News0 min ago
Why Don't They Give The Guy A Chance Before They Disrupt The Party?
33 Answers
http://
Jezza has a big mandate, a clean win, it simply insults the Party's electorate to not even give the bloke a fair crack at it.
Jezza has a big mandate, a clean win, it simply insults the Party's electorate to not even give the bloke a fair crack at it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Gromit's comments I'm afraid demonstrate the cloud cuckoo world of many in the party I support now. The idea that Labour lost because of Blairite policies is laughable. We've turned in ourselves the way the Torues did in the days of Duncan Smith and Howard. We think the electorate and the party are one and the same. That is the reason Corbyn won the leadership, but it won't win us an election. Not in a million years, much as I admire him in many ways.
standard post from mikey in this situation above. But the reality is that Labour cannot possibly win in 2020 so the next possible chance is 2025, Yes Dave has a small majority compared to Labour in 1997 but it was infinitely bigger than all the labour supporters predicted. Some of them even left the site or changed their name to avoid the shame. I do respect mikey for not doing that though.
//We think the electorate and the party are one and the same//
Replace the word 'We' with 'Politiicans' and you have it 100%,
Parties seem to think that the cheering crowds at their conferences and speeches mean that the World is with them, They constantly fail to realize that elections are won by Middle England or to coin an old phrase 'Mondeo Man' Blair was clever enough to see this and that is why he kept winning. Brown didnt, neither did Milliband and they lost. Cameron has failed to get middle England fully on board at the same time as alienating those on the right of the party and is paying the price with a slim majority.
Micky, why oh why do you keep associating an EU vote with a particular party? There are for and against in all parties (Except for UKIP i guess :-) )
Replace the word 'We' with 'Politiicans' and you have it 100%,
Parties seem to think that the cheering crowds at their conferences and speeches mean that the World is with them, They constantly fail to realize that elections are won by Middle England or to coin an old phrase 'Mondeo Man' Blair was clever enough to see this and that is why he kept winning. Brown didnt, neither did Milliband and they lost. Cameron has failed to get middle England fully on board at the same time as alienating those on the right of the party and is paying the price with a slim majority.
Micky, why oh why do you keep associating an EU vote with a particular party? There are for and against in all parties (Except for UKIP i guess :-) )
ymb...because the Europe issue will tear the Tory Party apart, as it always has in the past. Ask Bill Cash ::::
Cash is known as a strong Eurosceptic: he was described by Kenneth Clarke as the most "Eurosceptic" Member of Parliament. In the book by Robert Blake - the acclaimed historian of the Conservative Party - titled "The Conservative Party: from Peel to Major", Cash is described - erroneously - as the leader of the Eurosceptics during the Maastricht Rebellion and as being "indefatigable... a constitutional lawyer of great expertise".
The 'Maastricht Rebellion' took place in the early 1990s, and reached its height in 1993. British Members of Parliament (MPs) belonging to the then governing Conservative Party refused to support the government of John Major in the votes in the House of Commons on the issue of the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on European Union) in British law. The Rebellion was a major event in the life of John Major's troubled second term as Prime Minister (1992–1997). Major's party had a small majority, thus giving the relatively small number of rebels great influence: for example, there were 22 rebels on the second reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in May 1992, and the government's majority at the time was only 18. The rebellion (as Major later complained in his memoirs) had the support of the former Prime Minister Lady Thatcher and Lord Tebbit. Thatcher declared in a speech in the House of Lords that she "could never have signed that Treaty" and that it was "a recipe for national suicide"
Cash is known as a strong Eurosceptic: he was described by Kenneth Clarke as the most "Eurosceptic" Member of Parliament. In the book by Robert Blake - the acclaimed historian of the Conservative Party - titled "The Conservative Party: from Peel to Major", Cash is described - erroneously - as the leader of the Eurosceptics during the Maastricht Rebellion and as being "indefatigable... a constitutional lawyer of great expertise".
The 'Maastricht Rebellion' took place in the early 1990s, and reached its height in 1993. British Members of Parliament (MPs) belonging to the then governing Conservative Party refused to support the government of John Major in the votes in the House of Commons on the issue of the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on European Union) in British law. The Rebellion was a major event in the life of John Major's troubled second term as Prime Minister (1992–1997). Major's party had a small majority, thus giving the relatively small number of rebels great influence: for example, there were 22 rebels on the second reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in May 1992, and the government's majority at the time was only 18. The rebellion (as Major later complained in his memoirs) had the support of the former Prime Minister Lady Thatcher and Lord Tebbit. Thatcher declared in a speech in the House of Lords that she "could never have signed that Treaty" and that it was "a recipe for national suicide"
//We think the electorate and the party are one and the same//
Replace the word 'We' with 'Politiicans' and you have it 100%,
Trouble is, ymb, for "we" in this context (because I am not one of them) you need to substitute "left wing politicos". I know many of them, many are great, clever, sensitive people with principles and meaning all the best (some are idiots of course!). But the attacks on the so-called "Blairite" wing of the party which they all seem to indulge in, shame them really. I am not a Blairite at all, whatever that means these days, but if "Blairism" was divisive at least it was successful Corbynism is doomed to be divisive and unsuccessful.
Osborne could join ISIS or be revealed to be a child molester in the current climate and no one would notice, such is the chaos of the opposition
Replace the word 'We' with 'Politiicans' and you have it 100%,
Trouble is, ymb, for "we" in this context (because I am not one of them) you need to substitute "left wing politicos". I know many of them, many are great, clever, sensitive people with principles and meaning all the best (some are idiots of course!). But the attacks on the so-called "Blairite" wing of the party which they all seem to indulge in, shame them really. I am not a Blairite at all, whatever that means these days, but if "Blairism" was divisive at least it was successful Corbynism is doomed to be divisive and unsuccessful.
Osborne could join ISIS or be revealed to be a child molester in the current climate and no one would notice, such is the chaos of the opposition
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Crosswords2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.