By Alastair Campbell / @CampbellClaret
Today is the fourth anniversary of David Cameron's election as Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I think we should all just have a moment's reflection, and ask ourselves what we consider to be the most telling moment, thought, image or (honestly, come on, let's try) 'policy' of those four years.
For me, I am still struck by some of his early environmental image work...the wind turbine on the Notting Hill roof, the cycling to work (albeit weakened by the gas-guzzler following on behind), the brief flirtation with 'vote blue, get green' and above all that great picture of him all bright-eyed and rosy-cheeked at the Arctic Circle on a sled pulled by huskies.
I am now however even more struck by the paucity of environmental policy and the thin-ness of environmental voice that he lends to the debate in advance of what could be one of the most important events of his political lifetime, namely the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.
The contrast between huskies back then, and near silence now, does lead one to the conclusion that there is something to the charge that he is more worried about pictures than he is about policy and substance.
I was talking to someone the other day who is on the fringes of the Tory strategic debate (he works for one of the pollsters the Tories use) who said that Cameron's current strategy was to make a bit of noise every now and then but a lot of the time to keep his head down.
His health and safety speech would fit in the 'make a bit of noise every now and then' category. His lack of a big message pre-Copenhagen or pre-Pre Budget Report falls into the 'head down' side of the ledger.
It suggests he really does believe governments lose elections, rather than that oppositions win them. But while it is true that back in 1997 we were helped by the Tories, and might have won whatever we did, I doubt it, and I am sure the size of the majority was down as much to what we did as to anything the Tories did.
Indeed, when you look at the scale of change led by Tony Blair in his three years as Opposition Leader, and the extent to which we dominated the political debate as the Party went through a major process of change to policy, Constitution and pretty much everything else, Cameron's four years of leadership seem pale and inactive by comparison.
The notion that as we enter an election year the Leader of the Opposition should opt to coast, and keep his head down, is bizarre. But it is to some extent confirmed by the approach to his team, something Andrew Rawnsley writes about in his Observer column today. Cameron is deemed by the Tory image-makers to be just about palatable to the public, WIlliam Hague and Ken Clarke are already well-known public figures from their previous incarnations, George Osborne is bound to have a profile as shadow chancellor. But apart from them, every single one of the shadow cabinet could walk down any street in the UK pretty much unerecognised and unmolested. It is pretty odd to think they could within a matter of months be running every department in Whitehall.
Enough from me though...what do you see as the thus far abiding image, comment, observation or policy?
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
But Tories and Gordon were merely representative of party and leader. The meaning is the same.
So the electorate will be voting for anyone but Labour (or Gordon) in 2010 as it was voting anyone but Tories (or Major as it were) in 1997.
I wish at least someone would read my comment fully for once! I clearly say that class elitism is a cross-party issue, so saying that alot of the Labour party are toffs as if you're correcting me is really irritating.
As for social mobility, I too lament the Labour government's performance here over the last 12 years. However, your comment that "Its poured billions into public services but the poor reain poor and the rich remain rich" doesn't tell the whole story. For a start, it tends to be the poorer in society who use public services, so that in itself is help to the poor. I agree however that that is nowhere near enough, so the challenge now is to focus on social mobility. Nevertheless, this must not entail the callous Thatcherite policies proposed by the opposition. The neo-liberal economic paradigm has been proven wrong by the financial crisis, but it was proved wrong long before in the field of welfare policy. The problem was that Labour never properly developed an effective progressive alternative. This is now the challenge.
One final point, the Labour leadership may be toffs like all most politicos, but the rank and file are far more representative of ordinary people than the Tory membership.
"it is a problem when it results in the passage of policies that are elitist and do nothing to help the least well off in society".
You mean like lowering social mobility to levels lower than 1997. Labour's really helped the poor. Its poured billions into public services but the poor reain poor and the rich remain rich. What a waste of time. If Labour can't increase social mobility there's not much point in them at all.
Labour are just as big a bunch of toffs as the Tories, they just play the class card. It worked so well in Crewe and Nantwich where Tamsin Dunwoody played it and lost horribly, mainly because she is a toff and a member of the social elite. Give it up, Labour are toffs, so are the Tories, it may not be good, but its not a dividing line.
Also Mike, googling the College where Campbell studied doesn't lend any more credence to your argument.
Firstly I never said Campbell was working class, I merely said he's not an "effete Oxbridge type" which he isn't. Your reply to that is frankly immature.
Secondly, Your argument was infantile enough to publish in the Daily Mail, and you do use the most simplistic Thatcherite arguments. "I'm alrite Jack" may have been ill-advised, but I think it encapsulates your small-minded position rather well.
Thirdly, if you had bothered to read my arguments, you would see that I acknowledge elitism is a problem across the board. Yes Labour are represented by and large by the social elite. I never even said that being a "toff" is necessarily a problem, but it is a problem when it results in the passage of policies that are elitist and do nothing to help the least well off in society. And in advance of your retort that "Labour's done nothing either", you must have a really short memory if you think a Labour government hasn't had any positive impact on the poor. Not to say that its perfect, or it doesn't need improving, but its a damn sight better than under the Tories.
the only class war that will happen is between voters and politicons.
ricki
Well alright Elizabeth, great stuff.
Let's not let the tory thing ever happen again.
Ding! Ding! put them up.
It would be easy for me to say "If the Country wants the Tories let them vote them in"! I've lived through Tory Governments before and I survived their destructive policies that included 15% inflation & other actions that were devastating to the North of England & Scotland.
One thing I am positive about they have no policies in place to help ordinary people & they are still the Tories of old ie Thatcherism an ideology for the wealthy & privileged.
So Game On for all believers to fight Conservatism.
Elizabeth hears no evil, sees no evil and has no explanation other than its the Tory media when she sees an 11-13 point Tory lead.
Elizabeth, I hope you enjoy the Tory Government which you so obviously crave.
Seems a somewhat blinkered view to take to important political debates.
Good luck too- and nice to hear from a few more women!
well said!
Too much cynicism amongst commentators on here---You can tell from the comments the people who are influenced by the Tory media
& can't differentiate between the stories that are put out there to cover 24/7 News programmes & what is actually happening in Parliament & the facts of the debates & Policies that affect us all---
Derek
Enjoy your input on here
It was a very surreal spectacle to watch, the sleaze in particular was worse on a daily basis.
And now it's anyone but Gordon.
If we take your comment on face value, it is very interesting. It implies that in 1997 it was not Major that was the problem, but the entire party, hence only the core Tory (automaton) voters voted for the party that year. Implying that the electorate does not want Brown implies that they do want Labour: they believe in Labour's policies. Since Labour's policies are Brown's then the issue is more over the message than policy.
Of course, you may not have meant that, but it is certainly the conclusion to be drawn from those two statements.
You are very derogatory about non-SNP politicians in Scotland. But I think you are right, the skilled Labour, Tory and LibDem politicians have moved South. Scottish politics *is* Salmond.
Are you agreeing with me that it *is* affectionate or not?
Nicknames based on someone's physical features are always meant to be derogatory, but the skill of a politician is to turn such nicknames around and use them in an self-deprecating way (something that this nation seems to respect). This is what Alex Salmond has done. The implication is that it is a term used by, say, an elderly aunt about a favourite nephew.
And this is the disconnect between the party leadership and the grassroots: the leadership do not want grammar schools. Similarly the disconnect between the leadership and the grassroots over "green policies" and Europe. The Conservatives are fractured and Cameron is barely holding them together.
IMO Europe will be the fracture point - all it needs is some influential right-winger to force Cameron to make a definitive statement on Europe for the Tories to split. As you know many are Eurosceptic and are hoping for a withdrawal, but many are Europhiles and any mention of withdrawal will send them running elsewhere (to Clegg?). Labour does not have that fracture point.
Similarly on "green" politics. Steve Hilton misjudged this one. Vote Blue go Green is looking very different to Cameron's current policy. There are Tories who are trying to work out what Cameron's green policies are. And on the right wing there are the vehement deniers who are very vocal (read the Spectator to see what they are saying). If Cameron is pushed to accept any Copenhagen deal then the denier faction will splitter off. If he makes no statement then the Green Tories will complain, but IMO, they'll remain with Cameron, however, it could lose them swing votes. Again, there is not this dissent in Labour and you can bet that Labour will push this topic after Copenhagen.
I am encouraged that you seem to think that what the Labour party says is "unfair" makes Tories run away and change their policy: that would suggest that the Tories look to Labour for policies ::grin::
James, you are confusing implementation and policy. Yes, you are right that, say, a health minister should not need to know the details about how a hospital is run, but they should have a very good understanding of health policy.
Where I object wholeheartedly with Cameron is his insistence that NHS services should be provided on free market principles. That is a policy that was applied in the 80s and it failed then. It will fail now too. Yet Cameron (no doubt influenced by Hammond who made millions from the NHS) thinks that companies making a profit from a cash-strapped NHS is a good thing. That *is* Cameron's mindset and the mindset of the Cameroons.
I think things need to put into real perspective, and not painted as some sort of conspiracy.
If people don't want to vote Labour next year - fine- but why ruminate endlessly on this site?
Some of us on here actually want to discuss possible ways forward, despite the criticisms.
I'd also like to say I have appreciated the articles greatly, and on this comments page in particular- Derek- who appears to have a good attitude,and knows what he is talking about.
I also think it's easier for all to comment if the debate is kept respectful, not a slanging match.
Sorry to say- and no offence intended.
"
But Vicky, you could say EXACTLY the same thing about Brown, he was very relaxed all through Troughgate and his idea of taking on an issue headfirst is to retreat to the bunker until it goes away. This pathetic class war is ridiculous to most people - a rich and privileged man is telling a richer privileged man he is rich and privileged, who cares? Meanwhile, back in the real world . . .
Any kind of courage would be very welcome at this point.
Derek, I am loving your satire!
While I would accept that like minds do tend to coalesce (the "elite" part, if you like), the problem is the clique. That is, these people do not have the monopoly on policy, not even the policy from one point of view, so other opinions on the same subject exist and can help make the policy better. But it seems that once the core cabal has coalesced they do tend to exclude others. This, I think, is where the problem starts.
The Cameroons seem to be far worse about this than New Labour.
His "primaries" cost about £20,000 per constituency and simply aren't do-able without state funding: a window dressing move if ever there was one. And Lords Reform? Not till his third term...
Proportional representation? Nada.
Mind you, on this latter, Brown and Straw are trying to make political capital without proposing anything remotely pogressive. Their support for AV rows back from Blair's promise of a referendum on a proportinate voting system, which AV is not. If only they would go that step further and support the Jenkins proposals, or better still, that a Citizens' Convention should come up with the question that should be put to the electorate....
Pigs and flying? Or just possible? A bit of political courage would be most welcome.
Absolutely right John, a one fifth efficiency saving cost from whitehall, opposed to the tory sledge hammer of one third of cuts.
See John, efficiency can be pre managed,.No need to put the tory boot in, when you can shave off cost effectiveness without affecting the front line services.
John, there's no surprise that government finances are tight but John, it aint what you do, it's the way that you do it! to effectively balance the books and young Osborne has no sense of balance John.
Twelve billion down: twenty billion to go!
Gordon Brown unveils £12bn spending cuts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8398116.stm
Please ask them to change it to:
Gordon Brown unveils £12bn Efficiency Savings.
How predictable. Please post your 'statistics' here, I have plenty that show the utter failure and decline of social mobility and aspiration under this government.
Labour sees its obiligations to community by proposing the State puts its tentacles into all aspects of our lives. I am expected to pay taxes to discharge my responsibilities to the State.
As to where Cameron comes from, your point is what exactly? Only certain people from certain parts of the country are allowed to be politicians?
How pathetic.
Daily Mail, Thatcherite, "I'm alright Jack". Citing the New Labour Smears and Rebuttal manual doesn't make your argument all the more compelling. It's weak.
Look around you Lewis at your leaders and Cabinet. They went to public fee paying schools and onto very posh universities. Some of them send their kids to very expensive schools.
And they aren't toffs?
It's do as I say not as I do. That is honest is it?
As for Campbell, born into a middle-class family and went to Caius, Cambridge.
Yeah, he's a real working class boy made good. Oh the humanity of his class struggle.
There was foresight, they were warned and they ignored it due to their arrogance.
Unelites cannot be helped from their own stupidity.
It's been put off for a long time.
McBride's antics holed the ship below the waterline, and before the repairs could be made, the MPs fiasco detonated the magazine.
People expect Tory MPs to have sleazy gits in their ranks, they expect more from Labour ones, hence the disproportional laying of blame.
Dr Ian Gibson did wrong, but so did the likes of Purnell and Blears. Why didn't they get the same treatment?
So we now have an image of a group that protects it's own, and is out to use any opportunity to deal with dissent.
A few people wearing Arsene Wenger's specs, and the recipe for disaster is complete.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I'm sure some foresight would have helped avoid this mess in the first place.
If I disagreed with your analysis, I'd say so.
It is all rather sad because you project an image of the future that merely requires the professional politicians to step back for a moment, engage brains, and stop carrying on regardless.
I hope it doesn't come to independence, but short of Alex eating himself to ill health, I don't see anybody else stopping his bandwagon.
And now it's anyone but Gordon.
You could share a small part of the credit here though why don't you? Your sterling efforts with grinding into the BBC, whose sole error was to try to hold the government to account, with the Iraq war, and your passing acquaintance with the real facts on WMD are admired the world over.
Back to the corporate clients Al!
Thomas, there have been errors, no doubt about that and the movement has been void of it's true idenity but I have to say that for me, it does feel like the real labour party is emerging again and the more we continue to challenge ourselves then the more we lift up our hearts and become the party of the people and for the people.
Thomas these are difficult times and right here right now! our party must listen and raise it's game to the challenge, which has always been to serve the nation for the many and not the few.
Is it Tweedledee or Tweedledum as prime minister and will we notice the difference?
I think not, the policies are the same in essence the only slight difference is in presentation, which is where I started with my first post today. Neither has much to offer Scots voters unless they buy the jam tomorrow approach of the pair but the Scot's voters have a clear idea of what they want - fiscal autonomy - and the irritant that can persuade Westminster to change its mind in the SNP.
Brown is starting to panic, Murphy is running around trying to get a substantive bill prepared on partial autonomy and Cameron's silence is driving a stake into the Scottish Conservatives chances of Westminster recovery and returning more than one MP. If this is an example of the pairs' leadership over a clear cut political decision then I give up hope for the UK and the Parliamentary Union. The vision both are presenting is more of the same.
Cameron's leadership: He maanged to persuade the Tories they were electable, so they've stopped fighting each other like rats in a sack. Other than that, he merely has to wait for Crash Gordon and his ill starred bunch of advisors to drift from one knee jerk, ill thought out, policy announcement to the next.
Gordon: The man whose overall economic actions should have made an election victory a near certainty. Who should have gone straight to the country after his coronation. Who would have won then, but whose dithering, choice of advisors, and understanding of the electorate have all but wiped out any advantage he might have got.
I'm afraid the electorate will choose the party that doesn't look like a spent force, and bereft of ideology other than 'do as I say, not as I do'.
If you vote Labour currently, you're not getting what it says on the tin, unless you are lucky enough to have a sitting MP of integrity, who went to Westminster to serve the people, not as a career choice to advance themselves.
There do appear to be some good candidates coming along, but as evidenced on this site, they do appear to be in a minority, and a fear too inexperienced to make their own way in defiance of the whips, if that is what best serves their constituents.
Name calling is an act of desperation, and it fools no one. In fact it appears to alienate more than it attracts, so hardly a sensible tactic.
So basically as a country we're faced with dumb or dumber as choice of PM. Some choice.
The point was not whether there is abuse per se in the workplace (although my definition of abuse will not be the same as yours).
The point of issue was your sweeping generalisation that the private sector "suppresses and undermines" its workforce.
So I say again, not that I've seen, not that employment tribunals or trade bodies seem to think either.
In the last 10 years I've seen a handful of bad cases that have made it to tribunal etc. on the whole most workplaces in the private sector white collar arena are pretty calm and pleasant.
I do think you over generalise and paint a picture that is not the reality most of us in work in the private sector see week in week out. For most people I know they like the private sector and want to stay in it, can't be that bad therefore can it?
That one to Guy is pretty good (did you like the way I adapted it?) but you need to work on the your 'ad lib' attempt to answer why New Labour are stuffed all which ways over fiscal autonomy.
Actually I think you are to hooked on that program on BBC, The thick of it, where Peter Capaldi rants as a mix of Mandelson, Draper and Campbell and thus you can not understand that it does not work in real life.
You just come across as an ignorant boor, just like your bosses.
Genghis Khan, I like that one Thomas! good stuff, may I comment on your posts to Thomas.
If you have never witnessed abuse in the workplace, then your clearly cut off from reality Derek.
Derek, try anger management, it may well work for you and might even help your ignorance.
That works pretty well I suggest!
No problem. I take your point about elitism, it is by no means solely a Tory issue, nor is it in and of itself a problem, but I think the increasing alienation of voters from the political class owes something to this trend.
I also take your point that people working for the same aims in the same party are likely to form some sort of clique, as evidenced by the Milibands and Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper. Such groupings are only natural. However, Cameron's elitism and penchant for forming cliques is dangerous because it isn't backed up by any genuinely held political program. New Labour in the 1990s was cliquey and obsessed with spin, but there was a genuine ethos that lay behind all the paraphenalia. Cameron's Conservatives have no such ethos. His pandering to the extremist elements of his party over the Tory allies in the European Parliament demonstrated how shallow his supposed "reform" of the Tory Party was. He was only able to get the support of the rank and file for his social and environmental agendas (even though these were in fact little more than soundbites anyway) by pursuing a European policy that has left Nritain completely isolated at a time when British influence in the development of the EU is vital.
The Nationalists have dropped their claim to Independence.
Peter! WAKE UP!.
If you have never witnessed abuse in the workplace, then your clearly cut off from reality Guy.
Guy, try anger management, it may well work for you and might even help your ignorance.
You've done enough to please your idol, self confessed centre right man, Mandy.
Can you let the rest of us have a discussion that doesn't involve calling white, black, and calling anybody ever so slightly to the left of Genghis Khan a Trotskyite.
Wee Eck the Shrek is the Scottish First Minister - Alex Salmond of the SNP (his shape is very 'Shrek' like and he likes to pick fights which he usually wins - except with Aunty Annabelle).
The Labour Leader at Holyrood, Ian Gray, is better known to Scots as Elmer Fudd - for obvious reasons if you ever catch him trying to ask a question of Wee Eck the Shrek or worse, answer one without guidance from Gordon.
The Tories in Scotland are run by Aunty Annabelle Goldie who has a bit of a crush on Shrek - so its claimed. The Libdems are run by Tavish the Viking but most of them are rowing in the opposite direction to Tavish and each other.
The use of nicknames (often offensive but apt) is a long standing part of the Scottish political tradition known as 'flyteing' (taking the Micheal out of) politicians.
On the more serious point as to whether there is a Cameron Clique of like-backgrounded people and whether this is a good or bad thing. Well, many Tory activists (read the Tory blogs) claim this is the case so I guess it is probably true.
Still, it's hardly unusual for people to surround themselves with people they've worked with in the past and get on with. In this case what is must significant about Cameron's clique is not that they were fellow Etonians but that they all worked together at the Tory Research Dept in the late 80s and early 90s. Cameron's clique of Francis Maude, Osborne, Ed Llewellyn, Kate Fall and Steve Hilton all shared an early political career at this institution.
Labour isn't immune to this clustering either. Pretty much any well-known Labour MP in their late 30s/40s studied PPE at Oxford and all play football together, or are married to each other, or dated each other or are each other's brother.
By definition the type of people who end up working in political think tanks tend to have similar backgrounds - unusual obsession with the minutiae of politics and a wealthy background as think tanks don't pay well for graduate jobs (in this case the Millibands are no different from the Camerons/Osbornes in inheriting money).
@ricki
Eck is a Scottish abbreviation of Alex (Alec) and Wee is Scottish for small/little/tiny/short etc.
Thanks
ricki
this attack at class is wrong , How many of our bench went to public schools? And how many dressed up as well known emeny ( 1939-1945) , Throwing stones in a glass house will only strenghten the far left like the bnp.
ricki
I do in fact know this, I recognised the mistake shortly after posting the comment. However, I am interested to hear your response to the rest of my argument? Or are you simply going to duck out of it because of what was basically little more than a typo?
"A class war is wrong , We will divide more than bring together"
I won't argue with you, but the problem you face is in attitudes on the ground.
I don't think the middle class much likes the working class and I'm sure the working class feels the same in return.
Not ideal perhaps but the reality none the less, so how do you get around that?
Personally if folk like you do not get a grip and continue not listening then the very thing you do not want - the break up of the Union - is the very thing you are going to get. The Scots do not want independence, Wee Eck the Shrek has wised up to that and come up with a formula for the referendum that he thinks both his party and the Scottish people can buy into. Now that's clever politics rather than the too poor, too wee too stupid, dependency on England ranting of Unionists at Westminster which is a complete turn off to most Scots. The Tories are in a bind - if they win in 2010 then 2011 will see a predicted increased swing to the SNP at Holyrood in response. The Libdems in Scotland are already waving their panties Wee Eck's way and so the likelihood is that the referendum will happen in 2012 and a large percentage vote will be for full fiscal autonomy (50 to 60% on current polls) with around 25 to 30% for independence and 8 to 12% for the Calman option or the status quo.
Wee Eck can then start shouting at Westminster for full fiscal autonomy as that is the wish, in effect, of 80% of the Scottish voters. If Westminster does not deliver reform and fiscal autonomy then Westminster will make the case for Scotland to go its own way for Wee Eck. Where does that leave New Labour or Labour in Scotland's current position apart from stuffed?
Awaits next hissy fit!
The class war will turn many to the bnp , We Must be responsable with words .
ricki ( leaving now ) Take care Labourlist and all readers.
"There are plenty of grammar schools that became fee-paying independent schools, and that is what the Tories wanted (who despised the fact that poor kids could get a better education than the privileged few's money could buy)."
I really take issue at the blatent and ridiculous nonsense.
The majority of the Tory party wants grammar schools back, but it is only the reaction of Labour and the claims that that grammar schools are "not fair" that makes the Tory party run from the idea.
Seriously you think THe Tory party spend their days thinking up ways to do down "the poor"? If ever there was a more comic book appraisal of a political opponent I've yet to see it.
Peter, you may roll-on-or roll over the truth but please don't just second guess what's around the corner, try and be more representitive of our choosen political points Peter.
In all honesty Peter, Blair removed the clause four, he was hardly the corner stone of the socialist movement Peter.
How was the tea! and the trotskite biscuits.
I take your point, but in fairness I didn't claim that a wealthy background precludes a social conscience. I only expressed concern that Osborne and Cameron's backgrounds have left them in an isolated bubble with no understanding of the truly needy in society. Frankly, if they had a desire to help the poor and needy, they would have joined the Labour Party. Not to say that everything Labour does is good and everything the Tories do is bad, I'm not that tribal. But the simple truth is, policies designed to this end go right to the core of the Labour movement, whilst the history of the Tory Party is by and large a history of reactionary movement against such policies.
The idea that Osborne came into politics because of a social conscience is rather generous. I don't know about his brother; I'm sure he's a decent man doing decent things, but George Osborne seems motivated by little more than arrogance and a sense of entitlement to rule. That isn't the conclusion I've reached based on his background- you only have to look at his policies to see evidence of callousnes and social elitism.
None of what I'm saying is based on a contempt for the upper class. All I'm expressing is a genuine concern that this country could end up being run by people completely oblivious to the most pressing problems faced by this country: social exclusion and disenfranchisment.
"The idea of a Mansion tax was good then and now"
Why?
Errr I've never said a public sector isn't needed. I have said the current public sector is bloated and far too big for the good of the national finances.
I don't understand what "a more open private sector that doesn't suppress and undermine its workforce and most certainly doesn't sell mortgages for a better bonus." actually means.
I've worked in the private sector for years and I've yet to see a suppressed workforce. Certainly I expect the people who work for me to deliver and work hard. One of the reasons I will only work in the private sector is the workforce understand this far better in the private sector.
Perhaps you could explain with some examples?
Your point about my "right to select" my employers again is a new one in this discussion.
My point was about my right to pay for private health care and select it for my family and my right to select and pay for private or selective education for my children. Is this not also my right from the freedom of choice I have as a UK citizen?
However, the Tories' policy on grammar schools are the same as Labour (remember what happened to Mr Willetts?). And the Tories were just as complicit in getting rid of grammar schools as Labour (Thatcher did not create, nor save any). There are plenty of grammar schools that became fee-paying independent schools, and that is what the Tories wanted (who despised the fact that poor kids could get a better education than the privileged few's money could buy).
Ricki, I agree and also very, very odd considering the number of toffs and nobs in the cabinet, and public schoolboy Tony Blair has somehow become a multi-millionaire in the short time he has been out of office. Its one bunch of rich privileged toffs shouting at another bunch of rich privileged toffs in slightly different colour ties while the rest of us look on bemused.
A class war is wrong , We will divide more than bring together .
ricki
The idea of a Mansion tax was good then and now. The problem was that Cable had not consulted his colleagues before announcing it at their conference - the left hand did not tell the right hand what he was doing.
I'm glad you do recognise the importance of the public sector as I have recognised the need for a more open private sector that doesn't surpress and undermine it's workforce and most certainly doesn't sell mortgage's for a better bonus.
Guy, a GOOD manager can make all the difference!A bad manager can effectively close a process.
Guy, cant recall where I said I wanted to take away your right to select your employers.
A wiseman once told me that a happy workforce is a productive workforce, it's probably working out the bit that makes people happy that makes the difference in production Guy.
Well, as others have pointed out, Osborne has chosen to go into public service rather than trying to make a fortune in the City or living idly off his trust fund (if he has one).
I've also learned today that Osborne has a younger brother (so exactly the same background) who is an NHS doctor specializing in mental health.
It appears that having a wealthy background doesn't necessarily detach one from a genuine concern for those less privileged than oneself. It also speaks volumes for the moral compass the Osborne brothers evidently learned from their parents and their school teachers.
Whos Wee eck?
ricki
So you deny that Darling has ordered a cut of 4,000 jobs at the Land registry for a start, with more to come? Even though that comes from Darling's own mouth and that department alone has to find £6 billion of 'savings / cuts' in the next three years?
Your shouting and yelling may work in the PLP or in some constituency party meeting when folk shut up because they get sick of your voice and your bullying attitude but I am simply and continually asking, as many do on this site, why should I vote for a 'New Labour' party that holds me, as a democratic socialist, in contempt?
The Fabian's are not Tories, neither is the Joseph Rowntree Trust so please argue why their findings are not a screaming embarrassment to New Labour's socialist standing?
No - I have not read anything written by Osbourne as he is as vacuous and empty headed as the rest at Westminster so I haven't 'quoted' him at any point. I seek my information and facts from as many sources as possible in attempt to create a balanced view.
I am an old school socialist, who considers that a socialist government's job is first and foremost to create opportunity for personal improvement for all, work for all and not waste billions propping up banks to save their own political skins and bank balances or waste taxpayers money on PFI schemes that have never demonstrated in a single National Audit report or any independent reports that they deliver value for money to tax payers. Unison's own independent report on the impact of PFI in health care is damaging in the extreme. The Edinburgh University Health Performance Unit is the one that came up with the £5 billion traditional cost of build and maintenance against the £30 billion for PFI build. We could talk about the standard of many of these PFI builds but you don't like detail as you can't yell or bully that.... suffice to say the only point of PFI was Gordon could hide all the borrowing off book to make the PBR look better than it actually was.
Derek the truth is I never bought New Labour's 'four legs good, two legs bad' in 1997 - I voted for a leader who I thought understood the need for political reform in this country coupled with honesty and openness in politics and the application of socialist principles in his government's policies. What I got was a spineless twerp who went to jelly the first time his big idea did not work out how he wanted it to and drifted more and more to the right under the baleful influence of Bush and his cronies. Tony's devolution is a great success in spite of New Labour's failed attempts to control and manage it from Millbank. That is why 50% of Welsh voters want more power for Cardiff and 80% of Scots want fiscal autonomy for Holyrood. It is also why the voters of England are restless - they just want the same clear control over their own affairs as the Welsh and the Scots have - I don't blame them.
So go on have another hissy fit - it is all you are good at.
Could you do it as well please?
ricki
Its ok .
Can i ask all posters to indicate who they are replying to ( ie @ ricki) or if at post can we post the name or if a genral comment can we just say " Hi Labourlist/Alex/ Aurthors name/) . sorry for being a moaner but i get confussed .
ricki
Tell me where I'm not being "sensible"?
I've said it's a mixed economy which needs both private and public and that individual people should be free to purchase additional services including education and health if they wish to from a personal choice.
Again I ask how is this unreasonable?
With regard to your comment of "we have had a private sector for a very long time but who says it has to be spinless and unaccountable to the general thrust of society."
Care to explain why this is so in your mind?
As a senior manager currently working in the private sector my responsibility is four fold. Firstly to my companies owners, secondly to my companies custoers, thridly to my companies workforce and fourthly to society through best practice environmetally and product quality etc.
Where do I say I "want to live in a nation were all things are privately run"? I've said I believe in a mixed economy that is in balance.
Personally I don't want to work ever in the public sector but that doesn't mean it isn't needed and provides a critical service.
My point is that it should be down to free choice whether to work in public or private and free choice whether to spend money on private education and private health. Where is the problem with an individual having that freedom?
I am a carer looking after my partner who has a mental illnes in a safe labour seat , did Mr Balls background ( dressing up as someone bad ) have a ffect, This goes deeper , Should we punish someone for there background or judge there policys likewise? , The iht was copied a few days later , You say the right wing press , is the Gaurdian and the Mirror right wing? , The EU policy , I wanted my vote on the constioton/Lisbon treaty , Housing , the torys bulit more than we have
The labour party doesnt need reform it needs a voice .
ricki
The Cameron clique is popularly characterised as the Notting Hill Set.
The fact that you don't know this suggests one shouldn't take the rest of your argument that seriously.
I take your point about the dangers of being seen as archaic class warriors, but that isn't what I'm saying. What I am saying is that there are genuine concerns about the way Cameron and Osborne's backgrounds have influenced their political ideas, and we need to communicate that to voters. I think the important thing though, is that when doing this we do it in a positive way, by highlighting the differences between us and the Tories (which do exist, despit lazy press coverage of British politics), and emphasing how our policies are based on a desire to help the whole of society but particularly those most in need, in contrast to Tory policies based on elitism and pandering to their loony right-wing core (eg. their inheritance tax policies, EU policies, housing policies etc.).
I also agree that the Labour party is in dire need of internal reform, particularly in the area of candidate selection. We can't preach democracy and equality when our own procedures to ensure both of these are found wanting.
Yes! we do need a private sector and hey persto! we have had a private sector for a very long time but who says it has to be spinless and unaccountable to the general thrust of society.
Guy, do you want to live in a nation were all things are privately run? inclusive of health, education and armed forces?
Guy stick your petted lip in and stop spiting the dummy and lets try and blog together more sensibly.
And why is Sir Fred taking a salary of £50k pa to be director of fund raising at a charity. The man must be worth at least £10-20 million, so he can certainly afford to do charity work for free.
was that reply to me?
ricki
I'm chuffed for you, but with respect, yours is one example, and the aggregated figures demonstrate class is clearly still an important factor in determining your social position (when I have the exact statistics to hand, I'll post them on here).
Your characterisation of Cameron as "an honest toff" is completely ignorant, clearly his shallow "first-rate chap" spin and propaganda works wonders on some people.
Campbell is not an "effete middle clas Oxbridge type", and he hasn't told you what to think of Cameron, in fact he asked you what you thought, so get rid of the chip on your shoulder.
Cameron is one of the Islington set, as are most of his cronies in the Tory Party, so once again, you've demonstrated how half baked you argument is, clearly cut and pasted in no particular order from the Daily Mail. You are the worst type of Thatcherite; listing off how "class never held me back" and consequently not giving a stuff about the people who have been held back by their class, because what do they matter, "I'M ALRITE JACK!".
Is that the same SNP that have brought the Scottish education system into disarray, where the system is now short of a 1,000 new teachers because the shrek likes the idea of Thatcher economics Peter. Where there is good education may the SNP tartan tories distroy it Peter.
Fred needs to confront his individualism and greed.Ricki doesn't have a problem in recognising that Peter.
What was the influnence of Ms Harmen ( Daughter of the countess of somewhere? Or Mr Blair And many more) This type of class war will turn voters of and in my area might get the bnp elected , The leadership is on another planet ( as are the other main partys) , The leadership have spun us to madness.
ricki
"The private sector imploded upon its-self, the subservient private workforce allowed the big boss to batter the hell out of their terms and conditions without even raising a finger."
Hate to tell you this Derek but I work in the "private sector" and have far more experience of it than you I suspect. It hasn't imploded and if it had we'd be in serious trouble as it's the thing that generates the profits that get taxed to pay for the public sector.
Or are you suggesting we nationalise everything and live in the Soviet Union mark 2, because mark 1 didn't work out too well if you remember?
Further, if you ask those private sector workers whether they’d rather work in the public sector or private I’d bet a large amount of money they are far, far happier where they are in the private.
We need a public sector but in a mixed economy, which is what we have, it needs to be balanced and at the moment the public sector is far too big for the private to support.
Your interpretation of my criticism of Cameron's background makes the usual mistakes, and you have demonstrated all the old misunderstandings about this issue. How clearly do I need to spell it out for you? ITS NOT THE BACKGROUND ITSELF, ITS THE INFLUENCE THE BACKGROUND HAS HAD ON HIS THINKING. I know plenty of upper class people who feel humbled by their priviliges and make a genuine effort to engage with the less fortunate. For Cameron, such engagement is an inconvenient electoral necessity. I do recognise your point about the upper class bias of the Labour front bench- the class bias in politics has grown in recent years and transcends all party divides (except the BNP, hence my fear expressed earlier). However, the rank and file of the Labour party do not hold archaic, hierarchical opinions like the Tory rank and file.
By the way I'm 21, and you're right that alot of young people despise all politicians. But this is mainly due to the lazy and cynical commentary of the poisonous media in this country, which is (contrary to the usual protestations of bigoted blowhards) dominated by the right.
Alastair Campbell's most telling moment was his thuggery and bullying, can't you throw the loser out of the party?
( I am always wrong) , The point i was trying to make was that voters see the spin from all partys , Take the class war that Mr Brown started , How many of his cabnit went to private schools , Voters are getting mugged off .
ricki
Fred Goodwin was knighted for his services to a number of charities he was chair of or actively supported, not for banking. He has just taken a job with a charity as director of fund raising at around £50 k a year.
Derek (Draper?) is simply thrashing around trying to fling mud in the hope it might just stick and hide how empty and vacuous New Labour policies and spin actually are. He is only interested in vitriol and not open debate of what is or what real socialist policies look like.
The reality is that there is no Labour bounce it was as many of us suggested, a rogue poll, the latest polls give the Tories a 13% lead. For many Scots it will mean an even less representative Government at Westminster than the current New Labour bunch. The downside of all New Labour's posturing is that the SNP vote share is holding firm, the Bain 'Glasgow is being ripped off' is known in Scotland to be a load of 'tosh' as Glasgow had more per head from the Cosla settlement than any other Council (£1.6 billion last year), has had £50 million given it to bring 250 Chase Manhattan jobs to Glasgow and just last week, an extra £84 million to cover the current shortfall in its Commonwealth Games budget, not including funding to complete the M74 / M8 link to the south of the city (stalled by the previous Labour Government at Holyrood), all by a 'tartan Tory' SNP Government that is supposed to be 'anti-Glasgow'.
Derek's approach is very similar to Catherine Medici's with the Hugenots and will result in the same blood bath only this time it will be real Labour supporters suffering at the hands of New Labour apologists.
Peter, doing all we can to mitigate the loss of employment is essential to the recovery, something the conservatives fail to recognise Peter.
As the SNP failed with their promise to deliver a £2,000 uplift for first time buyers, their co-partners the tories will do all thay can to appease their lot by scrapping IHT.
Peter building new schools and hospitals are vital to our society, the idea that we can build new buildings with a public build force that doesn't exist is another one of your wobblers Peter.
Peter, if you have a big bolder that needs reduced, then break it into pieces and move it to other areas, christ Peter don't take a tory sledge hammer and smash it beyond repair, that's just plain Thatcherite nonsense.
Peter, put the kettle on, have a cuppa then come back with a real poltical point.
Manufactring fell from 20% to 11 % from 1997 ( Mr drew in the house of commons.
New Labour are already attacking the vunrable ( welfare reforms) , We have a pm that treats parliment as soundbite centrel, This is not the labour party that was meant to help the poor and vunralbe , It has torys on our front bench ( Mr Woodwood, Mr Davis ) , How canthey connect with the poor?
ricki
There is a difference, Tories are generally rich to start with. New Labour are wannabee Tories. They have made themselves stinking rich over the last 12 years, look at Blair and Lord Mandelons houses.
They have at least put a lot of investment into the NHS and education.(although in the latter I think still much more to to do.)
I really fear that if the Tories get in next year there will be massive cuts to essential front line services- not just phased in.
"Policy" wise- all I've heard so far from the opposition is stuff about tax breaks for the rich, repealing the fox hunting laws, and complaining about health and safety legislation....also warnings about huge cuts to the welfare state and public services?
What kind of country would we be living in?!
I do think Labour is most likely to protect vulnerable sections of society ricki- but would prefer them to return to core values and be more radical.
The gap between richer and poorer widened much more from the 80's onwards- but it seems entrenched since then, and maybe more radical steps need to be taken.
Also- the British manufacturing industry was decimated- not great for the long term economy.
Must go again- back later.
Hope all well ricki.
And they're laughing at people like you because you make it all possible.
I could suggest afew more that need there titles removing , I agree about training , We need to get rid of the new deal because its useless and start a new yts traing courses , Where young people learn a trade on the job ( it could be subsidized to min wage ) Not all young people learn in a classroom .
ricki
The Joseph Rowntree Trust have just completed a two year study for the Fabian Society into poverty in the UK and amongst the things they report is: The UK has a divide between the poorest and the richest that has not been seen since Victorian times. Now you have to ask just what has New Labour been doing in the last 12 years to let this divide happen? This worsening level of inequality. There are estimated, across the UK, to be around 1 million NEETs, New Labour's answer - funding for 30,000 to have temporary job placements. New Labour is claiming to increase available places at FE and University by 30,000 but has only part funded a third of these 'new' places.
According to the Rowntree study 20% of children in the UK currently live in relative poverty - the same level Beveridge was reporting in 1942... New Labour, some improvement ...
It does not matter what social measure you look at, once you take away the New Labour spin things are no better than 12 years ago and in many cases worse. Yet, we have seen the greatest amount of deregulation of business, banks and the 'City', part or full privatisations of public services, the throwing of money at the NHS only for it to go straight back out through the door in another of New Labour's great wheezes PFI (the one where £5 billion of public buildings actually cost £30 billion) which with cut backs to NHS funding now means that Health Trusts are having to cut back on front line services to pay for the PFI projects foisted on them by Gordon when he was chancellor. Then there all New Labour's pals put into the Lords to pack it and repay them in tax free handouts (aka expenses). The fix to get Mandelson back into Westminster any old how after he blotted his copy book in Brussels and Brown needing saving to try and get Tony as EU President. Then Brown goes on about toffs when the biggest snob and toff of them all is his right hand man - the Dark Lard - intimate of the Rothschilds and other ultra rich.
Talking about directly cutting employment in the public sector Darling is quoted:
"The unions have been alerted to plans to halve the 8,000 workforce at the Land Registry and thousands more jobs are expected to be lost by streamlining IT and purchasing services. Mr Darling announced in November that the first tranche of £5 billion to £6 billion identified by the programme would have to be found next year, with departmental spending cut by that amount."
On that basis there at least minimum of 48,000 jobs to go at Whitehall - Go on Derek let's hear your Millbank spin, faux anger and denial over that notified direct public sector job cut by Darling - and that is just in one department.
New Labour are Tories - Derek - they just can not admit it.
Also the torys bulit more council houses and New labour are selling things that are not nailed down 9 the royal mail, The tote ) , Can i ask , Labour last in power 9in the 70s) Left the country in a mess , They also closed more mines than the torys , what is the difference between the torys and New Labour?
ricki
Maybe one day we could have a joint up campaign to rid Fred of that knighthood.
Small business is vital and has a massive role to play in the future however we must address the shortfalling of some small businesses especially the ones in the building industry, who in some areas employ non skilled people to do skilled work.I would like to see more colleges offering more apprenticeship schemes to local communties and of course, no one should be allowed to carry out skilled work unless they have the relevant training and certificates.
"I have a clear memory of the Tories in the 1980's onwards as generally very remote from the electorate, and I certainly felt nothing in common with them.They seemed to be self serving, and rather obsessed with an ideology of market principles applied to everything, whilst selling off public utilites at a fast rate.Little respect or value of public services.
The Yuppie culture became famous, and was satirized.I was working in the NHS at the time, and living in London.These "types" were seen everywhere,flashing off their credit cards and sports cars.
There was a real attitude of "I'm alright Jack- and sod the rest."
Individualism became the norm, and I think a real erosion of community spirit.
That was the 80s/90s/and this decade ,If we have a ressicon then the vunrable and low payed will suffer ( as normal) New Labour or torys the goverment always wins .
ricki
The Yuppie culture became famous, and was satirized.I was working in the NHS at the time, and living in London.These "types" were seen everywhere,flashing off their credit cards and sports cars.
There was a real attitude of "I'm alright Jack- and sod the rest."
Individualism became the norm, and I think a real erosion of community spirit.
God us help us all if we have a return to all that as well as a recession next year- I'll feel like emigrating.
Is it at all possible we could have a party that really reflects the average person's experence and aspirations, as well as allowing a real democratic voice?
Do you mean "Sir " Fred Goodwin , Knighted for services to banking ? Small buisness employs more than the banking sector .
ricki
What do you think Cameron will bring to this country?
The private sector inploded apon it's-self, the subservient private workforce allowed the big boss to batter the hell out of their terms and conditions without even raising a finger.
For heaven sake John, the private sector has failed because it's private owners have been responsible for some of the most serious cases of neglegence known to man.
John if you want to shred someone over the failings of the private sector, then have ago at the likes of Fred the banker, who malfunctioned, then fled with a massive payoff.
Both party leaders staged that photo shoot , Why do you attack someone from there background? How many of Mr Browns Cabnit went to private school? Doesnt anyone see how stupid this is? After all we are bringing in a equlity bill , would class discrimanaiton be illeagel?
ricki
It was hysterical watching "Dave" having his photo shoot above the Military training ground with gun shots going off(No safety dress in view)& him trying to do an interview with Sopal on Politics show! It looks like the BBC were struggling to get a guest nearer to home to appear & allowed Nick Robinson & Camera men (they are the only Press with Cameron) to work for their money(Our licence fee) & do this ridiculous interview with Cameron.
I suggest Cameron uses the footage in his election campaign.
Who in their right mind could ever take this man seriously in being elected PM?
Definitely no class war. Dave & Osborne have nothing we could be envious of only more evident than ever they must have spent the majority of their days(As GB says) thinking up their ideas on "THE PLAYING FIELDS OF EATON"
It's obvious they missed classes & concentrated on how they could be elected by using their Mega Bucks & Affluent Friends & Royalty connections
TAG WORDS
TORIES, CAMERON,OSBORNE,BULLINGDON CLUB EATON,CLASS,PRIVALEDGED,IDEALISM,THATCHERISM
OUT OF TOUCH, NO COMMON SENSE,WRONG POLICIES
They were called grammar schools.
Schools that Labour legislated against and turned into comps.
We the Labour party have widened the gap between rich and poor, we have put so many on the dole, we have seriously compromised the future of the working classes by permitting a massively overblown public sector, we are printing money like mad and buying it back, we are not creating jobs. The haves seriously do not care one iota, listen to Guy to see what the rich think.
If I were a member of the cabinet I would be considering suicide for the damage New Labour has been inflicted on the country. Who would want the PLP to get another 5 years? They are about as close to Labour as Thatcher was - its criminal.
No you're wrong the difference is that, like The Master in Dr Who, the Tories make cuts with a big smile on their face and Labour make essential cost-savings with a really grumpy sad face. It makes all the difference.
Have you anything other than "the torys eat babies" ? Any party that gets elected will have to cut spending , Voters are not stupid .
ricki
You are just so desperate to believe in your beloved party, that you are oblivious to the reality. A Tory cut is a Tory cut; A Labour cut is a saving "Its the right thing to do and all that". Derek, people are sick of spin and lies. We are seriously in a bad place.
my thoughts on Mr Cameron ? He has taken the torys into the 21st centery, I think the torys will win the next election (Mainly for not being "New" Labour) , But if he starts acting like Mr Blair he will be out within 4 years , I ask for no more spin .
ricki
Scotlands economy would be better served by remaining in the union however again we both differ on that but this is not the place to charge the Scotland act and count the cost of RBS or HBOS bail out Peter.
Peter, you shouldn't be hard on yourself for being successful, coming from a council estate should never be a prerequsition to poverty.
The point is that Darling is slashing the public sector spending by £40 billion, that is going to mean job loses. Brown is quoted as looking for even bigger cuts than Darling is proposing .... to keep his pals in the markets happy - Cameron is merely doing the same thing but with a different spin; they are still Tweedledee and Tweedledum or vice versa.
Not even UKIP now deny that Scotland's economy stands on its own two feet. Every independent report points out that Scotland would be in a better position outside of Westminster and the City of London's baleful influence. The CBI go further and have stated that Scotland's more mixed economy will recover faster than the rest of the UK - if RBS closed its doors tomorrow, just one of Scotland's many international insurance companies (Scottish Widows) would still be dealing with a world market share of around £250 billion of assets.
Now, for me, Shrek is a means to an end, the SNP are no tartan tories (Millbank speak again) because 'tartan tories' would not have done away with the NHS 'internal market' in Scotland, be offering free prescriptions, buying back the two NHS units placed in 'private contract' or returning power and a high level of fiscal autonomy to Scotland's councils (something New Labour squealed about and opposed) and no, they are not infallible, they do make mistakes but one of them certainly was not cancelling the GARL project which was overblown and would never pay for itself - especially as the new owners of Glasgow Airport have cut flights and are shutting down half the terminal from now until April.
Like Mike and John Doe I am from a working class background and have done well because I worked hard and took the chances I was offered and accepted the associated risks that goes with them.
I would vote Labour, if there is a real Labour Party in the future but I can not support the ersatz, 'Torylite', New Labour confabulation that you are trying to convince me is a democratic socialist party.
I agree with you. Working class, council house upbringing. Left bog standard comp at 16. we share a similar income - mainly from my own business.
People that use class as a defence are usually losers with bigger chips on their shoulders than cells in the brain. Drones who expect everything to be handed to them on a plate. They likely think ITV is highbrow culture. They laugh at Animals do the Funniest things. Whats a pity is Labour is trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Of course these are difficult times but I'll tell you what Peter, they would have been undoubtably more difficult had we not bailed out the banks and injected a stimulus package.
The problem you have with your SNP party is the commonly known fact that the SNP are the tartan tories.Even your shrek like leader want to endorse the Thatcher economics.
Tweedledum from the North, wants to include the Calman report with his Independent referendum.So far shrek has accured a referendum based on 4 question?.And his original Independence question has the least support?.
Scotland recovers most of it's oil revenue, shrek even recognises that, when he tried to highlight the 2007 GERS report.Scotland recovers 90% of it's oil and gas revenues.
Yes! the discovery of oil and it rewards were overlooked by the electroate in the 1979 election.
The Cruelty of New Labour's Welfare Reforms
There are no words in my vocabulary strong enough to condemn such wickedness.
If this is what New Labour has come to stand for f*ck the party and its politicos!
*Thanks to Alan Giles for the URL*
"The message, the toughest to be delivered by a chancellor since the last Labour government was bailed out by the International Monetary Fund in the 1970s, will mean public sector pay freezes and big job cuts. The cash freeze in Whitehall will mean a “real” cut of nearly £40 billion in spending over three years."
Darling on Public Services:
"Darling is said to believe that public sector workers will have to match the sacrifices made by private sector employees during the recession in which government jobs and pay have continued to grow."
Gordon's growth:
"The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) says Britain, which was the world’s fourth largest economy as recently as 2005, has slipped to seventh this year behind America, China, Japan, Germany, France and Italy. By 2015, it predicts, Britain will be outside the world’s top 10, behind Russia, Brazil, India and Canada. Slow growth and a weak pound will be responsible for the slide."
And the final nail in New Labour's coffin:
"The latest YouGov poll for The Sunday Times shows that the Conservative party is retaining a commanding 13-point lead, contradicting recent suggestions that Labour had narrowed the gap enough to make a “hung parliament” likely."
Finally, just who the heck are the 'North Britons'?
Scots -yes, Northumbrians - Yes, Cumbrians - Yes, but I haven't a clue who you are talking about unless it is code for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party but then again they have the word Scottish in their title, mmmmmm...... wait a minute maybe you mean the Labour Party's Scottish section ......?
This is a big problem problem for New Labour supporters (aka Millbank clones) your own spin always comes back to haunt you.
Labour's Calman Report says fiscal autonomy for Scotland and New Labour says..... over our dead bodies.
80% of Scots polled are asking for full fiscal autonomy the Tories say ..... over our dead bodies.
The Libdems say that they basically agree with the SNP's position on fiscal autonomy but not until they know they will not be in a coalition with either the Tories or Labour at Westminster after June 2010 or, in effect, over our prostituted bodies.
So I say again, it does not matter to Scotland whether Tweedledum or Tweedledee gets their hands on the Westminster rattle the actual wishes of the majority of Scots for fiscal autonomy will be ignored while people such as your good self whine about the inequities of Barnett which after all was a stitch up to prevent Scots from finding out how much better off they would have been if they had declared UDI in 1977.
In comparing the actions of Blair with the inaction of Cameron you overlook that Cameron has not had the opportunity yet to take action.
Blair on, the other hand, had more opportunity than most to do some great things for this country - and he certainly made some great soundbite speeches ("Education education education" - filled me with hope for the future), for which I assume you are to ne congratulated. But the reality is that both he and Brown have been dismal failures - the best they have achieved is to ensure gross distortion of statistics so they can claim success. What they have overlooked is that the electorate can only be foolled for some of the time, and don't need government statistcs to tell them them what is really going on.
Only time will tell if Cameron has real substance.
"Politicians I've admired are Tony Benn, Clare Short, Vince Cable"
Err Vince the Cable's halo has rather slipped with the idiotic Mansion Tax.
How on earth is class a contributing factor to anyone being held back?
I would wager there are 20 more important sociological factors that impact people other than some nebulous concept such as class.
I was born working class and can trace my working class roots 400+ years (so I am probably considerably more working class than yow). Yet I hold down a senior job paying a salary almost up to the 50% tax bracket.
Did being working class hold me back? No.
Did anything hold me back? No.
Did some middle class or upper class kids or their parents hold me back? No.
I even went to what Mr. Campbell would describe as a bog-standard comp. The kind his wife wants to level the entire education system down to.
Nothing held me back because if you work very hard in this country you can make it. You can only do your best.
Class only becomes an issue when the excuses run out, believe me.
I am sick to death of effete middle class Oxbridge types like Campbell, telling me as someone who is working class what to think of Cameron.
I can work it out for myself and more importantly I'd take an honest toff over a pack of conceited, smug, supercilious, two-faced, back-stabbing, chatterati middle-class Islington weasels any day of the week.
Not nice is it being insulting of someone's class?
I'm not doubting their political abilities but neither comes close to filling your requirement of extensive real world experience. Clare Short went from being a civil servant to being an MP aged 35, and Tony Benn went straight from public school and Oxford, via serving in the RAf in WW2, to being an MP aged 25.
Also improving local councils and their accountability.
The knife weilding tories just want to hack the life out of our public services.
Politicians I've admired are Tony Benn, Clare Short, Vince Cable.
I like to hear straight talking, honesty and pragmatism.
Also- again- a component of a civic voice in Parliament- not a feeling of "them and us."
I'd also like to see far more of a consensual style rather than point scoring and negative campaigning.
Finally- if a hung parliament next year- I'd welcome a coalition with the Lib Dems- as many shared values- and it might shake things up a bit!
'luckily we have Shrek to handle things at Holyrood and act as a threatening Ogre to those at the Westminster trough'
This is horrible beyond belief. I'll not be able to read another post from you without subconsciously dredging up Mike Myers' awful tones;)
I don't suppose you can arrange to have Shrek come down here and deal with the little Farquarts.
Nuff said!
If you think Cameron is any different to you, Mr Blair or Mr Brown you need therapy. Power at all costs and blow to ordinary people like me.
12 years ago you made the Labour party electable; we were grateful and filled with hope. The sheer scale of ineptitude has been breathtaking. Labour have proved to be useless politicians feathering their own nests, how naive were we to believe.
So let us look at Cameron. Same PR image led nonsense as Mr Blair. Not really looking forward to moving from one vacuous regime to the next.
Back under your rocks, you rotten politicians.
You support the SNP, fair enough, but perhaps you could accept that Alex Salmond represents pretty much everything about Scotland to the English that leads to many of us openly supporting Scottish independence.
I wouldn't give him 0 out of your 7 to be honest and would sooner have a rabid bat in charge of any country I lived in than the SNP leader.
But given that, I do wish you very well in any campaign for Scottish independence.
Here's the problem with Westminster for many voters - is it Tweedledum or Tweedledee who is prime minister at present? After June 2010 will it be Tweedledee or Tweedledum will then be prime minister?
Just what will actually be different as they will still be fighting over the same rattle.
From where I am neither Brown nor Cameron has any leadership qualities. They are where they are due to patronage and the patronage they can potentially give out.
So what qualities do I look for in leaders?
1. Ability to identify what needs to be done and prioritise the most important things first (Fox hunting ban - not important, reformation of the UK political process and structure - very important) to make best use of all resources available
2. Ability to inspire and positively encourage
3. Ability to actively listen and explain the positive reasons for a certain plan of action
4. Ability to say 'sorry' when they are wrong and mean it
5. Ability to say 'thank you' and acknowledge the people who actually bring plans to fruition
6. Ability to act with compassion and understand the impact of their decisions on others
7. Ability to 'walk their own talk' with openness, honesty and clarity of purpose.
My score for Brown and Cameron (on these criteria) is a no score draw. Clegg gets a zero as well, Nick Griffin scores 1 out of 7 (he does criteria 7 pretty well!), UKIP would also get 1 out of 7 for the same reason and Wee Eck of the SNP gets scores on criteria 2,3 & 7. So is it any surprise when the Scots are asked if Wee Eck is a good leader he scores in the region of 60%. He's not actually that good a leader its just he is still streets ahead of the rest!
Scotland will get either Tweedledum or Tweedledee in June 2010 - that's the reality of the UK voting system, luckily we have Shrek to handle things at Holyrood and act as a threatening Ogre to those at the Westminster trough.
I really don't know why you find it so difficult to realise that you don't have to have experienced poverty personally to appreciate that it is a problem and want to do something about it.
Whaaaat? If this is the most sinister effect of Cameron's election, then we can only presume that it is extremely sinister that the first push of these people towards the BNP has occurred under a Labour Government, who might be expected to represent them.
As to this class thing - I don't know how old you all are, but I think you'll find that most young people would regard Gordon Brown, Milliband, Harman, Jowell etc. just as posh as anyone from the Tory party. As to Brown's sudden upswing in the use of the `Eton' issue and class, it merely alerts me to the fact that his first target might be the Etonians, but that means his next target will be the middle classes, who he seems to wholeheartedly despise.
If Cameron can run an administration that supports good policies to combat social exclusion that I couldn't care less how much real life experience Cameron personally has of social exclusion.
Christ Mikey, shave a bit off your big tree and let the little ones grow.
I completely agree, Cameron, like most Tories, are completely motivated by the belief that itis their birthright to rule. You can imagine him in his Bullingdon Club dinner suit, planning his rise to the top of government. And what is more, he doesn't even truly recognise that he's priviliged. Consequently, he has a distorted view of the problems this country faces. He has neither the means nor the inclination to assist those who're at the bottom of society. Their existence barely registers on his radar.
A good example of how his priviliged-centric beliefs influence his policy decisions is his appointment of Kirsty Allsop as his housing adviser. How can a woman who spends her time finding second homes and "crash pads" for millionaire couples possibly have any understanding of the real housing problem currently; the shortage of suitable council houses? They go around with their heads in the clouds, obblivious to the plight of anyone less priviliged than themselves (ie. most of the country). I think its more likely through ignorance than callousness, but the fact is they're completely unable to provide any help for the poor, or the disenfranchised, at a time when help is urgently needed for both.
One of the most sinister effects of Cameron's election will be a further push of disenfranchised poor white voters towards the odious BNP. On a positive note, here is where the Labour party can take positive action. It is vital that Labour reengages with the people the government has taken for granted over the last decade.
"Of course class matters. It decides your fate from an early age. If it did not people would not be sliming all over each other to get a place at one of the Oxford or Cambridge Universities with money or good A-level results or both.
The things people do to feel better than the rest...facsism takes many forms..."
This reads like a Spartist neo-trot rant.
You cannot seriously be suggesting that money buys entrance to Oxford or Cambridge these days? If so could you explain how to bypass the entrance exams using only money? And you seem to be under the impression that people "slime all over each other" to get a place in order somehow to change their class. I thought they went there to get the best possible education, like my daughter.
Your language on this occasion is intemperate and insults the people who get into those universities on merit and without a thought of "class". Your pronouncements are simply false.
I write this in sorrow, as I have respected everything else of yours that I've seen here.
Of course he and others are bound to say class does not matter, in a vain attempt to sound mainstream when in fact he is not.
By saying class does not matter the is trying to put himself in a public position which he simply cannot live up to and hope that people won't judge him on his "class".
Of course class matters. It decides your fate from an early age. If it did not people would not be sliming all over each other to get a place at one of the Oxford or Cambridge Universities with money or good A-level results or both.
The things people do to feel better than the rest...facsism takes many forms...
He was brought up on privalage, he was fed from the very beginning the idea that he would be a ruler of this country, he was brought up to think he is better than the rest of us.
Sadly like many in the PLp all he does is constantly repeat his own ridiculous mantra as he programmes himself with the repetitive garbage that he will spell out to the media.
I respect what you achieved in the New Labour project even though I think the outcomes have wrecked the Labour party.
However is this comeback wise? We all know what happened last time. I would hate Malcolm Tucker to have yet another nervous breakdown.
As for your article you would be briefing him exactly the same. The tories have launched a number of policies that have been adopted by Labour. Why give the game away? If Labour is so intrigued by Tory policy just call an election - oh you can't because the party is flat broke.
Labour will lose the next election regardless of the spin you try and create from here to polling day.
This is where criticism of his background is completely relevant, but such criticism is always misunderstood and misrepresented by the media as chippy and infantile class warfare. It is in fact far from it. The problem is not so much his priviliged background in and of itself, but the way in which that background has shaped his politics. With the best will in the world, the old Etonian cannot relate to the most pressing problem in Britain today: social exclusion.
This will be the "anyone but Labour" election. People will vote for anybody, Plaid, SNP, Tory, Liberal - whoever has the best chance of removing a Labour MP.
2) Labour was certainly radical with certain social policies in 97 (civil partnerships etc) but in the key area of what government's do, ie spending money, Labour deliberately chose to stick to existing Tory spending plans. So, from that point of view, the first Labour government (and the most successful of the three) was effectively a Tory run administration.
3) I'd be interested to know how many of the current Labour front bench would be recognised by the general public walking down the street.
-(those two don't go together!)
If anything, at their conference- it all sounded like revisiting Thatcher policies, with a bit of a tweak, and change of faces to appear more "caring." Mostly image, and not a lot of substance.
Therefore- just by waiting- it seems odd that they coud win an election.
Either they are relying on disgruntled Labour voters, or haven't quite got around to forming credible policies!
Maybe they weren't previously expecting to win- with so long out of power?
Or maybe have an agenda which they haven't shared with us all, which do indeed resemble Thatcheresque policies- might might come to light post election?
My criticism is not so much with Cameron, as the whole party, and the memory of 18 years of out of touch and miserable politics. Nothing appears to have changed- certainly nothing new or inspirational.Perhaps only an attempt not to appear as the "nasty" party....seems pretty weak.
I hope the elctorate realise this, instead of relying on the Mail and Sun etc to brainwash them.
The general consenus seems to be rather apathetic though- I think a radical shake up and reform is needed in parlament, and far more of a civic voice heard.There is a lot of talent and ideas out there- just need to be tapped.
Floating voters decide based on the main leaders and policies.
"Gordon Brown: 5 more years" has a certain resonance.
Cameron, what a fake, just a camrea crazy guy. Who on earth want's to give Cameron and Osborne the keys to Britain's future?
Look at his latest stunt, appearing on TV in Afghanistan with a suit on and talking about class war rather than the Afghan war.
The man couldn't even wait until he got into government before he made his big mistake. He promised a referendum on the lisbon treaty on the back of a letter he wrote to the Czech government! how bad was that!.