david_carnell

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I read today Labour has changed their voting rules > for the next leader election. Last time, they had > three colleges - MPs (about 260), Labour members > (250k) and unions (2 million). The MPs and > members voted narrowly for David M, the unions > voted strongly for Ed and got him over the line. > > This time, it's one person one vote. In other > words, the 2 million union votes will decide the > election. Don't suck up completely to the unions > and you leadership bid is effectively scuppered. > > That's Labour screwed for 2020 already. You can't have it both ways, Loz. The unions are affiliated to the party. They are responsible for its founding and its funding. They also represent exactly the type of voter you and others have said the party are struggling to connect with. If you pay, through your union subs, to fund the party I think its fair you should have a say in the leadership. It will force candidates to appeal to a far wider caucus than just their colleagues. I think that can only be a good thing. If you cut that link, the party ceases to perform its raison d'etre.

C'mon Jezza, Quids put in the disclaimer about retweets not an indication of agreement. Oh. Wait.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The issue with being in control and knowing every > aspect of policy is > you then are micro managing > > Gordon Brown did this - IMHO Cameron doesn't - he > just repeats the same thing. > > There's nothing wrong with saying my excellent > team are on this and will brief me > (if a question is jumped on you) - if it's > pre-planned the team should have briefed > already. Firstly, I'm talking about his own shadow cabinet business brief, not just general policy. Secondly, I don't think a leader will do well if he simply says "I don't know but I'm sure someone in my team does" - they'd be savaged by the media. You can possess the ability to grasp complex policy issues without micro-managing.

Umunna suffers from what's known as the third-question problem. He's great on stuff like Question Time or This Morning because you only ever skim the surface of policy issues but under sustained questioning, i.e. on a third question, he begins to get flustered and unravel. Unusual considering his legal background that he appears so ill-briefed or unable to understand. Also, for a party continually criticised (by many here) as being too urbane, too liberal, too metropolitan, too Islington dinner-party and not in touch with your "normal voter" then I don't see Chuka as the answer. He's not going to wow them in Grimsby with his Ibiza anthems and sharp suits. Then again, Cameron seems to manage it.... A shame Dan Jarvis isn't standing but for good reasons. Burnham won't appeal to middle-class southerners, Cooper lacks personality and Kendall is too inexperienced. It's not an easy job description: Clever - but not intellectual Have urban appeal - but not too metropolitan Have northern/midlands heartland appeal - but don't scare the home counties Be photogenic but not smarmy Inspire the grass roots with genuine left of centre appeal but don't put of the "aspirational" voter Get the unions money but not their public support Politically experienced but not tainted by past failures If you can find this person, please let Labour HQ know....

Wow. The gloating started early. I was wrong about the result. No argument there. As was just about every opinion poll. It's too early to comment on where or what Labour should go/do next. Let the dust settle. One interesting stat I've just seen though: Con % share of vote in 2010: 36.6 Con % share of vote in 2015: 36.8 Lab % share of vote in 2010: 29.4 Lab % share of vote in 2015: 30.5 And yet look at the stark change in seats. It doesn't explain much but adds nuance and depth to the picture.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SteveT huh? Yes, I noticed that too. Too much of a coincidence. I have my suspicions about his alter ego on here.

True true but I thought PAC man should have had a higher work rate and been more "swarmy". Just never seemed to get going.

I had it closer than the scorecards but still a mayweather win. A rather dull fight for the most part. Disappointed.

Bmi isn't flawed unless you are at the extremes of the height range or are extremely muscly since that weighs more than fat. Otherwise it's a pretty decent way of measuring. It's the standard worldwide for a reason.

I'm off to a mates in tooting and hoping I stay awake!

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > david carnell wrote > 'Smug, trendy, sneering liberals who won?t let us > talk about immigration? It?s just a rightwing > delusion and a lazy substitute for thinking.' > I see- you are a sneaky git alright! ???

Bunch of busybodies! Should you "have a word with him"? No. Mind your own bloody business. He's not breaking any laws. I see a guy going up and down Crystal Palace Rd on a bike with his young son (aged 5 or 6) on a small bike in front of him. I think how wonderful that he's teaching his son road skills and drive appropriately in the circumstances. This is why the new 20mph limit is such a good idea. It will make the roads safer for cyclists and encourage more children onto the roads. We have an obesity epidemic in thsi country - we should encourage children on bikes at all times.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This labor party? A bunch of white collar > public sector union apparatiks and North London > policy wonks with naive lefty ideas about > patronising hand me down 'progressiveness'. You > think it truly represents them in a meaningful > way? These are just such tired cliches - I should be surprised but coming from you it's all I've come to expect. Smug, trendy, sneering liberals who won?t let us talk about immigration? It?s just a rightwing delusion and a lazy substitute for thinking. You sound like Jeremy Clarkson. Your pitch that ?we? are the norm, representing the views of all right-thinking Brits and ?they? ? the metropolitan elite ? try to stop us saying what everyone really thinks is bullshit. Those oh so familiar targets of ?Hampstead socialists?, or Islington Marxists. But hang on. Your own Simon Heffer reckons the metropolitan elite is all over Notting Hill too ? in the shape of top Conservatives! Heffer sees David Cameron and his chums as members of ?the expensively educated metropolitan elite?. There?s always a temptation to believe that everyone else thinks the same way we do, unless there?s something weird about them. But it?s a delusion. Your whole ?metropolitan elite? schtick, which seems to have a range of mutually exclusive definitions, is just a lazy substitute for thinking, and a convenient way of marginalising anyone you don?t agree with. An elite is by definition a tiny group that wields power out of all proportion to its size ? like the investment bankers who crashed the global economy, for example, though for some reason they get away with it. But anyone who has a degree or lives in London or might vote for a party other than the Tories and Ukip is supposed to be part of a minuscule unrepresentative cabal.

If that's the case ????, why are they still voted for by northern, working class communities across the north-west (Manc, 'Pool etc) and the north-east (Newcastle, Sunderland, etc) and midlands (Brum, Notts, Derby etc). I think those folk might object to being lumped in with your mythical Hamstead/Islington dinner party crowd.

Pampered home-counties boy? Wow, why not tell me what you really think Dave. I think making it personal is a bit unnecessary. I also don't see why, whatever your background, you cannot have an opinion on Conservative party policies for those at the bottom of society. I think your idea that the disabled should simply become "consumers" to help themselves is frankly laughable. Thousands rely on state financial support to simply get by. And yet you belittle that. And I'm not an Ft subscriber either but if that's their leader comment on how Cameron is committed to tackling inequality you might want to check out who the chief leader writer is for the FT. Hint: he went to oxford and was in the bullingdon club at the same time as someone with my initials.

Because it's the opposite of "conservative". You can call me either Loz - I won't take offence. I'll take "liberal" too. Left-of-centre/progressive/left-wing/liberal - I've no idea what the preferred nomenclature is tbh, each to their own.

Oh come on Dave.....don't be so dramatic. Firstly, the party loathe Blair for who he became and for Iraq. If you can't dislike a war criminal, who can you dislike. Plus a whole swathe of the Progress-wing of the party still subscribe to Blairism and a centrist doctrine of ideoligically vacant populism - win at all costs. I also fail to see why an "arrangement" between two progressive parties should be any more difficult than the current coalition arrangement. There will be lines drawn and complex negotiations but there are few issues that genuine vehment disagreement is to be found. Trident will be punted into the long grass with a five-year review and let the next lot sort it out. God help us all? Well I suppose you could vote Tory and then it would just be god help you if you are poor, sick, young, unemployed or disabled.

Wow - Lou couldn't stay away long. And spouting more nonsense than ever before. A Stalinist before communism came into being What? That doesn't even make logical sense. Is he deporting Labour rebels to gulags? Does he have a 5 year plan for tractor production? Then stop making ridiculous analogies. You'd be hard pressed to even describe him as a traditional socialist let alone anything more extreme. He lacks every quality in the book Such as? Honesty? Integrity? Principles? I'd say he has all of those. You might not agree with his policies but compared to the PR-man-cum-PM Cameron he's got many more statesmanlike qualities. the right wing press will anihilate him You mean like they've been doing for five years already? To little effect? Who knew that when you challenged vested interests (like monopoly ownership in the media or non-dom tax like most media barons have) then you get criticised for it. You underestimate the intelligence of the British public Lou, if you think they can't see through this stuff. He will damage the Labour Party more than its ever been damaged before. Actually he's saved the party. Predicitions of how it would tear itself apart post Blair/Brown and the schisms that would cost the party victory for a generation have proved unfounded. He's been a unifying force with little internal dissent. This isn't an election to knowingly win, it's one to knowingly lose So is he meant to be PM or not? Is he meant to lose deliberately? This whole thing smacks of someone who's read one or two half-baked opinion columns in the Telegraph and then attempted to regurgitate it as their own a day later.

Are we heading for a new crowd record?

Total eclipse

HMB - c'mon....you can do better than that. I'm thinking your tales from Bar Story alone could dominate this thread!

There's an apocryphal tale of Churchill standing at a urinal next to another politician and then leaving. The other chap says "I don't know what they taught at your school, but at Eton we were taught to wash our hands." Churchill turns and says, "At Harrow they taught us not to piss on our hands."

Shame and disaster not involving booze or drugs....that's an unlikely combination. Do incredibly disappointing GCSE results count? How about, with some mates, stealing a five aside goal from a special needs school so your kickabouts would be a bit more professional. Breaking someone's knee in a game of football because he'd always been a twat (and you hadn't meant for it to be that serious)? Trying to sleep with your uni house mate after her father had died because you knew her grief probably presented you with your best chance? And still failing. Honestly, I'm a reformed man and not nearly as much of a wanker as some of these possibly make out. Really.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They don't pay Road Tax .. > > If you have a bike keep it indoors.. No place.. > ??? Live Up Stairs ?? > What about buggies ?? Same problem.. > So are we going to have Buggy Hangers ??? > When we lived in flats back in the 50's - 70's > there used to be purpose built Pram /Cycle Sheds. > > > This is just another attack on the Motorist > Anyone wishing to have one outside their house > should NOT then also own a car which they then > park > outside someone else's house. > > DulwichFox No one pays road tax Foxy. It doesn't exist. In fact it hasn't for some time. I know you love a good cut&paste job so, voila: ipayroadtax.com "There has been no direct relationship between vehicle tax and road expenditure since 1937." We all pay for roads. They come from general taxation. You pay a vehicle duty because you drive a something that pollutes the air. Stop whinging.

Nope. 2-1. And DH were clinging on at the death despite having a one-man advantage. Good game though. Even a bit of handbags to get the crowd cheering.