Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Sat Aug 01, 2015 11:30 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

more .

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:29 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Thats the whole point, there should be no baying mob.

Have you ever sat in a company board room where directors meet to discuss important issues that affect the well being of the company and all of its employees and customers ?

How long do you think your directorship would last if every time anyone else opened their mouths to speak, you tried to shout them down, I'd give you ten minutes before you're stood on the street outside with a box full of photographs from your desk and wondering how you're going to get home without the company car tonight.

The thing is PMQ is not reflective of the bulk of parliamentary business, it is an hour of pantomime once a week, serious government decisions are not made on the back of it. It's more like the annual shareholders meeting of a big company where the chairman and CEO spout corporate bollox and beat their chests about how macho they've been/plan to be cutting costs or sticking it to the competition. At those public meetings the execs have to present a macho super confident front for fear the business press and institutional investors present will view them as hesitant or unclear.

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:51 am  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

The thing is PMQ is not reflective of the bulk of parliamentary business, it is an hour of pantomime once a week, serious government decisions are not made on the back of it. It's more like the annual shareholders meeting of a big company where the chairman and CEO spout corporate bollox and beat their chests about how macho they've been/plan to be cutting costs or sticking it to the competition. At those public meetings the execs have to present a macho super confident front for fear the business press and institutional investors present will view them as hesitant or unclear.

Institutional investors do not attend shareholders meetings. They know its corporate bollox. They have separate briefing sessions with the company.

PMQs is probably a bit more important because its one of the ways that the public form a view on the competence of the PM and Leader of the Opposition. IDS never recovered from his terrible performances at PMQs. But the public form their opinion based on the soundbites shown on the evening news. Not on the intellectual superiority of the arguments.

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:38 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

You've changed your tune.

Have you been licking batteries again?

If you bothered to actually read my original post, you may comprehend that I was offering a view on the then declared candidates (excludes Corbyn). It was not a declaration of whom I would vote for. I am both surprised and delighted that Kendall has not managed to con anyone with her tory-lite policies. Shows her leadership qualities up for what they are.

[DaveO]

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:39 pm  

Derwent wrote: This document is well worth a read, it's a report authored by 7 Labour candidates who failed to win key marginals at the general election. It draws on their first hand experiences of canvassing and campaigning in those marginals and is quite an honest account of Labour's failings in their campaign. It makes some excellent points such as there are some issues which Labour wouldn't even acknowledge existed never mind have a conversation about....... http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/up ... -seats.pdf The problem with this document is its premise. And that is as politicians you react to what you hear on the doorstep, act upon that to win votes and let that shape your thinking. What seems to have vanished from modern politics is great politicians actually influencing the electorate's opinions. It doesn't matter what party you look at the way they approach elections is to pander to certain sectors of the electorate. If they shape the debate at all it isn't based on principle but on fear. Things like the SNP will govern Britain if Labour had won. UKIP is a party that in my view panders to racism even it it does its best to avoid the charge. One of my favourite political quotes is from Winston Churchill who said "The best argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter". It seems to me the authors of that document ought to think on that quote for a minute. If all the political parties do is listen to the people on the doorstep who have just finished watching a re-run of Benefits Street they will all end up the same. Is there no politician with the guts and the political skill to set an alternative agenda? The skill bit is important by the way. Without it in the modern media driven world you will be doomed to fail.

Derwent wrote: This document is well worth a read, it's a report authored by 7 Labour candidates who failed to win key marginals at the general election. It draws on their first hand experiences of canvassing and campaigning in those marginals and is quite an honest account of Labour's failings in their campaign. It makes some excellent points such as there are some issues which Labour wouldn't even acknowledge existed never mind have a conversation about....... http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/up ... -seats.pdf The problem with this document is its premise. And that is as politicians you react to what you hear on the doorstep, act upon that to win votes and let that shape your thinking. What seems to have vanished from modern politics is great politicians actually influencing the electorate's opinions. It doesn't matter what party you look at the way they approach elections is to pander to certain sectors of the electorate. If they shape the debate at all it isn't based on principle but on fear. Things like the SNP will govern Britain if Labour had won. UKIP is a party that in my view panders to racism even it it does its best to avoid the charge. One of my favourite political quotes is from Winston Churchill who said "The best argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter". It seems to me the authors of that document ought to think on that quote for a minute. If all the political parties do is listen to the people on the doorstep who have just finished watching a re-run of Benefits Street they will all end up the same. Is there no politician with the guts and the political skill to set an alternative agenda? The skill bit is important by the way. Without it in the modern media driven world you will be doomed to fail.

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:04 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Have you been licking batteries again?

If you bothered to actually read my original post, you may comprehend that I was offering a view on the then declared candidates (excludes Corbyn). It was not a declaration of whom I would vote for. I am both surprised and delighted that Kendall has not managed to con anyone with her tory-lite policies. Shows her leadership qualities up for what they are.

Resort to smelly fish insult once more.

cod'ead wrote:

Of those mentioned so far, here's my take:

Yvette Cooper - too close to Ed Balls, mention of him would be continuous and keep dragging her back

Chuka Umunna - personable enough, good communicator but he'll be subjected to closet racism in the same way that Miliband suffered closet anti-semitism

Andy Burnham - good orator, cheeky chappy but will always be saddled with "North Staffs killing 1200 people"

Liz Kendall - intelligent, excellent orator. About the only thing the Wail will find wrong is that she's not married and her partner is a comedian

None of them get me excited but of the lot, I'd go for Kendall

So before the hard left baffoon took the stage and now looks like winning the first round thanks to the Union "new members" you were prepared to be coned by Kendall with "her tory-lite policies" ? Some U-turn!

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:47 am  

Lord Elpers wrote:

Resort to smelly fish insult once more.

So before the hard left baffoon took the stage and now looks like winning the first round thanks to the Union "new members" you were prepared to be coned by Kendall with "her tory-lite policies" ? Some U-turn!

FFS, it's difficult enough answering one who suffers from hard of thinking, let alone a double act.

It was AN OPINION of the chances of the declared candidates. A tip if you prefer

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:17 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Have you been licking batteries again?

If you bothered to actually read my original post, you may comprehend that I was offering a view on the then declared candidates (excludes Corbyn). It was not a declaration of whom I would vote for. I am both surprised and delighted that Kendall has not managed to con anyone with her tory-lite policies. Shows her leadership qualities up for what they are.

"I'd go for Kendall" - not much ambiguity there.

If you have changed your mind why don't you just say, no big deal.

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:59 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

"I'd go for Kendall" - not much ambiguity there.

If you have changed your mind why don't you just say, no big deal.

Look barmpot, it's a bit like me saying "I'll go for Hull KR" before Sunday's game. As I lifelong Hull FC supporter, would you also assume I'd suddenly switched allegience?

Re: The Labour party leadership thread : Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:02 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

FFS, it's difficult enough answering one who suffers from hard of thinking, let alone a double act.

It was AN OPINION of the chances of the declared candidates. A tip if you prefer

I smell a wriggling slippery fish. Flip flopping all over the plaice. To get caught changing from the Starboard wing candidate to a far Port is a whale of an about turn. We shouldn't skate over the fact that you've been caught in a storm and your "OPINION" has sunk to new depths. Is the "tip" you speak of in reality an iceberg!