that's why all three main parties sing from the same hymn sheet. To depart from it and offer a radical alternative would spell political suicide - the electorate simply would not stand for it.
All three parties carefully study what the electorate want and offer them precisely that. What they are in effect doing is marketing a product, one which is carefully honed to ensure the maximum return/votes.
Forget policies they don't matter too most people, if Boris said I'll be PM I think he would get in?
There's many a slip twixt cup and lip...
I expect that as the coalition unravels the Tories will shift still further to the right with a very nasty, vindictive, but populist manifesto. It worked for Hitler... And as the election looms Miliband will have to come out with some policies.Then watch the fun start...
I like the way everyone seems to blame politicians for the politicians we have and never the electorate who actually chooses them.
Glad you like it. You may have had a point last term.
But for those that voted LD as the only significant option to the left of New Labour, there's a right to feel cheated when finding them "in bed with the enemy".
And for those who voted Labour hoping that they would stay in power, there's also a right to feel cheated by them not working hard enough to make a coalition government with their natural bedfellows, the Conservatives. It's almost as if they wanted to form the opposition more, to maintain the charade.
How are you playing the system by sending your kids to private school? It's not like you've gone for a tactical baptism, you're just making a simple choice to pay for their education. That's the opposite of playing the system - you're shelling out fees out the bazoo for results you'll have to convince yourself are worth it.
You're also helping support the system. You pay private school fees, but also your general taxation, a portion of which goes to support state schools. By going private you are increasing the amount of money available per head for state school pupils.
It can be argued that by supporting private schools that you are helping to perpetuate the elitist system by not compelling the elite to educate their children within the state system and so have an interest in making the state system as good as it can be rather than opting out of it.
It can be argued that by supporting private schools that you are helping to perpetuate the elitist system by not compelling the elite to educate their children within the state system and so have an interest in making the state system as good as it can be rather than opting out of it.
That too. I'm sure there's a balance to be found somewhere...
EL
Intended to edit the post above but timed out.
You do have point, but IMO, less so than in a usual government term. Nobody actually voted for this Condem coalition, and for many it's not what they would have expected from the candidates they voted for with their manifestos before the election.
Forget policies they don't matter too most people, if Boris said I'll be PM I think he would get in?
This Boris below. People have short memories of how vicious and nasty this "buffoon" can be.
It's been posted on another thread, but it's worth showing again to remember the sort of person that was still working to maintain the deceit 15 years after the tragedy.
[img] 
[/img]
He said much the same about Portsmouth once. I think he knows better than to visit.
Remember that no matter how nice they appear sometimes, they are still nasty b'stards.
loum - why don't you also re-publish the apology that Boris Johnson made after this? Just to keep the record straight, obviously.
Sorry. The most over-used and rarely meant word.
its ok borris said 'sorry' for his vitriolic and nasty rant against those frightful northerners
his statement was based on lies, that were known to be lies even then. As a journalist and a politician youd think he might have actually looked at the facts before writing something so offensive
He's a politician. They don't let little things like facts get in the way of a good bashing of the working or formerly working classes...
his statement was based on lies, that were known to be lies even then. As a journalist and a politician youd think he might have actually looked at the facts before writing something so offensive
He didn't write it - although he did sign it off and therefore took responsibility for it.
Agree with [b]druidh[/b]. Sadly.
Labour have already said that they won't reverse any of the spending cuts, despite being "against them".
druidh
It didn't alter the fact that Borris had written this vicious attack, using "facts" he knew to be untrue. He blamed "drunken fans" when he knew this was wrong. It was 15 years after the tragedy, yet he was still abusing his position of power as a top media editor in attempting to peddle lies, despite the results of the investigations. He was rightfully caught, and pulled up on this and forced to apologise. But he did nothing to atone for it. If he had any sincerity, he would not have needed to be told to apologise, he would have done it off his own back. In fact he would not have been writing those lies to start with. It's right not to forget what he said: he may have apologised but that doesn't mean his attack should be forgotten.
David Cameron"First of all, on what the mayor of London or others have said, I think this report is important because, as I have said, people right across the country, whether they are in positions of power and influence or not, this now is the proper explanation of what happened and people who thought it was something else need to come to their senses and realise this is what happened."
Forget policies they don't matter too most people, if Boris said I'll be PM I think he would get in?
I don't think he will. London Mayor, yes, that's because Londoners don't view this job as important, so they can have a "clown" as mayor, Leader of the country is something else.
Labour have already said that they won't reverse any of the spending cuts, despite being "against them".
Cuts are inevitable, Labour have said they would slow them down. With the latest employment figures out, And with Wales and Scotland showing rises in unemployment, I wonder how many of them were part of the 39,000 or so public sector jobs lost in the last three months?
"we can run capitalism better than them"-- interchangeable party slogan for the politrickcians
Boris for PM? 😯
You are aware that this would involve people outside the south east actually voting for him? Can you seriously see this happening? To the rest of the country he's just the jester at the court of Dave
[img] 
[/img]
he also only just scraped in as mayor (by 3.5%) against a deeply unpopular ken and he had all the free london papers and tabloids behind him