And Tory deflection tactics works, look we're doing it now, the total mess the Tories have made of our country in the last 10 years, to the latest cock up in the list of many:- blatant incompetence and lies by May and Rudd over Windrush, and someone throws in the Abbot hand grenade and we all take a look and go off on a tangent. Its like saying to a 20 year old 'look something shiny', and you've done them. When all said and done, and when you line up the Labour Party against the useless, uncaring, lack of empathy for the UK population, fools in power at the moment, and include the faults of both parties, then their is no comparison, I dont understand how anyone can seriously vote Tory.
Every new story I see about how Windrush people have been treated and how it has affected their lives makes me feel a sense of shame. It amazes me how easy some people find it to brush off these sort of things. Nobody has resigned over it - Rudd resigned for misleading the house! It isn't just a mistake and it was done in our name.
Every new story I see about how Windrush people have been treated and how it has affected their lives makes me feel a sense of shame. It amazes me how easy some people find it to brush off these sort of things. Nobody has resigned over it - Rudd resigned for misleading the house! It isn't just a mistake and it was done in our name.
The trouble with the two party system is that they take it in turns to screw up and there is no chance of long term planning. The focus is on winning elections often to the detriment of the country.
This has been going on for decades and explains why often there is such inconsistency.
People of all political persuasions have to face up to this and insist on better going forwards! And they have to be genuinely angry - which sadly I'm not sure everybody is!
I'm sure she's decent when it comes to dealing with people on a one-to-one basis and I'm sure her policy ideas aren't bad. She's really popular in her constituency. She has a tendency to get in a muddle on live TV, which is amplified by her critics - such a high-profile job clashes with her public persona and Labour probably would be better off, in an electoral sense, with someone else in her position. It'd be a shame if she's forced out by the optics over the substance though.
However, we've never had a chance to see what sort of Home Secretary she'd actually be. Whereas we're discovering exactly what May (and Rudd) were:
I'm sorry but in such a high profile position you have to be competent in media interviews - she is spectacularly bad. She's an utter liability to Labour's election campaign.
I'm sure Corbyn has taken pity on her as they go back a long way.
Simply not true. She was only appointed to the role after a third reshuffle and a mass resignation of the shadow cabinet which forced the second leadership election. Hardly his first choice but definitely loyal. The only reason she has such a high profile position is because of the way the plp acted.
I see your Theresa May and raise you Emily Thornberry
She ain't prime minister. You used to love slapping people down with this is the labour thread before it got closed. Instead of actually discussing how the Tories need to change after another scandal you can't rise above whataboutism.
I'm sure she's decent when it comes to dealing with people on a one-to-one basis and I'm sure her policy ideas aren't bad. She's really popular in her constituency. She has a tendency to get in a muddle on live TV, which is amplified by her critics - such a high-profile job clashes with her public persona and Labour probably would be better off, in an electoral sense, with someone else in her position. It'd be a shame if she's forced out by the optics over the substance though.
However, we've never had a chance to see what sort of Home Secretary she'd actually be. Whereas we're discovering exactly what May (and Rudd) were:
I'm sorry but in such a high profile position you have to be competent in media interviews - she is spectacularly bad. She's an utter liability to Labour's election campaign.
I'm sure Corbyn has taken pity on her as they go back a long way.
Yes, in fact she said to him just the other day oh Jeremy you go back a long way.
I'm sure she's decent when it comes to dealing with people on a one-to-one basis and I'm sure her policy ideas aren't bad. She's really popular in her constituency. She has a tendency to get in a muddle on live TV, which is amplified by her critics - such a high-profile job clashes with her public persona and Labour probably would be better off, in an electoral sense, with someone else in her position. It'd be a shame if she's forced out by the optics over the substance though.
However, we've never had a chance to see what sort of Home Secretary she'd actually be. Whereas we're discovering exactly what May (and Rudd) were:
I'm sorry but in such a high profile position you have to be competent in media interviews - she is spectacularly bad. She's an utter liability to Labour's election campaign.
I'm sure Corbyn has taken pity on her as they go back a long way.
Simply not true. She was only appointed to the role after a third reshuffle and a mass resignation of the shadow cabinet which forced the second leadership election. Hardly his first choice but definitely loyal. The only reason she has such a high profile position is because of the way the plp acted.
It is true. If he'd acted in the best interests of the party he'd have got rid of her after her disastrous performance at the last election. She's way out of her depth...
The Tories biggest problem, and one I think they'll struggle to change, is that they can't win the big cities in England, without those you can't win a majority that works. The cities are becoming more liberal day by day, and when you can't appeal to those people, and certainly don't want to, you have a serious problem. Those Cameron 2015- Remain 2016 voters are gone.
'London, whose voting patterns once mirrored those of the UK, now appears a country apart. However, demographers say it also provides a glimpse of Britain’s future: liberal, diverse, highly educated, cosmopolitan. These trends help explain why Labour has already triumphed in such unlikely seats as Portsmouth South, Plymouth Sutton, Leamington Spa and Canterbury.
As they gaze upon Corbyn’s capital, the thought that should haunt the Conservatives is not that they are losing the London of today, but that they are losing the Britain of tomorrow.'
I see your Theresa May and raise you Emily Thornberry
She ain't prime minister. You used to love slapping people down with this is the labour thread before it got closed. Instead of actually discussing how the Tories need to change after another scandal you can't rise above whataboutism.
I see your Theresa May and raise you Emily Thornberry
She ain't prime minister. You used to love slapping people down with this is the labour thread before it got closed. Instead of actually discussing how the Tories need to change after another scandal you can't rise above whataboutism.
The Labour thread is closed and I'm not a Tory
Are you saying you have to be a Tory to talk about them? Is that why you only go on about labour?
The Tories biggest problem, and one I think they'll struggle to change, is that they can't win the big cities in England, without those you can't win a majority that works. The cities are becoming more liberal day by day, and when you can't appeal to those people, and certainly don't want to, you have a serious problem. Those Cameron 2015- Remain 2016 voters are gone.
'London, whose voting patterns once mirrored those of the UK, now appears a country apart. However, demographers say it also provides a glimpse of Britain’s future: liberal, diverse, highly educated, cosmopolitan. These trends help explain why Labour has already triumphed in such unlikely seats as Portsmouth South, Plymouth Sutton, Leamington Spa and Canterbury.
As they gaze upon Corbyn’s capital, the thought that should haunt the Conservatives is not that they are losing the London of today, but that they are losing the Britain of tomorrow.'
This is why the rise of the explicitly anti-feminist, anti-progressive alt-right is so essential for the Tories now. They've made some truly vile bedfellows. It's all going to come to a head soon.
The Tories biggest problem, and one I think they'll struggle to change, is that they can't win the big cities in England, without those you can't win a majority that works. The cities are becoming more liberal day by day, and when you can't appeal to those people, and certainly don't want to, you have a serious problem. Those Cameron 2015- Remain 2016 voters are gone.
'London, whose voting patterns once mirrored those of the UK, now appears a country apart. However, demographers say it also provides a glimpse of Britain’s future: liberal, diverse, highly educated, cosmopolitan. These trends help explain why Labour has already triumphed in such unlikely seats as Portsmouth South, Plymouth Sutton, Leamington Spa and Canterbury.
As they gaze upon Corbyn’s capital, the thought that should haunt the Conservatives is not that they are losing the London of today, but that they are losing the Britain of tomorrow.'
Based on my experience of Greenwich council I won't be voting Labour.
I'm sure she's decent when it comes to dealing with people on a one-to-one basis and I'm sure her policy ideas aren't bad. She's really popular in her constituency. She has a tendency to get in a muddle on live TV, which is amplified by her critics - such a high-profile job clashes with her public persona and Labour probably would be better off, in an electoral sense, with someone else in her position. It'd be a shame if she's forced out by the optics over the substance though.
However, we've never had a chance to see what sort of Home Secretary she'd actually be. Whereas we're discovering exactly what May (and Rudd) were:
I'm sorry but in such a high profile position you have to be competent in media interviews - she is spectacularly bad. She's an utter liability to Labour's election campaign.
I'm sure Corbyn has taken pity on her as they go back a long way.
Simply not true. She was only appointed to the role after a third reshuffle and a mass resignation of the shadow cabinet which forced the second leadership election. Hardly his first choice but definitely loyal. The only reason she has such a high profile position is because of the way the plp acted.
She's been in the shadow cabinet since Corbyn was elected leader and has always been high profile because she will never turn down a media appearance if offered (and she gets a lot of offers since she's box office, love her or loathe her).
I see your Theresa May and raise you Emily Thornberry
She ain't prime minister. You used to love slapping people down with this is the labour thread before it got closed. Instead of actually discussing how the Tories need to change after another scandal you can't rise above whataboutism.
The Labour thread is closed and I'm not a Tory
Are you saying you have to be a Tory to talk about them? Is that why you only go on about labour?
No, I'm saying that my criticism of Labour don't mean I'm Tory and how can I post on a thread that has been removed?
You keep on about me "slapping people down", I done it once on a thread recently as a jokey response to someone else having a go at someone else doing it and then doing it themselves.
I go 300 - 400 post without opening up political threads, but now and again I delve in for a bit of a laugh
I'm sure she's decent when it comes to dealing with people on a one-to-one basis and I'm sure her policy ideas aren't bad. She's really popular in her constituency. She has a tendency to get in a muddle on live TV, which is amplified by her critics - such a high-profile job clashes with her public persona and Labour probably would be better off, in an electoral sense, with someone else in her position. It'd be a shame if she's forced out by the optics over the substance though.
However, we've never had a chance to see what sort of Home Secretary she'd actually be. Whereas we're discovering exactly what May (and Rudd) were:
I'm sorry but in such a high profile position you have to be competent in media interviews - she is spectacularly bad. She's an utter liability to Labour's election campaign.
I'm sure Corbyn has taken pity on her as they go back a long way.
Simply not true. She was only appointed to the role after a third reshuffle and a mass resignation of the shadow cabinet which forced the second leadership election. Hardly his first choice but definitely loyal. The only reason she has such a high profile position is because of the way the plp acted.
She's been in the shadow cabinet since Corbyn was elected leader and has always been high profile because she will never turn down a media appearance if offered (and she gets a lot of offers since she's box office, love her or loathe her).
She's not really box office she's just embarrassing - the PR people in the Labour Party need sacking.
Donald Trump is the US President so tbh things stopped making sense a long time ago.
I would hazard a guess that a large part of the electorate are thoroughly disillusioned with both the main parties.
It seems like a reasonable guess but it's not like they are going to the Lib Dems or anyone else. But I definitely agree that nothing in politics makes any sense any more (at least not to me).
And Tory deflection tactics works, look we're doing it now, the total mess the Tories have made of our country in the last 10 years, to the latest cock up in the list of many:- blatant incompetence and lies by May and Rudd over Windrush, and someone throws in the Abbot hand grenade and we all take a look and go off on a tangent. Its like saying to a 20 year old 'look something shiny', and you've done them. When all said and done, and when you line up the Labour Party against the useless, uncaring, lack of empathy for the UK population, fools in power at the moment, and include the faults of both parties, then their is no comparison, I dont understand how anyone can seriously vote Tory.
and there in lies the issue, as many people line them both up and fall to the side of the Tories as line them both up and fall to Labour. I'm with you though, but just don't get how, right now, anyone can vote Labour.
I think she's friggin useless but i'd take May over Corbyn, Hammond over McDonnel, almost anyone over Abbot, but would defo take Starmer over Davis. Thornberry v Johnson is a tough one, i'd probably risk it and go without a Foreign Secretary as both are useless. Angela Rayner might be Ok over Hinds but it's a close call, but I can't get that Catherine Tate nurse out of my head when I see her picture. I like Gavin Wiliams and he is streets ahead of Nia Griffith. Grayling always seem to talk sense but he does grate on me a bit.
I can see argument for both sides, but in my view it's anything but a clear cut choice.
At least Corbyn has some actual principles, you may not agree with them, but at least he has some, unlike nearly every other politician you can think of. He doesn't want useless wars in the Middle East all the time on the behest of Israel, and this is why they keep bringing up the anti Semitism meme. I'm not a socialist, and the left is eating itself at this moment, but I do admire his courage to stand up for what he believes in.
At least Corbyn has some actual principles, you may not agree with them, but at least he has some, unlike nearly every other politician you can think of. He doesn't want useless wars in the Middle East all the time on the behest of Israel, and this is why they keep bringing up the anti Semitism meme. I'm not a socialist, and the left is eating itself at this moment, but I do admire his courage to stand up for what he believes in.
There are loads of MPs of all persuasions who are against war in the Middle East.
At least Corbyn has some actual principles, you may not agree with them, but at least he has some, unlike nearly every other politician you can think of. He doesn't want useless wars in the Middle East all the time on the behest of Israel, and this is why they keep bringing up the anti Semitism meme. I'm not a socialist, and the left is eating itself at this moment, but I do admire his courage to stand up for what he believes in.
But therein lies his problem. There's a reason politicians shun principles.
I'm sorry but the last, the very last thing a professional politician needs is "some actual principles". What a politician needs is the ability to think quickly, be fast on their feet, to change tack at a moment's notice and to act in the country's best interests according to what is actually happening right here, right now. Sticking rigidly to decades old concepts is the road to ruin.
Attributed to Macmillan when asked what could blow a Government off course we were treated to the ubiquitous phrase "events, dear boy, events". In the event of some events, Corbyn's weird principles would be about as useful as a chocolate teapot (or Karl Robinson's no plan B formation).
And Tory deflection tactics works, look we're doing it now, the total mess the Tories have made of our country in the last 10 years, to the latest cock up in the list of many:- blatant incompetence and lies by May and Rudd over Windrush, and someone throws in the Abbot hand grenade and we all take a look and go off on a tangent. Its like saying to a 20 year old 'look something shiny', and you've done them. When all said and done, and when you line up the Labour Party against the useless, uncaring, lack of empathy for the UK population, fools in power at the moment, and include the faults of both parties, then their is no comparison, I dont understand how anyone can seriously vote Tory.
and there in lies the issue, as many people line them both up and fall to the side of the Tories as line them both up and fall to Labour. I'm with you though, but just don't get how, right now, anyone can vote Labour.
I think she's friggin useless but i'd take May over Corbyn, Hammond over McDonnel, almost anyone over Abbot, but would defo take Starmer over Davis. Thornberry v Johnson is a tough one, i'd probably risk it and go without a Foreign Secretary as both are useless. Angela Rayner might be Ok over Hinds but it's a close call, but I can't get that Catherine Tate nurse out of my head when I see her picture. I like Gavin Wiliams and he is streets ahead of Nia Griffith. Grayling always seem to talk sense but he does grate on me a bit.
I can see argument for both sides, but in my view it's anything but a clear cut choice.
I thought politicians represented the electorate. If the electorate change their minds, then their representatives should too. Sticking to some personal agenda just makes a politician look very self important, out of touch, un democratic or all three.
At least Corbyn has some actual principles, you may not agree with them, but at least he has some, unlike nearly every other politician you can think of. He doesn't want useless wars in the Middle East all the time on the behest of Israel, and this is why they keep bringing up the anti Semitism meme. I'm not a socialist, and the left is eating itself at this moment, but I do admire his courage to stand up for what he believes in.
But therein lies his problem. There's a reason politicians shun principles.
I'm sorry but the last, the very last thing a professional politician needs is "some actual principles". What a politician needs is the ability to think quickly, be fast on their feet, to change tack at a moment's notice and to act in the country's best interests according to what is actually happening right here, right now. Sticking rigidly to decades old concepts is the road to ruin.
Attributed to Macmillan when asked what could blow a Government off course we were treated to the ubiquitous phrase "events, dear boy, events". In the event of some events, Corbyn's weird principles would be about as useful as a chocolate teapot (or Karl Robinson's no plan B formation).
That is a daft comment @cafcfan. If events change then even the best policies could become about as useful as a chocolate tea pot.
Austerity, Brexit and policies that meant that British citizens were deported comes to mind.
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I thought politicians represented the electorate. If the electorate change their minds, then their representatives should too. Sticking to some personal agenda just makes a politician look very self important, out of touch, un democratic or all three.
Playing the devils advocate slightly.
But what if the electorate changes its mind every fortnight, what if their are different nuances to a belief, what if politicians have additional information than the public, what if some of the public can shout louder than others, what if it goes against your principles, what if what the public wants is clearly bad for the country.
Surely a party stands on a manifesto and a voter makes up their mind whether or not to support them, over a parliament things then evolve or bend to match events. If you don't like it don't vote for it.
Also if what you say is right and true how do we measure when public opinion changes? Should we have government by plebiscite?
And can you give me some examples where the Tories have changed their policies when public opinion has changed? I am thinking of Brexit here.
Comments
Its like saying to a 20 year old 'look something shiny', and you've done them.
When all said and done, and when you line up the Labour Party against the useless, uncaring, lack of empathy for the UK population, fools in power at the moment, and include the faults of both parties, then their is no comparison, I dont understand how anyone can seriously vote Tory.
This has been going on for decades and explains why often there is such inconsistency.
Things like this happened in my country
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/18/mother-of-windrush-citizen-blames-passport-problems-for-his-death
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43812764/windrush-man-not-allowed-to-return-to-uk-missed-mum-s-funeral
People of all political persuasions have to face up to this and insist on better going forwards! And they have to be genuinely angry - which sadly I'm not sure everybody is!
George Eton's piece on London turning red is a solid Labour city is really good on this. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/04/corbyn-s-capital-story-how-london-became-labour-city
'London, whose voting patterns once mirrored those of the UK, now appears a country apart. However, demographers say it also provides a glimpse of Britain’s future: liberal, diverse, highly educated, cosmopolitan. These trends help explain why Labour has already triumphed in such unlikely seats as Portsmouth South, Plymouth Sutton, Leamington Spa and Canterbury.
As they gaze upon Corbyn’s capital, the thought that should haunt the Conservatives is not that they are losing the London of today, but that they are losing the Britain of tomorrow.'
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
I would hazard a guess that a large part of the electorate are thoroughly disillusioned with both the main parties.
She's been in the shadow cabinet since Corbyn was elected leader and has always been high profile because she will never turn down a media appearance if offered (and she gets a lot of offers since she's box office, love her or loathe her).
You keep on about me "slapping people down", I done it once on a thread recently as a jokey response to someone else having a go at someone else doing it and then doing it themselves.
I go 300 - 400 post without opening up political threads, but now and again I delve in for a bit of a laugh
I think she's friggin useless but i'd take May over Corbyn, Hammond over McDonnel, almost anyone over Abbot, but would defo take Starmer over Davis. Thornberry v Johnson is a tough one, i'd probably risk it and go without a Foreign Secretary as both are useless. Angela Rayner might be Ok over Hinds but it's a close call, but I can't get that Catherine Tate nurse out of my head when I see her picture. I like Gavin Wiliams and he is streets ahead of Nia Griffith. Grayling always seem to talk sense but he does grate on me a bit.
I can see argument for both sides, but in my view it's anything but a clear cut choice.
I'm sorry but the last, the very last thing a professional politician needs is "some actual principles". What a politician needs is the ability to think quickly, be fast on their feet, to change tack at a moment's notice and to act in the country's best interests according to what is actually happening right here, right now. Sticking rigidly to decades old concepts is the road to ruin.
Attributed to Macmillan when asked what could blow a Government off course we were treated to the ubiquitous phrase "events, dear boy, events". In the event of some events, Corbyn's weird principles would be about as useful as a chocolate teapot (or Karl Robinson's no plan B formation).
If the electorate change their minds, then their representatives should too.
Sticking to some personal agenda just makes a politician look very self important, out of touch, un democratic or all three.
Austerity, Brexit and policies that meant that British citizens were deported comes to mind.
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
or the Donald Rumsfeld quote about unknowns.
But what if the electorate changes its mind every fortnight, what if their are different nuances to a belief, what if politicians have additional information than the public, what if some of the public can shout louder than others, what if it goes against your principles, what if what the public wants is clearly bad for the country.
Surely a party stands on a manifesto and a voter makes up their mind whether or not to support them, over a parliament things then evolve or bend to match events. If you don't like it don't vote for it.
Also if what you say is right and true how do we measure when public opinion changes? Should we have government by plebiscite?
And can you give me some examples where the Tories have changed their policies when public opinion has changed?
I am thinking of Brexit here.