Forum menu
Cameron didn't attend Privy Council until 3 months after his appointment - no one suggested he was reluctant to kneel before the Queen or was showing her disrespect.
On average about 5 of the 600 Councillors turn up so Corbyn's not alone in finding other things more important.
Jamby, if you believe the Tories are improving the NHS you are on another planet
2nd junior doctor at my work has accepted a job offer in Australia this month.
The Tories have already succeeded in bringing it down imo
I thought Cameron was outstanding. Compare that the the rambling incoherence of Corbyn last week. Cameron had energy and enthusiasm. Corbyn looked tired, jaded and old
What I thought was how he spoke about things he will never ever even attempt to do never mind deliver
Its was a fantastic piece of style over substance so no wonder it struck a chord with you
Dont get me wrong he sells a message very very well but even you jam*
cannot think he will be setting off , or the party, on a personal mission to eradicate poverty and make opportunity equal for all. It was spin to claim the middle ground but he wont actually try to deliver on his pledges.
* ok you might but somone rational
Cameron didn't attend Privy Council until 3 months after his appointment - no one suggested he was reluctant to kneel before the Queen or was showing her disrespect.
Indeed, Corbyn's record as a backbencher makes almost everything he does as leader look deeply wrong. Blair, Brown or Milliband never had these problems. Corbyn is a poor choice of leader.
You can just see the Labour press team huddle:
[i]
"Cameron's speech has gone down like a storm - he said Jezza hated Britain, we need to counter it!"
"I know! we'll tell the press that Jeremy is too busy to meet the Queen"
"Brilliant!"[/i]
Indeed, Corbyn's record as a backbencher makes almost everything he does as leader look deeply wrong. Blair, Brown or Milliband never had these problems. Corbyn is a poor choice of leader.
Eh? So a good choice of Labour leader would be someone acceptable to the Tory press? That's some impressive logic!
So a good choice of Labour leader would be someone acceptable to the Tory press? That's some impressive logic!
Thats how Blair won elections.
Do you think that a Tory government would have introduced the human rights act, working time regulations or the minimum wage?
You can just see the Labour press team huddle:"Cameron's speech has gone down like a storm - he said Jezza hated Britain, we need to counter it!"
"I know, we'll tell the press that Jeremy is too busy to meet the Queen"
"Brilliant!"
More likely:
[i]"Cameron's speech has gone down like a storm - he said Jezza hated Britain, we need to counter it!"
"I know, we'll tell the press [anything at all]"[/i]
HEADLINE - Corbyn in Devil-Worshipping Scandal !!
It's the 21st century and we have a "Privy Council".
I rather like Corbyn's attitude re: the "monarchy", myself.
Do you think that a Tory government would have introduced the human rights act, working time regulations or the minimum wage?
But but but .... CMD has announced a War on Poverty!! Are you suggesting that the Tories are not actually committed to social justice, and it's all a big con?
I read also that Corbyn will be "too busy" to attend the Privy Council ceremony so he wo t have to kneel before the Queen.
Welcome to 21st century Britain. Just like 18th century Britain in oh so many ways
They could easily have killed this story - they could even have fudged it with a bow instead of a kneel
instead they have made the most fundamental mistake possible, they have managed to keep the story running - and it will come back at the next meeting, and the next meeting, until he finally does, and all that time the Tories don't have to talk about their policies, they don't have to talk about poverty - they can just keep talking about Jeremy not kneeling in front of the Queen. Its manna sent from heaven for the tories!
But but but .... CMD has announced a War on Poverty!! Are you suggesting that the Tories are not actually committed to social justice, and it's all a big con?
Thats like saying that Blair wasn't committed to economic and functional reforms, and that it was all a big con - of course he was, thats why its called [u]centre ground politics[/u] - everyone warned that if the Labour party lurched left, Cameron would seize the middle ground, and all the lefties shouted in union 'lalala we're not listening', and look what he's just done 😆
It's the 21st century and we have a "Privy Council".I rather like Corbyn's attitude re: the "monarchy", myself.
Agreed, it's a completely ridiculous institution in a "modern democracy".
I rather like Corbyn's attitude re: the "monarchy", myself.
Fine but surely it is better to get in power and look to change things?
Corbyn always reminds me of the idealist graduate who comes into a company throws a few ideas around some of which may be good, but they do so in such an annoying way that everyone just ignores them.
the war starts by cutting payments to the lowest and tax breaks for the wealthy via inheritance tax.
Christ you lefties are hard to convince
Corbyn always reminds me of the idealist graduate who comes into a company throws a few ideas around some of which may be good, but they do so in such an annoying way that everyone just ignores them.
I think he's cleverer than that.
Re Cameron, he says 'war on poverty' but I think what he actually means is 'war on poor people'. I'm not sure he's clear on the difference 🙂
everyone warned that if the Labour party lurched left, Cameron would seize the middle ground, and all the lefties shouted in union 'lalala we're not listening', and look what he's just done
The middle ground is now punishing the poor for being poor, by removing the tax credits of millions of the poorest WORKING families in the country, and making their lives immeasurably worse?
Well... every day's a school day eh?
Fine but surely it is better to get in power and look to change things?
WHy?
Corbyn always reminds me of the idealist graduate who comes into a company throws a few ideas around some of which may be good, but they do so in such an annoying way that everyone just ignores them.
Yes that is it and its not just because you are a Tory
Re Privy council I do agree that a modern leader should be able to to swear allegiance to the people and not the monarch
Maybe the Tories are digging their own graves. If the lives of the poor become shit enough during the next 4 years then Corbyn should be able to walk it.
Mol-
Poor people either don't vote, or already live in safe Labour seats (at least until the SNP came along)
they won't change the outcome of an election.
And DCs speech is clearly aimed at making people think that the poor will be supported so those in the middle can vote Tory with a clear conscience.
I think things will have to get really really shit for this to really play out in labour's favour to any significant degree - they need to somehow better educate people on the facts so that the blatant lies being put forth are seen as such more widely.
So to my mind you have labour lead by someone more genuine than most other politicians but in order to get his message across, the question is is he willing to be pragmatic and play the political game.
So to my mind you have labour lead by someone more genuine than most other politicians but in order to get his message across, the question is is he willing to be pragmatic and play the political game.
Sadly you are probably correct. The obvious alternative is to set up guillotines at street corners and alter the status quo that way.
I'm not so sure that he has to 'play the game'.
It would be a good start if he can collect data and get really good illustrating the flaws.
For example, not enough is done to show that the crash was global and a banking problem rather than a Labour one. They say it, but they need to really illustrate it. It's still widely thought that they are to blame.
When Andrew Neil interrogated Gove yesterday he needed to ask Gove what metric he could use to judge whether they had delivered on their promise. Gove was dismissing the decline in building as a delayed response to the crash, which means there will also be a delayed natural upturn, which of course they'll claim is due to their new policies.
I'm not so sure that he has to 'play the game'.
It would be a good start if he can collect data and get really good illustrating the flaws
That doesn't work, unfortunately. A good example was the Reagan presidency. He told lies from dawn to dusk, everyone knew they were lies, and nobody cared because he had a folksy manner and a nice smile.
For example, not enough is done to show that the crash was global and a banking problem rather than a Labour one. They say it, but they need to really illustrate it. It's still widely thought that they are to blame.
You're still trying to fight the 2010 election - The argument has been won and the public perception (right or wrong) is settled, you can try and argue it till you're blue in the face but all you're going to do is keep the story running. Sometimes you have to just say 'sorry', kill the story and move on. Labour have largely done this with Iraq and Afghanistan (even though there are a number of perfectly coherent arguments about why it was the right thing for Blair to do, that Labour really don't want to hear) and as a result it wasn't an issue in the election. Cameron did this with Mandela/Apartheid (again, lots of perfectly coherent arguments why engagement was a better solution than sanctions).
Stop fighting the last election, or the one before that, move on from the arguments of the past, and start thinking about how you are going to win the next election (and the one after that) - thats what Blair did, and thats how he won.
But do the voters move on, as the politicians would like. 'Let's move on' became a Labour mantra, was seen as such and lost effect. I'd suggest it was counter-productive, even.
I can see a case for that ninfan.
I'm not 100% sure you're right, because the swinging voters need to become confident that Labour can run the economy again.
The good thing (which supports your case) is that Corbyn is sooo different from Blair/Brown/Milliband that he is perceived as detached from those past policies anyway.
You're still trying to fight the 2010 election
is a fair point but when in PMQ's or any interview with a conservative and the questions get sticky the fall back position is to blame Labour for the global economic meltdown.
Even after 5 years in power
I'm not 100% sure you're right, because the swinging voters need to become confident that Labour can run the economy again.
Yeah, but Labour's not after the 'current' crop of swinging voters. They're after current SNP/Green voters and people who don't traditionally vote.
I suspect they might have a different view on the economy to traditional centerist swinging voters.
is a fair point but when in PMQ's or any interview with a conservative and the questions get sticky the fall back position is to blame Labour for the global economic meltdown.Even after 5 years in power
And Labour were still blaming Thatcher for underinvesting in the NHS after a decade in power (hell, if we are honest we all know that Labour have spent the past five elections saying that if they won, the Tories were going to privatise the NHS, yet Labour were the people who actually did it!)
Thats the game - deal with it!
Do you think that the Tories had fought every election since trying to persuade the public that in fact NHS budgets under Thatcher only ever rose, and there were more GP's under Thatcher than ever before (both true) they would ever have won again?
Are they or is that in your head?
You're still trying to fight the 2010 election - The argument has been won and the public perception (right or wrong) is settled,
IIRC you can change peoples mind with facts and we see this happen every day on threads like these
Also the running the economy or trust as they call it - even though they missed every single target and ended up doing what labour proposed - and they would have matched their spending and they would not have regulated more pre crash - is very important
Its one of those they sell the spin more and they do it well but few people actually believe that Labour caused the sub prime market in the US to collapse thereby triggering a worldwide global economic slump yet somehow the tories and their press have convinced the public this is true and labour need to embrace this.
One can argue they should have prepared better or done more but not that they caused it.
But how long are you going to spend trying to argue about the past (and by that very nature, keep everyone talking about 'did we or didn't we screw it up')?
Balls and most of the people who were running Labour policy at the time of the crash have gone, they certainly will have by 2020. Move on and start making your arguments about winning the next election
which involve convincing the electorate you can be trusted with the economy hence the need to dispel the lie/myth/spin
That was impossible while Balls was still there. Now he has gone, you blame it all on Balls and move on, just like you have with Tony.
You want to convince them that you can be trusted, then you disown the past, focus on your plans for the future and gain broad support for them, or you tie yourself to existing spending limits, just like Brown did in 1997.
@northwind 😀 iOS auto correction almost the definition of middle class problem.
Indeed @ninfan, the Tories don't even have to criticise Blair the Labour party do that for him. The Labour Party is not only dwelling on the medium past under Blair they are trying to return to the more distant past of the 1970s which I remember as a teenager being one of power cuts, strikes and having to go cap in hand to the IMF. I thought the panel comment on Newsnight was very perceptive. Aside from 10+ years of Labour government Blairs legacy was to have shown conclusively that the middle ground is what wins elections and that this was the basis for Cameron's "leftist" speech, Cameron wouldn't have made it without Blair's election victories. As an aside the quote was again repeated on Newsnight from the Tories election adviser that they had won the election but not the argument and people had voted against the SNP as much as for the Tories. That's clearly something the Tories have to work on.
The Labour focus groups post the defeat in key swing consituencies made it very clear that the three key issues in their defeat where quality of leader, lack of credibility on the economy and weak on immigration. The Tories are making their case very strongly on these issues and Labour are lurching very much in the wrong direction. IMO of course.
which involve convincing the electorate you can be trusted with the economy hence the need to dispel the lie/myth/spin
Lie/myth/spin to you and facts to others. See my post above re the 1970s, it's just too easy to paint a picture of Corbyn-omics leading us back to the 1970s and bailouts from the IMF. The right side of the Labour Party realised the best responce to the Tories attacks was to prove their responsibility credentials by endorsing the cuts and nit voting against them. This clearly doesn't sit well with those on the left of the party but they are not the target electorate
Just imagine how you must feel, if you were a swing voter who went from the Tories or Lib Dems to vote for Blair in the landslide of '97?
(And, for the record, even I voted for Blair in 97 - thats centre ground politics for you!)
By the time of the next election, Labour will have spent nearly ten years telling you that you are a c**t
Who is that going to motivate you to vote for?
lie/myth/spin to you and facts to others
I imagined that no one wanted to argue that labour caused the sub prime market in the US to collapse thereby triggering the worldwide economic downturn
Forgive me for misunderestimating your stupidity
Its a lie/untrue/incorrect to blame to Labour and everyone knows it.
By the time of the next election, Labour will have spent nearly ten years telling you that you are a c**t
Has this actually happened?
Junky - Straw man! you need to reread what was said by Turnbull and Blair here:
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/question-for-those-who-voted-conservative/page/2
Its a lie/untrue/incorrect to blame to Labour and everyone knows it.
Agreed BUT "Gordon Brown promised to 'end boom and bust'" which was stupid and naive. I'm guessing that most with some knowledge of economics# knew the boom cycle had been going on far too long by 2006 and that the longer the boom went on the harder the bust would be.
And if they didn't what, ffs, were they doing managing an economy?
[quote=ninfan opined]Junky - Straw man! you need to reread what was said by Turnbull and Blair here:
> http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/question-for-those-who-voted-conservative/page/2
br />
yours is an appeal to authority and mine is not a straw man as clearly some people do blame labour for the crisis.
Yeah, but Labour's not after the 'current' crop of swinging voters. They're after current SNP/Green voters and people who don't traditionally vote.
If that's the case then they'll lose the next election simply because the numbers don't work. I think Labour need to go and spend some cash and get some better data analysts. In the same way that data has changed the face of sport it is also changing elections (i've no idea if Corbyn understands this), the team with the best real time analysis will win elections. You may hate Osborne but right now he has really grasped that, even if sometimes he is too clever for his own good.
Equally studies have shown people always say they hate negative campaigning but the reality it is, it has the biggest effect on the way people vote. Again the Tories understand this, which is why they are attacking Corbyn directly on defence as they know it will work.
when polled on policies without party names attached to them, most people go left.
What do the polls indicate when actions are discussed rather than words or box ticking?
Most people would 'say' they would stop to help someone out but when the opportunity arises most people walk right on by ('too busy to help my friend, I need to argue on the internet about caring for people!')
I would hope that most people would lean towards left libertarianism when questioned yet I fully expect most people to be self centred right wing authoritarianists in their actions. A quick scan of peoples posting styles and political leanings provides good evadunce of this contradictory trait. Humans are an odd box of frogs ya know.
Perhaps the thread title could be changed to [i]the 'ever so slightly more nasty than the others' party conference[/i]'