Labour Victory... [Archive]

Phanerothyme

06-05-2005, 09:55

Originally posted by Ow-Zone
Galloway making a fool of him self with paxman was amusing.

They both came off as total egomaniacs - so no change there.

Paxman can't interview for toffee and his antipathy for Gorgeous George was apparent.

Like George said, He won because he got the most votes - Oona King did not lose the seat for Blair, Blair lost the seat for Oona.

And Georgie Boy even predicted and looked forward to Oona's return to politics and ultimately parliament - something which few other winning candidates had the grace to do.

But it must be said that the Respect Party candidates nationwide did much less well than their leader.

Did Robert Kilroy-Silk keep his deposit?

Other Election items- I was apalled to discover that the turnout in Sheffield Central was less than 40%. That is very poor indeed, although the green share of the vote is up to 6% which is good for them locally although no seats nationally. Big hill to climb and not much time left now...

Any Sheffield Central consituents on here who didn't vote? You could have kicked out toady sports minister Caborn, but missed the chance.

And yet again the FPP voting system is the real loser. When less than a third of the electorate vote for the winning party, who are then returned a with a majority parliament, you know something is up - funny how the Labour electoral reform programme stopped halfway through eviscerating the House of Lords and certainly won't go anywhere near the ATV or STV proportional systems.

DanSumption

06-05-2005, 09:58

I'm not exactly happy about the result but not exactly sad about it either - I would have liked to have seen Blair punished for his stance on Iraq (it's a shame Reg Keys didn't poll more votes, let's wait and see whether the Iraq soldiers' parents manage to get Blair impeached/tried for war crimes), but I think the result was the best possible for the economy (though how that will far over the next 4 years given the state of the world economy is another matter - Gordon Brown seems to be living on borrowed time, but then every budget he does seem to manage to pull something out of the bag).

I would have liked to have seem the Lib Dems do a lot better so that Blair can't continue getting away with anything he likes in the House of Commons, I just hope that at least 60-odd of the Labour MPs who got re-elected were the same ones who voted against the Iraq war, foundation hospitals, student fees etc. A real shame to have lost Bob Marshall-Andrews though.

max

06-05-2005, 10:01

Originally posted by DanSumption
A real shame to have lost Bob Marshall-Andrews though.

Is this the same Bob who won Medway by 213 votes?

DanSumption

06-05-2005, 10:04

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Did Robert Kilroy-Silk keep his deposit?
I think he just kept it. Shame. I'm sure he could afford to lose a few quid.

Phanerothyme

06-05-2005, 10:08

That Paxman/Galloway debacle in full:

JP: We're joined now from his count in Bethnal Green and Bow by George Galloway. Mr Galloway, are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?
GG: What a preposterous question. I know it's very late in the night, but wouldn't you be better starting by congratulating me for one of the most sensational election results in modern history?
JP: Are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?
GG: I'm not - Jeremy - move on to your next question.
JP: You're not answering that one?
GG: No because I don't believe that people get elected because of the colour of their skin. I believe people get elected because of their record and because of their policies. So move on to your next question.
JP: Are you proud -
GG: Because I've got a lot of people who want to speak to me.
JP: - You -
GG: If you ask that question again, I'm going, I warn you now.
JP: Don't try and threaten me Mr Galloway, please.
GG: You're the one who's trying to badger me.
JP: I'm not trying to badger you, I'm merely trying to ask if you're proud at having driven out of Parliament one of the very few black women there, a woman you accuse of having on her conscience 100,000 people.
GG: Oh well there's no doubt about that one. There's absolutely no doubt that all those New Labour MPs who voted for Mr Blair and Mr Bush's war have on their hands the blood of 100,000 people in Iraq, many of them British soldiers, many of them American soldiers, most of them Iraqis and that's a more important issue than the colour of her skin.
JP: Absolutely, because you then went on to say "including a lot of women who had blacker faces than her"
GG: Absolutely right, absolutely right. So don't try and tell me I should feel guilty about one of the most sensational election results in modern electoral history.
JP: I put it to you Mr Galloway that Nick Raynsford had you to a T when he said you were a "demagogue".
GG: Sorry?
JP: Nick Raynsford. You know who I mean? Nick Raynsford. Labour MP?
GG: No, I don't know who you mean.
JP: Never heard of him.
GG: I've never heard of Nick Raynsford, no.
JP: What else haven't you heard of? - is this a dumb question or what?
GG: Well, I've been in Parliament a long time...
JP: He was a Parliamentary colleague of yours until very recently.
GG: Well, most of them just blend one into the other, Jeremy, they're largely a spineless, a supine bunch.
JP: Have you ever heard of Tony Banks?
GG: Yes I have, yes.
JP: Right, Tony Banks was sitting here five minutes ago, and he said that you were behaving inexcusably, that you had deliberately chosen to go to that part of London and to exploit the latent racial tensions there.
GG: You are actually conducting one of the most - even by your standards - one of the most absurd interviews I have ever participated in. I have just won an election. Can you find it within yourself to recognise that fact? To recognise the fact that the people of Bethnal Green and Bow chose me this evening. Why are you insulting them?
JP: I'm not insulting them, I'm not insulting you
GG: You are insulting them, they chose me just a few minutes ago. Can't you find it within yourself even to congratulate me on this victory?
JP: Congratulations, Mr Galloway.
GG: Thank you very much indeed. [Waves, removes microphone]

DanSumption

06-05-2005, 10:10

Originally posted by max
Is this the same Bob who won Medway by 213 votes?
Oops! Did he? Just before I went to bed I saw him conceding defeat to the Tories, the sly old bugger. Well, let me change my comment to "I'm glad at least Bob Marshall Andrews kept his seat. Long may he continue to be a thorn in Tony Blair's side".

(He also has one of the loveliest houses I've ever seen - you can just see it in the background of this shot (http://www.sumption.org/life/20030805druidstone/druidstone0006.html) and if you're ever lucky enough to be on the beach at Druidston Haven you may spot him prancing around naked (at least, that's what it looked like) though the glass front).

Greenback

06-05-2005, 10:19

Thanks for that Phan, I missed it last night. Reading from the transcript, Paxman's behaviour is disgraceful.

Zamo

06-05-2005, 10:21

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
That Paxman/Galloway debacle in full:

You can watch it again from the bbc site. You will find a link down the right had side of the page this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/default.stm#) links to.

goose

06-05-2005, 10:35

Originally posted by max
What a fantastic result for Labour - a historic third term. Maybe not the ringing endorsement of Tony Blair but certainly full approval of Labour's policies

Full approval of Labours policies!!!!! I dont think that even Mr Tony B-liar would go that far.

Until proportional reprensentation is brought in we will carry on having to endure this outdated and unfair system which distorts the true picture of how British people would like their country to be governed.

Its worth noting that the next general election will be under new boundaries - should be interesting to see how the new seats pan out. Its looking like Labour will lose at least one seat in Sheffield at the expense of a Tory/LD marginal.

By the way, did anyone else enjoy Stephen Twiggs defeat, the look on his face was priceless! :D

Skatiechik

06-05-2005, 10:39

Originally posted by goose
Until proportional reprensentation is brought in we will carry on having to endure this outdated and unfair system which distorts the true picture of how British people would like their country to be governed.

Until this election and some reading I hadn't realised to the full extent this affected the final result. However if you look at the election map the majority is blue.

goose

06-05-2005, 10:39

Originally posted by mojoworking
You can bend the figures any way you like, but Labour got more votes than the other parties, so they won the election. End of story.

Two points: -

1) Labour didnt get more votes than the other parties, they got more seats not more votes. Thats the whole argument behind PR.

2) You are right that they won the election though

One out of two isnt bad:thumbsup:

Greybeard

06-05-2005, 10:40

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

And yet again the FPP voting system is the real loser. When less than a third of the electorate vote for the winning party, who are then returned a with a majority parliament, you know something is up - funny how the Labour electoral reform programme stopped halfway through eviscerating the House of Lords and certainly won't go anywhere near the ATV or STV proportional systems.

Peter Snow just said that Nulabour's share of the vote is now down to 22.5% !!

I don't believe I heard Kennedy mention PR once during the campaign so perhaps even the Lib-Dems have abandoned any hope of it.

timo

06-05-2005, 10:42

Congratulations to Labour, on their historic victory. Personally, I am tempted to lock myself away, like the Monster of Glamis. Even the fields look shorter, and the piping, fluting birdsong sounds shrill this morning. Sadly, the stealth -tax junta is here to stay. My beloved Conservatives are simply not trusted re the economy, schools and hospitals, though I suspect we are re immigration and defence. At any rate, at least there are signs of a revival, even though the average person would be hardpressed to name more than two members of the Shadow Cabinet. At least we did not receive the drubbing I expected, and I was wrong re creepy Mr Howard and his watchful smile, there are enough voters who do take him seriously enough to worry Blair and Brown. We are still the opposition, despite little Mr Kennedy's claims about an emerging dawn of 'three party politics'. I suspect a great deal of Lib Dem votes were in the 'protest' category. Still, they were votes, one has to admit.

What will happen next? Will the haggard-looking Blair take the Third Way with him, when he hobbles away, bruised by accusations of mendacity over Iraq, and worn down by rows with bullish Brown? Has the party as a whole really ditched socialism for a european-style Social Democratic approach, and the ideas of Anthony Giddens and Amitai Etzioni? Or is it the case that only Blair himself, and an intimate coterie that certainly does not include Prescott and Brown, actually believed the half-baked guff about 'structuration', 'stakeholding' and 'communitarianism'? One suspects the latter to be the case.

With this in mind, a terrible dread is born. Perhaps we will see terms like 'nationalise' banded about when Brown takes the helm. Maybe, from out of the woodwork there will crawl some of the old Labour ideas, like 'progressive taxation', undisguised in stealth tax form? The party's 'true colours' may well be unfurled post-Blair. After all, that is who you all voted for in 1997, not the Labour Party, is it not? I am not suggesting a return to pureblooded socialism, but a return to many socialist ideals rather than social democratic ones.

Yes, it would be churlish and ungentlemanly not to offer congratulations. However, remember this; the revival of the Tory Party HAS begun. We know that much work has to be done re changing the public's perceptions of us since the mistakes of the eighties [made by an an overemphasis upon doctrinaire free market ideology at the expense of all else]. We know that the public do not as yet trust us re their mortgages etc. In time, they WILL. The British people are almost instinctively 'conservative' in the main. Give them a stronger, more experienced and credible Tory Party and they will vote it into power. In the course of the next four years, people will demand a change and will see that the Tory Party is on its feet again, ready to govern. Mock us at your peril!

goose

06-05-2005, 10:45

Originally posted by Greybeard
Peter Snow just said that Nulabour's share of the vote is now down to 22.5% !!

I don't believe I heard Kennedy mention PR once during the campaign so perhaps even the Lib-Dems have abandoned any hope of it.

Sorry, but CK did mention PR many times during the election and it is very much part of the Lib Dem manifesto i can assure you.

Tony B-liar actually back out of am agreement with Paddy Ashdown (when he was leader of the Lib Dems) that he would review our electoral system and specifically look at PR.

The Lib Dems successfully argued for a form of PR in the Scottish Parilment elections.

goose

06-05-2005, 10:50

Originally posted by timo
In the course of the next four years, people will demand a change and will see that the Tory Party is on its feet again, ready to govern. Mock us at your peril!

Mock them at your leisure :D

In fairness, the Tories did as well as can be expected. I still feel that you need a young and dynamic leader to get things going - but looking at the current crop of Tories there is a distinct lack of potential candidates.

Phanerothyme

06-05-2005, 10:53

Originally posted by goose
Two points: -

1) Labour didnt get more votes than the other parties, they got more seats not more votes. Thats the whole argument behind PR.

2) You are right that they won the election though

One out of two isnt bad:thumbsup:

I think they did get more votes than any single other party, it's just that this translates into a disproportionately large parliamentary majority when the difference in the share of the vote between Labour and Tories is 3% or less.

Good news for everyone apart from the hard of thinking - The BNP lost its £500 deposit in 84 seats, leaving it with a bill of about £42,000 overall.

And the independent running in Blaenau Gwent, Peter Law, Overturned the Labour Majority of 19,000 and took victory with a majority of 9000 which must be some kind of record as it amounts to a 60% swing against the incumbent!

Sidla

06-05-2005, 10:54

If you look at the election map (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/flash_map/html/map05.stm), it's amazing how little of it is red, when Labour have 156 seats more than any other party.

Skatiechik

06-05-2005, 10:59

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think they did get more votes than any single other party

Show me the proof....

Phanerothyme

06-05-2005, 11:00

Originally posted by Sidla
If you look at the election map (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/flash_map/html/map05.stm), it's amazing how little of it is red, when Labour have 156 seats more than any other party.

That's because consituencies are not "equal area" - so the dozens of labour inner city majorities are hardly visible, whereas large swathes of sparsely populated private land (East Anglia) are blue and much more visible. (Landowners voting Tory -what next?)

Broadly speaking Labour do better in urban and economically deprived areas, and the Tories do better in the domain of the landed gentry and holiday home.

Skatiechik

06-05-2005, 11:00

Originally posted by dandy
As opposed to more unemployment for manufacturing, lower taxes (for the rich) and a completely unworkable policy on immigration from the Tories?

Job well done indeed...

I never said who I voted for. But I certainly know there is no proof in that statement.

goose

06-05-2005, 11:01

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think they did get more votes than any single other party, it's just that this translates into a disproportionately large parliamentary majority when the difference in the share of the vote between Labour and Tories is 3% or less

Yes i am not disputing that - im making the point that they did not get more votes than the all the other parties combined. This means that the majority of people actually voted against a Labour Government.

On the BNP issue, good news about the loss of deposits. However, in Sheffield Heeley and Sheffield Hillsborough they had quite a substancial vote (even beat greens in Heeley). :(

The election map is misleading. Seats are divided by the amount of people living in them not geography, so large rural areas (Tory areas) take up more of the map. If you zoom into the urban areas you will see where most of the Labour seats are.

Phanerothyme

06-05-2005, 11:02

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Show me the proof....

BBC website too hard to navigate?
Ok then

SHARE OF THE VOTE

Labour 36.2%
Conservative 33.2%
Liberal Democrat 22.7%
Others 7.9%

timo

06-05-2005, 11:04

Goose,
One day soon, dear heart, the Tories wil be back in power. You will not be 'mocking them at your leisure' then. As a celebratory meal we will have demoiselles of goose! LOL.

Greybeard

06-05-2005, 11:06

Originally posted by goose
Sorry, but CK did mention PR many times during the election and it is very much part of the Lib Dem manifesto i can assure you.

Obviously I wasn't paying close attention then :D , but I'm pleased the issue is still in focus.

Listening to Blair speaking outside No. 10, he's having trouble coming to terms with the new situation.

"the government....we...I " and later "I....er..we"

The reallity that he is no longer the government must be quite a shock after eight years as president :rolleyes:

Skatiechik

06-05-2005, 11:07

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
BBC website too hard to navigate?
Ok then

Cheers I only wanted to see the figures,

There is also no need to insult my intelligence about moving around websites I am on this one not the BBC one :loopy: :rolleyes:

goose

06-05-2005, 11:09

Originally posted by timo
Goose,
One day soon, dear heart, the Tories wil be back in power. You will not be 'mocking them at your leisure' then. As a celebratory meal we will have demoiselles of goose! LOL.

:hihi:

As advised by me just a few minutes ago............... Mr Howard is standing down as Tory leader. He says hes too old for the job.

Must not give any more advice to 'the enemy'. :P

Scutts

06-05-2005, 11:09

Originally posted by timo
Goose,
One day soon, dear heart, the Tories wil be back in power. You will not be 'mocking them at your leisure' then. As a celebratory meal we will have demoiselles of goose! LOL.

If you look to the next election, there will be no protest vote against Iraq and no personal vote against Blair - I think you might have to wait a long long time for your return. :clap:

goose

06-05-2005, 11:13

Originally posted by Scutts
If you look to the next election, there will be no protest vote against Iraq and no personal vote against Blair - I think you might have to wait a long long time for your return. :clap:

Wishfull thinking im afraid. As soon as Blair goes it will light the touch paper for the Old/New Labour scrap, a fight you will not be able to afford with such a slim majority.

Votes will be lost, fingers will be pointed and the public will show that they do not want a split party in Government.

There is a long way to go yet, as the old saying goes 'five years is a long time in politics'!!

Skatiechik

06-05-2005, 11:15

I still don't see what people see in Labour they have done nothing for this country.. :rolleyes:

Phanerothyme

06-05-2005, 11:16

Originally posted by goose
Yes i am not disputing that - im making the point that they did not get more votes than the all the other parties combined.
Not surprising, nor is it in an indictment of anyone, just FPP in action and a good argument for STV or ATV systems. (I know the BNP want PR, but do you think their supporters could actually work out how to use an ATV ballot paper?)

I don't think I have heard of an election result where the winning party polls more votes than all the others combined.

Even the labour landslide was effected with only 44% of the national vote in 1997. And the closest it ever came to that magical 50% figure was the Tory victory in 1955 with 49.7% of the vote (and with Labour on 46.4% it was a close call, but thanks to FPP, the Tory Majority was 54 seats.

And when you look at, say Richard Caborn - elected with a turnout of about 40% and a 50% share of the vote - So about 20% of those eligible voted for him and 80% did not.

But this is not to say that 80% rejected caborne, because if they had actively done so , he would have lost his seat. (And I would have held a celebration)

Phanerothyme

06-05-2005, 11:20

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Cheers I only wanted to see the figures,

There is also no need to insult my intelligence about moving around websites I am on this one not the BBC one :loopy: :rolleyes:

Not insulting your intelligence - just amazed you asked for 'proof' in the age of the internet and total information, when all the 'proof' you want is a click away....on the BBC website. On the front page. OK, maybe I am insulting your intelligence, but that is just collateral damage eh?

Kezza1

06-05-2005, 11:20

it was 50.1% who turned out !! and can i just say congratulations to Bernard Little for not losing his deposit ......really nice guy a suprising politician

Skatiechik

06-05-2005, 11:28

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Not insulting your intelligence - just amazed you asked for 'proof' in the age of the internet and total information, when all the 'proof' you want is a click away....on the BBC website. On the front page. OK, maybe I am insulting your intelligence, but that is just collateral damage eh?

I think you will find it is two clicks away from the front page :rolleyes:

DanSumption

06-05-2005, 11:33

Originally posted by goose
In fairness, the Tories did as well as can be expected. I still feel that you need a young and dynamic leader to get things going - but looking at the current crop of Tories there is a distinct lack of potential candidates.
Well, now Michael Howard has said he's bowing out, step forward... Boris Johnson :D

nomme

06-05-2005, 11:35

Originally posted by goose
There is a long way to go yet, as the old saying goes 'five years is a long time in politics'!!

I thought the old saying was ' a week is a long time in politics'.

Which makes five years a very very very very very very very very very very very very very very long time in politics.

Nomme

Phanerothyme

06-05-2005, 11:36

Originally posted by Kezza1
it was 50.1% who turned out !! and can i just say congratulations to Bernard Little for not losing his deposit ......really nice guy a suprising politician

That's an interesting discrepancy in the turnout for Sheffied Central

the guardian website lists turnout at 50.1%
the BBC website lists turnout at 38.4%

the votes cast are the same, so they must be using different figures for the number of eligible voters in the consituency. I wonder who is right.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I think you will find it is two clicks away from the front page :rolleyes:

So you found it then? I needn't have bothered. :cool:

halevan

06-05-2005, 11:37

Originally posted by Ow-Zone
Galloway making a fool of him self with paxman was amusing.

Well done Mr. Blair !!!

Michael Howard is standing down, sooner rather than later !!!

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. !!!

nomme

06-05-2005, 11:38

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I think you will find it is two clicks away from the front page :rolleyes:

I think you will find it depends on your definition of 'front page'.

(www.bbc.co.uk vs news.bbc.co.uk)

Nomme

nick2

06-05-2005, 11:38

Originally posted by DanSumption
Well, now Michael Howard has said he's bowing out, step forward... Boris Johnson :D

Oh lordy, I hope so.

nomme

06-05-2005, 11:41

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
That's an interesting discrepancy in the turnout for Sheffied Central

the guardian website lists turnout at 50.1%
the BBC website lists turnout at 38.4%

As someone who voted in Sheffield Central I must admit I was surprised at the low turnout. They were queuing out of the door when I went!!

Nomme

goose

06-05-2005, 11:43

Originally posted by nomme
I thought the old saying was ' a week is a long time in politics'.

Which makes five years a very very very very very very very very very very very very very very long time in politics.

Nomme

I know. It was a vain attempt at humor............ im wasted on this auidence :)

goose

06-05-2005, 11:45

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I don't think I have heard of an election result where the winning party polls more votes than all the others combined.

What about George W Bush last year? Im no fan of American politics but at least there was a national outcry when Bush won the first time without getting the popular vote.

We have to put up with this every election!

Skatiechik

06-05-2005, 11:47

Not my quote, but I liked and agreed with it :clap:

"The future's bleak. The future's Brown"

Phanerothyme

06-05-2005, 12:00

Originally posted by goose
What about George W Bush last year? Im no fan of American politics but at least there was a national outcry when Bush won the first time without getting the popular vote.

We have to put up with this every election!

I just think it is unrealistic to expect more than 50% of voters to pick one party over the others, especially when it is a three, four, five or more way fight between candidates.

You are only likely to get more than 50% of the vote if you are a party in a two party system like the US.

Plurality is the key here. A 50% vote for any party would give them such an unassailable majority in parliament, that they would be free, like blair has done, to govern in a presidential manner paying no heed to the rest of the house or the virtues of parliament.

goose

06-05-2005, 12:16

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I just think it is unrealistic to expect more than 50% of voters to pick one party over the others, especially when it is a three, four, five or more way fight between candidates.

You are only likely to get more than 50% of the vote if you are a party in a two party system like the US.

Plurality is the key here. A 50% vote for any party would give them such an unassailable majority in parliament, that they would be free, like blair has done, to govern in a presidential manner paying no heed to the rest of the house or the virtues of parliament.

This is one of the strengths of PR. It means that compromises have to be made and coalitions formed as its unlikley that one party will get over 50%.

redrobbo

06-05-2005, 13:14

I support proportional representation. I believe it is to be a much fairer way of holding elections. Unfortunately, supporters of PR tend to get into arguments amongst themselves about which method of PR is best.

However, with PR being introduced into the last European elections, also used in Northern Ireland, and to be used in Scottish elections - it may only be a matter of time before local and national elections in the UK are also conducted on the basis of PR. In the meantime, we continue to use the first-past-the-post system. PR would allow the political parties to concentrate on winning everyone's votes, and not just those of voters in key marginals.

Notwithstanding the loss of seats, it is indeed an historic occasion to witness a Labour government achieve a third consecutive term of office.

DanSumption

06-05-2005, 13:44

Billy Bragg's idea of (if I remember correctly) using both PR and first past the post is an interesting one - first past the post, as at present, for the House of Commons, and PR counted nationally from the exact same votes for the upper house, to replace the House of Lords but with more teeth.

slimsid2000

06-05-2005, 13:50

I see that George Galloway has made a big impact in the east end of London - but then so did Jack the Ripper!

StarSparkle

06-05-2005, 13:55

Originally posted by redrobbo
I support proportional representation. I believe it is to be a much fairer way of holding elections. Unfortunately, supporters of PR tend to get into arguments amongst themselves about which method of PR is best.

I have always supported the idea of proportional representation.

Isn't that what democracy's supposed to be all about - one person, one vote? Where that one vote actually does count. Unlike the 'winner takes all', first-past-the-post system. With PR, your vote counts whatever constituency you happen to live in.

I understand that it's a logistical nightmare, but it seems the fairest system to me. And I believe it would encourage more people to vote and to take part in the political system, rather than alienate them from it.

StarSparkle

royjames

06-05-2005, 15:07

I will again make a post and maybe this time it wont be pulled,why is is my posts seem to be getting pulled more and more? Now why dont the Star newspaper print the whole Blunkett acceptance speech.
I will tell you why seeing as I was their it is because it encouraged violence against the BNP and its members,even a Tory candidate said she was appaled at what he said.
The man showed a total lack of manners and he should be ashamed.
Still hes Labour and so thats ok then isnt it? hes a womaniser and a visa fiddler, then we have that other tower of virtue Clive Betts you know the rent a boy MP the one who fiddles the visas for his boyfriends and guess what? yes he also gets elected.
You could'nt make it up ,the voters have short memories.
As to the BNP vote it was what we roughly expected with the exception of Hillsbrough ,to get over 2000 votes their was a nice suprise.
7000 plus votes in Sheffield is not bad we will have to do better next time and i am sure we will.:thumbsup:

samc

06-05-2005, 15:11

Originally posted by royjames
I Now why dont the Star newspaper print the whole Blunkett acceptance speech.
I will tell you why seeing as I was their it is because it encouraged violence against the BNP and its members,even a Tory candidate said she was appaled at what he said.
The man showed a total lack of manners and he should be ashamed.
Still hes Labour and so thats ok then isnt it? hes a womaniser and a visa fiddler,

Rather a womaniser than an intolerate racist.. Sorry Mods - I do expect for this to be pulled immediately...

samc

06-05-2005, 15:14

sorry see my previous message - meant to say intolerant... was sooo cross

bellis

06-05-2005, 15:14

Originally posted by samc
Rather a womaniser than an intolerate racist.. Sorry Mods - I do expect for this to be pulled immediately...

thats nice whinge about something you dont like and try an get the mods to pull a thread mmmmmm

samc

06-05-2005, 15:18

Originally posted by panda79
thats nice whinge about something you dont like and try an get the mods to pull a thread mmmmmm

that's what the forum is for .. putting forward your opinion

bellis

06-05-2005, 15:21

Originally posted by samc
that's what the forum is for .. putting forward your opinion

having a opinion is fine but moaning to have a thread pulled is another matter

Phanerothyme

06-05-2005, 15:32

Originally posted by royjames
You could'nt make it up ,the voters have short memories.

Someone else who thinks the electorate needs a lesson in politics?

Fareast

06-05-2005, 15:39

Although I don't agree with everything that Roy James says , I have to admire him for the way he has stood up for his beliefs , right or wrong , over the past few months. He's taken plenty of flak !
In contrast the ,"great" British public have voted in , once again , the most unprincipled Prime Minister ever. I feel sure that Blair would say absolutely anything if he thought it would make him more popular. Back in his early days , I 'd bet he would have jumped on the Tory or Liberal bandwagon , had it proved more politically expedient.
I'll not go into all the fiascos that this government have presided over since 1997 , but if the British electorate prefer Blair to any other candidate , then it goes to prove the adage :-
" A people get the government they deserve"
You could say , then , that the British public deserve 5 more years of more European Controls , more control from America [much , much less power from Westminster], more of John Prescott , more Nanny-ing , more taxes of every description[ except income tax , of course ] , more "universal"[i.e. dumbed-down] education , more Hospital administrators and administrators in all sections of society and a gradual but real erosion of our traditions , especially in the area of Law-----under the guise of "stamping out terrorism "
Have A Nice Day !

brainchild

06-05-2005, 15:51

Roy...Hope the message got through to you and the rest of the BNP that there is no place for them in British politics....The facts are plain....lost deposits in 87 out of 119 candidates at a cost of £43,500...was not quite what you expected....result....

Scutts

06-05-2005, 15:53

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I still don't see what people see in Labour they have done nothing for this country.. :rolleyes:

1. Lowest inflation since the 60s
2. Lowest mortgage rates for 40 years
3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage
4. Record police numbers in England and Wales
5. Cut overall crime by 30 per cent
6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools
7. Best-ever primary school results
8. Funding for every pupil in England to double (since 1997) by 2007-08
9. Lowest unemployment for 29 years
10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest counties
11. 78,700 more nurses
12. 27,400 more doctors
13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards
14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament
15. Devolved power to Welsh Assembly
16. Banned anti-personnel mines
17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice at any time
18. New Deal - helped over a million people into work
19. Local government funding has increased by a third in real terms
20. Equalised the age of consent for gay men
21. Free entry to all national museums and galleries
22. Overseas aid budget more than doubled
23. Restored city-wide government to London
24. Child benefit up 25 per cent since 1997
25. Created Sure Start to help children from low income households
26. Introduced the Disability Rights Commission
27. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & extra £100 for over-80s
28. The biggest rolling stock replacement programme ever seen on our railways
29. Negotiated the historic Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland
30. Over 28,000 more teachers in England schools
31. Implemented the Freedom of Information Act
32. All workers now have a right to 4 weeks’ paid holiday
33. Record rises in the state pension
34. 700,000 children lifted out of relative poverty
35. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents
36. Banned handguns
37. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent
38. Free nursery places for three and four-year-olds in England, Scotland and Wales
39. Free fruit for all four to six-year-olds at school
40. Free school milk for five, six and seven-year-olds in Wales
41. Record police numbers in Scotland
42. Implemented the Human Rights Act
43. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since the industrial revolution
44. Free TV licences for over-75s
45. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals
46. Halved maximum waiting times for NHS operations
47. Free local bus travel for the over-60s and the disabled in Wales and Scotland
48. Record number of students in higher education
49. Extended the Race Relations Act so that all public bodies and functions now have a duty to promote race equality
50. Five, six and seven-year-olds in class sizes of 30 or less

Is that enough for you :)

max

06-05-2005, 17:52

Originally posted by Fareast
In contrast the ,"great" British public have voted in , once again , the most unprincipled Prime Minister ever.

I voted for Angela Smith, I think you should be on the Sedgefield forum if you're looking for people who voted for Tony Blair.

DanSumption

06-05-2005, 18:13

Originally posted by royjames
I will again make a post and maybe this time it wont be pulled,why is is my posts seem to be getting pulled more and more? Now why dont the Star newspaper print the whole Blunkett acceptance speech.
I will tell you why seeing as I was their it is because <snip>
You were their what, Roy? Lemme guess, you were David Blunkett's beeyatch?

Fareast

06-05-2005, 18:26

Scutts

Some of your points are absolutely true and even a bad government doesn't get everything wrong.
However , not living in the U.K. at the moment , may I check one or two points ?
Have the "matrons " in hospitals been established or is that a plan ?
No matter how many new teachers , police or nurses are being recruited , the important thing is , how many are doing desk jobs and how many leave ?
Almost everyone involved in Education can see that standards in the key subjects have fallen. Why do Employers keep on saying that more and more young employees can't read or write properly ? Why are more and more universities having to give 1st. year students extra lessons in Maths and English ? Easy to create graduates if you lower the standard to babyish levels.
Unemployment ? We have a terrific number of people in this country working part -time [and full-time] at the most soul -destroying jobs you can imagine-----in call centres and telesales.
About 2,000,000 more are on some kind of sickness benefit ; strange , when we're spending so much more on the N.H.S. !
Add to that the 800,000 extra , "non-jobs" i.e. outreach co-ordinators and other pen-pushers and paper-shufflers ----and it's no wonder we've hardly anyone unemployed!
Free T. V. licences for the over-75's ! Big deal ! What about a rebate for all the under 75's who have to pay about a 100 quid a year , whether they watch B.B.C. or not ?
Hospitals ,schools , the police -----sounds good but the reality seems different ; what makes it worse is that we pay practically the highest taxes in the world for the , "privelige "of such , "wonderful " results.

A.B.Yaffle

06-05-2005, 18:39

Originally posted by royjames
Now why dont the Star newspaper print the whole Blunkett acceptance speech.
I will tell you why seeing as I was their it is because it encouraged violence against the BNP and its members,even a Tory candidate said she was appaled at what he said.
The man showed a total lack of manners and he should be ashamed.

I saw Blunkett's acceptance speech and I didn't think he was encouraging violence. I did like the way he thanked all the other candidates and then added "with the exception of the BNP candidate". Sometimes you have to "show a total lack of manners" when faced with candidates for such an obnoxious political party.

DanSumption

06-05-2005, 18:43

Fareast,

Scutts was responding to a post which said the Labour party have done nothing for this country. He proved Skatiechik wrong. Anyone can pick holes and find fault, god knows plenty of politicians make a living doing it, but you can't escape the fact that the Labour party have done something for this country. Actually, quite a few somethings, especially compared to the record of the lot who were in for 18 years before them.

Disco_Cat

06-05-2005, 18:49

Originally posted by royjames

As to the BNP vote it was what we roughly expected

I’m sure I remember you proudly boasting you would come second in Brightside, not a pathetic fourth behind even the Conservative party.

Did you really predict your results to be so poor? Across the city where you stood against them the Green beat you by 2,133 votes and Respect beat you by 745, losing to those pesky reds and Muslims in Respect must have hurt a lot.

rubydazzler

06-05-2005, 18:50

Originally posted by max
I voted for Angela Smith, I think you should be on the Sedgefield forum if you're looking for people who voted for Tony Blair.

tut-tut Max ... and there was I, thinking that mods were like the Queen - totally unbiased and a-political ...

We can only hope she makes a better showing as an MP than she did as a SCC Cabinet Member ...

Disco_Cat

06-05-2005, 19:16

Originally posted by Patchy
Sometimes you have to "show a total lack of manners" when faced with candidates for such an obnoxious political party.

Is their a transcript of his speech available?

Zamo

06-05-2005, 19:44

1. Lowest inflation since the 60s

No government can take sole credit for this. Global economies are inextricably linked.

2. Lowest mortgage rates for 40 years

Governments don't set mortgage rates

3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage

Fair enough.

4. Record police numbers in England and Wales

But with so much red tape that productive hours available to each force is about the same - more money for same effect.

5. Cut overall crime by 30 per cent

Lies, damn lies and stats! Depend on what figures you look at. The way figures are recorded has also changed, which distorts things.

6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools
7. Best-ever primary school results
8. Funding for every pupil in England to double (since 1997) by 2007-08

If you actually look at the difference in results it is almost immeasurable. Spending twice as much for the same result doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

9. Lowest unemployment for 29 years

The economy is better (and I certainly don't think I agree with the boom bust policies of the tories) but Labour can't take complete credit for this - our economy will only be health if the economies of those with whom we trade are also healthy. In times of depression nobody is untouched... no matter how prudent they may be!

10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest counties

They have made a start.

11. 78,700 more nurses
12. 27,400 more doctors
13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards

say is with schoold. A lot of money invested but is the improvement proportionate? I don't think they are getting value for money and a lot more needs to be done - scrapping most targets for a start.

14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament

Good thing?

15. Devolved power to Welsh Assembly

Good thing?

16. Banned anti-personnel mines

and killing 100,000 people in an illegal war.

17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice at any time

Have use them a couple of time but I wasn't impressed.

18. New Deal - helped over a million people into work

It's debateable if New Deal can claim direct credit for getting a million people back into work.

19. Local government funding has increased by a third in real terms

I used to hold a senior position in local government and have witnessed central government funding being p*ssed up the wall for no reason other than "it's free, so we may as well spend it". Disgraceful waste.

20. Equalised the age of consent for gay men
21. Free entry to all national museums and galleries

You really are desperate to get to 50 aren't you!

22. Overseas aid budget more than doubled

OK

23. Restored city-wide government to London

I'm still not convinced this provides value for money.

24. Child benefit up 25 per cent since 1997

Shall we talk about all the stealth taxes increases?

25. Created Sure Start to help children from low income households

Don't know much about this.

26. Introduced the Disability Rights Commission

Scrapping the bottom of the barrel again!

27. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & extra £100 for over-80s

OK

28. The biggest rolling stock replacement programme ever seen on our railways

And they're still sh*t.

29. Negotiated the historic Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland

I don't think this governement can take sole credit. Besides, there is a way to go yet.

30. Over 28,000 more teachers in England schools

An little improvement to show for it.

31. Implemented the Freedom of Information Act

They are still struggling to embrace the spirit of this themselves though aren't they!

32. All workers now have a right to 4 weeks’ paid holiday

OK

33. Record rises in the state pension

Ask granny if she's been impressed.

34. 700,000 children lifted out of relative poverty

No such thing in this country.

35. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents

Good scheme.

36. Banned handguns

And gun crime is still worse than it has ever been.

37. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent

It's those damn statistics again!

38. Free nursery places for three and four-year-olds in England, Scotland and Wales

But with many schools you still have to pay extra if you want your kid to do 5 half days a week.

39. Free fruit for all four to six-year-olds at school

I'll take your word for it.

40. Free school milk for five, six and seven-year-olds in Wales

I'll have to take your word on that too.

41. Record police numbers in Scotland

Oi! You've already had record police numbers - cheating!

42. Implemented the Human Rights Act

Protecting chavs everywhere.

43. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since the industrial revolution

Brought about by what policy/action on the governments part?

44. Free TV licences for over-75s

Toturing the elderly is not good.

45. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals

Any slaughter 6 million animals during the mis-handling of the foor and mouth outbreak - I don't think you can play the animal lover card!

46. Halved maximum waiting times for NHS operations

For those recorded. There policies regarding targets is dangerous because it doesn't allow doctors to prioritise.

47. Free local bus travel for the over-60s and the disabled in Wales and Scotland

Outstanding, I'm sure.

48. Record number of students in higher education

Too many if you ask me. Exams are being dumbed down so just about anyone can get A levels and degree. Soon a degree will be worthless unless obtained from a top uni, making a nonsense of the policy.

49. Extended the Race Relations Act so that all public bodies and functions now have a duty to promote race equality

I actually believe a lot of this is counter productive. Have a look at how positive discrimination was received during the election.

50. Five, six and seven-year-olds in class sizes of 30 or less

OK

Is that enough for you :) [/B][/QUOTE]

ToryCynic

06-05-2005, 19:51

Originally posted by Zamo

17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice at any time

Have use them a couple of time but I wasn't impressed.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I used the one in New Cross once, and I echo the above poster's opinions - it wasn't much cop.

Alex

Skatiechik

06-05-2005, 19:58

Thanks for all that Zamo saves me the research :thumbsup:

Scutts

06-05-2005, 20:27

Thanks Zamo - Out of 50 you only have about 5 or 6 genuine complaints so it looks as if Labour have done well, even by your standards :thumbsup:

Phanerothyme

06-05-2005, 20:30

Originally posted by Scutts
1. Lowest inflation since the 60s
...
50. Five, six and seven-year-olds in class sizes of 30 or less

Is that enough for you :)

Marvellous. Ashes in the mouths of the dead.....

DanSumption

06-05-2005, 20:57

Originally posted by Zamo
21. Free entry to all national museums and galleries

You really are desperate to get to 50 aren't you!
Don't knock free museums.. I remember being very glad when the government brought this one in. I love taking my kids to museums, and they love going; we would visit the Science Museum or Natural History Museum around once a month when we lived in London, but although it was free for the kids it cost me about a tenner a time.

evildrneil

06-05-2005, 21:05

Originally posted by viking
HERE HERE :thumbsup:

We dont forget the Thatcher years see.

Why in gods name are you voting for a man who has been lauded as being thatcherite by Mrs T herself then? Have you not actually noticed that nulabour and the tories are pretty much the same thing?

StarSparkle

06-05-2005, 21:12

Originally posted by evildrneil
Why in gods name are you voting for a man who has been lauded as being thatcherite by Mrs T herself then? Have you not actually noticed that nulabour and the tories are pretty much the same thing?

Indeed.

The old joke - Tony Blair = "I Tory Plan B" - is so true. :(

StarSparkle

miniminch

06-05-2005, 21:14

Originally posted by StarSparkle
Indeed.

The old joke - Tony Blair = "I Tory Plan B" - is so true. :(

StarSparkle

yer what?:confused:

StarSparkle

06-05-2005, 21:22

Originally posted by miniminch
yer what?:confused:

It's an anagram.....

Re-arrange the letters in 'Tony Blair' and you can come up with the statement 'I Tory Plan B'.

The joke being that Mr Blair was seen as a totally 'acceptable' alternative to the Tories by the Establishment - The Tory Party itself being Tory Plan A.

I'm sure you knew that though, Mini.....

StarSparkle

Phanerothyme

06-05-2005, 21:25

Originally posted by StarSparkle
It's an anagram.....

Re-arrange the letters in 'Tony Blair' and you can come up with the statement 'I Tory Plan B'.

(ahem - there's no 'p' in 'Tony Blair')

I read the following somewhere -
Virginia Bottomley - I'm an evil tory bigot
Michael Portillo - The cool limp liar
Neil Hamilton - A million then?

evildrneil

06-05-2005, 21:26

The difference between the two certainly seems to be more a difference in implementation than policy with nulabout wanting to micromanage every aspect of life and the tories wanting to set stratagy and then assuming some bizzare form of social osmosis wil carry it out for them!

StarSparkle

06-05-2005, 21:41

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
(ahem - there's no 'p' in 'Tony Blair')

I read the following somewhere -
Virginia Bottomley - I'm an evil tory bigot
Michael Portillo - The cool limp liar
Neil Hamilton - A million then?

Whoops! :cool:

My memory's not what it was.....

The phrase is actually "I'm Tory Plan B" made from Tony Blair MP.

I thank you :)

StarSparkle

miniminch

06-05-2005, 21:44

Oh I get it now - I thought my dyslexia had kicked in then:confused:

t020

06-05-2005, 21:52

I think the Tories did much better than was expected a few days ago in some opinion polls (one suggesting Labour in a 10 point lead), so I think this election was the stepping stone 2001 should've been for the Tories to regain power. This is Labour's last term, so both Blairites and the old-Labour core should enjoy it while it lasts (feel free to quote me on this in 4 years time). Labour take pride in the economy but all the indications are showing that its strength is cracking and this 3rd term could be a really problematic one. The Conservatives will once again have to clear up an economic mess inherited from Labour, the only difference being that this time it will have taken longer for Labour to mess it up.

Locally I'm less upbeat as I seriously thought the Tories had a chance of at least lowering the Lib Dem majority in Hallam, but this was not the case.

StarSparkle

06-05-2005, 21:53

I suppose I shouldn't really be posting while simultaneously watching Derek Acorah in action on "Most Haunted - Live"! :D

StarSparkle

LordChaverly

06-05-2005, 21:58

Originally posted by t020
[
Locally I'm less upbeat as I seriously thought the Tories had a chance of at least lowering the Lib Dem majority in Hallam, but this was not the case. [/B]

I think the LDs had a particularly strong candidate in Nick Clegg - perhaps that was the reason.

t020

06-05-2005, 22:02

Originally posted by LordChaverly
I think the LDs had a particularly strong candidate in Nick Clegg - perhaps that was the reason.

But all the indications were that Richard Allan was well regarded locally and this was part of the reason for the large Lib Dem majority. I thought him standing down would make it harder for the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg is a highly regarded Lib Dem though and I read that he's tipped for leadership one day.

timo

06-05-2005, 22:31

Evidrneil,
I sincerely value and respect your opinion re the differences between New Labour and the Tories. However, in my view, the divide is much deeper and more profound than mere methods of 'implementation'. There is still a philosophical gulf between the two parties. I think your point about New Labour wishing to 'micromanage' every aspect of life is cogent shorthand for 'Big State' interference in the lives of citizens [or, more accurately, subjects of the Queen]. The Tory Party does not rely upon any form of 'bizarre form of social osmosis', as you wittily phrase it. Rather, we tend to trust people to make their own decisions and choices because we believe in human 'agency', or most of us do. We are largely in favour of minimal government and minimal welfare [one concedes that we require a 'safety net' for those whose life chances are constrained by social structure, and might constitute the 'deserving poor'] as opposed to the social democratic approach favoured by New Labour, which assumes that citizens cannot think for themselves.

To reiterate, as I said earlier, I do not believe the 'Third Way', communitarian/social democratic ideas and ideals that Blair believes in [originating in the Sociological theories of Giddens, and the Philosophy of Etzioni] are shared by the bulk of the party. Most, in my experience as a tutor, researcher and writer in H.E. still harbour the old socialist beliefs at core.

Yes, on reflection, I shall lock myself away like a Monster of Glamis after all. I cannot bear the thought of Brown in charge.

LordChaverly

06-05-2005, 22:32

Originally posted by t020
But all the indications were that Richard Allan was well regarded locally and this was part of the reason for the large Lib Dem majority. I thought him standing down would make it harder for the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg is a highly regarded Lib Dem though and I read that he's tipped for leadership one day.

I think it was a combination of both factors - i.e. Allan's record and also Clegg's background and ability. Having already been an MEP, Clegg has more political experience than Allan did when he was first elected. I would wager that he is a good prospect for the leadership if kennedy falls on his sword or is pushed at some point.

t020

06-05-2005, 22:34

Originally posted by timo
Evidrneil,
I sincerely value and respect your opinion re the differences between New Labour and the Tories. However, in my view, the divide is much deeper and more profound than mere methods of 'implementation'. There is still a philosophical gulf between the two parties. I think your point about New Labour wishing to 'micromanage' every aspect of life is cogent shorthand for 'Big State' interference in the lives of citizens [or, more accurately, subjects of the Queen]. The Tory Party does not rely upon any form of 'bizarre form of social osmosis', as you wittily phrase it. Rather, we tend to trust people to make their own decisions and choices because we believe in human 'agency', or most of us do. We are largely in favour of minimal government and minimal welfare [one concedes that we require a 'safety net' for those whose life chances are constrained by social structure, and might constitute the 'deserving poor'] as opposed to the social democratic approach favoured by New Labour, which assumes that citizens cannot think for themselves.

To reiterate, as I said earlier, I do not believe the 'Third Way', communitarian/social democratic ideas and ideals that Blair believes in [originating in the Sociological theories of Giddens, and the Philosophy of Etzioni] are shared by the bulk of the party. Most, in my experience as a tutor, researcher and writer in H.E. still harbour the old socialist beliefs at core.

Yes, on reflection, I shall lock myself away like a Monster of Glamis after all. I cannot bear the thought of Brown in charge.

Timo, as a Conservative member, who would you like to see become the new leader?

timo

06-05-2005, 22:50

TO20,
Firstly, my dear comrade, may I say how sorry I am for having mocked and derided Mr Howard for his creepy, watchful smile and Dickensian airs. He has helped us deliver a kind of short, sharp kick to New Labour's sub-navel region [in Savate, le coup de pied bas]. For that I am eternally grateful.

To answer your question, anyone besides Oliver Letwin. My ideal would be lissom, pouty Nigella Lawson, but despite emails entreating her to stand, she always refuses point blank. Perhaps I would like to see Michael Ancram take over the wicket, until a chap you may not have heard of yet- Mark Bigley, has risen sufficiently in the ranks to lead. Aside from rank outsider, Bigley, and Michael Ancram another name springs to mind, that of Liam Fox. What do you reckon?

t020

06-05-2005, 23:15

Originally posted by timo
TO20,
Firstly, my dear comrade, may I say how sorry I am for having mocked and derided Mr Howard for his creepy, watchful smile and Dickensian airs. He has helped us deliver a kind of short, sharp kick to New Labour's sub-navel region [in Savate, le coup de pied bas]. For that I am eternally grateful.

To answer your question, anyone besides Oliver Letwin. My ideal would be lissom, pouty Nigella Lawson, but despite emails entreating her to stand, she always refuses point blank. Perhaps I would like to see Michael Ancram take over the wicket, until a chap you may not have heard of yet- Mark Bigley, has risen sufficiently in the ranks to lead. Aside from rank outsider, Bigley, and Michael Ancram another name springs to mind, that of Liam Fox. What do you reckon?

Well, first of all I'll second your commendation of Howard. He grew on me throughout the campaign and we should be thankful that he has provided the stepping stone from which we will win the next election.

RE: new leader - speaking as a young conservative voter that believes in the basic principles of conservatism, I would say the party's biggest problem is image. Amongst people my age it simply isn't "fashionable" to vote Tory (that award goes to the Lib Dems). The connotations of the party are things like old age, snobbery and the boom/bust economy. We need to shed these connotations and highlight the basic principles such as free enterprise, self sufficiency and a dislike of state interference. We also need a leader who is charismatic and has a wide appeal. Therefore I think we really do need to go with someone young (preferably with hair left on their head) who has charisma and doesn't remind the electorate of the past. IMO Liam Fox would be a better choice than Michael Ancram. Boris Johnson is almost certainly the most popular Tory with the general public, but I'm not entirely sure his popularity would convert to votes when deciding the matter of him being the Prime Minister!

I also think it will take a lot of investment in image consultants and advertising gurus (something which Howard turned to) to try to shed the negative connotations and win back middle England. This may involve superficial changes such as changing the party logo. All this may sound very shallow but so much of it is down to image these days, whether it should be or not.

Finally I think Blair stepping down will benefit the Tories. A lot of the proportion of "middle England" that Labour stole in 1997 are Blairites as opposed to Labourites and could well switch back to what should be their natural party of choice.

timo

06-05-2005, 23:29

TO20,
Yes, Fox is probably the man regarding the correct mixture of image, and ideas. I take your point re age [I am 43, by the way], but leaders have to have a certain air of gravitas. Hague was my age when he lost due to the disastrous 'Save the Pound' campaign, and some criticised him for being callow and 'too young'! What we need is someone with political genius, a keen intellect, ravishing good looks, who will unite young and old alike with his/her mixture of freshness and gravitas. Shall you stand, or shall I?

royjames

07-05-2005, 00:44

Sorry to change the topic slightly but disco cat seems to have a somewhat miss understanding of the greens and the respect people.
In contrast to the BNP the greens only stood in2 seats as to respect they stood in only 1.
We beat the greens in heeley,not by much but we beat them all the same.
I wonder why respect and the greens did not contest brightside and hillsbrough because we would have beaten them again.
Over 7000 votes more than greens or respect, those thugs outside who shouted abuse at us and punched one of our candidates was that the respect people?
They are just thugs and they showed there true colours last night,yet when some of them went into the count they did not have the guts to say anything they are cowards.
I caught 2 looking at me giving me the evil eye and when I confronted them they sh*t themselves,they make me sick.
As to Blunkets speech lets hope their is a recording as one of our candidates is considering taking legal action against him for incitement.
They are all so smug and cocky,I hope one day the voters turf them out on their ear.

bellis

07-05-2005, 01:34

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
They both came off as total egomaniacs - so no change there.

Paxman can't interview for toffee and his antipathy for Gorgeous George was apparent.

Like George said, He won because he got the most votes - Oona King did not lose the seat for Blair, Blair lost the seat for Oona.

And Georgie Boy even predicted and looked forward to Oona's return to politics and ultimately parliament - something which few other winning candidates had the grace to do.

But it must be said that the Respect Party candidates nationwide did much less well than their leader.

Did Robert Kilroy-Silk keep his deposit?

Other Election items- I was apalled to discover that the turnout in Sheffield Central was less than 40%. That is very poor indeed, although the green share of the vote is up to 6% which is good for them locally although no seats nationally. Big hill to climb and not much time left now...

Any Sheffield Central consituents on here who didn't vote? You could have kicked out toady sports minister Caborn, but missed the chance.

And yet again the FPP voting system is the real loser. When less than a third of the electorate vote for the winning party, who are then returned a with a majority parliament, you know something is up - funny how the Labour electoral reform programme stopped halfway through eviscerating the House of Lords and certainly won't go anywhere near the ATV or STV proportional systems.

phan paxman interviews everyone like he did with greasy george ,and ive seen a few paxman interviews over the years

mojoworking

07-05-2005, 04:37

Originally posted by timo
TO20,
Yes, Fox is probably the man regarding the correct mixture of image, and ideas. I take your point re age [I am 43, by the way], but leaders have to have a certain air of gravitas. Hague was my age when he lost due to the disastrous 'Save the Pound' campaign, and some criticised him for being callow and 'too young'! What we need is someone with political genius, a keen intellect, ravishing good looks, who will unite young and old alike with his/her mixture of freshness and gravitas. Shall you stand, or shall I?

Unfortunately timo, it seems like the combination of premature baldness and a sonorous, droning voice that sounds like it's emanating from the bottom of a deep well is not a vote winner! ;)

DanSumption

07-05-2005, 06:24

Originally posted by mojoworking
Unfortunately timo, it seems like the combination of premature baldness and a sonorous, droning voice that sounds like it's emanating from the bottom of a deep well is not a vote winner! ;)
I dunno, I think Hague has gained a lot of respect since he stood down, people (myself, certainly) appreciate his intelligence and sense of humour more, whereas when he was leader not many got past the droning voice.

I don't think the time is yet right, but I can see him emerging again as a future leader of the party (that's if he wants the job after his last experience) in perhaps another four years time (after the next election defeat).

As for Boris Johnson, yes, he probably is the most popular Tory, he'd be a hoot as leader: did anyone else see him on BBC1 at the beginning of the election coverage? More bumbling and error-prone than I've ever seen him. Can you imagine him at the dispatch box for PMQs? That would be better than any comedy programme.

Fareast

07-05-2005, 06:32

Zamo :-

Excellent reply.
Obviously , we have to give credit where it's due and even the most dismal governments get some things right-----even if it's more by luck than management , sometimes !
Governments can hardly be judged on what they SAY they are going to do , otherwise we would all simply vote for the one with the most attractive manifestos---unfortunately , I think that's exactly what a lot of people do !
Another important point , which comes out in your reply , is that almost any problem can be solved , or at least alleviated [temporarily ?], if a government spends enough money on it----again , unfortunately---to the detriment of other important things.
As I said earlier , it seems strange that so many people are too ill to work in this country , despite record billions spent on Health [Shurely shome mistake !] Also , how many more "desk" jobs have Labour created since 1997 ? Any government can lower the unemployment figures this way !
The tragedy is that the Tories , when in power , were no less guilty of mis-ruling us than New Labour are and I
feel sure that millions of people in this country feel that they have no one to trust in politics and that no one listens to them-----hence the low turn-outs of recent years.
The only hope for the Tories is that time will let people forget their performance , particularly , 1990-1997 , and now take the opportunity to elect a leadership that actually responds to the hopes and aspirations of the average citizen--not B.B.C. lefties and Hand-wringers of every hue.

mojoworking

07-05-2005, 06:48

Originally posted by DanSumption
I dunno, I think Hague has gained a lot of respect since he stood down, people (myself, certainly) appreciate his intelligence and sense of humour more, whereas when he was leader not many got past the droning voice.

I don't think the time is yet right, but I can see him emerging again as a future leader of the party (that's if he wants the job after his last experience) in perhaps another four years time (after the next election defeat).

Credit where it's due, Hague seems a lot more relaxed since giving up the leadership and he came over really well on Have I Got News For You

Internetowl

07-05-2005, 09:03

Originally posted by rubydazzler
Commiserations to our fellow Forummer JG Harston who was standing in Brightside ...

Hope coming second with 13.12% is some consolation, against someone as personally popular as Blunkett - good effort
:thumbsup:

problem with it is most people in this constituency didn't actually vote - so he was hardly 'personally popular'. The reason lots of people didn't vote - is apathy - who ever got in,nothing changes...

max

07-05-2005, 09:11

How could Labour have not had a victory, given the electorate in Sedgefield numbered 66666?

Satanists discuss.

algy

07-05-2005, 09:17

Originally posted by Zamo
I think people voted labour because they saw them as the lesser of the evils on offer. However, with only just over a third of the vote, any claim that Labour has "full approval" for their policies is clearly untrue.

Labour have been given a last chance. If they want to get a forth term then they will need to do as TB said...

"We have got to listen to the people and respond wisely and sensibly."

Max, are you listening to what the electorate is saying? If you see this result as a great victory and a ringing endorsement, then my guess is you are not.
I have to agree Zamo. labour has a number of policies that worry me a lot, and which despite their reduced vote, which amounts to 1 in 5 of the population, they'll now claim have the endorsement of the population.According to radio 4 this morning, if you take the number of votes each party got, and divide it by the number of seats theywon, each Labour seat 'cost' 27,000 votes, each Conservative seat 'cost' 47,000 votes, and each Lib Dem seat 'cost' 100,000 votes. There has to be something wrong in the system somewhere. Maybe it's time for proportional representation, but no government is going to introduce it that won under the system that elected them in the first place.

Internetowl

07-05-2005, 09:20

Originally posted by max
How could Labour have not had a victory, given the electorate in Sedgefield numbered 66666?

Satanists discuss.

Had Blair waited another year and gone on 6th June - it would have been worrying :)

timo

07-05-2005, 09:44

Mojoworking,
TO20 and I both possess beautiful, 'sonorous' voices, and neither of us are bald. Together, we would make a wonderful leader!LOL.

Disco_Cat

07-05-2005, 10:08

Originally posted by royjames

I wonder why respect and the greens did not contest brightside and hillsbrough because we would have beaten them again.

Sorry I don’t understand your logic, Greens beat you significantly in 2 out of the 3 seats they were up against you,
with the exception of one seat were they lost to you by just 2 votes. Respect beat you significantly.

So if these parties had contested the BNP in Brightside and Hillsborough what makes you think this result would have been any different, given the evidence from the rest of city. Incidentally Roy if the BNP had only fielded candidates from Sheffield, and not open neo nazis like Mark Payne, they would also have only been able to field 3 candidates, the same as the Greens. Then the fact you were trounced by a group of hippies would be unquestionable, even by your bizarre logic.

Disco_Cat

07-05-2005, 10:11

Originally posted by max

Satanists discuss.

As a Satanist myself this is irrelevant as we now accept the true number of the beast is 616 as discoveries in Egypt prove.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4523637.stm

timo

07-05-2005, 12:35

Disco Cat- a chicken-strangling Satanist! Golly, golly gosh! Someone fetch a priest!

DanSumption

07-05-2005, 12:40

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
Sorry I don’t understand your logic, Greens beat you significantly in 2 out of the 3 seats they were up against you,
with the exception of one seat were they lost to you by just 2 votes. Respect beat you significantly.

So if these parties had contested the BNP in Brightside and Hillsborough what makes you think this result would have been any different
Hmm, obviously the BNP didn't field a candidate in Brightside out of (ahem) respect for the Greens & Respect: because they knew the BNP candidate would have done so much better. So give them some credit, at least they're polite enough to give the other minor parties a chance.

DanSumption

07-05-2005, 12:43

I always thought one of the best named albums of all times was Attilla the Stockbroker's "668, the neighbour of the beast". He'll have to move down the road now.

evildrneil

07-05-2005, 12:53

Originally posted by timo
Disco Cat- a chicken-strangling Satanist! Golly, golly gosh! Someone fetch a priest!

Nah he's a beginner - only sacrifices chicken sandwiches!

Disco_Cat

07-05-2005, 14:34

Originally posted by DanSumption
Hmm, obviously the BNP didn't field a candidate in Brightside out of (ahem) respect for the Greens & Respect

The BNP did stand in Brightside and it was the only place in Sheffield they managed to keep their deposit, coming fourth but not second, as predicted by Roy.

My point was that since both Respect and Greens beat the BNP in Central (A real sign of how poor the BNP did considering they could not even out poll a divided antiwar vote) either of these parties standing in Brightside would have, I believe, beaten the BNP.

royjames

07-05-2005, 16:54

Ok lets look at the last local council elections for southey which I contested ,I hammerd the green candidate and I will do it again when the council have more elections.
As to central the candidate was a paper candidate as was the hallam one ,so if we had wanted to canvass we would have beaten them again.
And to your final point you say the other 3 candidates are nazis lol show me the proof of this .
The greens will be beaten every time they put a candidate in OUR area Brightside,as will the silly respect party.
Finally who got the most votes in Sheffield? BNP or greens or respect. Enough said.:thumbsup:

max

07-05-2005, 17:00

Originally posted by royjames

Finally who got the most votes in Sheffield? BNP or greens or respect. Enough said.:thumbsup:

Err, you forgot to mention Labour, who got a lot more votes than anyone. This is after all a thread about Labour's historic 3rd term victory. :thumbsup:

Yodameister

07-05-2005, 17:14

Its very gratifying that despite all the daily lying scare stories over immigration that the pathetic BNP are still loathed by the vast majority of people in this country, and long may it continue.

The only time that such hate filled parties become popular is when the economy is in total meltdown, such as it was in Germany in the 1930s. This is palpably not the case in this country, where we are wealthier than we have been at any time in the last 100 years.

I find the idea that immigration and foreigners are destroying our country laughable.

Disco_Cat

07-05-2005, 21:23

Originally posted by royjames
the other 3 candidates are nazis lol show me the proof of this:
extract of the Bio of Mark Payne, BNP candidadte for central taken from BBC website:

"Runs Fourteen Words (UK), a nazi bookclub set up in the memory of Robert J. Matthews, the US nazi terrorist who was killed in a shootout with the FBI in 1984.
He signs letters 88 - for Heil Hitler.His PO Box is used for the West Midlands chapter of Blood and Honour, Britain's nazi skinhead group. "

Sounds like a nazi to me, can see why the BNP did so badly if this is the sort of person they think people will vote for, they wasted about £50,000 on lost deposits, £2,500 of that being thrown away in Sheffield alone. Hope Roys members have deep pockets.

royjames

08-05-2005, 00:54

I do of course dispute your comments about mark ,oh and what about the other 2 from outside the city??
As to do we have big pockets we wiil do whatever it takes to back our party,even if we have to pay out of our own pockets.
You see your average BNP member is far more commited than all the rest ,we dont have the left wing unions and big buisness like the all the others.
We are in no ones pocket, unlike them,we tell it how it is .
As for the labour victory,that old saying comes to mind of the people getting the goverment they deserve.
More tax, more immigrants ,more powers given to the E U,rising violent crime,filthy hospitals the list is endless.
God help this country with this goverment.

rubydazzler

08-05-2005, 03:45

Originally posted by Internetowl
problem with it is most people in this constituency didn't actually vote - so he was hardly 'personally popular'. The reason lots of people didn't vote - is apathy - who ever got in,nothing changes...

He's never been "popular" with me Internowl. But as he's been a disaster in every position he's ever held as far as I can see, SCC leadership, Education, and Home Office and his lack of integrity and misuse of his position in the "nanny" case... the only reason for his re-election must be his personal popularity in his Constituency ....

We've now got another walking disaster elected to Parliament from SCC, to join Blunkett, Betts and Caborn ... :help:

redrobbo

08-05-2005, 03:53

Originally posted by Fareast
but if the British electorate prefer Blair to any other candidate , then it goes to prove the adage :-
" A people get the government they deserve"

Only the electorate of Sedgefield constituency had the opportunity to vote for Tony Blair. He wasn't a candidate in any other constituency, and I distinctly recall his name was absent from my ballot paper in Sheffield Heeley.

We don't have presidential elections in the UK.

redrobbo

08-05-2005, 04:21

Originally posted by t020
I think the Tories did much better than was expected a few days ago in some opinion polls (one suggesting Labour in a 10 point lead), so I think this election was the stepping stone 2001 should've been for the Tories to regain power.

Dream on t020. A few facts.....

The Conservative Party now have fewer MPs than Labour had after the 1983 election when Michael Foot was their leader.

The Conservative Party's overall share of the vote was 33.2% . This shows that it has barely made any progress in its national share of the vote since winning 31.7% in 2001.

The Conservative Party failed to win seats such as the ultra-marginal Dorset South and Hove - previously traditional Conservative held seats. Seats such as these have to be won by the Conservative party if it is to form a government.

"If we are to succeed we have to understand that, with the good news, there were some powerful warning signals. It is the Liberal Democrats, not us, who are picking up anti-Labour votes in the cities. Cambridge, Birmingham Yardley, Bristol West and Manchester Withington - these seats ought to be coming to us if we are to form a government."

Spoken by Stephen Dorrell, Conservative MP for Charnwood and a former Tory government minister, who then observed -

"People who think we'll do it with one more heave should remember that to form a government we need to aim for 42% of the vote. At this rate it will take 11 more heaves because the Lib Dem vote means we cannot win on the sort of share Labour won."

Disco_Cat

08-05-2005, 06:41

Originally posted by royjames
I do of course dispute your comments

They aren’t my comments Roy they are from BBC panorama and can be found here,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/membership/organisers/mark_matthews.stm

You were asked about this man several times prior to the election but chose to ignore the questions, if these comments are true then why have they remained unchallenged on a BBC website? I don’t know about the other two outsiders you bought in, but surely one BNP candidate and regional organiser signing his letters, Hail Hitler, is proof enough of the sort of people in your party.

This is why you did so badly in the elections, the best you can offer the people of Sheffield is nasty individuals like this, and your only defence is, ’I dispute your comments’ pathetic.

evildrneil

08-05-2005, 06:50

[MOD NOTE]This is a thread about the Labout victory NOT about the BNP - do not turn it into yet another incessant pro/anti BNP thread or we will be forced to be more draconian in our moderating.

DanSumption

08-05-2005, 08:46

Originally posted by rubydazzler
He's never been "popular" with me Internowl. But as he's been a disaster in every position he's ever held as far as I can see, SCC leadership, Education, and Home Office and his lack of integrity and misuse of his position in the "nanny" case... the only reason for his re-election must be his personal popularity in his Constituency ....
I once sat next to a civil servant from the Education department on the train up from London. It was at the time when Estelle Morris was minister, who this guy had nothing but praise for. He then went on to talk about Blunkett, who he described as an absolute nightmare to work with and "nothing but a career politician, he had no interest in education other than as a rung up to the top of the ladder".

rubydazzler

08-05-2005, 08:59

Originally posted by DanSumption
I He then went on to talk about Blunkett, who he described as an absolute nightmare to work with and "nothing but a career politician, he had no interest in education other than as a rung up to the top of the ladder".

And already he's back in the Cabinet ....

He MUST know where the bodies are buried ... there's no other explanation :suspect:

Miinister for Work and Pensions is it? Oh lordy, we might as well all pack up and go home now! :help:

t020

08-05-2005, 10:22

Originally posted by redrobbo
Dream on t020. A few facts.....

The Conservative Party now have fewer MPs than Labour had after the 1983 election when Michael Foot was their leader.

The Conservative Party's overall share of the vote was 33.2% . This shows that it has barely made any progress in its national share of the vote since winning 31.7% in 2001.

The Conservative Party failed to win seats such as the ultra-marginal Dorset South and Hove - previously traditional Conservative held seats. Seats such as these have to be won by the Conservative party if it is to form a government.

"If we are to succeed we have to understand that, with the good news, there were some powerful warning signals. It is the Liberal Democrats, not us, who are picking up anti-Labour votes in the cities. Cambridge, Birmingham Yardley, Bristol West and Manchester Withington - these seats ought to be coming to us if we are to form a government."

Spoken by Stephen Dorrell, Conservative MP for Charnwood and a former Tory government minister, who then observed -

"People who think we'll do it with one more heave should remember that to form a government we need to aim for 42% of the vote. At this rate it will take 11 more heaves because the Lib Dem vote means we cannot win on the sort of share Labour won."

All that overlooks the fact that when the electorate is fed up with Labour and want a new government, they will be voting Tory, not Lib Dem, because they know that the Lib Dems have such a minute chance of winning an election. When the economy starts crumbling and the true extent of Gordon Brown's borrow now, pay later spending is revealed, there will only be one party capable of cleaning up the mess.

timo

08-05-2005, 10:52

Red,
To20 is, in my view, correct here. One could be forgiven for thinking, 'Timo would say that, wouldn't he?', given my well-known political alliegances. However, I concur with my fellow Tory poster because I simply cannot conceive of a situation where enough voters actually trust the Lib Dems to run the show. At least with the Tories there are people in the ranks who have had experience of government. Would sufficient numbers ever take such a gamble? One rather doubts it.

Let me reiterate my congratulations to Labour on their historic [if near-run] victory. There are many, many things I dislike about the stealth-tax junta of Cromwell Blair and his Roundheads, but I sleep easier in my bed knowing that they, and not the appalling Lib Dems, are in power. I hope to God Almighty that we never see a Lib Dem government. Let it eternally be, 'Fellow Lib-Dems, go back to your constituencies and prepare for a severe disappointment'.

If 'Whisky Charlie' and his posturing ninnies ever got in, they would plough billions of pounds in useless projects, tax the middle classes to emigration point, prove fatally dithering and equivocal re defence [Nato chiefs might commit mass Hari Kari], allow in greater numbers of immigrants than Labour has, unleash great numbers of criminals upon us [their disdain for prisons frightens me], and transfer even more of our ancient freedoms and rights over to international regimes like the EU.
At the moment, because of their stance re tuition fees they are gaining the student vote. They may also gain the anti-Labour protest vote too, with their 'reasonable', 'moderate', simpering ways. However, it is up to those who can see through this pathetic charade, to loudly draw attention to real Lib Dem intentions. They are close to the kind of government we would have endured under Kinnock, in some ways, especially re ideas about 'progressive taxation' and 'redistribution'. Those phrases mean 'robbery', by the way. They could not run a whelk stall, as they have proved in Southport, York etc.

Disco_Cat

08-05-2005, 15:16

You must be pretty gutted that with the exception of Heeley, where it was up by just 0.4%, the Conservative vote in Sheffield was down pretty dramatically, whilst the Lib Dems share is up, again with the exception of Heeley, where despite it being down they still polled higher then the Cons.

Guess people would rather vote for someone who'd drink their whiskey then their blood

fred_notdead

08-05-2005, 15:31

Originally posted by nobikejohn
Agree totally::thumbsup:

Labour need to keep up the good work over the next 4 years bigsmile:

Remind me - - what good work is that then?

StarSparkle

08-05-2005, 15:31

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
Guess people would rather vote for someone who'd drink their whiskey then their blood

Nice one! :thumbsup: :D

StarSparkle

timo

08-05-2005, 16:24

Yes, Disco Cat, that was not a bad effort. Not quite in my 'international level' league, but good nevertheless. LOL.

Disco_Cat

08-05-2005, 16:33

Did anyone else get those begging emails from John O’Farell in the run up to the election? They were pretty funny, fact number 4 about Howard sums it all up really;

When Michael Howard last faced a leadership election he came fifth. There were five candidates.
Yes when they last had the chance to vote for him, the people who know him best decided that he was:
· less appealing than John Redwood
· less of a fresh face than Kenneth Clarke
· less moderate than Peter Lilley
· and less likely to win an election than William Hague

Internetowl

08-05-2005, 16:38

Boris Johnson is a cert for the next Tory leadership....

rubydazzler

08-05-2005, 17:33

Originally posted by timo
They could not run a whelk stall, as they have proved in Southport, York etc.

As you've brought local councils into the equation, timo. I'm forced to point out that the Conservatives have been a spent force in Sheffield for years, with the sole exception of Dore Ward where they have now, after tremendous efforts over 5 years, actually managed to muster two Ward councillors. I can't envisage a situation where they could reach a point at which they could form a serious threat to the LibDems locally, or, for that matter, on Southport, York, Harrogate or Liverpool City Councils. And Paul Holmes MP in Chesterfield increased his majority this time, too.

So, timo. i wish i could say you make me laugh with your constant bellicose diatribes against the LibDems - but as I remarked to a previous poster - it smacks of whistling in the dark to a lot of people. There is always a tendency to mock that of which we are most afraid.

Quote from timo to DiscoCat "Yes, Disco Cat, that was not a bad effort. Not quite in my 'international level' league, but good nevertheless. LOL."
Do you sit here imagining you're marking your college students' papers? I'd have to give you full marks for self satisfaction and patronising verbosity, as you are certainly up to anyone's level in those subjects - international or otherwise. :P

Liquid

08-05-2005, 17:49

Do we have an unfair system of Election when a government gets into power with just a THIRD of the Vote !

Disco_Cat

08-05-2005, 18:25

Originally posted by Liquid
Do we have an unfair system of Election when a government gets into power with just a THIRD of the Vote !

Yes, as long as another party didn’t get two thirds of the vote.

t020

08-05-2005, 18:29

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
Yes, as long as another party didn’t get two thirds of the vote.

I think when Labour can win 55% of the seats in the commons on a 35% share of the vote we definitely have an unfair system.

miniminch

08-05-2005, 18:31

t020

08-05-2005, 22:44

Originally posted by rubydazzler
As you've brought local councils into the equation, timo. I'm forced to point out that the Conservatives have been a spent force in Sheffield for years, with the sole exception of Dore Ward where they have now, after tremendous efforts over 5 years, actually managed to muster two Ward councillors. I can't envisage a situation where they could reach a point at which they could form a serious threat to the LibDems locally, or, for that matter, on Southport, York, Harrogate or Liverpool City Councils. And Paul Holmes MP in Chesterfield increased his majority this time, too.

So, timo. i wish i could say you make me laugh with your constant bellicose diatribes against the LibDems - but as I remarked to a previous poster - it smacks of whistling in the dark to a lot of people. There is always a tendency to mock that of which we are most afraid.

Quote from timo to DiscoCat "Yes, Disco Cat, that was not a bad effort. Not quite in my 'international level' league, but good nevertheless. LOL."
Do you sit here imagining you're marking your college students' papers? I'd have to give you full marks for self satisfaction and patronising verbosity, as you are certainly up to anyone's level in those subjects - international or otherwise. :P

RE: Lib Dems - it's easy to choose populist stances on wars and student top up fees when one leads the 3rd party with little hope of becoming elected. If Charles Kennedy was PM, do you honestly think he would've snubbed America, the only global superpower? Or do you think Bush would have won him around with a few (and a few more) bottles of a fine malt whiskey?

RE: Timo - there's no need to launch vicious attacks at people with whom you disagree (I too have been a victim of your scathing tongue). It would be boring if everybody posted in the same style, and I for one enjoy reading Timo's posts (and so do quite a few other forum members too).

DanSumption

09-05-2005, 06:31

Originally posted by t020
RE: Lib Dems - it's easy to choose populist stances on wars and student top up fees when one leads the 3rd party with little hope of becoming elected. If Charles Kennedy was PM, do you honestly think he would've snubbed America, the only global superpower? Or do you think Bush would have won him around with a few (and a few more) bottles of a fine malt whiskey?
Seeing as almost every world leader other than Blair managed to resist Bush's advances then I would imagine Kennedy wouldn't have had much more difficulty, whiskey or no whiskey (why would Bush be bringing Kennedy Scotch anyway - the phrase coals to Newcastle springs to mind - I imagine it's more likely he would bring over a bottle of bourbon, which Kennedy would politely reshuffle to the back of the drinks cabinet).

mojoworking

09-05-2005, 07:13

Originally posted by t020
I think when Labour can win 55% of the seats in the commons on a 35% share of the vote we definitely have an unfair system.

You can't blame the winning party for the fact we don't have PR in Britain. That's a classic sour grapes observation.

Under the current voting system it's exactly the same for all the parties. Back in the 80s I recall Thatcher getting elected with similar figures and all the lefties were coming up with exactly the same moan as you.

timo

09-05-2005, 07:35

rubydazzler,
As TO20 says, there are plenty of posters who enjoy what I do. You know this yourself, from the number of posters who rushed to my defence on a previous thread you were involved in. Interestingly, the poster who supports you [with childish 'clapping' icons, and hilarious talk of 'a plan coming together'] is one of the most unpopular posters on the forum. Indeed, he is near to being banned. Carry on with these personal remarks [i.e, marking papers], and you too will become unpopular rather quickly. Incidentally, my remark to Disco Cat was made in good humour. The Cat and I, though ideologically poles apart, have always enjoyed light-hearted banter.

I will continue to ridicule and mock the Lib Dems. They richly deserve such treatment. Were they ever to come to power, Britain's decline from the world's fourth largest economy to a laughing stock would be swift. Don't waste your time with them, ruby. I am certain that there are plenty of other capacities in which you could be useful to the community- taking in washing, darning socks, mending kettles spring to mind.

DanSumption

09-05-2005, 08:05

Originally posted by mojoworking
You can't blame the winning party for the fact we don't have PR in Britain. That's a classic sour grapes observation.
No, but you might have a case for blaming the party that has been in government for the last eight years and which, when it was in opposition, indicated that it would give support to PR.

Disco_Cat

09-05-2005, 08:06

I’m a little bit concerned Timo, on paper it should be myself launching personal attacks upon you, but when I read such a jibe against you I thought it unnecessary. Perhaps I am drawing closer to the dark side then I hoped. I am spending less on comics and £2.99 wine no longer seems sufficient for my tastes. The other day I even went so far as to side with Paul Robinson over Sky.

Indeed, the last few weeks has seen my avatar change from a comic to a death Star, how long before I ditch Disco Cat in favour for Darth Vader.

mojoworking

09-05-2005, 08:15

Originally posted by DanSumption
No, but you might have a case for blaming the party that has been in government for the last eight years and which, when it was in opposition, indicated that it would give support to PR.

You mean you actually believe election promises - by any party? ;)

Besides, there's really no incentive for Labour and the Tories to bring in PR. In reality it would only benefit the minor parties.

timo

09-05-2005, 08:16

Disco Cat,
Thankyou for that. It is nice to receive supportive comments from a poster on the other half of the political divide. We may be 'opponents' but never enemies. I am glad that you found Rubydazzler's comments 'unnecessary'. Perhaps the dear lady will come to realise that not everyone shares her opinion.

goose

09-05-2005, 08:16

JonJParr

09-05-2005, 08:18

Originally posted by rubydazzler
So, timo. i wish i could say you make me laugh with your constant bellicose diatribes against the LibDems - but as I remarked to a previous poster - it smacks of whistling in the dark to a lot of people. There is always a tendency to mock that of which we are most afraid.

Do you sit here imagining you're marking your college students' papers? I'd have to give you full marks for self satisfaction and patronising verbosity, as you are certainly up to anyone's level in those subjects - international or otherwise. :P

Ruby,
Timo's posts can hardly be descrived as warlike! In fact, the majority of the time they are soaked in satire, intellect and humour. I have always found my fellow Tory to be a first class gentleman, never ill-mannered (except in his dealings with a certain 'hand clapping' poster who we all execrate) and always pleasant.

You call it 'patronising verbosity' and yet I see the old bean as an artisan of prose. His style of posting is unique and I, for one, enjoy it. If you have difficulty with it keep a copy of Oxford next to the computer.

Re: LibDem Govt
A flip-flop Government for those who feed their children brown rice, lentils and bake cookies with wholemeal flour. Endless taxation of those who work hard in life, who are successful, who took note during school. A Government that wouldn't be able to keep their hands off anything, an even more over-bloated and bureaucratic civil service, yet more "City Centre Ambassadors" patrolling the peace gardens, more tax on fuel, more inheritance tax, more criminals on the street.
The real alternative? I think not.

goose

09-05-2005, 08:21

Originally posted by timo
I will continue to ridicule and mock the Lib Dems. They richly deserve such treatment. Were they ever to come to power, Britain's decline from the world's fourth largest economy to a laughing stock would be swift. Don't waste your time with them, ruby.

timo, i for one enjoy your posts but agree with very little you have to say on the political side of things. never mind, here's to free speech!

Interesting fact about the election, for every person that switched from Labour to Tory seven switched from Labour to the Lib Dems. Think you might need to up the 'treatment' timo as it seems your message isnt getting through.

timo

09-05-2005, 08:25

Fair comment Goose [ta for the kind words in there too]. I cannot deny being worried by the Lib Dems. I have never seen such an appallingly bad set of policies, and I have endured Lib Dem rule in Southport, so I

timo

09-05-2005, 08:28

-Sorry, pressed the wrong knob [ooer!]. As I was saying, I consider it my sacred duty to point out the severe deficits and draw attention to the ludicrous nature of some of the party's ideas. That does not mean that I am complacent about them. Of course I fear the Lib Dems. Everybody should, especially the middle classes!

goose

09-05-2005, 08:29

Originally posted by timo
Fair comment Goose [ta for the kind words in there too]. I cannot deny being worried by the Lib Dems. I have never seen such an appallingly bad set of policies, and I have endured Lib Dem rule in Southport, so I

Lib Dem/Tory differences aside, we will both be able to sit back and enjoy Labour in-fighting over the next few weeks.

The early indications are that Blair intends to stay on for much longer than he first indicated. Don't tell me that Gordon Brown 'trusted' him when he mentioned stepping down soon after the election.

goose

09-05-2005, 08:30

Originally posted by timo
-Sorry, pressed the wrong knob [ooer!]. As I was saying, I consider it my sacred duty to point out the severe deficits and draw attention to the ludicrous nature of some of the party's ideas. That does not mean that I am complacent about them. Of course I fear the Lib Dems. Everybody should, especially the middle classes!

There you go again with your politics of fear............

mojoworking

09-05-2005, 08:33

Originally posted by JonJParr
Ruby,
Timo's posts can hardly be descrived as warlike! In fact, the majority of the time they are soaked in satire, intellect and humour. I have always found my fellow Tory to be a first class gentleman, never ill-mannered (except in his dealings with a certain 'hand clapping' poster who we all execrate) and always pleasant.

You call it 'patronising verbosity' and yet I see the old bean as an artisan of prose. His style of posting is unique and I, for one, enjoy it. If you have difficulty with it keep a copy of Oxford next to the computer.

While a long way away from timo politically, I too greatly enjoy his posts and find him to be the epitome of hail-fellow-well-met in the grand tradition of Viv Stanshall or Stephen Fry.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that I also hate poor old miniminch and it's a little unfair of you to claim that "we all" do. I have enjoyed some of mini's more outrageous and anarchic posts in the past and while he may overstep the mark at times, I'm sure it amounts to nothing more malicious than a cry for help and/or attention.

redrobbo

09-05-2005, 08:39

Originally posted by DanSumption
No, but you might have a case for blaming the party that has been in government for the last eight years and which, when it was in opposition, indicated that it would give support to PR.

Not quite correct DanSumption. The Labour party, whether in opposition or government, gave no indication it would support PR. Tony Blair set up a review on voting systems under the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, but no action has been take on the review's proposals for an alternative system of voting.

goose

09-05-2005, 08:42

Originally posted by redrobbo
Not quite correct DanSumption. The Labour party, whether in opposition or government, gave no indication it would support PR. Tony Blair set up a review on voting systems under the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, but no action has been take on the review's proposals for an alternative system of voting.

Come on lets be honest about this, Labour clearly indicated that it was in favour of a form of PR. The failure of Labour to keep its promise led to the end of the close relationship between Lab and the Lib Dems - Paddy was not happy at the time!

.......... another victim of Tony's promises.

nomme

09-05-2005, 08:42

Originally posted by DanSumption
whiskey or no whiskey (why would Bush be bringing Kennedy Scotch anyway - the phrase coals to Newcastle springs to mind

The phrase "coals to Newcastle" would perhaps be appropriate if it was whisky rather than whiskey.

Nomme

DanSumption

09-05-2005, 09:03

Originally posted by nomme
The phrase "coals to Newcastle" would perhaps be appropriate
if it was whisky rather than whiskey.
Yes, I did wonder about the spelling, I was just echoing t020's spelling.

And as for timo's posts, I enjoy them as well, although I would also say "patronising verbosity" is a pretty good description (as something of a scholar of the patronising arts, I should know). But perhaps we can compromise and call him "an artisan of patronisingly verbose prose"?

timo

09-05-2005, 09:23

Thankyou, Daniel. One does not wish to appear patronising, Danny Boy, but I like your posts too. They are very lucid and concise. Perhaps I should borrow certain elements from your sinewy style? Your punchy writing reminds me a little of Michael Gove [a Tory too!]. That is a compliment.

Greenback

09-05-2005, 09:26

Originally posted by DanSumption
No, but you might have a case for blaming the party that has been in government for the last eight years and which, when it was in opposition, indicated that it would give support to PR.

No matter what noises the party that happens to be in opposition makes from time to time, PR will never be introduced as it would inevitably dilute the power of the main two parties.

timo

09-05-2005, 10:06

Mojoworking,comparisons to Fry and Stanshall.

Goose,
'Politics of fear'? Steady on, old fruit, you make me sound like ruddy Goebbels! I see Lib Dem policies as against Britain's national interests, and particularly the interests of the middle classes, so I feel I should say so. I'm not trying to suggest that Charlie and Co have sinister motives. They genuinely believe that their policies are the right ones. Re Kennedy, I am reminded of a line from Graham Greene; 'I never knew anyone with better motives for all the trouble they caused'. If in power, Kennedy would put his, well-meant, ideas into practice and the results would be disastrous for the reasons I have previously outlined.

StarSparkle

09-05-2005, 10:54

Originally posted by mojoworking
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that I also hate poor old miniminch and it's a little unfair of you to claim that "we all" do. I have enjoyed some of mini's more outrageous and anarchic posts in the past and while he may overstep the mark at times, I'm sure it amounts to nothing more malicious than a cry for help and/or attention.

I must be confused today - I find myself in the virtually-unheard of position of agreeing, somewhat at least, with Mojoworking! :o

I too throughly enjoy the postings of both Miniminch and Timo - to the extent that they are two of my very favourite posters, whose musings I always look out for.

There is such antipathy between them, but they share many excellent qualities, qualities I admire greatly in posters. Fearless and forthright, controversial to the last, no suffering of fools - combined with such a love of words and a gift for using them, quick and corruscating wit, fantastic humour (Ive nearly fallen off my chair on a number of occasions laughing at (with) a posting of Timo's or Mini's), huge intelligence, and just downright brilliant postings.

It would be SO boring if everyone just agreed nicely with everyone else.

These are the calibre of posters a truly great Forum needs - long may they both post! :thumbsup:

StarSparkle xx

Liquid

09-05-2005, 11:03

Labour victory and we are back to normal.

Stabbings
Deaths
Crime
Hardship
Debts
Terror
Goverment that only represents the minority
possible Wars with N. Korea / Iran

Do not understand why people voted Tory/Lib or others.
Whats wrong with what we have?

timo

09-05-2005, 12:50

Starsparkle,
Your posting is absolutely lovely. As always, your gentle words bring joy to this forum. I am so very glad that my humble offerings cause such pleasure. The imagined sound of your girlish laughter is enough to sustain any man.

You are the Skylark of the forum. Long may your merry, piping, fluting song be heard.

PS, I'm loads better than Mini really, aren't I?! Heh heh.

miniminch

09-05-2005, 16:46

Originally posted by timo
Starsparkle,
Your posting is absolutely lovely. As always, your gentle words bring joy to this forum. I am so very glad that my humble offerings cause such pleasure. The imagined sound of your girlish laughter is enough to sustain any man.

You are the Skylark of the forum. Long may your merry, piping, fluting song be heard.

PS, I'm loads better than Mini really, aren't I?! Heh heh.

Starsparkle - I think the shrinking violet requires a response! I do believe that our beloved Timo has challenged me to a popularity contest! Do you think he dares launch a poll on this one? I seem to remember that most of his political predictions have gone horriblely wrong. So, do you feel lucky, punk?
Rubydazzler – I love the imagery of Timo marking down his students’ scripts for the mere whiff of tolerance or reason (just not the Tory way) but you are not taking into account the fact that after reading his post, it would appear he’s enormously unemployable!

Does Timo’s sickly creeping bother anyone else?

Oh and ‘a cry for help’? No – this is a cry for help. HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP PPP

foo_fighter

09-05-2005, 17:00

Originally posted by rubydazzler
As you've brought local councils into the equation, timo. I'm forced to point out that the Conservatives have been a spent force in Sheffield for years...
As have the LDs since they "accidentally" got into power last time, a natural party of opposition who clearly had no clue what so ever when they got themselves elected, and subsequently receded straight back into second place (where they've stayed).

Why is the (local) LD approach to politics so like an anti drug campaign, over and over again, no matter what is proposed by the party in power "just say no!".

This may of course just be at local level, but it's certainly the way it appears reading the local councillors ramblings in the letters section of "the star".

:suspect:

PS. re. your words to Timo, this being an open forum you are of course free to put forward whatever thoughts you wish (within the bounds of decency). However, since your strongest supporter is a certain miniminch, I would strongly suggest you think about where this discussion is taking you (I think Disco_Cat has already mentioned something of "the dark side").

;)

StarSparkle

09-05-2005, 18:02

Originally posted by miniminch
Starsparkle - I think the shrinking violet requires a response! I do believe that our beloved Timo has challenged me to a popularity contest! Do you think he dares launch a poll on this one? I seem to remember that most of his political predictions have gone horrible wrong. So, do you feel lucky, punk?

You know you're my favouritest Forummer bar none, Mini! ;) :thumbsup:

StarSparkle

Tony

09-05-2005, 19:15

Mod:

Miniminch, timo... stop it!

Either give each other some space or keep out of each others way all together.

JoeP

09-05-2005, 21:01

Hi all,

OK. Re-opened for business. Keep it on the subject or it goes away for good.

OK?

I thank you!

Joe

miniminch

10-05-2005, 04:18

Originally posted by StarSparkle
You know you're my favouritest Forummer bar none, Mini! ;) :thumbsup:

StarSparkle :thumbsup: thanks:blush: ;)

timo

10-05-2005, 08:29

Miniminch,
You and I are never going to be friends. That much is certain. However, in view of the requests of several moderators, let us cease our quarrels on the open forum. No useful purpose can be achieved by continuing in this vein, and we are likely to bore everyone else rigid in the process. If ever you get the urge, please feel free to send me an insulting personal message. That would cause great pleasure, and you can be guaranteed a reply.

redrobbo

10-05-2005, 09:25

Originally posted by goose
Come on lets be honest about this, Labour clearly indicated that it was in favour of a form of PR. The failure of Labour to keep its promise led to the end of the close relationship between Lab and the Lib Dems - Paddy was not happy at the time!.......... another victim of Tony's promises.

The Labour Party did not indicate anything of the sort. However, Tony Blair, in opposition, and not anticipating the landslide victory in 2001, made overtures to the Lib-Dems on the voting system. In government he set up a commission under Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The Labour Party has simply buried the commission's report. PR is opposed by John Prescott and other influential figures in the Labour party, even more so now that Labour have won three consecutive general elections. The first-past-the-post system of voting is preferred by many within the Labour Party, and is also preferred by the Tories (despite the fact that they keep losing elections).

I am a member of the Labour Party. I am also a member of Make Votes Count - an organisation which promotes proportional representation.

redrobbo

10-05-2005, 09:38

Originally posted by mojoworking
Besides, there's really no incentive for Labour and the Tories to bring in PR. In reality it would only benefit the minor parties.

This is a false assumption mojoworking. Whilst we may deprecate the low turnout in elections - might not that be because it is perceived by many that voting can only make a difference in the marginal seats? What is the point of a Conservative voting in Brightside constituency - when it is a forgone conclusion that Labour will win? What is the point of a Labour supporter voting in Hallam constituency, when, at best, it is a two-way contest between Lib-Dems and Conservatives?

PR would allow a supporter of any party to vote, confident that no matter how they cast their vote, and irrespective of where they lived - it would count! Now, each party would have to go after every single vote in every part of the country, and not just concentrate on the marginal constituencies that currently make the difference between winning or losing an election. Thus PR wouldn't just benefit the smaller parties, it would also benefit the larger parties - who would be engaging with every voter.

BoppinBruce

10-05-2005, 10:21

Interesting front page of Independent today, 10th May, on breakdown of what we voted for and what we got.

Yodameister

10-05-2005, 15:23

I think one major reason that the major parties do not want to bring in PR is that they are scared of a far right, or far left party holding a balance of power, or at very least demanding cabinet representation as happens in France and Italy and Austria amongst others.

I personally think this is a daft reason. We are constantly told how democracy is so wonderful by our leaders, but only if you vote for the mainstream.

They view parties like the BNP to not have a valid viewpoint. In the case of the BNP I happen to agree with them, but you sohuldn't throw the baby of true democracy out with the bathwater of views that you find unpalatable.

And if people thought that a vote for the BNP would actually give them some representation I think a lot of people would think more than twice before voting for them.

royjames

10-05-2005, 20:42

AS to the voting system this is probably the only time me and red will agree the voting system has to be changed to a PR model.
As to the main parties being frightend of the far right,well if you have the confidence in your case then you should not have to worry.
The BNP like all the rest have a perfect right to exist and to canvas for votes and if we did get to the stage of having cabinet reps then thats because enough voters voted for us,in other words its DEMOCRACY in action.
Lets look at the labour vote, its pathetic they can get a majority on such a small share of the vote,we really need to change the system.
Democracy will die a slow death if we do nothing.

redrobbo

10-05-2005, 21:17

Originally posted by royjames
AS to the voting system this is probably the only time me and red will agree the voting system has to be changed to a PR model.
As to the main parties being frightend of the far right,well if you have the confidence in your case then you should not have to worry.
The BNP like all the rest have a perfect right to exist and to canvas for votes and if we did get to the stage of having cabinet reps then thats because enough voters voted for us,in other words its DEMOCRACY in action.
Lets look at the labour vote, its pathetic they can get a majority on such a small share of the vote,we really need to change the system.
Democracy will die a slow death if we do nothing.

Well roy, yes, you and I are probably in agreement for the only time - on the need to change the voting system. I detest the politics of the party you represent, and will always oppose and expose the politics of hate and racism.

However, I also agree with your statement about having the confidence of your case. PR would bring together all the main parties in co-operation to thwart the rise of the far-right, as that is something we are all united upon.

A PR threshold would be necessary. It is set at 2% in Israel, which I believe is far too low. The norm in most democratic societies which use PR is 5%. It will be interesting to see what happens in Scotland, as they will be using a form of PR when they next go to the polls to elect their representatives.

I think there have only been two British governments elected since 1900 which had more than 50% of the vote (note: I could stand to be corrected on this point though - as I don't have access to my material as I post, and am relying on my memory).

Under the current system of first-past-the-post, Labour has done magnificently well to secure a third term,and we should not decry Tony Blair his well-deserved victory.

royjames

10-05-2005, 21:31

Blair is a war criminal,he has the blood of thousands of people on his hands,not to mention 80 odd British soldjiers.
I also detest your politics red ,hey this is what makes for a interesting world but on PR we are in agreement.
But will it happen I doubt it, the main parties would rather get elected on say 10% of the vote than change the system,they dont know the meaning of the word DEMOCRACY.

timo

11-05-2005, 14:26

Roy,
I detest Blair, but I would not call him a 'war criminal'. I assume you say so because, in theory, he and Bush have conducted an 'illegal' war contravening international law. I too am against this meddlesome, costly international interventionism as much as you are, because it is not in Britain's national interests. However, I do not believe in 'international law' in the first place. Despite thousands of functionaries and piles of legislation, 'international law' is pretty meaningless. Most, if not all, nation-states would ignore it if their national interests were at stake.

royjames

11-05-2005, 20:03

Timo I have to agree with you as far as nation states are concerned,we still have the law of the jungle in that the strong do as they wish.
I wonder what the point is of having the UN if certain countries do as they please?

goose

27-05-2005, 10:35

Originally posted by redrobbo
The Labour Party did not indicate anything of the sort. However

Labour manifesto 1997 "We are commited to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons" - still waiting Mr Blair.

Belle

02-06-2005, 09:36

Originally posted by Fareast
In contrast the ,"great" British public have voted in , once again , the most unprincipled Prime Minister ever. I feel sure that Blair would say absolutely anything if he thought it would make him more popular.

I am not sure if someone has picked up on this later in the thread, I am still reading it. But really......!

You can accuse TB of lots of things, but doing things to make him popular cannot be one of them surely.

He went to war in Iraq knowing that millions of people here were against it and also at the further risk of falling out with most of the rest of the European union.

That is hardly pandering to popularity.

Criticise all you like, but do try and keep within the bounds of credibility!

jgharston

02-06-2005, 14:15

Originally posted by redrobbo
[B]It will be interesting to see what happens in Scotland, as they will be using a form of PR when they next go to the polls to elect their representatives.

...in the next Scottish council elections.

Scottish councils will be using multi-member wards (like here), with all-up elections (like we had last year, otherwise we elect in thirds), with voting by STV within each ward (we use FPTP in each ward).

STV doesn't necessarily mean the representation to the elected body (ie council) is propotional to the whole vote, but it does mean the result in each districy (ie, ward) is broardly proportional to the vote in that ward.

You only need a PR threashold if the entire council is elected as a single many-multiple-member ward. Imagine Sheffield having 84 'members for Sheffield' instead os 3 members for Walkley, 3 members for Arbourthorne, etc.

I strongly disagree with any system that does not divide the represented area into smaller units.

One of tge things nobody mentions about STV fir councils is that ir requires all-up elections, it can't work if you elect by thirds.

I yet need to be convinced that moving from elections by thirds to 4-yearly all-ups is a good thing.

As we had an all-up last year due to boundary changes it gave me the opportunity to do some realistic calculations as to what the result might have been with PR within each ward, near to what STV would give. The results are at mdfs.net/Docs/Sheffield/Election/2004/PRExample

It shows that minority voters in a different party's heartland would end up being represented.

--
JGH