random stuff

[????]

Can't agree Callaghan was weak - in many ways the most underated. Dealt a monumentally bad hand, a wafer thin majority reduced to zero, held together a party tearing iteslf apart, with Healey started to turn the economy around (with proto thatcherite policies)just made a monumental misjudgemant on not calling the election in '78 when the economy was strengthening and he was above Thatcher in the polls,,,,,the 'Winter of Discontent' then did for him

[david_carnell]

Brown should have called an election in 2007 too and misjudged it.

He'd have won a majority, got the economy turned around quicker than this shambles and be seen as doubly deft at saving the economy - both world and national.

;-)

[maxxi]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh, undoubtably he had his faults. But show me a

> PM that didn't?

>

> Churchill? Bombastic war criminal

> MacMillan? Disloyal

> Eden? Conceited

> Douglas-Home? Unelected

> Wilson? Devious

> Callaghan? - Weak

> Heath? - emotionally unstable

> Thatcher? - blind to pragmatism

>

> And so it goes on....

Yes... well, we'd all have been stumped when it came to choosing the adjective that would most accurately have described Blair.

[vgrant]

Blair always had perfect timing innit

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/gq-men-of-the-year-awards-tony-blair-named-philanthropist-of-the-year-9707703.html

[El Pibe]

they gave kim kardashian woman of the year, i can only think it was an exercise in irony.

[david_carnell]

GQ jumped the shark when Dylan Jones became editor and it moved from a half decent magazine to a vanity exercise. The man is a first class tool.

[Loz]

I thought Brown was a very good - possibly excellent - chancellor, but as PM he was a good example of the Peter Principle at work. Fine man to have in the engine room, but not as captain of the ship.

[El Pibe]

He was a terrible Chancellor. Obsessed with his own targets he cooked the books, funnelling too much into desperately terrible ppp/ppi deals we're stuck with for the next 20 years and once this was all brought on balance sheet absolutely shattering his spending targets.

Basically he looked good because he presided over the good times and still managed to end up in the red.

Decent man, I think so, decent Chancellor, no way.

[david_carnell]

More on the awfulness of the GQ awards

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/03/-sp-gqs-meaningless-mens-awards-give-tories-the-chance-to-hang-out-with-the-a-list

[Loz]

How very dare a newspaper/magazine be politically biased. Good thing the Guardian called them out.

[????]

i think it says as much about the awfulness of The Guardian

[Otta]

I have to say I did wonder if the writer saw the irony of calling out a publication for political leaning.

[david_carnell]

Although the Guardian doesn't pretend it is anything else and nor does it organise a ghastly awards ceremony for war criminals.

[????]

...who it by and large supported

[david_carnell]

Err, really?

I think you'll find the paper opposed Iraq.

Or do you mean in 1997? I think you've admitted to doing the same, no?

[????]

its somewhat reluctant but defenite support fo a war criminal

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/03/election2005.comment

Something that I didn't do in 2005, you?

[david_carnell]

In the end an election is about choosing a government and a parliament. We are clear where we stand, in spite of our misgivings. We want to see Labour re-elected to government and we want to see more Liberal Democrats returned to parliament, at whichever other party's expense. What we do not want are more Tory MPs, so we therefore urge progressive voters in the overwhelming majority of Labour or Liberal Democrat held seats to rally behind the incumbent party. Only in a tiny handful of seats - see elsewhere in today's paper - is it safe for Labour voters to switch to the Liberal Democrats without the risk of allowing the Tories to win. Elsewhere, think very carefully before you vote. You are voting not just for yourself but for others, frequently less fortunate, whose life chances rest on your good sense.

Wow - you're right after all. What a ringing endorsement for the man that is. Vote Labour and hopefully he'll bugger off soon enough.

And it certainly doesn't prevent a vast number of writers and columnists having dissenting views - not something you'll see much of at GQ.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here either - do you actually support or like these awards. Or are you just using any opportunity to try and highlight hypocrisy amongst the press? Something akin to shooting fish in a barrell.

Your oft-claimed love of tabloids and their "honest as the day is long, guv" approach would fail miserably if one decided to pick apart their weather-vane approach of who to support come election time. The Guardian may have its failings, but at least it's consistent.

Me in 2005? I think I was back at home in Sutton at that point so probably voted Lib-Dem to keep the Tories from winning. D_C in pragmatism shocker!

[Loz]

Next thing you know the Guardian will be complaining about companies off-shoring business transactions for tax avoidance reasons.

Oh, hang on...

[david_carnell]

At least they are allowed to do that by their parent, Guardian Media Group (GMG). Editorial independence writ large.

Remind me which of the Murdoch press highlighted phone hacking?

Oh, hang on....

[????]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In the end an election is about choosing a

> government and a parliament. We are clear where we

> stand, in spite of our misgivings. We want to see

> Labour re-elected to government and we want to see

> more Liberal Democrats returned to parliament, at

>

> I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here

> either - do you actually support or like these

> awards. Or are you just using any opportunity to

> try and highlight hypocrisy amongst the press?

> Something akin to shooting fish in a barrell.

Nope, just pointing out that the piece in The Guardian, which you posted reeked of, well, The Guardian. Couldn't give a toss about GQ, their awards or Dylan Jones. Though with Russell Brand this year and this now his PR skills in raising the profile of his magazine are excellent

>

> Your oft-claimed love of tabloids and their

> "honest as the day is long, guv" approach would

> fail miserably if one decided to pick apart their

> weather-vane approach of who to support come

> election time. The Guardian may have its failings,

> but at least it's consistent.

Oft-claimed love of tabloids????

Really? News to me.

>

> Me in 2005? I think I was back at home in Sutton

> at that point so probably voted Lib-Dem to keep

> the Tories from winning. D_C in pragmatism

> shocker!

I didn't vote. Quids in idealism shocker!

[david_carnell]

It was by Suzanne Moore for Christ sake - you were expecting what exactly? A N Wilson perhaps?

[????]

you posted it.....what did YOU expect?

[david_carnell]

That it was a half-decent critique of a horrid little awards show. We were discussing GQ.

But of course it was in the Guardian so I'd forgotten that nothing can be linked to without you wading in.

[Otta]

I thought it was spot on about the awards, but it would have been better without the needless tory bashing.

And I like tory bashing.

[david_carnell]

But the awards are stuffed full of and run by Tories....that was the point. It's a big blue love-in.