Jump to content

Recommended Posts

More worryingly (or me at least) was the fact that a much bigger coup was narrowly averted in the other byelection.


To avoid a loss by just a few hundred votes in a heartland stronghold should send shivers down the spine of the Labour leadership and campaign teams.


Something tells me it'll result in some brow-furrowing, hand-wringing and not a lot else.

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Something tells me it'll result in some

> brow-furrowing, hand-wringing and not a lot else.



I hope you're wrong, though I doubt it.


I guess when it comes to the GE a lot of people will go back to blue or red and UKIP won't do as well as they're hoping. At which point they'll be dismissed by the "main parties" as a flash in the pan. But I think they will continue to grow until they're taken seriously.

I was in Chichester last weekend. On Sunday afternoon I had a bit of a stroll through the town and noticed a UKIP stall. The old girl behind it was wearing an oversized yellow T-shirt that bore the slogan "We want our country back." I thought... from who or what? Back to the 50s? I didn't like to ask.

Sadly, no.


That sort of pointlessly optimisitic delusion is what all modern political leaders have to dole out in these circumstances.


They're actually trying to say that the Labour share of the vte went up 0.8% from 2010.


Never mind that you surrendered a 6000 majority into a 600 one. And that 2010 was an electoral disaster. If you've only managed 0.8% in the intervening 4 years something is very very wrong.

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> That sort of pointlessly optimisitic delusion is

> what all modern political leaders have to dole out

> in these circumstances.




I am sure you're right, it's just so depressing.


This isn't a go at Miliband, because I'm sure the others would have put exactly the same spin on it (and I think Ed's a good guy), but for me it's exactly what is wrong. The politicians think they know best what is best for us all, so they spin everything as a positive.


I'd honestly rather hear him say that this shows that people are not convinced, and that they need to hear the people more, rather than assuming they know what's good for them.




I know that would be suicide and that he can't do it, but that's what depresses me.

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> The LRB has a storming article on UKIP. Really is

> well worth a read all the way through for a

> fascintating insight into the minds of UKIP

> members and voters. And life in Thanet.

>

> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n19/james-meek/in-faragel

> and



Very interesting as you said.

I can't stand the man but he's unfortunately accurate here:


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100289196/after-the-catastrophe-of-heywood-labour-is-staring-down-the-barrels-of-ukips-tanks/


For a while it looked like Miliband was going to nail that "anti-establishment" vote with his attacks on big energy, Murdoch etc. That momentum has been lost and if he wins in May it'll be by his finger nails.

Perhaps - but at least it was popular! I'd take that at the moment.


Interestingly, the public are to the left of Miliband on a number of issues. Rail, energy and mail renationalisation, income tax, minimum wage, zero-hour contracts and rent-capping yet on all of these issues Labour remain silent.


Meanwhile they take a beating on issues where the public is to the right of them: immigration, Europe, crime, etc.


A bizarre mix.

Income Tax...you sure?


plus Labour haven't been quiet on Zero_hour Contarcts or Minimum wage (were you watching their conference??)


But those are 'micro' issues the biggest ones are defeceit (ooops, forgot that one David M...and C:) ); overall management of the economy and Immigration and a bit further down the list the NHS. Labour only doing well on one of them.

david_carnell Wrote:

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


> Interestingly, the public are to the left of Miliband on a number of issues.


And yet, the most interesting thing about these by-elections was the swing. Normally, the swing goes from left to right to left, depending on the colours of the government of the day. But in these elections the swing from Tory/LibDem has gone to the right.


Which probably means that the old-world view of left-right politics is now completely irrelevant.

"The LRB has a storming article on UKIP."


Pshaw, what's all this well informed nonsense, deflecting from the real issues of straight bananas, and errr Europe innit, Polish undercutting our wages, good workers mind you but that's hardly the point, ignoring the fact that we want our country back, but then what do you expect from people who can read!!!

Loz Wrote:

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

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Interestingly, the public are to the left of

> Miliband on a number of issues.

>

> And yet, the most interesting thing about these

> by-elections was the swing. Normally, the swing

> goes from left to right to left, depending on the

> colours of the government of the day. But in

> these elections the swing from Tory/LibDem has

> gone to the right.

>

> Which probably means that the old-world view of

> left-right politics is now completely irrelevant.



Some of us have been saying the same thing on the forum for years.....

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> "I know that would be suicide a"

>

> if that's the case why blame the politician - why

> not blame the people who would judge him/her for

> it?



Where did I blame him? The whole sentence was "I know that would be suicide and that he can't do it, but that's what depresses me".


I don't blame him, I don't even blame Cameron. I blame Tony Blair a fair bit, because he was a master of playing to "it" and set the modern standard. The "it" that I really blame are the stupid f**king people I share a country with. The ones that will vote based on who plays the part best and looks / seems most "prime ministerial".


I'm not the most "up" on politics, compared to someone like D_C (this is a compliment by the way) I feel somewhat inept when talking about this stuff (but at least I can admit that). But I am not stupid, and I won't vote because someone looks or sounds the part.


Hopefully one day it will happen, but at the moment I can't imagine a politician ever being able to show weakness and use it to his/her advantage. They have to be full of false bluster, and it's just a load of old crap frankly.

"This isn't a go at Miliband, because I'm sure the others would have put exactly the same spin on it (and I think Ed's a good guy), but for me it's exactly what is wrong. The politicians think they know best what is best for us all, so they spin everything as a positive. "


That reads like you blame the politician to me?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hello,  I feel as though our apartment is damp. I would like to borrow a dehumidifier to ascertain whether it is or not. Does anyone have a dehumidifier that I could borrow for a week?  thank you,    Brigid
    • Post much better this Xmas.  Sue posted about whether they send Xmas cards; how good the post is,  is relevant.  Think I will continue to stay off Instagram!
    • These have reduced over the years, are "perfect" lives Round Robins being replaced by "perfect" lives Instagram posts where we see all year round how people portray their perfect lives ?    The point of this thread is that for the last few years, due to issues at the mail offices, we had delays to post over Christmas. Not really been flagged as an issue this year but I am still betting on the odd card, posted well before Christmas, arriving late January. 
    • Two subjects here.  Xmas cards,  We receive and send less of them.  One reason is that the cost of postage - although interestingly not as much as I thought say compared to 10 years ago (a little more than inflation).  Fun fact when inflation was double digits in the 70s cost of postage almost doubled in one year.  Postage is not a good indication of general inflation fluctuating a fair bit.  The huge rise in international postage that for a 20g Christmas card to Europe (no longer a 20g price, now have to do up to 100g), or a cheapskate 10g card to the 'States (again have to go up to the 100g price) , both around a quid in 2015, and now has more than doubled in real terms.  Cards exchanged with the US last year were arriving in the New Year.  Funnily enough they came much quicker this year.  So all my cards abroad were by email this year. The other reason we send less cards is that it was once a good opportunity to keep in touch with news.  I still personalise many cards with a news and for some a letter, and am a bit grumpy when I get a single line back,  Or worse a round robin about their perfect lives and families.  But most of us now communicate I expect primarily by WhatApp, email, FB etc.  No need for lightweight airmail envelope and paper in one.    The other subject is the mail as a whole. Privitisation appears to have done it no favours and the opening up of competition with restrictions on competing for parcel post with the new entrants.  Clearly unless you do special delivery there is a good chance that first class will not be delivered in a day as was expected in the past.   Should we have kept a public owned service subsidised by the tax payer?  You could also question how much lead on innovation was lost following the hiving off of the national telecommunications and mail network.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...