General Election 2015

[eFestivals]

I can't imagine anyone else is interested in our little tiff, Neil. I'm guessing the future of the Labour is both more interesting & relevant.

yeah yeah, I know, the SNP are faultless. The double standards of them and their supporters are the new truth.

You didn't vote for the austerity in the SNP's manifesto, just the anti-austerity bits. It'll be an outrage for Dave to give you what you voted for.

[kaosmark2]

I've never been impressed by Burnham or Hunt.

Yvette Cooper would be OK IMO, if you ignore the fact she's married to Ed Balls. I think that'd taint her in the public's eyes too much.

The little I know about Kendall I don't particularly like, but I'll go with an open mind.

Chukka would be a really strong candidate IMO. Wouldn't be my choice as he's yet another advocating a shift to the centre-right, but he's leadership material.

[kaosmark2]

Is it c**tish, or is it the only way that we'll get an amount of social welfare?

It's all very well wanting more, but the last 40 years have shown that we don't get it if we ignore what Blair is saying.

That doesn't mean, btw, that someone who has taken what Blair is saying on board has to act as Blair did. He got corrupted by power and chased the corruption; there's still plenty of space there for other better ways.

I'm sorry Neil, that first line sounds like you're disputing that Blair is a c**t.

I do accept that a shift to the right increases Labour's chances of power. I do recognise New Labour did more good than bad (fractionally). However, I also have a strong belief that Labour abandoning their core and taking them for granted is a large part of the rise of the SNP, and of traditional Labour voters going UKIP.

[eFestivals]

I don't understand why Labour haven't pulled all the stops out to get Neil as their adviser. He knew the election would have this result, and he knows what they need to do to sort their problems out. There's only one answer, and Neil's the only person who has it.

You were saying I was wrong about what I was saying. Did the election result prove you mostly wrong or me mostly wrong?

Luckily for this country which would be tory forever with your approach, there's more than just me that doesn't have his head up his arse.

Democracy means that everyone gets their say, even the people that you'd rather didn't exist because they caused the result different to what you wanted.

Show me the majority of the left, tonyblair, even a fragmented majority of the left.

It ain't there, which means your take fails forever.

[eFestivals]

I'm sorry Neil, that first line sounds like you're disputing that Blair is a c**t.

I do accept that a shift to the right increases Labour's chances of power. I do recognise New Labour did more good than bad (fractionally).

Oh, Blair's a c**t.

But even c**ts can get the right handle on things. No party or type of person has a monopoly on good ideas.

However, I also have a strong belief that Labour abandoning their core and taking them for granted is a large part of the rise of the SNP, and of traditional Labour voters going UKIP.

It's got fuck all to do with "abandoning their core" and everything to do with not the right policies for their core.

It's rather shocking, but just take a read thru the key points in UKIP's manifesto - and you'll see (some) ideas in there which Labour should be advocating. Another case of no party having a monopoly on good ideas.

Today you can read an SNP MP - one of their experienced politicans, not the mindless newbies - calling SNP policies suicide. Which just goes to prove yet again that no party has a monopoly on good ideas. Even those declared the 'good' parties by the mindless have manifestos full of shit.

Edited May 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

UKIP have several good policies. They're just overridden by being UKIP.

Like scrapping tuition fees for STEM subjects provided the graduate works in their field for 5 years. If they don't, it reverts back to being a loan.

Their stance on parliamentary reform and the systems they advocate are IMO the best varieties of PR.

They're the ones who most advocate reduction of standardised testing for young school children.

They're still racist c**ts.

[bunique]

Read this this morning re: HRA

https://loveandgarbage.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/human-rights-and-nick-robinson/

[pink_triangle]

I've never been impressed by Burnham or Hunt.

Yvette Cooper would be OK IMO, if you ignore the fact she's married to Ed Balls. I think that'd taint her in the public's eyes too much.

The little I know about Kendall I don't particularly like, but I'll go with an open mind.

Chukka would be a really strong candidate IMO. Wouldn't be my choice as he's yet another advocating a shift to the centre-right, but he's leadership material.

Chukka would probably be my choice of contenders. I think he is the most likely to inspire people, also unfortunately probably more likely to irriatate people. Im also not 100% certain that Britian is ready to vote for a PM with his name and skin colour.

I havent been overly impressed with Hunt, but feel like he could be moulded into someone acceptable to middle England. He is the type of politician I think many tory voting people in my work would like.

It would be great to have someone who best rerflects my views, but no use if he/she cant get in the position to legislate for them. The first question of any candiate has to be if they could win a general election.

[gary1979666]

I think Chukka would be the one most likely to win me over - seems like a sensible guy and seemed to have learnt something from the recent result.

[gary1979666]

Chukka would get my vote but given a large section of society is still very much racist I wonder if it would result in a good out come for him.

I'd like to hope that it's a minority. I thikn Obama has bridged that gap - funny sounding name, but speaks the lingo like a native.

[zero000]

Chukka would get my vote but given a large section of society is still very much racist I wonder if it would result in a good out come for him.

I think he'd be a good leader. On the issue of race, are we more racist than America? I mean Obama got in and they've got a plethora of right wing nutters.

[pink_triangle]

Chukka would get my vote but given a large section of society is still very much racist I wonder if it would result in a good out come for him.

My concern as well, but I kind of hope the type of people who think like that, wouldnt consider voting labour anyway. I think its probably more likely that a black man could become PM than an asian one.

[krisskross]

Alan Sugar giving his two fingers to Labour too.. Not a good start

[BlackHole2006]

Well worth watching

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNQJUAiaJ9U&app=desktop

[kaosmark2]

ID cards didn't happen or did you miss the boat... So come on... Where is this other 40%... I will give you tution fees...

ID cards didn't happen because the tories cancelled it after they got in.

Iraq.

Some privatisation of the NHS.

Lack of promised electoral reform.

Deregulation of the banks.

Cutting the 10p tax.

Non-living minimum wage that didn't even rise in line with inflation every year of the government.

Huge rises in cost of public transport, highly above inflation.

Raising VAT (yes I know it was "temporary" and the tories made it permanent, but they made it easier for them to do that).

Tax credits and other such "benefits" systems that effectively subsidised companies not paying a living wage.

Cutting apprenticeships in favour of more university places.

Many failed attempts at creating universal IT systems for public services (most notably NHS).

PFI (which others have gone into in detail).

Ultimately though, the biggest failure of New Labour was continuing to pander to business in a trickle-down Reaganomics philosophy. Reagan and Thatcher's legacy lived on well through New Labour. They spent a lot of money on public services while cutting the national deficit and debt as a % of GDP, but the inequality gap increased humongously under their reign. The poor (mostly) survived, while the rich got exponentially richer while feeling good about it.

[bunique]

I think he'd be a good leader. On the issue of race, are we more racist than America? I mean Obama got in and they've got a plethora of right wing nutters.

And a slightly larger minority population (77% White American vs 87% White British)

[windy_miller]

George Galloway is a sore loser isn't he?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32685844

[gary1979666]

Alan Sugar giving his two fingers to Labour too.. Not a good start

Just saw this on Mail Online - on of the comments at the bottom asked : does this mean Laour MPs have to go to a dingy cafe and look miserable?

Made me chuckle.

[TheGayTent]

Seems even more certain now that Khan will run for labour candidate at the London Mayoral elections.

[krisskross]

Just saw this on Mail Online - on of the comments at the bottom asked : does this mean Laour MPs have to go to a dingy cafe and look miserable?

Made me chuckle.

There is that...then go work for the Mail.

[eFestivals]

care to show me where I said you were wrong?

oh, sorry, I mistook your arrogance and stupidity for disapproval. If that's your agreeing with something, I'd hate to see how you act when you're disapproving. When all you have is to follow me around to be a prick, you don't have much at all.

[eFestivals]

Alan Sugar giving his two fingers to Labour too.. Not a good start

I'd say it's a very good start.

It's a party that needs fewer opportunitists.

[eFestivals]

ID cards didn't happen because the tories cancelled it after they got in.

Iraq.

Some privatisation of the NHS.

Lack of promised electoral reform.

Deregulation of the banks.

Cutting the 10p tax.

Non-living minimum wage that didn't even rise in line with inflation every year of the government.

Huge rises in cost of public transport, highly above inflation.

Raising VAT (yes I know it was "temporary" and the tories made it permanent, but they made it easier for them to do that).

Tax credits and other such "benefits" systems that effectively subsidised companies not paying a living wage.

Cutting apprenticeships in favour of more university places.

Many failed attempts at creating universal IT systems for public services (most notably NHS).

PFI (which others have gone into in detail).

Ultimately though, the biggest failure of New Labour was continuing to pander to business in a trickle-down Reaganomics philosophy. Reagan and Thatcher's legacy lived on well through New Labour. They spent a lot of money on public services while cutting the national deficit and debt as a % of GDP, but the inequality gap increased humongously under their reign. The poor (mostly) survived, while the rich got exponentially richer while feeling good about it.

it's all very well writing a list of stuff you disapprove of, but you're getting much worse than that because you didn't want any of the stuff you listed.

Which of the two is the worst way?

If a party can't get people to accept it on a mild-change basis it's certainly not going to win those people over on a big-change basis. When people have trust issues they're not going to take the bigger gamble.

[pink_triangle]

I'd say it's a very good start.

It's a party that needs fewer opportunitists.

I dont think Lord Sugar being part of labour won them any votes, dont think him leaving will cost them any. I do however think the anti business perception is one they they need to work on.

[eFestivals]

I dont think Lord Sugar being part of labour won them any votes, dont think him leaving will cost them any. I do however think the anti business perception is one they they need to work on.

Sugar buggering off is naff all to do with anything but himself and opportunities Labour in power would have given him. He's worked out that by the time they're next in power he'll be too irrelevant thru age to take advantage of those opportunities.

If you can track down the stuff Private Eye reported about him saying when doing whatever it was Brown appointed him to do, you'll realise more about what Sugar is about - and it's not social justice!