Forum menu
If that's the case then they'll lose the next election simply because the numbers don't work.
Yeah, "More or Less" covered it on R4.
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.
Didn't work out well for the other three in the Labour leadership election.......
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?
All of this applies to me too.
ninfan - MemberThat 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.
TBH this is absolutely correct. It's crap, but Miliband and Balls decided not to fight that fight and this is where it's left the party, all they can do is deal with that. It'd be better if they could put the record straight, but that ship's probably sailed.
dragon - MemberEqually 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.
Well, nearly. Negative campaigning is very effective with voters. What it's terrible at, is motivating people to vote. But a third of voters chose this government, and a third of the public didn't vote at all, so that's potentially an important distinction.
Meanwhile- Cameron's "all out assault on poverty" is to drive an extra 200000 working households into poverty by 2020 directly via welfare cuts, according to the Resolution Foundation. In total they predict that an extra 700000 households will be in poverty by the end of this parliament- breaking the 4000000 barrier, with fully half being working households. But the solution is work, apparently.
Remember that time when we declared war on drugs, and as a result, there's no drugs anywhere. So then we moved on to terrorism, and resoundingly defeated terrorism. What will we do once we're finished with poverty?
footflaps - Member
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".
Unless of course, the majority of the people ISPs said democracy remain in favour of the monarchy"""
labour fighting the 2010 election?? More likely fighting a phoney civil war based on false assumptions of why they lost the last election.
CMD and GO are far less concerning than the BS spouted by May on immigration. Not that I have listen to the actual speeches mind.
[url= http://lauramcinerney.com/2015/10/06/what-i-learned-wandering-around-the-conservative-conference-protests-as-a-journalist/ ]interesting read[/url]
More likely fighting a phoney civil war based on false assumptions of why they lost the last election.
What?
[s]what?[/s] pardon? C'mon mol 😉
They don't always help themselves do they
[img] 
[/img]
"More likely fighting a phoney civil war based on false assumptions of why they lost the last election"What?
THM thinks it is likely that the Labour Party is fighting a fake civil war based on the incorrect reasons why they didn't win the last general election.
Although he doesn't say it I think we should assume that THM knows the real reasons why Labour lost the last election.
I have no idea why he thinks it isn't a genuine civil war, although to be fair he only talks about "likely" so he's presumably still entertaining the possibility that it might be a proper civil war.
HTH
Phoney in relation to the subject/battle ground.
I have my thoughts yes, but my comments are based more on the Labour Party/Fabian Society/independent polls' data - all pretty clear.
Rather than this inelegance lurch backwards, I would rather see a genuine opposition with forward looking policies capable of challenging the government. Society would be healthier for it. Plus as before, the whole LW v RW debate is completely out of date anyway.
HTH
Remember that time when we declared war on drugs, and as a result, there's no drugs anywhere. So then we moved on to terrorism, and resoundingly defeated terrorism. What will we do once we're finished with poverty?
That's a very good analogy!
I have my thoughts yes, but my comments are based more on the Labour Party/Fabian Society/independent polls' data - all pretty clear.
But this phoney civil war is based on false assumptions ?
Won't someone tell one side the truth. Obviously both sides can't be right in this phoney civil but I think side should be......don't you ?
@kimbers 🙂
@Northwind, we've been round in circles about responsibility for the crises but Labour where at the helm for 10 years prior, they oversaw and contributed to the conditions that lead to it (and remember Salmond encouraged RBS to pursue the merger which destroyed the bank) and they made critical errors in the aftermath including crippling Lloyds by facilitating their take over of Halifax-Bank of Scotland, paying too much for RBS and most importantly not reducing public spending after the crash. All this and Gordon Brown declared "boom and bust" was over, not smart.
Indeed hence the adjective "phoney", that is the second simple bit.
Obviously both sides can't be right
Of course not...
[img] 
[/img]
Plus as before, the whole LW v RW debate is completely out of date anyway.
Hmm - elements of it are not though.
Big state vs small state
Help each other vs help yourself
Public vs private
And so on.
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
About 20 years ago I was listening to 'Today' on R4, when some Tory bigwig was trying to explain their latest F***Up, he gave the excuse that "We are still cleaning up the problems created by the last Labour government". What the one you replaced in 1979, and you have been in power for over 18 years.
To paraphrase Marcus Brigstocke, my Irony Meter went onto overload
Hmm - elements of it are not though.Big state vs small state
Help each other vs help yourself
Public vs privateAnd so on.
More relevant now than ever before I'd say.
Entertaining video on the Tory conference from a Guardian journalist...
Important role for the state v import role for the state
Punlic and private v public and private
Help each other v help each other
Yes, pretty redundant debate clearly
Its specially redundant if you ignore what was said and re write it.
About 20 years ago I was listening to 'Today' on R4, when some Tory bigwig was trying to explain their latest F***Up, he gave the excuse that "We are still cleaning up the problems created by the last Labour government". What the one you replaced in 1979, and you have been in power for over 18 years.
Not unique to Tories. Gordon Brown was still blaming Thatcher 16 yrs after she left office.
Another witty Guardian article taking the piss from all three conference parties:
This made me laugh...
Then came Theresa May, a woman who exudes all the compassion of stage 4 bone cancer, talking of her party’s “proud history” of helping vulnerable people. They have never helped vulnerable people and they are very proud of that.
Entertaining video on the Tory conference from a Guardian journalist..
A better article though, clearly a thread on here is not the ideal place for deep thought either.
bout 20 years ago I was listening to 'Today' on R4, when some Tory bigwig was trying to explain their latest F***Up, he gave the excuse that "We are still cleaning up the problems created by the last Labour government". What the one you replaced in 1979, and you have been in power for over 18 years.To paraphrase Marcus Brigstocke, my Irony Meter went onto overload
But do you remember Andy Burnham at the 2009 Labour conference blaming the rise in hospital car parking fees on "years of shameful Tory underinvestment in the NHS"
Its the game - they both do it, stop pretending that one is better than the other for it.
irc - MemberNot unique to Tories. Gordon Brown was still blaming Thatcher 16 yrs after she left office.
You mean stuff like this ?
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562097/Gordon-Brown-admires-Margaret-Thatcher.html ]Gordon Brown 'admires' Margaret Thatcher[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
?4[/img]
Your photo collection gets more impressive by the day Ernie? How many do you have now - is it 000s or 0000s?
You are so predictable THM.
Just admiration Ernie, it's a work of devotion clearly. No one else on STW comes close. I still reckon only 000s though.
Ah, the great lady 😀
C'mon lefties - have you figured out a response to this yet?
The problem with you oh-so-clever digs and retorts THM is they do make you seem rather dim. I genuinely cringe in embarrassment on your behalf.
😀 😀
[quote=footflaps > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/08/hate-tories-conservatives-dominance-pointless-protest
br />
Some here (and indeed in the Labour movement) might do well to reflect on this paragraph:
On Sunday, I spent time among the anti-Tory marchers and asked them if they understood why people voted for the enemy. Granted, a demonstration is not the ideal place for deep thought, but the replies were still depressing. Conservative supporters were “uneducated”, “selfish”, and “brainwashed”. It is strange, perhaps, to meet socialists with such a dim view of their fellow human beings, but there we are.
(and indeed on much else in that article)
As the Iron Lady once say ... No No No ... to bastid ZM EU bureaucrats!
More Nos to the bastid EU ZM bureaucrats!
The nasty party conference...
What? The SNP conference is next week you know...
What? The SNP conference is next week you know...
That's exactly what I first thought when I read the title
[img] 
[/img]
Some here (and indeed in the Labour movement) might do well to reflect on this paragraph....
Having watched the video, I'm sure the more aggressive protesters are counter-productive, if I was inside the ring of steel, I'd just think 'f*** those yobs, we'll show them' and feel much more emboldened to push through with certain policies....
Having watched the video, I'm sure the more aggressive protesters are counter-productive, if I was inside the ring of steel, I'd just think 'f*** those yobs, we'll show them' and feel much more emboldened to push through with certain policies....
I agree with this. As much as I loath the Tories I don't like to see people spat at. It does nothing to advance the protest, just makes them look bad.
[img] 
?oh=95ac20cf843fef2b3685d0a9e079dd39&oe=56D1CF26[/img]
Political fortunes change quickly, I think Theresa signed her own death warrant with that speech, however George's magpie policies were a clear staking of his claim for 2020.
Boris is still very much in the running, still polls well and has made a couple of interesting snide remarks over Coke and hookers recently, and a long history of some fairly big philosophical differences with the right of the party, so is definitely in the running if they continue down the ONT path.
I'd just think 'f*** those yobs, we'll show them' and feel much more emboldened to push through with certain policies....
Maybe, but what a state we're in if govt. policy is decided on the basis of petty personal reactions!