|
Post by northwestman on May 11, 2015 11:33:25 GMT 1
My youngest is a post grad at Oxford and friendly with a lad who worked as an intern for the Telegraph. He says that he was sent to report on a visit to local factory by Mr Cameron and heard Cameron telling one of the workers that he supported 'Aston Ham'. That part of his report was not printed. Well, I commented in one of my earlier posts that pretending to be a fan of a football Club in order to try to identify with the plebs and suggest you have some common ground invariably comes back to bite you if in fact it's a load of rubbish.
Tony Blair stating that as a boy he used to sit in the Gallowgate end at the Newcastle United ground to watch his heroes when at the time he claimed to do so the whole of that end was terracing is a case in point. Their spin doctors set up the lie, but then don't brief them adequately about how to maintain credibility.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 11, 2015 11:37:10 GMT 1
This election was decided by a number of things.
David Miliband would have won a majority for Labour. For an opposition up not capitalise on 5 years of cuts is more fool them.
Secondly Labour still isn't listening. Immigration, EU, they've not got a policy except 'shut up, it's good for you'.
And finally, money. Lib Dems spent 3 million. Labour spent 15 Million. Tories spent 50 Million. They're the Chelsea of politics. They delivered their message better.
I think we saw this time, especially in Scotland, just how little the quality of a local candidate matters compared to the front bench of the party being voted for.
Cameron hid Gove under a rock while Miliband sent Ed Balls out on the front row. That worked out well...
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on May 11, 2015 12:18:27 GMT 1
Cameron hid Gove under a rock while Miliband sent Ed Balls out on the front row. That worked out well... I'm surprised that at the time Cameron pulled Gove out of Education and demoted him to Chief Whip that hardly anyone commented that this was surely a cynical ploy to pull him temporarily out of the firing line as party strategists had identified Gove as a negative factor. Cameron was then quite happy to put up with Gove missing important votes because he was chatting in the Gents or leaving his number 2 to handle meetings because he was bored and fiddling with his mobile phone. A deal had been done, and now it's payback time. Gove is the recipient of a £36k pay increase and has been given the remit to upset lawyers, judges and prison officers, and to push through a U.K. Bill of Rights and a snoopers charter whilst more than likely bickering with Teresa May.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 11, 2015 12:57:56 GMT 1
It's an easy, unprovable assumption that David Miliband would have been a better choice than Ed. I don't buy it myself. David was a Blairite - that tainted him then and would have been used to taint him in this campaign.
Nor do I buy that parties must either do what part of the electorate wants or else they're "not listening". You can't please everyone and, personally, Labour didn't please me with its immigration policy because it seemed too much like a "me too" policy with the Tories and Ukip. Only the gullible or foolish are likely to agree with every policy of any party.
As for the EU, that's the Tories' big problem now. They don't agree with each other and a majority of 12 is very small historically. How much will Cameron have to pander to Redwood and "the nutters"?
Labour's next leader has a huge job to win a majority, but it's nothing like as big a task to prevent another Tory majority next time. Scotland's irrelevant here as it's profoundly anti-Tory whether it elects SNP or Labour MPs. Had Labour not shed working class votes to Ukip in the Midlands, the Tories would have no majority. Had Labour been able to appeal to a few more "aspirational" voters in the south (outside London), the Tories would have no majority.
Will the next Labour leader try to increase the party's appeal to both these groups, or concentrate on one? Or is there not so much difference between the disillusioned, fractured working class in the post-industrial areas and those doing quite well for themselves in the south?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2015 13:04:47 GMT 1
I posted this on another thread as the political landscape in Wales is different again. We have a Labour led Welsh assembly and in my neck of the woods (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) there are real concerns about the quality of our local health and social care services, delivered by NHS Wales. During the election campaign in Wales the Conservatives were quick to criticise the performance of NHS Wales. How much of this criticism was justified is open to debate but nonetheless in my constituency the Labour share of the vote went down as many voters defected to UKIP. The political landscape of Wales may well change again next year when the Welsh assembly comes up for re-election. Labour are just about hanging onto power at the moment, that may well no longer be the case come this time next year. It will be an interesting political debate in Wales over the course of the next 12 months. Read more: blueandamber.proboards.com/thread/90447/reflections?page=3#ixzz3ZpZQd4VW
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on May 11, 2015 13:11:18 GMT 1
In an earlier post, Martin B accused "Labour Supporters" on this board of accepting the spin that got Tony Blair Elected and kept him in power, but condemning Cameron's "tactics" as dirty tricks.
Sorry Martin, I think you are completely wrong. I believe that the majority of the "Labour supporters" on this board do not accept the spin of Tony Blair that got him elected and kept him in power. Much to my shame, because I believed him, I voted for him first time around, but not again, and now detest him with a vehemence. And I am sure that it was because david Miliband was so tainted by his closeness to Blair, especially over Iraq, including the deep suspicions of his knowledge of the USA's "rendition" policy, he did not win the Labour leadership vote. Personally I think that was a mistake, because I believe he could have distanced himself from Blair over time. However I think you will find that most Labour supporters here dislike both Blair and Cameron for their dirty tricks.
Incidentally it is interesting that the biggest Fleet Street Cheerleader (or should I say Wapping cheerleader) for Blair's Iraq war, was Michael Gove, when he was editor in all but name at The Times. (Interestingly, Mrs Gove was the leader writer). As well as peddling Blair's lies (innocent mistaken ones of course!!), all over the wapping press, he appeared on countless TV discussions and debates, pounding on about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and being the greatest threat since Hitler. He was virtually Blair's mouthpiece.
Blair, Cameron and Gove. Now there's an unholy trinity for you. Much as it distresses me to quote George Bush jnr... the term "axis of evil" springs to mind.
|
|
|
Post by kuffdam72 on May 11, 2015 13:36:49 GMT 1
No need for long posts on this subject...... Whatever party got in will screw us all in one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on May 11, 2015 13:42:39 GMT 1
My youngest is a post grad at Oxford and friendly with a lad who worked as an intern for the Telegraph. He says that he was sent to report on a visit to local factory by Mr Cameron and heard Cameron telling one of the workers that he supported 'Aston Ham'. That part of his report was not printed. Well, I commented in one of my earlier posts that pretending to be a fan of a football Club in order to try to identify with the plebs and suggest you have some common ground invariably comes back to bite you if in fact it's a load of rubbish.
Tony Blair stating that as a boy he used to sit in the Gallowgate end at the Newcastle United ground to watch his heroes when at the time he claimed to do so the whole of that end was terracing is a case in point. Their spin doctors set up the lie, but then don't brief them adequately about how to maintain credibility.
Not just sport they do it with though, remember Blair hosting the party with the likes of Noel Gallacher there? All the parties are guitly of it to try and make them look better, just makes you laugh really.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on May 11, 2015 13:50:31 GMT 1
In an earlier post, Martin B accused "Labour Supporters" on this board of accepting the spin that got Tony Blair Elected and kept him in power, but condemning Cameron's "tactics" as dirty tricks. Sorry Martin, I think you are completely wrong. I believe that the majority of the "Labour supporters" on this board do not accept the spin of Tony Blair that got him elected and kept him in power. Much to my shame, because I believed him, I voted for him first time around, but not again, and now detest him with a vehemence. And I am sure that it was because david Miliband was so tainted by his closeness to Blair, especially over Iraq, including the deep suspicions of his knowledge of the USA's "rendition" policy, he did not win the Labour leadership vote. Personally I think that was a mistake, because I believe he could have distanced himself from Blair over time. However I think you will find that most Labour supporters here dislike both Blair and Cameron for their dirty tricks. Incidentally it is interesting that the biggest Fleet Street Cheerleader (or should I say Wapping cheerleader) for Blair's Iraq war, was Michael Gove, when he was editor in all but name at The Times. (Interestingly, Mrs Gove was the leader writer). As well as peddling Blair's lies (innocent mistaken ones of course!!), all over the wapping press, he appeared on countless TV discussions and debates, pounding on about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and being the greatest threat since Hitler. He was virtually Blair's mouthpiece. Blair, Cameron and Gove. Now there's an unholy trinity for you. Much as it distresses me to quote George Bush jnr... the term "axis of evil" springs to mind. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd suggest that the closeness of Cameron to the likes of Coulson, Brooks, Gove and his wife Sarah Vine means that Murdoch will by now have quite a dossier on him.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 11, 2015 15:26:30 GMT 1
Well, I commented in one of my earlier posts that pretending to be a fan of a football Club in order to try to identify with the plebs and suggest you have some common ground invariably comes back to bite you if in fact it's a load of rubbish.
Tony Blair stating that as a boy he used to sit in the Gallowgate end at the Newcastle United ground to watch his heroes when at the time he claimed to do so the whole of that end was terracing is a case in point. Their spin doctors set up the lie, but then don't brief them adequately about how to maintain credibility.
Not just sport they do it with though, remember Blair hosting the party with the likes of Noel Gallacher there? All the parties are guitly of it to try and make them look better, just makes you laugh really. That's true, although the "Cool Britannia" (cringe) thing wasn't about anyone saying I like these bands, it was a recognition of the importance of culture and the arts to the UK economy. I don't think that had really happened before and it was a worthy idea. Serious artists, as opposed to pure entertainers, are probably best steering clear of The Man and the corridors of power though!
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on May 11, 2015 16:18:45 GMT 1
Those who thought they'd seen the back of Farage can think again!
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 11, 2015 16:51:16 GMT 1
Those who thought they'd seen the back of Farage can think again! Quite a clever move as it means as well as their MP being able to be included in debates they will have a second figure to front campaigns, do interviews etc Not quite sure how it works if Farage really really wants to resign though - do the UKIP executive force him to stop on against his will
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on May 11, 2015 16:59:22 GMT 1
In our house we are grateful to the election campaign for giving us some new catch phrases.
'I'm pumped up' and 'am I tough enough, hell yes' are rarely off our lips.
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on May 11, 2015 17:06:00 GMT 1
In our house we are grateful to the election campaign for giving us some new catch phrases. 'I'm pumped up' and 'am I tough enough, hell yes' are rarely off our lips. I know what you mean. I've spent the last few days tieless, with my shirt sleeves rolled up, punching my open palm with my fist, and telling bloody great lies.
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on May 11, 2015 19:53:15 GMT 1
In an earlier post, Martin B accused "Labour Supporters" on this board of accepting the spin that got Tony Blair Elected and kept him in power, but condemning Cameron's "tactics" as dirty tricks. Sorry Martin, I think you are completely wrong. I believe that the majority of the "Labour supporters" on this board do not accept the spin of Tony Blair that got him elected and kept him in power. So spin had nothing to do with the election victories it was all down to Labour policies then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2015 20:26:06 GMT 1
How many people on here read the different party manifestos in any detail?
So ignoring the spin.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 11, 2015 20:38:25 GMT 1
How many people on here read the different party manifestos in any detail? So ignoring the spin. To the extent that the party manifestos are devoid of spin I did. I didn't watch a single debate or political programme during the whole election and newspapers are best avoided at the best of times (and a GE isn't the best of times for print journalism). There were two criteria in the end that were crucial: 1) an anti-austerity stance 2) a candidate that lived in the constituency
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2015 20:54:41 GMT 1
How many people on here read the different party manifestos in any detail? So ignoring the spin. To the extent that the party manifestos are devoid of spin I did. I didn't watch a single debate or political programme during the whole election and newspapers are best avoided at the best of times (and a GE isn't the best of times for print journalism). There were two criteria in the end that were crucial: 1) an anti-austerity stance 2) a candidate that lived in the constituency I was referring to the spin coming out of media outlets and the selected sound bites of various politicians. The spin in manifestos can be ignored by reading between the lines. As I'm sure you'll know.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 11, 2015 21:34:25 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2015 6:02:03 GMT 1
Gove. ( Justice Ministry) V May ( Home Office ) Part 2, promises to be a decent spectator sport Only to be expected . Fits in nicely with our Dave's intention to bring back blood sports .
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on May 12, 2015 8:46:21 GMT 1
Anyone else utterly sick to the teeth with the phrase "hard working families"? Used by all political parties, and begs the question, what is their attitude to not so hard working families?
In the case of the Conservatives, I suspect IDS will very shortly supply us with the answer to that.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on May 12, 2015 10:06:04 GMT 1
Any ideas as to what should now be done with Miliband's tablet of stone?
I've one suggestion. There is a pub in Oldswinford, Stourbridge called the "Labour in Vain" which had to take down its seriously politically incorrect sign depicting 2 white women vigorously scrubbing a black man in a bath full of soapsuds. Similar pub signs could be found in Yarnfield, Staffs and Westergate, Chichester.
Bearing in mind the name of the pub, Ed's tablet could be a suitable alternative!
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 12, 2015 10:20:56 GMT 1
No demotion is too big for Grant Shapps but this is a good attempt. Still find it hard to square the fact that this buffoon is cousin to Mick Jones, once of the Clash, but then you don't get to choose your family.
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on May 12, 2015 11:11:28 GMT 1
Anyone else utterly sick to the teeth with the phrase "hard working families"? Used by all political parties, and begs the question, what is their attitude to not so hard working families? In the case of the Conservatives, I suspect IDS will very shortly supply us with the answer to that. Agree with this...or their attitude to pensioners, or people who live on their own or those who are too ill and disabled to work etc It's a phrase whch automatically excludes large sections of the population. What's wrong with "ordinary people"?
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on May 12, 2015 12:13:44 GMT 1
The trouble is that 'ordinary people' won't mean much to this government as their idea of ordinary will be far removed from ours. It's a phrase that applies to the circle you happen to move in and sure as hell David Cameron or IDS won't have many (if any) disabled and unaable to work, poor elderly people (quite a few rich ones I suspect), single parent families, etc., etc.,
That's the problem for me - if they have nothing to relate to, how can they possibly look after the vulnerable in our society?
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on May 12, 2015 12:19:02 GMT 1
Yes. They use the phrase "hard working families" as if anyone else who is not compartmentalised into that unit is not to be given the same priority.
As camdenshrew rightly points out, that excludes pensioners, people living on their own, the sick and the disabled. Oh, and not so hard working families, presumably otherwise known as benefits claimants.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on May 12, 2015 12:52:49 GMT 1
Let's use West Wirral as an example.
A fair % of the residents of Caldy, Hoylake and certainly the members of Royal Liverpool Golf Club would be regarded by the Conservatives as 'ordinary people'.
A fair % of persons living on estates such as the Woodchurch Estate would not.
However, if the Conservatives are confining themselves to prioritising 'hard working families', then there were sufficient numbers amongst the rest to vote out Esther McVey, who as the sidekick to IDS in the Department of Work and Pensions was responsible for making life a misery for the sick and disabled.
Nevertheless, Cameron might well elevate her to the House of Lords fairly soon, together with such other luminaries as Danny Alexander and Vince Cable. To be thrown out by the electorate if you were a government Minister seems to equate to a big financial pay off, a seat in the House of Lords, and, in the case of McVey, carrying on just as before as a Minister. As far as the wishes of the electors of West Wirral are concerned, well they can go to hell! The establishment looks after its own.
It remains to be seen what patronage he'll be throwing Clegg's way. Some European job perhaps? Or maybe even being given the job of co-ordinating the "Yes" vote for staying in the E.U. just like Darling (and Brown) were responsible for co-ordinating the "No" vote in Scotland. As one of the most committed Europhiles in the Country, that should appeal to him, not to mention his own self esteem. Of course, it would also allow Cameron to shift the blame to Clegg should the "No" vote prevail, but hey, what's new about LibDems being set up to take the blame?
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on May 12, 2015 12:58:52 GMT 1
I knew there would be a UKIP effect but did not anticipate it would have so much effect on Labour. So it's not just right wingers - it is disaffected working class too. The bitter truth for Labour is that if you appoint an unelectable leader you are toast. They picked the wrong brother. You knew that the morning after.
I agree completely with this - over the last 6 years or so on here and other media sites the derogatory phrase "little Englanders" has been aimed at myself and others with UKIP/Tory stances.
It was plainly obvious to me that many Labour supporters were defecting to UKIP over 3 years ago - whilst there are of course people such as my self who came from the Tory side of the fence I feel the bigger blow was suffered by Labour.
How this went unnoticed is beyond me.
I feel that socialism from birth due to the area you were born in is dead, thus Labour cannot now count on solid support but have to go and earn it.
As for the leader - whoever it was may not have faired much better in the current climate.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 12, 2015 13:57:49 GMT 1
I knew there would be a UKIP effect but did not anticipate it would have so much effect on Labour. So it's not just right wingers - it is disaffected working class too. The bitter truth for Labour is that if you appoint an unelectable leader you are toast. They picked the wrong brother. You knew that the morning after.
I agree completely with this - over the last 6 years or so on here and other media sites the derogatory phrase "little Englanders" has been aimed at myself and others with UKIP/Tory stances.
It was plainly obvious to me that many Labour supporters were defecting to UKIP over 3 years ago - whilst there are of course people such as my self who came from the Tory side of the fence I feel the bigger blow was suffered by Labour.
How this went unnoticed is beyond me.
I feel that socialism from birth due to the area you were born in is dead, thus Labour cannot now count on solid support but have to go and earn it.
As for the leader - whoever it was may not have faired much better in the current climate.
Looking purely at the numbers of votes cast, the turnout in 2015 was similar to 2010 and Labours numbers actually went up slightly on 2010, as did the Conservatives. In the Labour heart lands their vote was still as strong, if not stronger than in 2010 So UKIP didn't seem to get their votes from those sources Lib Dems lost 4 million voters and UKIP votes went up to 4 million, plus the SNP were big gainers. On the face of it it was labour voters joining the SNP that was the big swing. That suggests UKIP actually gained most from Lib Dems switching which makes no sense!
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on May 12, 2015 15:27:00 GMT 1
I agree it looks bizarre but I think it can be explained to the extent that it reveals how much the Liberal Democrat vote used to be made up of protest voters rather than people who believed in liberal democracy. Once they went into government, those protest voters found a new home in UKIP.
|
|