Jump to content
born to moan

Mad money, and politics and history and international law, and climate change, and Brexit, and Chinese imports, and Diane Abbott, and Donald Trump, and the General Election, and the NHS.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Hoddie said:

I'm not a particularly big fan of Labour right now, but almost all of the things we take for granted, paid holidays, the NHS, the state benefits system, social services, free education, maternity leave, paternity leave, subsidised public transport, etc. all came from the trade union movement and its coming together collectively as Labour. The Tories have always been about business and the upper classes, indeed the reason we call them Tories rather than their proper name is not because it's easier, but because it pejoratively sign-posts the party's roots - the old Tory party which were guardians of the landed gentry and nobility. They care about power and wealth being generated and preserved for the few. The fact that they now embrace the NHS and workers rights is only because they can't afford to lose the votes of those that Thatcher split from Labour.

Tony Blair may have been the king of spin, but nobody does spin better than modern Tories. They claim to be guardians of the economy yet somehow borrowed more in 5 years than every previous Labour government had combined - in real terms - despite the deepest austerity cuts since the war and despite Labour having borrowed a small fortune to bail out the banks in 2008. Almost trebling the national debt to £2 trillion in just eight years of government - that's quite an achievement. They claimed the deficit would have been eliminated in 2015 yet here were are in 2019 and it's still there, but suddenly austerity is over. They claim to be the party of the middle classes despite increasing VAT every single time they come to power, the regressive tax which disproportionately affects the middle classes the most. They claim to want a fair tax system, yet somehow never get around to actually closing the £40bn/year tax gap, probably because those taking advantage of the UK's lax and opaque tax laws are those same people paying millions to the Tory party every year.

I wouldn't trust Corbyn with the country more than I would Jamie Fullarton with a Sunday school football side, mostly because of his position on the Falklands, the nuclear deterrent and open immigration, but switching my vote to the Tories - a party that couldn't give one iota of a **** about anyone unless they have 6-figures in the bank - is more than I can stomach.

British politics at the moment is a disgrace. Oh how we desperately need a character like Thatcher. And no, BoJo isn't a strong, principled politician - he is the antithesis of Thatcher, not her political reincarnation.

We need a leader that puts the British people at the heart of decision making and not America or the EU. Boris is in Bannens pocket and Jeremy isn't really bothered about the British people it's all about his socialist friends across the water and his socialist/communist principles.

You need a leader that is compassionate and fair but also someone that is dogged and tough. A leader that will stand up to big business and at the same time the unions, when they're being unreasonable.

It will never happen though because we are lapdogs whichever side wins.

The political system in the UK needs to change but not into what turned into at the moment.

Oh and I see Dianne Abbott performed brilliantly again in the house of commons. But, let's not criticise her. Oh no. She should stick to working as a local MP and caring for their needs. Something she is apparently good at and stay well away from public speaking because she is an embarrassment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Erik Everhard said:

We need a leader that puts the British people at the heart of decision making and not America or the EU. Boris is in Bannens pocket and Jeremy isn't really bothered about the British people it's all about his socialist friends across the water and his socialist/communist principles.

You need a leader that is compassionate and fair but also someone that is dogged and tough. A leader that will stand up to big business and at the same time the unions, when they're being unreasonable.

It will never happen though because we are lapdogs whichever side wins.

The political system in the UK needs to change but not into what turned into at the moment.

Oh and I see Dianne Abbott performed brilliantly again in the house of commons. But, let's not criticise her. Oh no. She should stick to working as a local MP and caring for their needs. Something she is apparently good at and stay well away from public speaking because she is an embarrassment.

 

For all his faults, I just don't recognise that characterisation of Corbyn. Read any policy document or the last Labour manifesto and that's pretty clear. Wanting to improve the lot of someone on the other side of the world doesn't mean you've stopped caring abut those next door. I have issues with some of the stances he adopts and think he's an electoral problem for Labour and a 'stronger' leader is needed to change their fortunes but I reckon he cares about this country, in some respects, more than Johnson and many in the Tories who would literally sell us to the highest bidder (as long as they're on a percentage). 
I was taking the p*** with my 'guardians of the economy' comment. Tory economic competence is something of a myth as the figures Hoddie quoted suggest.
It's similar to the notion of the 'efficiency of the private sector'. Look at almost all aspects of public service provision that's now in the hands of private concerns. They're mostly s*** yet profits continue to be taken out of the funding pot. And we continue to bail them out when they fail.

Edited by 154 Hopper Avenue
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, 154 Hopper Avenue said:

For all his faults, I just don't recognise that characterisation of Corbyn. Read any policy document or the last Labour manifesto and that's pretty clear. Wanting to improve the lot of someone on the other side of the world doesn't mean you've stopped caring abut those next door. I have issues with some of the stances he adopts and think he's an electoral problem for Labour and a 'stronger' leader is needed to change their fortunes but I reckon he cares about this country, in some respects, more than Johnson and many in the Tories who would literally sell us to the highest bidder (as long as they're on a percentage). 
I was taking the p*** with my 'guardians of the economy' comment. Tory economic competence is something of a myth as the figures Hoddie quoted suggest.
It's similar to the notion of the 'efficiency of the private sector'. Look at almost all aspects of public service provision that's now in the hands of private concerns. They're mostly s*** yet profits continue to be taken out of the funding pot. And we continue to bail them out when they fail.

Nuclear dissarmt would be something he'd want for our country. That would weaken our defence and would also weaken our role internationally as a diplomatic force.

This would be something he'd introduce not for the good of the British people but for his own beliefs.

In politics, it's not about what they say they're going to do, but what is behind their words. What do they want to do that they're not saying? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbyn is one of those rare things - something we often claim to want - a politician with principles.

It's just a shame that many of his main policies are cuckoo.

In a way, I admire him. He's waited decades to be heard and now he's leader of the Labour party, voted in by the members against the wishes of the mainstream party. He believes in the same things now that he's always pushed for, refusing to sell his principles just to win power or votes, and he's seen off a dozen or so internal challenges from 'new Labour' MPs. Even now he's driving the Labour agenda while swimming against the tide. He speaks with the kind of authority that comes from having both the members and the unions behind him. He is, in many respects, the polar opposite of Boris, who is driving Brexit so hard because he knows that promising to deliver on the referendum result is what's brought him to power and what will keep him in power, even if he privately believes the UK should remain in the EU. While clearly intelligent and seemingly very competent, at heart he's a Trump-esque politician who thrives on drama and bullshit. We deserve better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

Corbyn is one of those rare things - something we often claim to want - a politician with principles.

It's just a shame that many of his main policies are cuckoo.

In a way, I admire him. He's waited decades to be heard and now he's leader of the Labour party, voted in by the members against the wishes of the mainstream party. He believes in the same things now that he's always pushed for, refusing to sell his principles just to win power or votes, and he's seen off a dozen or so internal challenges from 'new Labour' MPs. Even now he's driving the Labour agenda while swimming against the tide. He speaks with the kind of authority that comes from having both the members and the unions behind him. He is, in many respects, the polar opposite of Boris, who is driving Brexit so hard because he knows that promising to deliver on the referendum result is what's brought him to power and what will keep him in power, even if he privately believes the UK should remain in the EU. While clearly intelligent and seemingly very competent, at heart he's a Trump-esque politician who thrives on drama and bullshit. We deserve better.

People should go back and watch Johnson extolling the virtues of Turkey joining the EU. In fact, here you go.....didn't last long though. As this article show....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/18/boris-johnson-falsely-denies-issuing-turkey-warning-in-brexit-campaign

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erik Everhard said:

We need a leader that puts the British people at the heart of decision making and not America or the EU. Boris is in Bannens pocket and Jeremy isn't really bothered about the British people it's all about his socialist friends across the water and his socialist/communist principles.

You need a leader that is compassionate and fair but also someone that is dogged and tough. A leader that will stand up to big business and at the same time the unions, when they're being unreasonable.

It will never happen though because we are lapdogs whichever side wins.

The political system in the UK needs to change but not into what turned into at the moment.

Oh and I see Dianne Abbott performed brilliantly again in the house of commons. But, let's not criticise her. Oh no. She should stick to working as a local MP and caring for their needs. Something she is apparently good at and stay well away from public speaking because she is an embarrassment.

I actually thought BoJo handled Trump quite well recently, openly defying him but getting away with it because of his charm.

The UK needs a strong leader that will revert to the unfashionable 'governing by consensus' model that has served the UK so well. So much is decided upon by unelected advisors now, with even the Cabinet left in the dark until after a decision is made. The Cabinet is now a defunct layer of checks and balances where members are usually required to accept what's been decided by SPADs or otherwise resign. It's not how it should be.

And Diane Abbot should stay away from public speaking? She won the Parliamentary Speech of the Year award in 2008 for her speech on civil liberties. She voted against the Iraq War and was considered one of Tony Blair's main opponents throughout his leadership. She may speak weirdly (in fact I struggle to listen to her when she speaks) but she's earned her place in Parliament, unlike many of her main Parliamentary critics who are there only because they were parachuted into safe seats.

Just now, 154 Hopper Avenue said:

People should go back and watch Johnson extolling the virtues of Turkey joining the EU. In fact, here you go.....didn't last long though. As this article show....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/18/boris-johnson-falsely-denies-issuing-turkey-warning-in-brexit-campaign

Indeed, it's a disgrace that his rants about the EU inviting Turkey to join went so unchallenged. In fact, over the entire course of the Brexit campaign, I only saw Andrew Marr challenge him on this, and even then not for very long. It was Cameron who insisted that the EU make Turkey a candidate member, threatening to veto the EU's budget unless they did. Greece, Cyprus and France have all made it perfectly clear that they would never allow Turkey to join, and even if they all changed their minds (almost impossible to imagine in the case of Greece and Cyprus), the UK could throw a veto down to stop it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But sunlit uplands and our own unicorn to play on!

Seriously though this country is going through serious political turmoil, more than I've seen before!

I dont know what the answer is,as I have no faith in either leader of the main two parties, but obviously err towards the labour party because of its policies, however as a staunch remainer can I justify voting at the next GE for the lib dems? After all they are the only party to say they will do what I want!

What a quandary!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hoddie said:

I actually thought BoJo handled Trump quite well recently, openly defying him but getting away with it because of his charm.

The UK needs a strong leader that will revert to the unfashionable 'governing by consensus' model that has served the UK so well. So much is decided upon by unelected advisors now, with even the Cabinet left in the dark until after a decision is made. The Cabinet is now a defunct layer of checks and balances where members are usually required to accept what's been decided by SPADs or otherwise resign. It's not how it should be.

And Diane Abbot should stay away from public speaking? She won the Parliamentary Speech of the Year award in 2008 for her speech on civil liberties. She voted against the Iraq War and was considered one of Tony Blair's main opponents throughout his leadership. She may speak weirdly (in fact I struggle to listen to her when she speaks) but she's earned her place in Parliament, unlike many of her main Parliamentary critics who are there only because they were parachuted into safe seats.

Indeed, it's a disgrace that his rants about the EU inviting Turkey to join went so unchallenged. In fact, over the entire course of the Brexit campaign, I only saw Andrew Marr challenge him on this, and even then not for very long. It was Cameron who insisted that the EU make Turkey a candidate member, threatening to veto the EU's budget unless they did. Greece, Cyprus and France have all made it perfectly clear that they would never allow Turkey to join, and even if they all changed their minds (almost impossible to imagine in the case of Greece and Cyprus), the UK could throw a veto down to stop it.

It's ironic that so many of the seeds of what we see now in terms of bypassing cabinet government and the use of advisors were sewn when Blair was in power. He and Brown developed the use of statutory instruments to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny to an art form. 98% of the laws he introduced between '97 and '07 were done by that method. He also increased the number of laws passed by over 20% when compared to the previous decade. His use of and reliance upon Campbell was, in reality, no different to Johnson and Cummings relationship. All that so-called 'sofa government' wasn't healthy for democracy. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id much rather a Labour government than a Tory one, however until Corbyn goes I cant vote for them. The biggest danger and threat to the UK going. The sooner Labour kick him out of power the better as then there will be a party with a chance of getting in.

Until then, it doesnt matter how much of a shitshow the Tories are, they are a shoe in. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hoddie said:

I actually thought BoJo handled Trump quite well recently, openly defying him but getting away with it because of his charm.

The UK needs a strong leader that will revert to the unfashionable 'governing by consensus' model that has served the UK so well. So much is decided upon by unelected advisors now, with even the Cabinet left in the dark until after a decision is made. The Cabinet is now a defunct layer of checks and balances where members are usually required to accept what's been decided by SPADs or otherwise resign. It's not how it should be.

And Diane Abbot should stay away from public speaking? She won the Parliamentary Speech of the Year award in 2008 for her speech on civil liberties. She voted against the Iraq War and was considered one of Tony Blair's main opponents throughout his leadership. She may speak weirdly (in fact I struggle to listen to her when she speaks) but she's earned her place in Parliament, unlike many of her main Parliamentary critics who are there only because they were parachuted into safe seats.

Indeed, it's a disgrace that his rants about the EU inviting Turkey to join went so unchallenged. In fact, over the entire course of the Brexit campaign, I only saw Andrew Marr challenge him on this, and even then not for very long. It was Cameron who insisted that the EU make Turkey a candidate member, threatening to veto the EU's budget unless they did. Greece, Cyprus and France have all made it perfectly clear that they would never allow Turkey to join, and even if they all changed their minds (almost impossible to imagine in the case of Greece and Cyprus), the UK could throw a veto down to stop it.

Come off it Hoddie. She fluffed her lines as soon as she sat down at the wrong point and forgot to address her first question. Then, surprise surprise, she tried to ask 7 questions instead of 6.

She is still going no comment about her racist remark about Jamaican mothers and due to leaked information from Corbyn and his right hand man saying she's become a liability, they are now trying appease her and the situation by letting her carry on.

I'm sorry but if you can't count to 6 and you can't remember the right order and the correct protocol for addressing the Prime Minister if he is deputy etc then you're not fit to be in that position.

I used to follow politics quite a lot and I'd watch This Week with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo and of course Dianne Abbott. Michael Portillo would dance all over her incorrect opinions on lots of subjects and prover her wrong countless times.

I know of a bloke who she really did help get off the streets after his mother had thrown him out for being gay. Without her he probably wouldn't be the successful man he is today. He could quite easily have fallen through the gaps and died.

For that, and for other such tales I have respect for her. But, time to give the high profile, public speaking a swerve.

It's counter productive when trying to get your party elected 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hoddie said:

I said a character like Thatcher, not actually Thatcher. Someone who's capable, headstrong, intelligent and driven.

She would have sorted the Brexit fiasco out unlike T. May.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steve Lanzarote said:

She would have sorted the Brexit fiasco out unlike T. May.

There would have been no referendum under Thatcher!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 154 Hopper Avenue said:

It's ironic that so many of the seeds of what we see now in terms of bypassing cabinet government and the use of advisors were sewn when Blair was in power. He and Brown developed the use of statutory instruments to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny to an art form. 98% of the laws he introduced between '97 and '07 were done by that method. He also increased the number of laws passed by over 20% when compared to the previous decade. His use of and reliance upon Campbell was, in reality, no different to Johnson and Cummings relationship. All that so-called 'sofa government' wasn't healthy for democracy. 

Absolutely, Blair politicised the civil service and made bypassing the Cabinet a regular thing. He also diluted the integrity of the HOL. But note that no future government has reversed any of this. It's just how it is. The Tories brought in PFI so they could shift some costs off the books, and when Labour came to power, despite being highly critical of PFI when in opposition, they abused it themselves - and to several degrees more than the Tories ever did.

1 hour ago, Erik Everhard said:

Come off it Hoddie. She fluffed her lines as soon as she sat down at the wrong point and forgot to address her first question. Then, surprise surprise, she tried to ask 7 questions instead of 6.

I don't think MPs need to be particularly articulate to be good at their job, and as you've demonstrated yourself - she's a pretty good constituency MP. Didn't she get 80% of the vote last time around or something like that? Would I want her as Chancellor or representing the country as Foreign Secretary? No, obviously not. But to suggest she doesn't have the right to speak in Parliament is too much imo, she's won awards for speaking in Parliament that hundreds of the current lot haven't. She's a champion of civil liberties and of individual privacy and she's done some incredible work with some often-overlooked health conditions. I really don't think she deserves the abuse she gets at times, but she's an easy target. She's a woman, she's black, a former lover of Corbyn. She's left-leaning if not an outright socialist and she has a mild speech impediment. The tabloids love her because she's easy to point at and call foolish. Portillo is a public-school educated career politician who probably excelled in debating society. His father was a politician. Most people would struggle to deal with him. Incidentally, he was a Labour supporter until he won a scholarship and entered public school. Fancy that.

58 minutes ago, chrisbo61 said:

There would have been no referendum under Thatcher!

You're absolutely right. The EU was shaped to suit Thatcher's demands. The internal market and four freedoms were her idea. That same internal market the UK is trying to extricate itself from.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 154 Hopper Avenue said:

He and Brown developed the use of statutory instruments to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny to an art form. 98% of the laws he introduced between '97 and '07 were done by that method. He also increased the number of laws passed by over 20% when compared to the previous decade.
 

Surely not, I thought all of our laws came from the EU;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

Absolutely, Blair politicised the civil service and made bypassing the Cabinet a regular thing. He also diluted the integrity of the HOL. But note that no future government has reversed any of this. It's just how it is. The Tories brought in PFI so they could shift some costs off the books, and when Labour came to power, despite being highly critical of PFI when in opposition, they abused it themselves - and to several degrees more than the Tories ever did.

I don't think MPs need to be particularly articulate to be good at their job, and as you've demonstrated yourself - she's a pretty good constituency MP. Didn't she get 80% of the vote last time around or something like that? Would I want her as Chancellor or representing the country as Foreign Secretary? No, obviously not. But to suggest she doesn't have the right to speak in Parliament is too much imo, she's won awards for speaking in Parliament that hundreds of the current lot haven't. She's a champion of civil liberties and of individual privacy and she's done some incredible work with some often-overlooked health conditions. I really don't think she deserves the abuse she gets at times, but she's an easy target. She's a woman, she's black, a former lover of Corbyn. She's left-leaning if not an outright socialist and she has a mild speech impediment. The tabloids love her because she's easy to point at and call foolish. Portillo is a public-school educated career politician who probably excelled in debating society. His father was a politician. Most people would struggle to deal with him. Incidentally, he was a Labour supporter until he won a scholarship and entered public school. Fancy that.

You're absolutely right. The EU was shaped to suit Thatcher's demands. The internal market and four freedoms were her idea. That same internal market the UK is trying to extricate itself from.

Would Thatcher have signed into the Lisbon Treaty ?  I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, born to moan said:

Would Thatcher have signed into the Lisbon Treaty ?  I don't think so.

Who knows? She would have negotiated the UK's position differently that's for sure. The Lisbon Treaty was the culmination of over a decade's worth of summits and agreements. Every country won in some areas and lost in others, as you'd expect from a compromise agreement. It made the EU as a whole much more democratic, removing national vetoes in many areas and increasing the power held by elected MEPs.

Thatcher is often presented as anti-European but that's simply not true. Nor was Churchill, though it didn't stop Brexiteers from claiming otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

Absolutely, Blair politicised the civil service and made bypassing the Cabinet a regular thing. He also diluted the integrity of the HOL. But note that no future government has reversed any of this. It's just how it is. The Tories brought in PFI so they could shift some costs off the books, and when Labour came to power, despite being highly critical of PFI when in opposition, they abused it themselves - and to several degrees more than the Tories ever did.

I don't think MPs need to be particularly articulate to be good at their job, and as you've demonstrated yourself - she's a pretty good constituency MP. Didn't she get 80% of the vote last time around or something like that? Would I want her as Chancellor or representing the country as Foreign Secretary? No, obviously not. But to suggest she doesn't have the right to speak in Parliament is too much imo, she's won awards for speaking in Parliament that hundreds of the current lot haven't. She's a champion of civil liberties and of individual privacy and she's done some incredible work with some often-overlooked health conditions. I really don't think she deserves the abuse she gets at times, but she's an easy target. She's a woman, she's black, a former lover of Corbyn. She's left-leaning if not an outright socialist and she has a mild speech impediment. The tabloids love her because she's easy to point at and call foolish. Portillo is a public-school educated career politician who probably excelled in debating society. His father was a politician. Most people would struggle to deal with him. Incidentally, he was a Labour supporter until he won a scholarship and entered public school. Fancy that.

You're absolutely right. The EU was shaped to suit Thatcher's demands. The internal market and four freedoms were her idea. That same internal market the UK is trying to extricate itself from.

She has the right to speak in the commons. Every MP has that right. To take PMQ's, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Erik Everhard said:

She has the right to speak in the commons. Every MP has that right. To take PMQ's, no.

Why not? PMQs is a charade of ego-stroking, pointless questions and non-answers. It's value to the political process is small, and its only real effect is that points are entered into Hansard that otherwise might not have a chance to be recorded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chrisbo61 said:

But sunlit uplands and our own unicorn to play on!

Seriously though this country is going through serious political turmoil, more than I've seen before!

I dont know what the answer is,as I have no faith in either leader of the main two parties, but obviously err towards the labour party because of its policies, however as a staunch remainer can I justify voting at the next GE for the lib dems? After all they are the only party to say they will do what I want!

What a quandary!

Well, if you're looking towards the Lib Dems for "staunch remain" then you're looking towards a party who would (without a majority, most likely) lobby for a 2nd ref between Remain and No Deal, or (with a majority) revoke Article 50 outright, which is the most blindsided, anti-democratic and oblivious move that you could ever pull off, under an appalling delusion that ignoring the largest voting bloc in UK history may have no negative consequences.

Labour, and I preferred its previous position of following the referendum to negotiate their own deal without Theresa May's unworkable red lines (see the last three+ years), is now offering to go out for its own deal, put that against Remain, then bring that to a referendum that will be led neutrally (and I do think MPs and activists should take their own stance on it if, bregrudgingly, another referendum were to happen). In other words, a second referendum without the Liberals' ludicrous stake they're putting on it.

What other policies do the Liberals have? I can name a few minor, middle-of-the-road ones, but in reality they'll be having to write a manifesto in a party devoid of Charles Kennedys and Paddy Ashdowns, now a halfway house for unwanted Tories (of a liberal stripe or not), and oddball former Independents who are taking their ball to the corner flag in the sunset of their careers. What's for sure is they're not a progressive party, only hinting at coalition with the Conservatives, ruling one out with Labour, and with top brass from the Coalition cabinet there is no evidence that they want to be owt but the kingmakers in another LD–Tory deal. Their halcyon days are those five years where most of us underwent our biggest fall in living standards in memory, with the clock turned back to an Arcadian pre-Brexit era where everything was great (it really wasn't), all over a referendum they solidly backed all along.

Give the Reds a go, and if it doesn't work out then we can go back to the bliss we've enjoyed over the past nine+ years and beyond.

My preference if any would be Unite's suggestion of bringing a referendum on a Labour deal against No Deal. Regretfully, we're onto the next stage of proceedings, and few of our elections and referenda go relatively untainted. But at least some political bodies can recall a time when millions of people weren't passionately tied to one pole of the "debate"(!) or another, that most of us have plenty in common, and most of us have immediate and pressing material concerns.

154HA and Hoddie are right also to mention the approach to democracy taken under the Labour governments of 1997–2010, which in a sense of leadership-knows-all rather than atrocities committed (although there wasn't shortage on the latter), was fairly Stalinist. Advisors, spin doctors, statutory instruments, parachuted PPE graduate Third Way cadres in working class constituencies, policies dealt upon high in plenaries at the party conference with members no more than blank footsoldiers, teenagers in suits choosing the exact career path that could set themselves up for life within... A political culture more-or-less summed up by an elderly man being dragged out of the conference hall for daring to stand up and interrogate the leadership on Iraq. My favourite fact of them all is that Tony Blair's first choice to be London mayor was Richard Branson. Only when they had a left to hammer did they realise they were all mouth no trousers without the spindly latticework that kept them on top. If Corbyn could be replaced by someone with the same effort and principle, with additional all-round gravitas of an Obama type, and a cleaner public image than Nicholas Parsons, then great. But the reason so many possibilities have recently opened up is because some were bold enough to set out their own stall and take it to the top.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hoddie said:

Why not? PMQs is a charade of ego-stroking, pointless questions and non-answers. It's value to the political process is small, and its only real effect is that points are entered into Hansard that otherwise might not have a chance to be recorded.

You need someone that can carry out the PMQ's without becoming a laughing stock. The focus should be on the questions answered and the responses. Not how many blunders Diane Abbot managed (the answer was two.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2019 at 2:38 PM, chrisbo61 said:

Oops did I say that?

Just checked and the expected cost so far in the governments own figures are 1.3 billion!

Think I meant million!

Bit of a Hammond moment there!

Think more Diane Abbott 

the women who is to numbers what Tottenham are to European football 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...