Donny North MP for PM!

[donnyjay]

I'm gonna start a petition to bring back Late Night Carling. That'll stop you brainy feckers from picking on us thickos.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Bentley Bullet wrote:

Forum statesmen 2 Months, 1 Week ago    
Is it not true that some posters on here regard themselves as forum statesmen, and that they stick together in fear of disagreeing with each other?

Oh the irony...

I seem to remember that post being followed up by a number of supportive posts. Several of them monosyllabic, but there you go. You can't choose your cyber-friends.

Actually, to answer both you and Hoola, I don't set out with the aim of belittling anyone. Who am I to set myself up to do that?

If I crack every once in a while, then mea culpa.

But then, this is a rough, tough, Northern Lads' forum. We can take the blows and ride them. Personally, it worries me not one jot being called a \"patronising fcuker\", a \"poof\", a \"clever cnut\" being accused of writing \"b*llocks\", or willfully trying to belittle someone.

I'm a big lad and I take it on the chin. I assume others do the same to whatever barbs come their way. If they don't, they ought to re-consider getting involved in heated discussions.

Now you're just showing off.

To be serious for a moment, why do you assume that I'm showing off? In fact, I'd be condescending if I adjusted my style to fit what I thought would be suitable for you wouldn't I?

One of the many reasons to love Tony Wilson was the way that he steadfastly clung throughout his career to the idea that just because he was from Manchester and worked in the music business, he shouldn't wear a hoody and talk in an \"Ey! Arr-rate!\" stylee. He could easily have aimed low, pretended to be thicker than he was, patronise folk and probably been far more successful for doing so. But he didn't. His approach was that if he inspired one person to aim their intellectual and cultural sights higher, then it was worthwhile.

A true hero, and one who anyone would be well advised to try to imitate.

Now. Go dig out a dictionary.

[Bentley Bullet]

Well I'm still waiting for an answer!

[MrFrost]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Bentley Bullet wrote:

Forum statesmen 2 Months, 1 Week ago    
Is it not true that some posters on here regard themselves as forum statesmen, and that they stick together in fear of disagreeing with each other?

Oh the irony...

I seem to remember that post being followed up by a number of supportive posts. Several of them monosyllabic, but there you go. You can't choose your cyber-friends.

Actually, to answer both you and Hoola, I don't set out with the aim of belittling anyone. Who am I to set myself up to do that?

If I crack every once in a while, then mea culpa.

But then, this is a rough, tough, Northern Lads' forum. We can take the blows and ride them. Personally, it worries me not one jot being called a \"patronising fcuker\", a \"poof\", a \"clever cnut\" being accused of writing \"b*llocks\", or willfully trying to belittle someone.

I'm a big lad and I take it on the chin. I assume others do the same to whatever barbs come their way. If they don't, they ought to re-consider getting involved in heated discussions.

Now you're just showing off.

To be serious for a moment, why do you assume that I'm showing off? In fact, I'd be condescending if I adjusted my style to fit what I thought would be suitable for you wouldn't I?

One of the many reasons to love Tony Wilson was the way that he steadfastly clung throughout his career to the idea that just because he was from Manchester and worked in the music business, he shouldn't wear a hoody and talk in an \"Ey! Arr-rate!\" stylee. He could easily have aimed low, pretended to be thicker than he was, patronise folk and probably been far more successful for doing so. But he didn't. His approach was that if he inspired one person to aim their intellectual and cultural sights higher, then it was worthwhile.

A true hero, and one who anyone would be well advised to try to imitate.

Now. Go dig out a dictionary.[/quote]

Why do I need to do this. Wouldn't I then be attempting to adjust my style to fit what I thought would be suitable for you?

[jucyberry]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Bentley Bullet wrote:

Forum statesmen 2 Months, 1 Week ago    
Is it not true that some posters on here regard themselves as forum statesmen, and that they stick together in fear of disagreeing with each other?

Oh the irony...

I seem to remember that post being followed up by a number of supportive posts. Several of them monosyllabic, but there you go. You can't choose your cyber-friends.

Actually, to answer both you and Hoola, I don't set out with the aim of belittling anyone. Who am I to set myself up to do that?

If I crack every once in a while, then mea culpa.

But then, this is a rough, tough, Northern Lads' forum. We can take the blows and ride them. Personally, it worries me not one jot being called a \"patronising fcuker\", a \"poof\", a \"clever cnut\" being accused of writing \"b*llocks\", or willfully trying to belittle someone.

I'm a big lad and I take it on the chin. I assume others do the same to whatever barbs come their way. If they don't, they ought to re-consider getting involved in heated discussions.

Perhaps in some strange way it is a rite of passage of sorts?

As you say, this is a tough place to be at times, and give him his dues Mr Frost doesn't back down. I rather admire that in him...He is a catalyst for some of the deepest political thoughts from BST and Bob..

Football is the driving force on here, but there is room for passion in other areas too.

(I think they all slightly enjoy it too)

[Barmby Rover]

hoolahoop wrote:

Barmby Rover wrote:

Something about meat products and education, but I can't quite remember the phrase........ but you must have heard it before Mr Frost, maybe you could help us poor intellectual folks out. After all we know nothing and only opinion matters even if it can't be backed up with facts if I remember previous ramblings by yourself.

I wished there had been a fact or two for every opinion you have expressed in the past Barmby.
Are the 3 of you playing with him by agreement or are you all psychic arse'oles tonight ?
The demeaning phrase that you were looking for was that you with all your combined powers and intellect are unable to educate the 'pork' that is Mr. Frost.........    am I right ?  

I am as cautious about this leader as anyone Hoola, a nice N.London boy from Champagne socialists dropped into a nice safe seat in S.Yorkshire. (some facts in there for you if you want) I am just going on previous threads mostly started by the said poster before, mostly based purely on prejudice and not fact. However if you wish we will have to completely agree with him then and not express our opinions either if we follow your logic. I would love to know how in an electoral college designed to balance the three strands within a party that only one part of it will be represented according to you. I would hope that any government would listen to organised labour within it's borders, but I have yet to see any government in my life that has been a poodle for unions, I do see a coalition that is being very friendly towards a banking system that has been propped up completely with our money and then not been expected to pay back enough. Only the working population is being expected to pay for the mess they created whilst they carry on with their games and receiving fat bonuses again, and denying manufacturing funds that would employ people.

[Viking Don]

I voted for him, even though he looks a bit like Beaker.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

Now. Go dig out a dictionary.[/quote]

Why do I need to do this. Wouldn't I then be attempting to adjust my style to fit what I thought would be suitable for you?

Jesus wept lad, do you think \"irony\" is what they use to make \"steely\"? Do I have to put up one of them spazzy winky things every time?

[Bentley Bullet]

One question at a time please!

[MrFrost]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

Now. Go dig out a dictionary.[/quote]

Why do I need to do this. Wouldn't I then be attempting to adjust my style to fit what I thought would be suitable for you?

Jesus wept lad, do you think \"irony\" is what they use to make \"steely\"? Do I have to put up one of them spazzy winky things every time?

Sorry, at the beginning of your post you put the word \"serious\".
Let me dig out my dictionary and check the meaning of the word.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Barmby Rover wrote:

I am as cautious about this leader as anyone Hoola, a nice N.London boy from Champagne socialists dropped into a nice safe seat in S.Yorkshire. (some facts in there for you if you want)

Me, I'm intensely relaxed about the whole background thing.

Who was the greatest Labour leader of all time? Clement Attlee?

Son of a solicitor from a comfortable West London home. Worked as a lecturer in economics at the LSE. Parachuted into a safe East End slum constituency.

He did alright for the Labour Party and the working class of the country.

Compare and contrast with the biggest Labour traitor of all time, Ramsay MacDonald. The dirt-poor bas**rd son of a Scottish crofter. Became an MP for a constituency that reflected his poverty-stricken and grindingly tough background. Then as Labour PM, sold his party down the river and went into coaltion with the Tories, implementing policies strikingly similar to the ones the current lot are advocating and leading to the Great Depression.

[Viking Don]

Haven't you got anyone to argue with at home Mr Frost, or have you driven them away?

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

Now. Go dig out a dictionary.[/quote]

Why do I need to do this. Wouldn't I then be attempting to adjust my style to fit what I thought would be suitable for you?

Jesus wept lad, do you think \"irony\" is what they use to make \"steely\"? Do I have to put up one of them spazzy winky things every time?

Sorry, at the beginning of your post you put the word \"serious\".
Let me dig out my dictionary and check the meaning of the word.

I also said \"...for a moment...\" Look under \"F\", \"A\" and \"M\" while you're at it.

[Viking Don]

Haven't you got anyone to argue with at home Mr Frost, or have you driven them away?

No idea why I had to ask twice....

[MrFrost]

Viking Don wrote:

Haven't you got anyone to argue with at home Mr Frost, or have you driven them away?

No idea why I had to ask twice....

There is no arguing in my house. Our lass knows she'll never win one so doesn't bother.

[hoolahoop]

Barmby Rover wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

Barmby Rover wrote:

Something about meat products and education, but I can't quite remember the phrase........ but you must have heard it before Mr Frost, maybe you could help us poor intellectual folks out. After all we know nothing and only opinion matters even if it can't be backed up with facts if I remember previous ramblings by yourself.

I wished there had been a fact or two for every opinion you have expressed in the past Barmby.
Are the 3 of you playing with him by agreement or are you all psychic arse'oles tonight ?
The demeaning phrase that you were looking for was that you with all your combined powers and intellect are unable to educate the 'pork' that is Mr. Frost.........    am I right ?  

I am as cautious about this leader as anyone Hoola, a nice N.London boy from Champagne socialists dropped into a nice safe seat in S.Yorkshire. (some facts in there for you if you want) I am just going on previous threads mostly started by the said poster before, mostly based purely on prejudice and not fact. However if you wish we will have to completely agree with him then and not express our opinions either if we follow your logic. I would love to know how in an electoral college designed to balance the three strands within a party that only one part of it will be represented according to you. I would hope that any government would listen to organised labour within it's borders, but I have yet to see any government in my life that has been a poodle for unions, I do see a coalition that is being very friendly towards a banking system that has been propped up completely with our money and then not been expected to pay back enough. Only the working population is being expected to pay for the mess they created whilst they carry on with their games and receiving fat bonuses again, and denying manufacturing funds that would employ people.

Champagne Socialist indeed, this lad comes from a deeply entrenched Marxist family and the farce that is the electoral college (or the larger part of it i.e. the Unions) know exactly what they want from this fella imo.
Smart suit, Oxbridge education, entrenched Marxist values are exactly the values that they are looking for from their new leader.
I know you don't like the Coalition and I too have my doubts about it's functionality but are they really completely 'turning a blind eye' to the Banks and is Vince Cable then the biggest con artist around with his intended attacks on them ?

[Viking Don]

MrFrost wrote:

Viking Don wrote:

Haven't you got anyone to argue with at home Mr Frost, or have you driven them away?

No idea why I had to ask twice....

There is no arguing in my house. Our lass knows she'll never win one so doesn't bother.

  I hardly ever use those things, but I did actually laugh at that!

[BillyStubbsTears]

hoolahoop wrote:

Barmby Rover wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

Barmby Rover wrote:

Something about meat products and education, but I can't quite remember the phrase........ but you must have heard it before Mr Frost, maybe you could help us poor intellectual folks out. After all we know nothing and only opinion matters even if it can't be backed up with facts if I remember previous ramblings by yourself.

I wished there had been a fact or two for every opinion you have expressed in the past Barmby.
Are the 3 of you playing with him by agreement or are you all psychic arse'oles tonight ?
The demeaning phrase that you were looking for was that you with all your combined powers and intellect are unable to educate the 'pork' that is Mr. Frost.........    am I right ?  

I am as cautious about this leader as anyone Hoola, a nice N.London boy from Champagne socialists dropped into a nice safe seat in S.Yorkshire. (some facts in there for you if you want) I am just going on previous threads mostly started by the said poster before, mostly based purely on prejudice and not fact. However if you wish we will have to completely agree with him then and not express our opinions either if we follow your logic. I would love to know how in an electoral college designed to balance the three strands within a party that only one part of it will be represented according to you. I would hope that any government would listen to organised labour within it's borders, but I have yet to see any government in my life that has been a poodle for unions, I do see a coalition that is being very friendly towards a banking system that has been propped up completely with our money and then not been expected to pay back enough. Only the working population is being expected to pay for the mess they created whilst they carry on with their games and receiving fat bonuses again, and denying manufacturing funds that would employ people.

Champagne Socialist indeed, this lad comes from a deeply entrenched Marxist family and the farce that is the electoral college (or the larger part of it i.e. the Unions) know exactly what they want from this fella imo.
Smart suit, Oxbridge education, entrenched Marxist values are exactly the values that they are looking for from their new leader.
I know you don't like the Coalition and I too have my doubts about it's functionality but are they really completely 'turning a blind eye' to the Banks and is Vince Cable then the biggest con artist around with his intended attacks on them ?

'kin 'ell Hoola. \"Entrenched Marxist values\"!?! Are you a sub-editor for the Daily Mail? The Unions have voted for Ed Miliband because they were wanting a move (a slight move) leftwards away from the Blairite approach that the other one would have implemented. It's a canny political move. The coalition will become progressively less popular as the scale and effect of the cuts become apparent, so where is the benefit in Labour electing a Blairite mini-me whose approach would have been barely different from the coalition's? This way, Labour offer a clear alternative.

PS: By the way, the Unions are NOT \"the bigger part\" of the Electoral College. The Unions collectively have 33.33% of the votes, the same as the MPs/MEPs and the individual members. Compare and contrast with the Tory party, where only the MPs get a vote.

As for Vince Cable, it's pretty straightforward. He has been utterly neutered by Clegg's sudden lurch to the right. He was his Party's biggest asset, and very much wanted the Liberals to go into coalition with Labour. But he has been sold down the river by Clegg's unquestioning support for Osbourne's economic policy. To cap it all, Cable's department will bear the brunt of the fiscal cutbacks. The rightward lurch of the Liberal elite has delievered a massive put-down to him.

He's been quiet for a while, biding his time. In that time, he's seen the Liberals' poll rating collapse to fringe-party status. Can you imagine the atmosphere in his private discussions with Clegg? Can you imagine phrases such as \"You daft t**t, you have just destroyed our support base for the next 50 years\" being used? Is it surprising that he then comes out fighting with wild threats to the financial barrow boys to wow his party conference. And do yo think there is the slightest chnace that Osbourne and Cameron (not to mention Clegg) will allow him to do anything whatsoever about it?

[donnyproletarian]

Is it just me but have has anyone else picked up on Milibands apparent denial of the medias portrayal of the red Ed label.Given his roots and the need for working class representation in this country you would think he would embrace it.Not chasing after the mythical middle ground that has has cost the labour movement its soul.

[BillyStubbsTears]

donnyproletarian wrote:

Is it just me but have has anyone else picked up on Milibands apparent denial of the medias portrayal of the red Ed label.Given his roots and the need for working class representation in this country you would think he would embrace it.Not chasing after the mythical middle ground that has has cost the labour movement its soul.

Perfectly simple. He wants to win the next election and he will not do so by lurching waybto the left.

It's the easy shot to complain at Labour for not remaining some ideologically pure socialist party. It conveniently ignores the reality that the one time in our lifetimes that Labour DID veer way to the left, they made themselves unelectable and allowed the most virulently right wing of Tory governments to wage unrestrained class warfare on the very people that Labour is supposed to protect. Good eh?

There is a middle ground between unelectable far left policies and the quasi-Tory approach of the Blairites. It's the centre-left ground that forms the traditional territory of the Labour party, where they have a chance of both winning elections AND (albeit slowly) making the country a better and fairer place for those at the bottom. Brown was firmlybinvthat tradition, and Ed Miliband is too. It's the ONLY place for a true Labour party to be. Put them where you would like to see them ANC they are nothing but a self indulgent protest movement.

[Boomstick]

Red Ed doesnt stand a chance vs Clegg and Cameron, they will run rings around him. Thats just my opinion, and as someone who dislikes the Labour Party I'm finding it all very funny.
As a Danesian born and bred (and still living here), I feel that in no way does he represent me. And by going on the results of the mayoral election, thousands of others feel the same.

[hoolahoop]

Boomstick wrote:

Red Ed doesnt stand a chance vs Clegg and Cameron, they will run rings around him. Thats just my opinion, and as someone who dislikes the Labour Party I'm finding it all very funny.
As a Danesian born and bred (and still living here), I feel that in no way does he represent me. And by going on the results of the mayoral election, thousands of others feel the same.

My thoughts entirely, to me he is not in the same league as the 2 Coalition leaders and they will in time make 'mincemeat' of him.
Billy compares his politics to that of Brown, therein imo lies a very rocky road. In these days of 'charismatic' politics he will in my view undoubtedly fail as did Gordon Brown unfortunately much of politics these days depends on more style than substance.
It is never in anybody's interest to have either a weak Government and/or Opposition whoever currently runs the country. Strong policies require strong scrutiny and to some extent the last Labour Govt. was a victim of it's own success in that it did not scutinise from within correctly due to the leadership style of Brown and it wasn't curbed by what was imo a relatively weak opposition run by Cameron and to a far lesser extent by Clegg.
As to Billy's point re. the Lib Dems. it remains to be seen how they will fare at the next general election and is solely dependent on whether they can influence i.e. bring into check the more radical policies of the Tories. If they fail they will undoubtedly sink without trace but if they succeed the Labour Party has an almighty hill to climb.
Has Clegg 'climbed into the wrong bed', personally I think not. His party is far more likely to have a 'check and balance' influence on this Tory Govt. than they ever would have had under an irresponsible Labour Govt.who had already lost the faith and confidence of a good % of the Electorate. If this had not been the case then he would have fought far harder to align himself with the party where there would have been far more commonality historically.

[Filo]

hoolahoop wrote:

Boomstick wrote:

Red Ed doesnt stand a chance vs Clegg and Cameron, they will run rings around him. Thats just my opinion, and as someone who dislikes the Labour Party I'm finding it all very funny.
As a Danesian born and bred (and still living here), I feel that in no way does he represent me. And by going on the results of the mayoral election, thousands of others feel the same.

My thoughts entirely, to me he is not in the same league as the 2 Coalition leaders and they will in time make 'mincemeat' of him.
Billy compares his politics to that of Brown, therein imo lies a very rocky road. In these days of 'charismatic' politics he will in my view undoubtedly fail as did Gordon Brown unfortunately much of politics these days depends on more style than substance.
It is never in anybody's interest to have either a weak Government and/or Opposition whoever currently runs the country. Strong policies require strong scrutiny and to some extent the last Labour Govt. was a victim of it's own success in that it did not scutinise from within correctly due to the leadership style of Brown and it wasn't curbed by what was imo a relatively weak opposition run by Cameron and to a far lesser extent by Clegg.
As to Billy's point re. the Lib Dems. it remains to be seen how they will fare at the next general election and is solely dependent on whether they can influence i.e. bring into check the more radical policies of the Tories. If they fail they will undoubtedly sink without trace but if they succeed the Labour Party has an almighty hill to climb.
Has Clegg 'climbed into the wrong bed', personally I think not. His party is far more likely to have a 'check and balance' influence on this Tory Govt. than they ever would have had under an irresponsible Labour Govt.who had already lost the faith and confidence of a good % of the Electorate. If this had not been the case then he would have fought far harder to align himself with the party where there would have been far more commonality historically.

Why then did Cameron vet Cleggs speech to the LibDems at their recent conference, why did the tory party interfere with a LibDem conference. I wonder if Clegg will get the same privilege with Camerons speech at his partys conference, I think not!

[BillyStubbsTears]

A few points.

Clegg is on the fast track to irrelevance. His one and only appeal to the voters was that he looked like a nice honest guy on the telly. Well, the electorate soon learned their mistake on that score didn't they? As soon as the election was over, he dumped the Party's key economic policies (in the face of much opposition by Cable) and signed up to support vastly more vicious and rapid cutbacks than the Liberals had proposed. He justifies this by saying that he changed his mind in the last few days before the Election (but didn't think he'd bother telling his Party or the electorate) He's a political Dead Man Walking. Who is ever going to trust a word that he says in future? And why bother voting for a Clegg-led Liberal Party if he is simply going to endorse the wilder Tory economic policies? That us the reason that Clegg has performed a political miracle - he has managed to HALVE the Liberals' poll ratings within 4 months of a successful election. Utterly unprecedented.

The obvious conclusion is that the next election will revert to type and be a straightforward Tory-Labour run-off. It's quite astonishing how quickly folk have cottoned onto this andvthe polls have, fir several months now, been showing Labour and the Tories both at around 40% with the Liberals on 12-14%. And THAT is before the extent of the Tory-proposed, Liberal-supported cuts  really begin to become apparent. Just see what the polls say after the Spending Round announcement next month, when we actually see the details.

 The Liberals will revert to being a fringe party with a couple of dozen seats at the next election. The issue then will be whether the Tory cuts have worked or whether they have destroyed the fragile recovery and put millions of families through even more hardship. Personalities and TV performance will matter not a jot. If the Tory policies work, they will walk the next election. If they don't a sensible left-of-centre alternative will be able to say, \"See! We told you how reckless a gamble it was. There always was an alternative and we've been telling you that for 5 years\". And they will win with a landslide, whether Miliband looks like a geek or not.

EDIT: Hoola, how can Clegg be a moderating influence on the Tory cuts? He's signed up for them lock, stock and barrel! He's already flipped his Party's economic policy on the hoof once in order to join the coalition (against the policy of Cable who wanted a coalition with Labour and a more measured approach to balancing cuts with growth).  If he flipped again and started opposing the proposed cuts, he'd be a laughing stock. He's chucked all the Liberals' egg into one basket, marked \"Tory economic policy\". Even if that policy works, why bother voting Liberal again? If you agree with the Tory economic approach, you might as well simply vote Tory.

[The Red Baron]

There's quite a lot of assumptions in there, not least that Labour will put themselves forward as a \"sensible left of centre alternative\" when the next General Election comes around. They didn't do that in the early 80s, after all.

I'm not going to say that the choice of Ed Miliband represents a lurch to the left, or that he is going to be a puppet of the Unions- only time will tell. But if Labour don't position themselves right and fail to put themselves forward as a realistic alternative Government, then there's a fair chance the Tories could win the next election by default.

[Snods Shinpad 2]

BBC:

Ed Miliband has won the Labour leadership after narrowly beating brother David in a dramatic run-off vote ahead of the party's conference.

He said a \"new generation\" had taken charge of Labour and it had to change.

\"We lost the election and we lost it badly. My message to the country is this: I know we lost trust, I know we lost touch, I know we need to change.

\"Today a new generation has taken charge of Labour, a new generation that understands the call of change.\"

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYkGThMYmbk[/video]

No change there then...

[The Red Baron]

Just saw your PS after I posted. I think we ought to nail the myth that there could have been a Labour-Lib Dem coalition in May. The arithmetic just didn't stack up, added to which there was the whole issue of the Labour leadership: keeping Brown in office even as a caretaker PM would simply not have been credible.

Tim Farron, a senior Lib Dem who is no Tory-lover explained the dilemma rather well in an interview last week. He said they could have either entered a coalition with the Tories or let Cameron form a minority Govt. The outcome of the latter would certainly have been another election this year and a likely Tory majority Govt. It is easy to criticise the Lib Dems, but they really were between a rock and a hard place, because their \"other option\" (a coalition with Labour) just wasn't feasible.

[hoolahoop]

Filo wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

Boomstick wrote:

Red Ed doesnt stand a chance vs Clegg and Cameron, they will run rings around him. Thats just my opinion, and as someone who dislikes the Labour Party I'm finding it all very funny.
As a Danesian born and bred (and still living here), I feel that in no way does he represent me. And by going on the results of the mayoral election, thousands of others feel the same.

My thoughts entirely, to me he is not in the same league as the 2 Coalition leaders and they will in time make 'mincemeat' of him.
Billy compares his politics to that of Brown, therein imo lies a very rocky road. In these days of 'charismatic' politics he will in my view undoubtedly fail as did Gordon Brown unfortunately much of politics these days depends on more style than substance.
It is never in anybody's interest to have either a weak Government and/or Opposition whoever currently runs the country. Strong policies require strong scrutiny and to some extent the last Labour Govt. was a victim of it's own success in that it did not scutinise from within correctly due to the leadership style of Brown and it wasn't curbed by what was imo a relatively weak opposition run by Cameron and to a far lesser extent by Clegg.
As to Billy's point re. the Lib Dems. it remains to be seen how they will fare at the next general election and is solely dependent on whether they can influence i.e. bring into check the more radical policies of the Tories. If they fail they will undoubtedly sink without trace but if they succeed the Labour Party has an almighty hill to climb.
Has Clegg 'climbed into the wrong bed', personally I think not. His party is far more likely to have a 'check and balance' influence on this Tory Govt. than they ever would have had under an irresponsible Labour Govt.who had already lost the faith and confidence of a good % of the Electorate. If this had not been the case then he would have fought far harder to align himself with the party where there would have been far more commonality historically.

Why then did Cameron vet Cleggs speech to the LibDems at their recent conference, why did the tory party interfere with a LibDem conference. I wonder if Clegg will get the same privilege with Camerons speech at his partys conference, I think not!

'Vet' it , don't be daft Filo, they are working together in a Coalition aren't they ? Surely the pair of them have to have some consistency in their approach and I am not at all surprised by this and would think that Clegg will see a copy of Cameron's long before the Tory conference.
Why do you find this strange behaviour, surely both leaders of a Coalition need to show a consistent approach regardless of whether they are talking to their parties or not ? After all if one pisses the other off or either party's supporters withdraw their support for their 'joining at the hip'the Coalition would collapse.
The result some of you undoubtedly would love to see along with your Marxist brethren. Did you lot get sent to the Gulags when you were young for politicisation btw ?  
Perhaps I will now be subjected to the following drivel 'Thatcher destroyed the working class', 'Scargill was a God and a victm', 'Unions rule' etc.        
Is there no middle ground with you BST, BobG or Barmby ?

[Filo]

hoolahoop wrote:

Filo wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

Boomstick wrote:

Red Ed doesnt stand a chance vs Clegg and Cameron, they will run rings around him. Thats just my opinion, and as someone who dislikes the Labour Party I'm finding it all very funny.
As a Danesian born and bred (and still living here), I feel that in no way does he represent me. And by going on the results of the mayoral election, thousands of others feel the same.

My thoughts entirely, to me he is not in the same league as the 2 Coalition leaders and they will in time make 'mincemeat' of him.
Billy compares his politics to that of Brown, therein imo lies a very rocky road. In these days of 'charismatic' politics he will in my view undoubtedly fail as did Gordon Brown unfortunately much of politics these days depends on more style than substance.
It is never in anybody's interest to have either a weak Government and/or Opposition whoever currently runs the country. Strong policies require strong scrutiny and to some extent the last Labour Govt. was a victim of it's own success in that it did not scutinise from within correctly due to the leadership style of Brown and it wasn't curbed by what was imo a relatively weak opposition run by Cameron and to a far lesser extent by Clegg.
As to Billy's point re. the Lib Dems. it remains to be seen how they will fare at the next general election and is solely dependent on whether they can influence i.e. bring into check the more radical policies of the Tories. If they fail they will undoubtedly sink without trace but if they succeed the Labour Party has an almighty hill to climb.
Has Clegg 'climbed into the wrong bed', personally I think not. His party is far more likely to have a 'check and balance' influence on this Tory Govt. than they ever would have had under an irresponsible Labour Govt.who had already lost the faith and confidence of a good % of the Electorate. If this had not been the case then he would have fought far harder to align himself with the party where there would have been far more commonality historically.

Why then did Cameron vet Cleggs speech to the LibDems at their recent conference, why did the tory party interfere with a LibDem conference. I wonder if Clegg will get the same privilege with Camerons speech at his partys conference, I think not!

'Vet' it , don't be daft Filo, they are working together in a Coalition aren't they ? Surely the pair of them have to have some consistency in their approach and I am not at all surprised by this and would think that Clegg will see a copy of Cameron's long before the Tory conference.
Why do you find this strange behaviour, surely both leaders of a Coalition need to show a consistent approach regardless of whether they are talking to their parties or not ? After all if one pisses the other off or either party's supporters withdraw their support for their 'joining at the hip'the Coalition would collapse.
The result some of you undoubtedly would love to see along with your Marxist brethren. Did you lot get sent to the Gulags when you were young for politicisation btw ?  
Perhaps I will now be subjected to the following drivel 'Thatcher destroyed the working class', 'Scargill was a God and a victm', 'Unions rule' etc.        
Is there no middle ground with you BST, BobG or Barmby ?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2010/09/21/revealed-nick-clegg-had-to-have-lib-dem-keynote-speech-cleared-by-tory-boss-david-cameron-86908-22577169/



A tory MP has to approve a speech by a LibDem MP to the LibDems just proves that the LibDems are no more than puppets, dancing to the Tory tune, by the time of the next election Clegg and his party will be political nobodies and the Tories will have long since ditched them!

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Red Baron wrote:

There's quite a lot of assumptions in there, not least that Labour will put themselves forward as a \"sensible left of centre alternative\" when the next General Election comes around. They didn't do that in the early 80s, after all.

I'm not going to say that the choice of Ed Miliband represents a lurch to the left, or that he is going to be a puppet of the Unions- only time will tell. But if Labour don't position themselves right and fail to put themselves forward as a realistic alternative Government, then there's a fair chance the Tories could win the next election by default.

There is no chance whatsoever of a re-run of Labour's mistakes of the early 80s. The world has changed beyond recognition since then. Only Daily Mail writers, retired Lt Cols in Surrey and Hoola now associate Labour and The Far Left.

There IS an interesting lesson from that period mind. 1980-83 was the last time that any Govt in Western Europe implemented anything remotely close to the scale of cutbacks that this lot are proposing. By late 1981, Thatcher's government was, as a result, one of the most unpopular on record. They would have had no chance whatsoever of winning in 1983 were it not for the felicitous combination of a suicidally left-wing Labour party, a fatally split Opposition and a convenient little escapade in the South Atlantic. Had Dennis Healy won the Labour leadership in 1980, and the Admiralty not removed the last gunboat in the South Atlantic thus giving a clear \"come on\" to Galtieri, the whole of 1980s history would have been utterly different.

The lesson? Well, history shows that when cutbacks really start to bite, Governments' popularity falls off a cliff. And since Cameron ain't going to find a neat little war to bolster his popularity or a rabidly lefty Labour Opposition to be a bogeyman, he's going to be in for done uncomfortable poll figures in the forthcoming years.

I suspect we'll see Labour ahead in the polls by 5% or so by the New Year once the scale of the October Spending Review becomes apparent. After that, it's all down to whether the private sector miracle that Osbourne dreams of actually materialises.