Do you think Gordon will see this as a threat?
February 1st, 2008
What does Labour do now the Tories are not seen “the nasty party”?
The front page of this morning’s Guardian is dominated by a report that groups of Labour modernisers, including cabinet minsters, are planning to tell Brown to offer a more radical reform programme to help beat off the Tory threat in the centre ground.
Linked to a paper from the Progress thinktank the group is arguing that the political landscape has changed, that the opposition is perceived differently and, pointedly at Gordon, that economic competance is not enough as a platform. Labour needs a stronger message.
The report notes that ” Labour cannot win the next election based on its previous tactics, because the Tory party has changed.The public no longer view the Conservatives as the ‘nasty party’ of the 1990s. We are now engaged in a serious fight for the centre ground with a party which is socially more liberal and constantly engaging in counter-intuitive positioning….Winning the argument with the public for a fourth Labour term cannot rest on a characterisation of our opponents which the voters really don’t recognise.”
Amongst the Labour figures said to be linked with the document are Hazel Blears, James Purnell, Tessa Jowell, and Alan Milburn.
As you would expect it is being emphasised that this is not “factional plot, or a move to undermine Brown” but in that great shorthand of the Labour movement “an effort to stimulate debate”. I doubt if the Prime Minister will quite see it that way and he will be right.
The problem, as I was arguing here on Wednesday, is that Labour has won three general elections with essentially the same strategy of demonising the Tories. At some stage the potency of that was going to wear off. It now needs a new narrative that is based on its values. Labour will not hold onto power simply by not being the Tories.
General Election betting is here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
test
Frank Luntz’s group showed everyone converting Obama in New Hampshire, but it just didn’t hold up. The CNN focus group showed Clinton winning it 60-40. I think the GOP has long believed Clinton was always going to win the Democrat nomination and wanted to big up Obama to make Clinton look bad going into the general race.
Based upon Brown’s droning on about 20-25 year old real and made up stats at PMQ’s, he doesn’t see the need for change.
The great helmsman will not be happy. Some political re-education of these subversive revisionary party members will be called for now
Based upon Brown’s droning on about 20-25 year old real and made up stats at PMQ’s, he doesn’t see the need for change.
The great helmsman will not be happy. Some political re-education of these subversive revisionary party members will be called for now
I think this thread feeds into a previous one on Brown playing the numbers game. I made the point that the numbers cannot play in a vacuum, the public has to have a negative impression that the numbers price. The numbers worked last time because the impression that the Conservatives would cut core public services so Labour could just price the impression. I think Brown will be unimpressed by this, is he silly enough to try and crush dissent though?
Brown uses numbers and statistics that the public no longer perceive as real. They no longer believe labour on the NHS.
Gordon talks about vision, but has yet to show any. Prevarication seems to be his watchword (now that he has divorced prudence)
The tragedy is that in many areas, neither the Brownite statists nor the neo-Blairite modernisers have any solutions. They merely hope someone else has.
Take education (or health or prisons). Brownites keep faith with the professionals. If we put more money in, if spending is raised to the level of the public schools, then teachers can do their job and attainment will rise.
Blairites think this is wrong. It has failed. Spending has risen faster than results. Blairites put their faith in the private sector. Let widget makers and jam sellers run the schools. Let supermarkets run GP surgeries. Blairites don’t have solutions themselves, but they are pretty optimistic someone else has, and curing cancer must be a doddle compared with flogging carpets.
There has been evolution, of course. Politicians change their minds. Remember Tsars and Superheads? And maybe the pro’s don’t know best without line-by-line guidance from Whitehall.
Often wrong, never in doubt.
There is still traction in attacking the nasty party who would slash public services.
Clearly this is not as scientific as a Frank Luntz focus group but I did overhear a political discussion on the train the other day amongst commuters, presumably colleagues who worked in the City. 40-50 year-olds declared they’d not vote Conservative even though they’d personally be better off through lower taxes “but the country wouldn’t be worth living in”. Their younger colleagues seemed more concerned there was too much immigration. These people were Asian.
Conservatives know this, hence the promise to maintain Labour spending levels.
But the world moves on, and voters aged much under 30 won’t have clear memories of life under the Conservatives.
“Labour has won three general elections with essentially the same strategy of demonising the Tories. At some stage the potency of that was going to wear off.”
There is a parallel north of the border too Mike. The Lib-Labs managed to win two Scottish Parliament elections by demonising the Scottish National Party. The potency of that particular poison potion wore off in May 2007. However, the Lib-Labs do not seem to want to learn the lesson the electorate was trying to teach them last spring, and are still in 100% negative-ninny, Private Frazer mode. They’ll just have to learn the hard way…..
“Labour has won three general elections with essentially the same strategy of demonising the Tories”
That’s a load of rubbish.
97 The Tories tried to demonise Labour
01 The Tories were a joke, Hague in a cap/wig was not a serious contender for PM. Again no demonising.
05 The Tories had a leader they had demonised themselves ” There is something of the night about him”, if Labour echoed that you can’t blame them
9 Funny you say that… the two most virulent anti-immigration (to put it politely because it was a bit more than that) people I talked to during the last election were both self-evidently ehtnically Chinese.
I didn’t really have much to say as the wind had been drained from my sails somehwat.
that should have been reference to 8 sorry
10… are you by any chance Alastair Campbell? I thought that was a large part of what they are doing “Same old Tories etc etc” and I’m not a Tory.
Brown often repeats that inflation is 2% and under control. This is in such a sharp contrast to people’s everyday experience that it leads to disbelief in all his statements.
No, they clear memories of live under labour and it is not as great as Brown would lead us to believe.
I missed the “Have”
13 No not AC, just don’t tell me that it Labour won 3 elections by demonising the Tories. 1997 is just oneclear example where the Tories were negative. “Demon Eyes” vs “Things can only get better” Mike is wrong on this one.
16. I missed the “Have”
And that’s not all you’ve missed ..
18,
Its early….
So the Fagan poster was never planned then?
Or 24hours to save the NHS?
Selective memory Jonathan.
Martin Baxter has his latest Electoral Calculus seats prediction up on the website (+/- from GE 2005):
Con 297 seats (+99 seats)
Lab 284 (-72)
LD 33 (-29)
SNP 10 (+4)
PC 6 (+3)
The Conservatives would be 29 seats short of a majority.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/
24hours to save the NHS attacks the Tories, but does not demonise them. The “Fagin” poster, I agree were wrong and a political mistake. But to say that Labour won three elections by demonising the Tories is totally OTT and forgets to mention that it was the Tories who actually used Demonic imagery in the posters. I was correcting Mike on this huge oversight. You could argue the case on 2005, but that’s it.
14,15 — Brown commits what I call the Bottomley error after the Tory Health Secretary who parrotted increased spending figures to patients and relatives who could see the closed wards.
It’s the rising cost of living that will swing votes, not the inflation rate. Indeed, the low official figure makes things worse because it looks like a sleazy government is fiddling the figures.
Jonathan’s post is truly ludicrous. Of course Labour have spent three elections demonising the Tories.
“Same old Tories”, “Same meat, different sauce”, “Hague in Thatcher’s wig” etc etc etc.
But why on earth would any sane lefty deny this? Because of shame? There’s nothing to ashamed of. The policy worked! The Labour party have successfully used negative tactics the same way the Tories used them against the Labour party in the 80s.
Is this really the normally-lucid Jonathan? Who usually talks lelfty piffle but at least its logical lefty piffle?
Perhaps a cretin is masquerading as him, this morning. Most peculiar.
Anyway I agree with Mike. The demonisation won’t work a fourth time. Simply coz fewer and fewer people clearly remember, or care about, the last Tory government.
Imagine if the Tories tried to campaign on “the winter of discontent”. It would be embarrassing and pointless. That principle is now applying to Labour.
There are plenty of spoof winter of discontent posters based on Northern wreck floating around!
The complete dearth of convincing Labour policies goes back well before Brown’s promotion to PM. Ever since 2005 Labour have failed put together a comprehensive package of measures to improve public services, reduce serious crime or effectively combat terrorism. It would be nothing short of a miracle if Brown could concoct one now.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
24 You’re the ludicrous one as usual SeanT. You’re decent into Orwellian newspeak is absurd. Do really claim that in 97 it was Labour demonising the Tories? All this lack of oxygen at high altitudes has further stewed the prune that masquerades as your brain.
Interesting to see your prejudice that making Hague look like Thatcher will demonise him. I thought you liked the old girl.
Anyway, I wonder if the Tories demonising of Mr Brown will continue in the election.
BTW On the, far more interesting, White House race, I really fear that the Democrats have screwed this up. Despite last night’s debate the look divided and don’t sound close to the centre ground.
On the contrary, the GOP look united around McCain. There are clear lines of attack versus the “risky” Obama and the “unlikeable, Clinton” Hillary. I fear that the hero will carry the day with his consensual approach and safe pair of hands. McCain-Rice would kill it dead.
Obama 2012 anyone?
25. Are there? I’m on the other side of the world, so I haven’t seen them.
But my point abides. The Tories couldn’t win an election by saying - if you vote Labour you’ll get massive strikes and British Leyland and unions in Number 10 and unburied corpses like we had in 1979.
Everybody would go - er,WTF? Who is British Leyland when he’s at home? What’s this about corpses?
Pretty soon - and I’d say, like Mike, around about now - the Labour party is gonna have to drop the Maggie and Major baiting, the references to the recession of 1991, the bleating about Black Wednesday etc etc, because they will look passe and desperate.
SeanT,
Winter of discontent poster but with the banner headline
“Labour cannot do Banking” for example, but there are others.
27. Have a coffee. Or a muffin. Seriously. Your posts are worrying. Maybe you got up too early. I think your bloodsugar levels are low. Try a bun.
xx
‘It [Labour] now needs a new narrative that is based on its values’
But Labour only won power by ditching its ‘values’, which were (rightly) seen as archaic and irrelevant to a modern society. In their place has been put a mix of social democratic aspirations, managerial competence, and spin and media manipulation. The latter two components are now completely discredited, and it is doubtful whether the former has - or ever had - more than a minority appeal to the voters.
Labour has become an empty vessel - as its own senior members now recognise - and needs a period in opposition to rethink what it is actually for.
Jonathan - this is how Labour fought the 1997 election
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtMqgkDZISw
I think the article is bang on. Labour knows that simply saying “oh, don’t vote for those awful tories” won’t work for a 4th victory - especially since Cammy’s arrival.
The thesis is clear - the country is much more receptive to “radical” and - dare I say it? - more “classically” Labour policies than the leadership thinks. This is not dissent - it is stating the bleeding obvious!
The latest Scotland Westminster voting intention sub-samples from GB-wide polls were as follows (+/- from UK GE 2005):
ComRes/The Independent
Scottish sample size: 90 respondents
25 - 27 Jan 2008:
1. SNP 45% (+27%)
2. Lab 30% (-9%)
3. Con 11% (-5%)
4. LD 10% (-13%)
YouGov/Daily Telegraph
Scottish sample size: 178 respondents
21 - 23 Jan 2008
1. Lab 40% (+1%)
2. SNP 25% (+7%)
3. Con 19% (+3%)
4. LD 12% (-11%)
The only thing both pollsters seem to be united on is the collapse of the Liberal Democrats north of the border. The halving of the Scottish Lib Dem vote post-Kennedy has been confirmed in poll after poll for 2 years now (Charlie Kennedy was pushed out of the UK Lib Dem leadership back in January 2006 - how time flies!), and this is likely to be one of the key factors in Scotland come the 2010 general election.
As a minor post-script: You Gov only managed to measure 1% support for the Scottish Green Party this time. This rather goes against the current consensus that YouGov’s methodology tends to be far too kind to the Greens in Scottish polls.
http://www.comres.co.uk/resources/7/Political%20Polls/Political%20Poll%20Jan%2008.pdf
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/2008%2001%2028%20DT%20full.pdf
This reminds me of the earliest election broadcast I can recall - the Conservative one where they talk about a tree without roots dying.
Labour cut off their roots, and didn’t plant and new ones. The only aspiration was power through populism and taking advantage of the widespread desire to remove the Conservatives from power.
Hopefully we’ll soon start to see a return of real political ideology to the main parties, to present a real choice at elections.
33. But the ‘thesis’ is totally wrong. You chaps trot off back to the left by all means and see what happens to your votes in marginal seats.
I think there’s a lot of truth in what you say. Most voters only form a vague impression of parties and changing minds is like turning round a super tanker.
My sense at the moment is that Labour are considered plodding and half competent wheres the Tories are half interesting but too risky to vote for.
If there was an election now I don’t believe enough people would risk voting for DC to prevent Labour getting an overall majority. Ironically if Howard had still been leader I don’t believe this would have been the case.
So both parties have two years to turn the tanker round. Because Cameron might by then look like a potential PM Brown must in response raise his game.
I’m beginning to worry that he hasn’t the ability to do this. But then again it’s not certain that in two years Cameron/Osborne will look like the real deal.
32 Good stuff Mike, just a negative ad casting the opposition in a negative light. A bit like a Lib Dem bar chart. But hey, we’re big boys, it happens. Judging it in the context of the ‘97 election, I still assert that this is nowhere near as demonising as the “Demon Eyes” campaign and it wasn’t what won Labour the election. But let’s agree to differ on that shall we.
28 I agree with you and some of what Mike point. Labour will need an invitation to raise some ’90s issues. But I do think “Tory” negative equity and high interest rates still has resonance with the 40+ electorate. But for Labour to soley concentrate on this would be a mistake. There are plenty of postive and negative themes that they could draw on. From this far out I would say the Trust in Cameron /Cameron the Flip-flopper ought to be one of them.
30 Maybe I’ll eat some more prunes for breakfast.
36 - There is a “tightrope” to walk - between being moderate enough to hold our marginals and being radical enough to enthuse the base and undecideds. It is possible to do both, of course
What nonsense. The Tories have not ceased to be the “nasty party” to anyone on the streets, in London or elsewhere. The only real change is that the population at large has become much “nastier” in recent years due to rising living standards leading to wanting to pull the ladder up after them - see the recent Economist article on change social attitudes. This is the reason why the Tories are back in with a chance.
32. My recall of 1997 was that it was the dullest and longest campaign of all - the only really exciting element being Martin Bell at Tatton - remember him being ambushed by Christine H. Interesting vid. all the same - the tactic of just showing prominent tories being applauded at their party conference is telling though - that was really all Labour needed to do.
Both parties demonize the other. In Labours case it was a waste of 48 sheet posters because they would have won those three elections if they’d stayed in bed for the whole campaign.
But in ‘79 we had the infamous Saatchis ‘Labour isn’t working’
Then in ‘97 ‘Demon Eyes’
Then in ‘01 ‘You Paid the Taxes…..’
Then in ‘05 ‘Liar Blair’ which ‘Campaign’ reckoned topped all that had gone before!
39. I wonder. Wasn’t demonising the Tories was the key factor that allowed the otherwise inherently unstable Blair coalition to hold together? Fear of a Tory government kept the core vote in line, while centrist policies provided a way of getting the critical middle class swing voters on board.
If the voters no longer fear a change of government, enthusing the core vote is going to be hard without a move to the left which will push away the swing voters. Meanwhile, trying to compete for the swing voters by following Tory leads on policy will just make the government look like it is drifting. This is what happens when a party runs out of ideas, and to an extent runs out of personnel as well.
40. Welcome Dave Spart - time to follow Brecht’s lead and dissolve the electorate, eh? hahaha
‘GB was a very good chancellor’. No, of course its not true. But that is still the perception of the man-in-the-street. And an economic down-turn will not make much of a dent in that.
Question: how many minutes/day can you afford to be on pb.com before you lose track of the thoughts of the a-political? If you’ve ever read over 200 comments, you fail the test…..
“Both parties demonize the other. In Labours case it was a waste of 48 sheet posters because they would have won those three elections if they’d stayed in bed for the whole campaign.”
Very True…
Don’t forget ‘92 when the Tories really did pull off a win by demonising Kinnock and Labour (with the help of murdoch) e.g “You can’t trust [L]abour.”
Any Brown move to the left will play right into Cameron’s hands. CCHQ have been praying for it for the last two years. Brown needs to hold his nerve in the face of this sort of pressure from the left or the game really is up for him.
As things get worse for Brown over the next 18 months (as they surely will), it will be interesting to see if he aligns the government with the reformers or falls back on his traditional Old Labour instincts.
One path leads to the possible salvation of a minority HP win the other, opposition and a seat beside Major in politicans purgatory.
34. 15% swing to Labour in two days Stuart. What’s the penguin been up to?
USA — Senators Obama and Clinton voted the same way 257 times out of 267.
That (unchecked!) figure appears in this piece about Obama being named the more “liberal”:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/31/obama_record/index.html
Interesting too that both candidates were keeping it clean in the debate: light sparring with all punches above the waist. Presumably their feedback was that voters did not like the recent, negative stuff, and party elders are worried now the GOP seems to be coalescing around McCain.
31 re Labour “empty vessel” and the Mike Smithson “needs a new narrative that is based on its values”. Where does that narrative come from?
Labour also has some deeper divisions that are not immediately apparent because they do not make the MSM.
When I looked at what the left “campaign group” are saying they refer to the governing part of Labour as a different party. Of course they have a small parliamentary influence, but the left has a bigger presence amongst the members as can be seen in the CLP NEC elections.
Neither the LDs or the Conservatives have groups of MPs that refer to their Leadership in these ways.
http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/
“The final nail in the coffin of New Labour seems likely to be the looming recession. ” Kelvin Hopkins MP
“I wonder why Fidel has not been foreign visitor to address the annual Labour Party conference ” Ian Gibson MP
Just a bit of fun, but if we take the mid-point of those ComRes and YouGov Scottish voting intention findings (Lab 35%; SNP 35%; Con 15%; LD 11%) - which incidentally is not a million miles away from the last Scotland-only (sample size = 1343 respondents) Westminster voting intention poll for the Scottish Daily Express earlier this month (Lab 36%; SNP 30%; Con 18%; LD 12%) - then the following seat changes pop up on the Baxter radar:
1. Lab 36 seats (-5 seats)
2. SNP 15 seats (+9 seats)
3. LD 7 seats (-4 seats)
4. Con 1 seat (no change)
Scottish National Party gains from Labour:
- Aberdeen North (SNP already hold at Holyrood)
- Dundee West (an SNP gain at Holyrood last May)
- Edinburgh East (an SNP gain at Holyrood last May)
- Edinburgh North and Leith
- Ochil and South Perthshire (SNP already hold at Holyrood)
- Stirling (an SNP gain at Holyrood last May)
Scottish National Party gains from the Liberal Democrats:
- Argyll and Bute (an SNP gain at Holyrood last May)
- Gordon (an SNP gain at Holyrood last May)
- Inverness Nairn Badenoch and Strathspey (SNP already hold at Holyrood)
Labour gains from the Liberal Democrats:
- Dunbartonshire East (a Labour gain at Holyrood last May, with the Liberal Democrats ending up in 5th place - yes 5th!!)
- Dunfermline and West Fife (Labour re-gain, after by election loss)
I fundamentally agree with Roger, though I would take issue with the idea that the country see Labour as “half competent” - that seems way too charitable - and I don’t think Michael Howard would be doing as well as David Cameron is. But otherwise, I think his assessment is more or less spot on.
jh @ 47 on the dangers of moving to the left. See note 7: what do the reformers and modernizers actually want? Aside from reform and modernisation? In America, doubtless apple pie too.
51 Remember Scotland 92 to see how Lib Dem incumbency in Wallace land can survive national Polls
49 - Didn’t see it but there is almost unanimity amongst US commentators that Obama didn’t do enough, that he needed a clear win and all he managed was a draw at best. A couple of them even suggested that they both toned the rhetoric down a bit as they could instantly create a Dream Clinton-Obama ticket.
55 After the debate and the GOPs progress, I am now pessimistic about the Dem’s chances. Both Obama and Clinton look very beatable. Even the dream ticket could be pulled apart.
Kinnock calling the Tories “bastards” goes well beyond just attacking your opponents
phrases like “Grind them into the dust” show a mindset beyond just disliking some ones politics.
55 After the debate and the GOPs progress, I am now pessimistic about the Dem’s chances. Both Obama and Clinton look very beatable. Even the dream ticket could be pulled apart.
53 The best thing about the private sector is competition. The best thing about the public sector is the public service ethos. The problem is that marrying together public and private sectors seems to produce a hybrid that combines their worst components, rather than their best.
Gordon’s obsession with stats is a big mistake and a clear departure in style and tone from TB. Gordon sounds like a bit of a throwback to old Labour - spend money and everything will be OK. Yet the change in approach is so pronounced that a policy decison to focus on this style of presentation has clearly been made
Tony Blair’s focus was always on words - the expression values and of acheivements (whatever you may think of them), which are much easier to understand and both very positive.
The size of the numbers Gordon quotes invites people wonder what they have not got for that money, despite the fact that a collosal amount has been delivered.
I believe it shows a lack of confidence on Gordon’s part in the appeal of core labour values, and enables him to operate in his comfort zone
40: ??? left field nonsense.
Great topic, just the kind to sustain us through the ‘desert’ after the Yanks have picked their candidates…
FWIW I don’t remember a huge amount of Labour demonising the tories in 1997 too overtly, it hardly needed doing. 2005 was much more of a negative campaign from Labour, unsurprising given they had run out of ideas. Without the economy to go with in 2009/10 they will surely have to run a hugely negative and personal campaign against posh Dave. But they are a busted flush surely (he says hopefully…)
I’m always a little suspicious of these reports that find their way into the newspapers. Y’know, the opposition are doing much better, we’ve got to do this that or the other to beat them.
Probably intended to whip any loose cannons into line, (mixed metaphors a speciality) and to show the party leadership are watching and planning a counterattack.
After three wins, any party is going to struggle, a fourth win, certainly after the Tories managed a fourth win(fat lot of good it did them) would be amazing, even the fact its a possibility is amazing!!
Labour supporters should be relaxed about this, you ‘aint gonna win ‘em all, you shouldn’t even want to. Tories on the other hand should be really, really anxious, a fourth defeat, is something that could be a disaster for them, don’t think the poor things could cope with it!
56 - I don’t know about the GOP making progress, remember McCain isn’t sweeping all before him, he garnered around 7 in every 20 voters in Florida and I can’t remember him getting more than 40% in any primary so far. The GOP are not in that great a shape, and ok McCain is picking up endorsements left left and centre in the GOP, very few of the right of the party can stomach him.
63 Well I hope so, but this election was in the bag for the Democrats and right now it looks very far from that.
57 In fact, Major calling his cabinet “bastards” goes well beyond just attacking your opponents.
Sorry could not resist.
As for Kinnock, you can see why he never made it to Downing street, but I am not surprised he bears a grudge given the sustained personal villification he was subjected to, which you have to admit was pretty harsh.
54. Punter - “Remember Scotland 92 to see how Lib Dem incumbency in Wallace land can survive national Polls”
But Punter, Lib Dem incumbency under the “tired” and erratic Nicol Stephen counts for much, much less than it did under the steady and dependable Jim Wallace/Charlie Kennedy double-act. Just have a look at the lamentable Lib Dem perfomance at the Scottish general election last year:
- Argyll and Bute: SNP gain from Lib Dems
- Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross: SNP majority in the regional vote
- Gordon: SNP gain from Lib Dems
- Ross, Skye & Inverness West: SNP majority in the regional vote
- Roxburgh & Berwickshire: Tory gain from the Lib Dems
They also suffered some astonishing collapses in other seats where they have had good performances in the past, eg. that 5th place in East Dunbartonshire, where Jo Swinson is the Lib Dem Westminster MP. Inverclyde is another Lib Dem catastrophe that springs to mind.
[40] I think you’re right. The commitment to social justice that drove the Attlee government, and has been a political commonplace in increasingly watered-down form ever since - including Mrs T., In Whose Hands The NHS Was Safe - arose from the popular anger that the sacrifices made by the troops in World War I had been disregarded by the ruling class, and a determination that that should not happen again. That generation has pretty much passed on, and our social segregation - with middle-class people never having occasion to go near a large Council estate, for example - has been remarked on here over and again.
As to ethnic minorities’ views on immigration, it’s a pity that the “Independent” can’t afford a proper electronic archive. At the time of the Hong Kong handover, it ran a lead letter from a group of (South) Asian community “leaders” explaining why the Major government should keep out all the Hong Kong Chinese and let in lots more people from the sub-continent instead!
Labour will run a very personal campaign against Cameron and the main tories, however as has been proved so far, it won’t work very well. The chameleon dave tag didn’t stick, the call me dave insult slipped off (not a good idea anthony). People are sick of politics becomign about mud slinging, something which I think only the tories and lib dems have picked up. Labour want to demonise the tories as unsafe with the economy, but so far have failed. If the tories can keep themselves looking good on the economy and run a cleanish campaign they can win.
Good post Coldstone. Perhaps us Labour supporters should be careful what we wish for! A 4th victory is stretching things a bit. However, if you told Labour supporters in the mid-80s that there would be even the possiblilty of a FOURTH term government, you would not be believed.
If this did happen, no matter what rhetoric CCHQ would come out with, and not even if the Labour majority were in single figures, Cameron would be finished because tories now believe they can win. The damage of not winning would be immense.
67. And how can forget “PODWAS : Poor old Dave what a shame”
He had the last laugh on that one too.
64 - No election is in the bag until the votes are cast and counted.
The ‘Demon Eyes’ was banned by the ASA. As the agency would have known. It got the publicity at little cost. A well known ruse among advertisers. The same rules don’t apply to newspapers so the most vicious and effective was probably Murdoch’s lightbulb in ‘92. I liked this one from ‘97…..
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election2001/images/0,,449799,00.html
From the BBC, Cameron says Tory front bench must “register family members”. I wonder what register he has in mind? The mind boggles.
Clearly won’t cause a problem for Labour as most family members are in the cabinet already.
71 In retrospect many might call that an accurate forecast in policy if not persons what with the rebate trashed and the constitution supported. And how many people, after the wars and mayhem Labour have brought to us, would not nod sagely about the demon eyes message?
72 The Telegraph has an interesting list of MPs family employees and it shows why Labour are not making too much of the whole thing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4EBQEA3KSKNAPQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/31/nrelatives131.xml
Redflump,
Your wrong on that. Most Tories believe that the electoral arithmatic means that it will be very difficult to win an outright majority.
If Brown won with just single figure seats or was proped up by the Liberals, then Cameron would be safe, as the Tories would have gained 100+ seats. It would only be a matter of time in that scenario before a vote of no confidence was held.
How safe would Brown be??
Enjoyed your article Mike.
In answer to the question”What does Labour do now?”
Fairly simple solution,replace Gordon Brown.
The conservatives are having problems with Mr Conway.
It appears the only party with an opportunity to gain votes are the LibDems,and rumours continue to grow that Peter Hain may “cross the floor”.
The next opinion poll should be interesting and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Libdems with 20% and growing.
69. I remember PODWAS, it was another labour party attempt at creating something from nothing in order to look good. It backfired on them spectacularly, that plus everything else they were throwing at him and the tories united the tories and gave Cameron something to throw back.
50. HF “When I looked at what the left “campaign group” are saying they refer to the governing part of Labour as a different party.
2
they’re doing it since 1997 (actually even before it). There’s nothing new. It was said that immediately after 1997 GE when Blair approval ratings were at 90%+, looking at them, Bob Marshall Andrews allegedly said “that’s a good 7% to start from”.
The Campaign Group is not much relevant anymore and they’re slipping away. They’re 24 MPs. 6 of them will stand down at next GE. 2 have been deselected. Another 2/4 may lost their seat at next GE (depending on how bad Labour will do).
SCP MPs have also a quite high average age. Leaving Katy Clark aside, IIRC they’re all over 50 years old…just think that Diane Abbott is one of their youngest ones!
So was the vilification heaped on Thatcher, but thats never bothered the left.
“it is being emphasised that this is not “[a] factional plot, or a move to undermine Brown” but in that great shorthand of the Labour movement “an effort to stimulate debate”. I doubt if the Prime Minister will quite see it that way and he will be right.”
Yes and no, respectively. Brown will see it as an attack and an attempt to undermine him, but he won’t be right. It’s a well-judged piece of analysis and if that undermines Brown, then the fundamental problem is Brown, not the publication of the analysis.
Tractor production figures won’t wash if the public doesn’t believe them, and even if they do, it’s hardly the most inspring of messages. All political parties get tired in office; New Labour is no exception. Indeed, the ‘New’ has been dropped for some time as that’s just not true any more (as well as being a ‘Blair’ thing).
75 - Oh, I don’t know. From the groupthink on here, you would imagine that Labour could never win an election again. If Gordon manages a 4th victory, the knives will be well and truly out for Dave.
[77] PODWAS allegedly began as a text-message code amongst right-wing Tory MPs.
78. ops, just 23 now. I forgot one of them left them to become PPC between the GE and 2007
The election is still in the balance, Cameron needs to continue to try and get his message out to stand a chance of winning. If they don’t get an overall majority next time round I don’t see that as doing badly, he has a large mountain to climb. Brown is stuck though, he’s poor at dealing with questions, has no real original ideas, and relies on bashing the tories to try and get by.
78 Andrea - This says a huge amount about the decline of then old Left. Where have the radicals gone to? It is actually not good news for Labour as the hard left were an important source of activists at a local level.
It also begs the question about intellectual vibrancy of the Party. It was not that the hard left generated good ideas. They poke rubbish almost all of the time - witness Abbott, Marshall - Andrews - great entertainers, but you would never trust them to actually run anything
However the process of arguing with the hard left energised the mainstream of the party to create new approaches. That is clearly missing now
74.
Very enlightening! Yes indeed it is now clear why certain Labour voices have been less than stentorian on the Conway case. No doubt Murdoch and Dacre have their bloodhounds on the case right now, sniffing out the dodgier customers. Watch that space. It’s hard to believe there is no one else “doing a Conway”.
I also note that Anthony Steen’s daughter is called Xanthe.
Xanthe Steen!
And here she is. Very Jewish, quite hot:
http://tinyurl.com/3yhzme
Something to warm the frozen pb cockles back in Blighty.
83. PPS not PPC. Sorry again. I can’t post correctly this morning
“spoke” not “poke” in the second para
51. Just a bit of fun, continued…..
In addition to the 11 seats changing hands, the following seats would also become “super-marginals”:
- Aberdeen South: Lab/SNP
- Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine: LD/SNP/Con three-way super-marginal
- Ayrshire North and Arran: Lab/SNP
- Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk: LD/SNP/Con three-way super-marginal
- Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross: LD/SNP
- Dumfries and Galloway: Lab/Con/SNP three-way super-marginal
- Dunbartonshire East: Lab/Con/LD three-way super-marginal
- East Lothian: Lab/SNP
- Edinburgh South: Lab/SNP/Con three-way super-marginal
- Edinburgh South West: Lab/SNP/Con three-way super-marginal
- Glasgow North: Lab/SNP
- Kilmarnock and Loudoun: Lab/SNP
- Linlithgow and East Falkirk: Lab/SNP
- Paisley and Renfrewshire North: Lab/SNP
As we know from previous elections, “super-marginals” have a life of their own, and can go any way, irrespective of what Uniform National Swing may do. In seats like this it is hard sweat “on-the-ground” that will make the crucial difference, not the media “air war”.
And who is looking perkiest “on-the-ground”? There can be little doubt that the SNP and Tories have far better membership numbers, more motivated members, better finances, and in the SNP’s case better local organisation. On all 4 points the Scottish Labour Party and Scottish Lib Dems are on the back foot.
Stuart Dickson: gleefully dancing on the Lib Dems graves in Scotland.
Hmmm, we will see- the seats you name have been held for a long time by popular incumbents and I for one would not be so sure about a decimation. The SNP do have a lot of money these days, but nearer the election some of the sources of that cash may end up being inspected a lot more closely.
61.Jon C ‘2005 was much more of a negative campaign from Labour, unsurprising given they had run out of ideas’.
I doubt it was that considered. A campaign is decided by agency and client. By 2005 Mandelson and Campbell had gone so my guess is the agency had a reasonably free hand and the advertiser that year was Trevor Beattie whose stock in trade is to get banned or noticed (ie FCUK). Though ironically I doubt he foresaw the implication in the Shylock poster or the Letwin/Howard one.
85. The old left came out of the manual labour workers movement who formed unions and funded Labour. As that industry has been reduced to a small rump then those days are over. I can’t see the same wave of political organisation coming out of a call centre.
Maggie won.
As Gov’t spending is currently over 3% more than revenues and revenues are likely to fall (Corporation Tax- partly due to lower profits, some due to hedge funds untaxed income, stamp duty is collpasing - house and share transactions down) -
then either we will see large tax rises or further real cuts in Gov’t spending in the next two years.
If GB talks about economic competence, he’ll be laughed into Opposition.
I don’t think the innumerate amongst Labour MPs (I include Darling amongst that lot) realise just how bad things are going to get.
I note the order for new aircraft carriers has not yet been placed. With steel and oil prices rising, any chance of the budget being met on these is zero. I expect a 50% cost overrun.
The MOD is run by people who make Darling look competent… an achievement.
I expect a number of businesses to domicile abroad out of the UK tax net as the Gov’t scrabbles for income. This will further exacerbate the problem.
As for prisons, law and order and immigration, these are all vote losers and basically the Government’s policy is steady as she goes. The outcome is inevitable. A large backlash and further economic squeezes.
I don’t believe anyone has said that Redflump.
There will be no recession this year - Jeff Randall can go hang!
Full Kilsyth byelection result
Lab 1855
SNP 891
Green 66
Con 50
SSP 48
LD 17
turnout 32.1%
96 - Hooray! Labour CAN win elections!
95 - Technically maybe not, but elections are often won on perceptions of reality than reality itself and here you may find that the public perceive a recession that doesn’t exist. That will crucify Labour just as surely as a real recession.
96. Changes compared to last May it’s something like Lab -1%, SNP +2.6%, COn -3.2, SSP -1.4, LD and Green not standing last time.
78. Andrea. Why were the two Labour MP’s deselected? Surely not for persistent rebellion?
92. Maggie did indeed win. Which is why the left has been in such a strop ever since - why we get all the Kinnockian rhetoric of “bastards” and “grinding”.
They know she won, and they can’t bear it. So they hate the Tories with a bitterness and anger far in excess of any remaining ideological differences.
In a way the left in the west remind me of the Quebecois Canadians, who are basically still whingeing and seething about their defeat, at the hands of the British, on the Plains of Abraham. In 1759.
Here’s a hint. Move on guys.
Any other election results?
100. They both were over 70. In one case, I think it was a mixture of being too rebellious, not living in the constituency anymore and not being much active in the CLP…if he had been more active, he could have probably survived even by being outspoken.
“I can’t see the same wave of political organisation coming out of a call centre.”
Classic
98 A real recession did not crucify Major in 1992 . The Conservatives always have recessions when they are in power .
101. “So they hate the Tories with a bitterness and anger far in excess of any remaining ideological differences”
seant, you often sound as the other side of the same mirror
95,98 on recessions. More likely, votes are swung by people’s own economic circumstances, and those they see around them, whether or not there is technically a recession.
As with crime: regardless of the differences between the Home Office numbers and the British Crime Survey, the real question is do I feel safe buying a kebab?
Regardless of health spending, can my workmate’s granny get her hip done?
It is not a question of perception versus reality, but of different, personal realities.
74
I strongly oppose, MP’s employing family members, it’s far to open to abuse. Having said that, there’s one hell of a difference between, what some of those MP’s are doing and this!
http://tinyurl.com/2vkc64
The last few days have been great fun for me, I haven’t enjoyed myself so much in ages. So its roll on the Cameron government, ‘cos there are plenty of other Conways out there, in a few years time some of them will be ministers.
Hain, and the others, (who haven’t stolen taxpayers money) will soon pale into insignificance. If the Tories are this sleazy in opposition, just think how sleazy they’ll be in government: I’m drooling at the thought.
90. Cicero
Inspect away!! You may find the results of your investigation to be rather eyebrowraising, because unlike the 3 London-based parties the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru are very heavily dependent on ordinary members and supporters for the vast majority of its income.
It may be boring compared to Labour’s big-time trade union millions, but the SNP has always depended on tedious stuff like membership fees, prize draws, raffles, merchandise sales, local events, and other mind-numbing but essential ground-work to pay the bills.
When the definitive history of the Scottish independence movement comes to be written then the author should really give just as much credit to the countless Mr and Mrs McDonalds who have organised thousands of ceilidhs, totes and jumble sales, as he does to the prominent names like Robert Cunninghame-Graham, Robert McIntyre, Winnie Ewing or Alex Salmond.
95. Red Flump.(Welcome back). I remember reading the Telegraph a year last April when Jeff Randal predicted an imminent stock market crash. The FT index then stood at around 5500. It subsequently rose to 6700. It’s extraordinary how people like that not only keep their reputation but also their jobs and are even invited onto various financial programmes as an ‘expert’
105 - The result was close and represented a least worst option in many respects. Conservatives have been in power for longer periods so consequently they were more likely to see both ends of the economic cycle. The fact is the Conservative Party has historically been more appealing, more often.
101 - but can they move on? Even at the last election they used that Howard to Thatcher poster - granted, it panders to the base instinct of their core base even now but probably won’t gain too much traction elsewhere.
What Labour are starting to fall into the trap of is believing what they think their opponents are, not what they actually are. Bit like the Tories were in about 1993 when they started to believe Labour would be in control by the unions, IMF handouts etc.
78 Andrea thaks, yes the parliamentary left core is dying out nut the various left leaning member organisations have increased their share of the NEC’s “member” representatives.
It is also the members that provide the councillors and foot soldiers. If these groups have (I would argue) a higher % of the left than was in the 400,000 members back in 1997, then we have the emergence within Labour of the type of disconnect that happened in the Conservative party before 1997. Then it was split between a mainly Eurosceptic membership and a mainly Europhile group of MPs.
106. Come come, Andrea.
I don’t hate the left, I despise them as the witless, hypocritical, narcissistic losers that they are. That’s not quite the same as “hatred”.
The people I do hate are the europhiles. And I hate them, tellingly, for the same reasons that the left hates the right.
Because, so far, the europhiles have won.
But we’ll get ‘em! One day.
27 - I don’t think Labour had to put much effort into actively demonising the Tories, as the media and the Tories were doing most of the running on that themselves.
That aside it is certainly the case that the Labour GE campaigns have become increasing negative, focusing more on the threat posed by the Tories than on the positive plans Labour had (perhaps because they didn’t have any - they seem preoccupied with doing unpopular things like ID cards).
Milburn tried to sell a shiny happy positive Blairite story for the 2005 GE and they panicked at the sight of the polls to the extent of presenting Brown almost as dual-PM.
Labour might lose the election if they simply go negative, but they’d lose even worse if they went Blairite. Sadly Brown is a Blairite without the charm.
111 - Don’t we know it! The funny thing is, I think people are more receptive to change in relatively “good” times. In times of recession, a lot of people may say “better the devil you know”.
116 - History doesn’t bear you out on this, most changes of government occur as the codicil to something bad. 1951,1974,1979,1997 all fit that pattern, the only two that could be argued over is 1964 and 1970.
Surely 1997 was a good year for the economy?
110. Yes Roger, they should have you on instead. Your call on Barclays shares was sheer genius.
Redflump “Surely 1997 was a good year for the economy?”
Not according to the history written by Gordon “1984″ Brown.
119. Now now - Barclays are at 467p - thats only down 33%
120 - You’ve never had it so good - and you know it!
117. Yes. And think of George Bush Senior - kicked out of office after the recession of 1990-91.
And also Jimmy Carter - kicked out, after one term, following the financial shocks of the 70s: provoking this classic definition of economic swings:
“Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
Depression is when you lose yours.
And a recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his”.
118 - Indeed but 1997 was really just what should have been the 1992 result inflation adjusted!
Interesting! Ken Clarke (top of seant’s hate list, I suspect) is calling for state funding of political parties. So if he had become Tory leader would it have been, official party policy: what a U turn.
http://tinyurl.com/39slew
122 - It is not inconceivable that you are wrong, oh yes.
Amusing to see people who a couple of days ago were busy denouncing Gordon Brown as , saying how terrible demonising the Conservatives was.
I’m not a great fan of negative advertising because it tends to stop people getting a good views of “the ishoos”. But is is effective (just ask Mike Dukakis). So it’s an arms race situation- you can’t disarm unless the other guy does.
Second, there’s a difference between supportable negative advertising and unsupportable. I thought the John Kerry “windsurfing” ads were tough but supportable, while the “swift boat” ones was pretty horrible- and designed to convince people of a lie. Not sure if we’ve got to that point in the UK yet, but running those kind of ads should have a political price.
BTW- best neg ad I’ve ever seen was a 97 Tory one that they didn’t run. It had a mephistopholes style “Peter Mandelson” convincing Tony Blair to sell his political soul for power. Really effective. No idea why they went with demon eyes (which was rubbish) and not that.
So,
125. Thats probably one of 100 reasons why he didn’t win.
199. Let us also not forget Woger’s classic economic prediction of last year. At the height of the Northern Rock bank-run, Rogerdamus looked into the entrails of his Tescos chicken-with-giblets, and said:
“I don’t see the problem, this will all be forgotten about by next Friday”.
117- but 1951 is an odd case, as labour got more votes than the Tories, which would make it 3 all!
119. Stay with it Harry! Where else will you get a 7% dividend and a near certainty that they’ll be back at 600 before you can say chameleon.
Though if I’d screwed up in my job like he did I wouldn’t have worked again. Infact I’m surprised the blue rinse Telegraph readers haven’t smothered him in their sable minks by now…..
127 - AFAIK the mephistopheles one was a follow up to Demon Eyes so got pulled.
60 John Wheatley. “Old Labour - spend money and everything will be OK”. This is the policy Labour has used,with Blair approval, for the last 9 years.GB is the architect of this (Old Labour) policy and NuLabour was a sham right from the beginning.Hopefully, the myth about GB being a great Chancellor is beginning to unravel - it was never true.
132. Ah, no it makes sense. (and how fitting since were having a debate about demonising!).
Well, I suppose that’s justice- the Demon eyes ads were both bad and stupid, so I suppose pulling an effective and (at least possibly) convincing ad was a fair price to pay.
125. WOW
131. RBS ?
“Hopefully, the myth about GB being a great Chancellor is beginning to unravel - it was never true”
It is to those who remember Howe Lawson Lamont and Clarke.
….and Major!
138 - Major wasn’t there long enough to make any sizeable impact.
97. Thanks Andrea.
That result from North Lanarkshire yesterday confirms everthing that we already know about the Lib Dem collapse in Scotland.
1. Lab 63.4% (-1%) LAB HOLD
2. SNP 30.4% (+2.6%)
3. Grn 2.3% (n/a)
4. Con 1.7% (-3.2%)
5. SSP 1.6% (-1.4%)
6. LD 0.6% (n/a)
So, the Lib Dems end up in 6th spot, on less than 1% of the vote. That in a constituency where the Scottish Liberal Democrats came in 3rd place with 15% of the vote in the 2005 UK general election.
You really ought to ditch Nicol Stephen if the non-existant Scottish Socialist Party can get 3 times more votes than you.
Thank God!
129. To be fair though I doubt rogers prediction was taken seriously by anyone.
My Partner and I both watched the debate - and we both thought she won it by a whisker - she came up with some witty punch lines - even Obama tried to do some - they both came across a lot more positive, a nice clean debate, I think this one will work more in Hillary’s favor - but who knows with the American public … he needed to pull a lot of knock out punches to keep him momentum going which he didn’t do …
Hillary won hands down on the health section, she came up with a fantastic line about the Clinton,Bush dynasty, he did better on the Iraq section of the debate, they both focused on the Bush problem, and the Republicans, overall it seemed a lot warmer -
90 - there’s no point in arguing with Stuart Dickson Cicero - he’s the Martin Day of Scottish politics.
137: Clarke? Oh yes the person whose work Brown always takes credit for, just like peace in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with John Major.
143. Yeah, whatever, you are so pro-Hillary you wear a weird blue dress and Dynasty shoulder pads so you can LOOK like her.
I think her Clinton Bush line was a terrible error. “It took a Clinton to clear up after the last Bush, it will take a Clinton to clear up after this one”.
I can see why it got applause in the studio - and why she chose to use it - the phrase has a certain glibly satisfying neatness. Which could be mistaken for wit by the dim.
But think about it. What she said actually serves to remind everyone that America has been governed by just two ghastly families for 20 years. So a change might be in order.
Roger-what nonsense you do talk- must be a gift. Look at the National Debt as it was in 1997 and as it is now. You really think that money hes been competently spent?
I particularly enjoy this snippet from the Lib Dems “Flock Together” website:
Ho ho!! It’s the way they tell ‘em
Mr Douglas and his pet poodle Fifi would have been better taking along their bathing costumes and having a refreshing dip
http://www.flocktogether.org.uk/showMeetingPage.php?Meeting=3202
re 143. What do you think of this assessment -
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8248.html
O/T - “Tax is taxing” says Adam Hart-Davis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7220949.stm
Now Now Mr. T how on earth did you guess about the blue dress and shoulder pads
We can agree to differ as that was a fantastic line and went down well with all commentators and all those in the audience …
I think the big difference is that both Hillary and Barcak supporters partisan as we may be can easily endorse the other candidate come November as we realized the key aim is to dump the republicans.
Last nights debate was great - and proves my point both Obama and Clinton are electable … and even if I do praise Clinton I can also praise Obama as well … during the primaries both sides wax on about their own candidate but come nomination day we will all act as one …
oops Barack supporters …
As I said last night, I felt the debate was a draw, nobody dropped a clanger and nobody came out with a cracking election-winning performance (the best line of the night was Clinton’s on cleaning up after Bush, however).
At the end of the day, people who were going to vote Hillary are still going to vote Hillary, and likewise for Obama. Nobody hurt themselves among swing voters so we’ll have to see which way they fall.
27 Jonathan. I did feel at the end of the debate, with reluctance, that this election is slipping away from the Democrats. Not lost yet, but the squabbling hurt them an awful lot. The protracted contest hasn’t helped either. I honestly hope that whoever loses super tuesday, Clinton or Obama, will swiftly step out of the campaign and allow a clear road to the nomination because the last thing needed is a brokered convention - the Democrats are going to look indecisive for months while McCain trots around the country campaigning his heart out.
I doubt this will happen, however.
151 - Do you think that Obama may sense that he has too much ground to make up on Tuesday and is preparing a means to get on the Clinton ticket?
Mike - it is pretty much what I though too - the Iraq section went clearly to Mr. Obama while Mrs. Clinton won on Health and Immigration, the tone of the debate was pleasant.
I am more at favor with Mr. Obama’s position on Iraq and more at favor with her position on Immigration and Health care reform, so gave them plus points in these sections.
Overall though I would have scored it 8.5 for Obama and 9 for Clinton, not much in it - it was a good debate and I think all commentators are calling it either a score draw, or a whisker for Clinton so far, which is a pretty fair assessment, as neither of them came out with any winning blows - and none of them came over as negative to each other.
I just hope the rest of the campaign can be as warm - point out their differences on policy, attack the Republicans, and keep off the negative against each other
If it was a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket that would make me really happy as they both have points in their agenda I love - as above … I am not sure it could happen though, as they are both pretty liberal, both Senators, but a plus is that they would garner, all the sections of the community, he can be pretty broad church appealing to Republicans, and she has her base too,
But to balance the ticket they really need another person other than each other - it is just a shame two fantastic candidates are running at the same time - it would be nice if both won.
131. No thanks Roger. Following your call I went short of bank stocks across the board and have made a tidy sum. Please post some more ‘tips’ soon.
156. Hillary Clinton is a grotesque. She is not a “fantastic” candidate. She is a shrewish, catty, nagging, bitchy, cry-baby little miss perfectgirlscout.
A “fantastic” candidate would be a candidate who didn’t actually make half of America faintly queasy every time she spoke. A “fantastic” candidate wouldn’t remind most of the world’s population of the woman from Misery crossed with a hectoring robot. A fantastic candidate would not be married to International Cigar Magazine’s Man of the Year, Big Bad race-baitin’ Bill.
In short, a “fantastic” candidate would not be Hillary Clinton.
158 - If she was as bad as you assert she wouldn’t be in the race any longer!
146 re Clinton clearing up after Bush.
seanT might be right that reminding voters about dynastic rule can be a bad thing except that the question was specifically about that.
Its Hillary’s belief that she has a right to power that I find incredibly off putting. In the same way some people are put off by Cameron for the same thing.
Obama’s starting to overuse his fallback answer which basically involves talking about what a great guy he is, mentioning his community work in Chicago and finishing with “… so I’m happy to have that debate!”
“She is a shrewish, catty, nagging, bitchy, cry-baby little miss perfectgirlscout” - hardly the non-sexist SeanT from another thread.
145 - yes Ralph, 10+ years of economic growth post 1997 had nothing to do with Gordon Brown. And Tony Blair had nothing to do with the peace process in NI either. Come off it.
[109] You could not be more wrong, Stuart. Brian Souter may dress like a Harold Ramp and carry a plastic bag, but if you think he is just another ordinary punter, you are deluded. The cabal of millionaires currently backing the SNP will get you into deep trouble. The way that Wee Eck grovels to money (Exhibit A: Donald Trump building a new town on the Balmedie Dunes) already looks pretty sleazy to me.
So crow while you can- tomorrow the truth may prove to be far less to your liking.
164 - Brian Souter - what a horrible little man.
SeanT. Why don’t you stop posting till you’re sober? Even by your standards your posts are embarrassingly shril todayl.
164: Indeed, hardly a week seems to go by without questions arising about one of the nats money men in the Scottish press. Its all fairly small beer at the moment but Salmond’s arrogance is just bound to lead to problems of this sort. By the way have you noticed Salmond’s increasingly close physical resemblance to a former nationalist Italian leader?
164 & 165.
You see! This is exactly the kind of demonising that got the Lib-Labs into the pickle they are in. When will the Lib Dems crawl out of the gutter and tussle by the Queensberry rules? It is your loss, not ours.
160. But that’s my point. The question was: why should we put up with two families in the White House for twenty years.
Hillary could’ve come back with a stern - “I am my own woman, with my own views, this will not be a family presidency” - kind of line. I think in the long-run that might have been better for her, albeit less “neat”.
Instead she came out with her cute Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton gag, which got immediate laughs - however, I think it’s very memorability reinforces the question: why should anyone put up with two families running America for two decades?
163. Readers on the right hand side of the IQ Bell Curve will probably guess that this was a wind-up.
166. Stone cold sober, Wogerdamus, and enjoying twitting you.
Rej4sl
If I take off my punter hat for a moment and imagine I am a Democrat voter, I’d be pretty happy with the choice available.
I would in fact have been happy with John Edwards, who I think is a stronger politician now than he was 4 years ago. As between the other two, I would have difficulty choosing and would prefer a little more time. I would prefer it not to be all over on Superdupercalifragilisticexpialidotioustuesday, so I would probably vote Obama, but if Hillary won hands down, I would have no difficulty supporting her in The Big One.
163: My point is that both Brown and Blair claimed sole credit for things that were at best only partially their doing. I will happily though give Gordon credit for selling off the countries gold at such a low price you’d think he was getting kickbacks from the bullion dealers.
Nice post Mike
I am instinctively left wing, I suppose. When I was young I was rabidly left-wing. But then I watched the unions perform in the 60s and 70s and the way the Labour governments of the day carried on and I thought ‘this lot are simply going to wreck the country’. But I could never bring myself to vote Tory because, in those days, they were still very much the party of privilege. I detested that then, and still do.
Now I’m older and, hopefully, a bit wiser - I’ve come to realise that what you need is people who have something about them, competence, ability to take decisions, ability to see things through etc. I see very little evidence of that in the Labour party. To be honest I don’t spot much of it in the Tory party. I like Cameron - I think he is honest - in the sense that he can face an interviewer and just talk. He doesn’t need spin doctors to write things down for him - and I get the feeling he is a conviction politician.
I think we have to forget the ideology of the past. Socialist or capitalist? Well we know capitalism has won. Unions funding the government or big business - both as bad as each other - so I don’t think that matters much any more.
I just want people in charge who:
don’t want to run a Big Brother state
whose instinct is a low taxation environment allowing me to take responsibility for spending my own money
who believe in the smallest government possible - not the biggest
So, despite my instincts, I’ll be voting LibDem next time. Clegg and Cable seem quite a good team to me.
The last 11 years have been characterised by failure.
The biggest are on education, policing and the management of the economy. The things I hate most about this present lot is the growth of the state. A million more people working in the public sector. A million more mouths for the rest of us to feed and provide final salary pensions for. And, of course, the reliance on the endless growth of consumer debt to create growth. A huge con has been perpretrated on the people of this country, aided and abetted by a puppy-like media that has only just woken up to the fact Alistair Campbell is not there to bully them any more.
My biggest worry is that Clegg will inherit a huge mess and will end up being blamed for it - and this bunch will get back in after one term.
166. even by your standards he’s rambling a bit nonsensically.
166. Roger - your posts are always embarassing, but please don’t stop posting.
140. The Kilsyth multi members ward apparently is made up from old 64 65 and 66 single member wards.
Looking at 1999 and 2003 results…
Lab and SNP stood in all 3 of them. SSP stood in one (64) in 1999 and 2 (64 and 66) in 2003.
Turnout was:
1999: 61.33%
2003: 49.9%
2007: 58.73%
2008: 32.1%
The aggregated vote was:
1999: Lab 61.45% SNP 36.82% SSP 1,72%
2003: Lab 61.8% SNP 32.8% SSP 5,37%
2007 (first preferences): Lab 64.3% SNP 27.8% Con 4.9% SSP 3%
2008: Lab 63.37% SNP 30.4% Greens 2.2% Con 1.7% SSP 1.6% LD 0.58%
The voters of Kilsyth almost never change their voting intentions!
172 - “My biggest worry is that Clegg will inherit a huge mess and will end up being blamed for it - and this bunch will get back in after one term.”
Clegg?!?
173. I’m bored! So I’m letting off steam. And having a laugh. I’m going to the Foreign Correspondents Club of Bangkok tonight, but it doesn’t kick off until 9pm.
So I am sitting at my laptop with nothing to do but provoke lefties pointlessly.
I guess I could have that first beer….
167. “have you noticed Salmond’s increasingly close physical resemblance to a former nationalist Italian leader?”
… and there go the Unionists again: demonising.
I hate to agree with Jim Murphy MP, but I fear I must:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2010835.0.Cameron_urged_to_control_his_party_after_Nazi_comments.php
I feel a warmth inside me when SeanT does not like someone as I realize that they must be a fantastic candidate - and his misogynist comments about Hillary make me smile - if that is all he can come up with good luck …
PtP yup they are both good choices - and when Edwards quick I was very disappointed - very rarely do you see such a believer in the Presidential race - he was for the underdog and would have made an amazing President ..
forgive my spellings or mistypes this morning - our gorgeous dog woke me up at 4.30 a.m. and I am drooping
re 6 but all politicians prevaricate. If you had any of them for an interview they would be unable to give a single word answer to “is the sky blue?”
179. Dude, I refer you to my remarks at 169 and 177. Did not the string of half a dozen adjectives, all of them misogynistic in some obvious way, indicate to you that I might… just… be having a joke?
Oh dear. Lefties and humour!
Even I don’t think Hillary is THAT bad. Though there sometimes is a hint of the Kathy Bates in Misery about her.
Incidentally, I’ve just read a Paris Review interview with Stephen King. Apparently the female character in Misery is a symbolic representation of his drink and drug problem.
Clever.
178. What were the other 2? And how can them using nazi references be Cameron’s fault! People didn’t whinge at Blair when Livingstone called a reported a nazi camp guard.
178 Salmond more resembles Mr. Toad than Mussolini.
183. Tony Benn once famously compared Enoch Powell’s views to Nazism too - ‘the flag that flew over Belsen’ etc.
Basically the rule of thumb is, it’s fine for left wingers to use this insult about right wingers, otherwise it’s unacceptable/disgraceful/demeaning etc etc
183-I thought it was a stock phrase of the left to label any one they don’t like a fascist/nazi.
Our very own NP MP casually calls the BNP nazis, or was it just fascists? Does he know of their secret plans to gas us? Please tell.
184. Sean T
Oh well, if you do insist on going down this particular road:
http://www.alba.org.uk/images/wendyalexander1.jpg
http://www.alba.org.uk/images/jackiebaillie1.jpg
http://www.alba.org.uk/images/wendyalexander2.jpg
185 - But the lefties have the advantage of knowing they are correct.
184-sean- finally something we agree on 110%. There is hope after all
More trouble for Cameron…
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,2250787,00.html
pretty much the same as Nick Ridley said in 1990, and he got the boot from the cabinet…
178 - At the risk of a torrent of abuse, I think the use of the example was more inelegant than inaccurate. I do think though that the hypocritical cant from some quarters when someone mentions the word is a bit much, certain people are quite happy to draw parallels by inference and implication but are unhappy when another person draws more direct parallels.
And here is Wendy’s successor Andy Kerr, the former “Health” minister:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41645000/jpg/_41645930_andykerr220300.jpg
190 Guardian hype. Hardly anyone wants to remain in the EPP now.
187. I think you mean Sean F, not me.
However I must confess to a certain libidinous feeling towards Ms Wendy Alexander. I know, I know. But she seems quite sparky. Fun. Even after seeing those photos.
Jackie Baillie, not.
192 Out of interest, who do you think is (a) the most attractive (b) the most ugly politician.
190, if you think that will cause Cameron trouble, you are seriously mistaken:
1) the EU Parliament has behaved disgracefully over the point of order - ignoring the Parliament’s own rules to stifle a debate is despicable
2) Daniel Hannan, unlike Nicholas Ridley, is not a cabinet minister
3) if Daniel Hannan is obliged to leave the EPP, he will merely be pre-empting his party’s policy by a year or so.
I suspect that it is more of a vote winner than a vote loser for the Tories, and I am much more pro-EU than the Conservatives. Most people won’t notice, and the people who will notice will be people who are glad that the Tories still have a Eurosceptic strain.
195. (b) how long have you got? Mike rightly discourages very lengthy posts…
197. Well, perhaps just give two or three truly horrible ones.
195 - I have some primal rumblings for a certain Mr James Purnell.
199. The most attractive politician I’ve ever met is Judith Kim-Syme, who defected to Labour last year.
O/T Northern Rock SP down 10%+ so far today - indications that the bid number/quality might not be impressive ?
197. The MSP for Banff & Buchan…and before Stuart claims I was demonising SNP, it was him who brought him to my attention last year!
http://www.alba.org.uk/images/stewartstevenson1.jpg
Ah, I think there’s a Leeds councillor worth mentioning too
Caroline Flint I can understand(and would if opportunity arose), but Wendy Alexander looks just like her brother. Are you coming out of closet Sean?
The ugly ones are all Tories. Some of the Labour one’s are quite tasty…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/mpdb/img/61204.jpg
203. Caroline has a bit of mustaches…
http://www.headsofgovernment.co.uk/images/hi-res/CarolineFlint.jpg
204,
Justine Greening is okay, better than Ms Teather.
Jeremy Hunt is pretty dashing (and his predecessor in Surrey South West was rather attractive in her prime)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/mpdb/img/68902.jpg
204 A bit sweeping. I can think of some spectacularly ugly Labour politicians.
108 - I disagree. Many MPs families will end up helping out a lot, unpaid, in any case. I don’t think it unreasonable for MPs to employ spouses, etc, but there should actually be work being done at a reasonable rate.
I also think it acts as a useful way to trip over the graspers and fiddlers before they get too near a position of real power and influence.
We should avoid over-reacting to abuse of arrangements that are themselves not unreasonable. Why allow the dishonest and crooked to dictate how our lives are governed?
Sian Berry is very good looking.
And Adam Afriyie looks good here (with added rosette for panache):
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41057000/jpg/_41057103_adam_leaflets_203.jpg
A few threads ago, Ted was appreciating Chris Bryant
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_05/bryante2801_468×389.jpg
I still think the little man from Rutland is better though
The clearly sexiest politician in UK IMO
http://cache3.gettyimages.com/xc/52648958.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19390335F8FA9CA92A6CA9105B014B6204603AA0CF64F13FC89
193. Remember how Powell dealt with Benn’s comments, he mentioned that volunteered to serve in the Army almost as soon as war was declared to fight against the Nazis.
Is there anything from Clarke about devolving responsibilities from Whitehall, about greater transparency in the appointments to Quangos? Is there anything about making the tax system easier to understand? Under Brown, I would be surprised if there was any attempt to devolve responsibilities.
As for the claim of economic competence on the front page of the Gruaniad, does this include the lack of transparency over PFI commitments, distortions caused by Brown’s tax system, the falling incentives to save, the rising trade deficits, the inreasing budget deficit, mimimal improvements in transport infrastructure?
Brown’s big problem is that he lacks the charisma to encourage votes to believe in his ‘vision’.
213 shocker……
196. I know that in cases like this, what’s reported is often more significant than what was actually said, but for the sake of accuracy, it’s worth pointing out that no-one in the EP was compared to a Nazi, nor was that word used, nor indeed was any action the EP was taking said to be equivalent to any actions of the Reichstag in the 30s. In fact, the reasons he gave for not making that comparison were that is would be disproportionate and an unfair insult by association to the Parliament’s president. That is surely a fair point: the stifling of minority rights is an abuse of power.
It’s funny how het up some people get, especially though not exclusively those on the left, when they are accurately accused of acting undemocratically, as if the accusation is worse than the action. Of course, in their case it’s different as the powers are being used to do good and pursue noble policies. As if others wouldn’t argue the same thing if seeking the same powers.
213 LOL! Yes, we did have some fun commenting about her.
Sean Fear
I used to quite fancy Shirley-Anne:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/membersPages/shirley-anne_somerville/shirley-anne_somerville.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44098000/jpg/_44098723_shirleysomerville203sp.jpg
… but that was many years ago.
Sexy politicans!!
Wah-hey!
I have a soft-spot for - with reservations;
Ruth Kelly (if only she sorted out her voice)
Hazel Blears (but 20 years ago, please)
Jacqui Smith* (*cleavage only)
Julia Goldsworthy (with longer hair please)
Justine Greening (heard she bats for another team though)
Julie Kirkbride (very sweet lady)
Jo Swinson (if I was a little bit tipsy)
Plus, there are loads of HOT Tory PPCs just waiting to be mounted on the green-benches in 2010..
(No, I haven’t been drinking)
Tory females are hotter than Labour females. Libdem females are just irritating.
Tory men/Labour women secretly fancy each other and wouldn’t say no if a little tipsy and if noone could find out.
213. Erugh!
*YOURS*
Or, Mark Senior can have her..
208. irrespective of gender, they can’t be as ugly as this..
http://www.londonhousing.gov.uk/upload/public/docImages/14/lh111.15.jpg
or this
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/6533/fabricantmichaelbi9.gif
or this
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/07/16/boris10a.jpg
or..
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_05/conway13001_468×310.jpg
Louise Bagshaw is nice. Does kirsty alsop count (she was on th A-list!)
Anybody raise me a Mrs G Dunwoody!
221. The last one was Conway, but link didn’t work
Stephen Pound has a face for radio. But not the voice…
And Laura Jones AM was tasty… but I don’t know what happened to her.
221 How about John Prescott, Tom Watson, and Ian MacCartney?
[213] Andrea! The Venerable Helen is not to be discussed in these terms…
(Especially not around lunchtime…)
Dunky Duncan on the other hand… well I know your “little ways”
Justine Greening never struck me as being a tennis fan (disappointing if true)
Some exciting Super Tuesday specials now available on the ladbrokes site.
214. Thanks Dr Spyn - I do indeed remember Powell’s excellent riposte.
Didn’t another Benn used to swan around with a ‘CCCP’ shirt on years ago? That was pretty poor taste, at best, given the millions of victims of Soviet terror.
Not strictly a politician, but I think Cherie Blair is looking a little rough around the edges, these days:
http://tinyurl.com/39a33x
223. “The last one was Conway, but link didn’t work ”
2 days ago someone suggested me to picture Conway Sr dressed like Conway Jr…not a nice thought…
To add a gay man’s perspective, the pickings are pretty slim in all three parties. Politics really is show business for ugly people.
If you held a gun to my head, Boris. On a really bad day, Mark Oaten (but he’d have to wash his mouth out thoroughly first). Tony Lit was easy on the eye - but I’m not sure he counts as a politician.
[230] So now this thread has turned into Viz.
“The Borderline Boilers, Your eyes say NO, Your N**s say GO!”
230. Yeah.
But you would though wouldn’t you?
“Plus, there are loads of HOT Tory PPCs just waiting to be mounted on the green-benches in 2010..”
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=134099
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=127156
(PM is not as good in all pics)
233. Syd the Sexist or the Fat Slags?
230. Maybe. A six pinter. To be fair to Cherie, I think the photo in 230 was taken when she was under some stress, because of the Brown-Blair hostilities.
235. Andrea - don’t.
You’ll get me all hot under the collar!
There’s quite a few more too..
Sure you can find ‘em
190: ‘More trouble for Cameron…’
Indeed, it is a disaster for Cameron. For a measured, sensible analysis of this debacle see here.
239. very good
214Dr Spyn. “Grauniad”surely? They get very upset if you spell their name wrongly.
Is Stuart Dickson trying to run for ‘Bore of the Year’ on todays thread?
212 There isn’t a Gaydar pic of Alan D in his underwear (probably silk boxers from an expensive Jermyn Street supplier) to enable a good comparison with valley boyo in his Y fronts
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if you want the hottest politician you have to go outside these isles and check out Yulia Timoshenko.
244 - I’ll see your Timoshenko and raise you my Segolene…
243. Ted, there’s somewhere a pic of AD with nothing other than a pic of Maggie covering those parts…he made it for a charity calendar…
I can’t work out what I make of annunziata rees-mogg:
http://www.conservatives.com/UploadedFiles/GRAPHIC%5CPORTRAIT%5Cportrait-annunziatareesmogg-2007.jpg
I do find it amusing that her Conservative Party profile states she has been “active in Conservative politics for over 20 years”.
She’s only 28..
244/45. This is an Italian MP in her pre parliament career
http://www.lotikxane.com/mara.jpg
US payrolls negative - RECESSION IS UPON US
246. Somewhere there’s a photo of Maggie with nothing but a pic of Alan Duncan covering those parts..
Don’t know why she did it.
Angela Merkel. She’s a sizzler. Get down you Thuringian hottie!
As John Betjeman rightly said, in Senex:
Oh whip the dogs away my Lord,
They make me ill with lust.
Bend bare knees down to pray, my Lord,
Teach sulky lips to say, my Lord,
That flaxen hair is dust.
250. “Somewhere there’s a photo of Maggie with nothing but a pic of Alan Duncan covering those parts..”
why do you have to ruin my afternoon with this shocking suggestion?!
And there’s always Guidos totty watch for a laugh:
http://www.order-order.com/search/label/totty%20watch
I like the Polish Women’s Party (Partia Kobiet)
190. As ever Rod seems to be missing the mood of the majority of the UK if he thinks this will bother anyone other than the PC left. I think the bigger story is how the European pariliament is trying intending to stifle debate from those who disagree with them. Typical lefties for you..our way or the highway.
Believe it or not, this is the former Prime Minister of Canada…
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/h4/f1/17-v3.jpg
249..If you live in America…
Ex-gymnast Svetlana Korkina is now an MP for Putin’s party in Russia - http://www.gymnasticsbr.kit.net/gof/rus/sk.html
254. When it comes to politics, I am a democrat. I hate them all equally - which I think is the real “mood of the majority”…
251. http://www.marche-romagna.com/blog/wp-content/Angela%20Merkel.jpg
No.
Just… No.
259. As “Wolfgang” says in the comments on that picture:
“Diese Frau ist kein Model.”
No shit.
Mussolini’s granddaughter, anyone…
http://www.badeagle.com/journal/archives/AlessandraMussolini.jpg
Next pbc be competing with Guido’s caption competition.
254. Hannan might better have compared the behaviour of the European institutions with that of the Soviet Union. We have a politburo (the Commission) and a rubber stamp parliament inhabited by fictitious ‘parties’ - which essentially agree on everything. With the persecution of dissidents such as Van Buitenen, Andreasson, Connolly etc. the resemblence is ever closer.
259 - I’m surprised no-one has mentioned Mrs Clinton in all this, obviously in earlier incarnations she resembled the ugly Duckling but now she has really upped her game and often looks rather nice if not rather attractive especially considering her vintage.
257. Nice.
She has funny, malnourished Soviet knees though.
What’s that all about?
all I can say about 259 is thank God I’m gay - you can keep that hottie for yourself
264. Sure….
http://www.usasurvival.org/images/hillary.jpg
252 Mr D was also wearing a Santa Hat & Hunter Willengton boots - calendar called “Embrace Men in Wellies” which is disturbing mix of dominant female, Christmas and rubber fet1sh
No doubt if Jack W were here, he’d put in a word for Vladimir Luxuria: http://www.uonna.it/vladimirluxuria-prc3.jpg
264. In one of the clips of her at the Walmart meetings that was shown yesterday she looked remarkably like Ruth Kelly.
267 - that is an old pic. Plus I said often not always.
255. Ah yes, Kim Campbell, the woman who presided over an election that’s reminiscent of Ave It’s postings…
LIB Gain EVERYWHERE
Campbell’s Party down to TWO seats
LOLOLOLOLOLOL….
Willengtin boots obviously a touch of a freudian slip - they were good sturdy Wellingtons (though possibly red or pink ones….)
264. Agreed. One of the few women to IMPROVE with age.
She looked simply hideous when she was younger.
Why did Bill go for HER?!
273. One gets the feeling *she* went for him.
Looking for a man I can mould into US President… oh, he’ll do…
Maybe there is a side too her that we don’t see that he likes.
273. I like the story that when asked (in the 90s) where she’d be today if she’d married someone other than Bill, Hillary replied, “I’d be the wife of the President of the United States.”
275 - She’s generous to a fault, and what a fault!!
273 - a tribute to Bill’s good sense. He could get his leg over as often as he wanted with good looking women on the sly, but an intellect as powerful as Hillary’s is rare indeed. She finished higher than him at law school, and he ended up President.
Its only so he does not pester her.
261. Just imagine if Adolph had a grandaughter standing in an upcoming state election:
“VOTE Hilter!”
Just doesn’t seem plausible, does it?
275.
Her arse?
“Next pbc be competing with Guido’s caption competition.”
pb.com will naturally win it
271. Yes the Canadian Tory wipeout occurred while John Major’s government was disintegrating. On the Canadian result, the Times had a cartoon of one commentator saying to another “They can take turns to rebel..”
278 - None of Bills other women were remotely attractive.
Never noticed. She leaves me cold. I’d take on Dianne Abbot before her.
284 - I wouldn’t be a good judge, so I’ll defer to you on that.
You get the feeling with Bill its quantity not quality.
242. Galloglass - “Is Stuart Dickson trying to run for ‘Bore of the Year’ on todays thread?”
Ho ho ho!
I can just imagine how “boring” you Lib Dem twerps would be if it was the SNP who had halved their vote since 2005, and came 6th place in by elections with less than 1% of the vote. Blimey, we would never hear the end of it…
286 - I’m probably not that good a judge myself.
280 I believe there was a Dr. Goebbels in the EU Parliament at one stage.
Late Nineties Hillary was definitely attractive.
288. Absolutely!!
I wonder why Mark Senior has gone all quiet today?
He’s probably crying into his Ribena about the “real” election result that your post at 140 represents.
[263] What is it about Tories and Europe? It is just deathly…
Meanwhile back on thread: The former foreign minister of Estonia, Kristina Ojuland?
http://f.elu24.ee/f/2007/09/25/4316t9hb1f6.jpg
290. Dr. Goebbels?! WTF?!
Maybe he escaped from the Reichschancellery with Magda after all?
271: An unpopular Tory government lost big time to the opposition, who after winning three terms was replaced their leader with a finance minister who was out of office in just over two years.
Just to pre-empt Mike… New Thread
Did someone mention totty? I’m not sure how the subject came up, but the only MP I’ve ever even remotely fancied was Matthew Taylor, and that was 20 years ago when he was still young and cute.
She is definately not a triple bagger.
293 Robert Goebbels MEP
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/alphaOrder/view.do?language=EN&id=4429
My wife tells me that Thomas Bodström is quite a cutie. Not my cup of tea, but…
He was Göran Persson’s Minister for Justice, and is still on the Swedish Social Democrats opposition front bench.
I think he has about half a dozen kids, so he is in not bad shape considering he has twice as many weights round his neck as Homer Simpson!
http://www.sr.se/p1/sommar/2004/images/foto/Thomas_Bodstrom.jpg
http://www.sr.se/diverse/appdata/isidor/images/news_images/1316/58814_200_300.jpg
http://www.dn.se/content/1/c6/48/09/09/bloggBodstrom.jpg
287 A over-weight hippomatus would float my boat before Monica Lewinsky:lol:
276. Yes, it is a good story, but that’s all it is. There’s enough plausibility about it to ring true but apparently it was made up for an after dinner speech, got reported in a newspaper and took off with a life of its own.
NEW THREAD
blimey there are more gay posters that I imagined!
[288] Stuart, being a cheer leader for the SNP is a pretty sad place anyway.. the unrelenting droning of your stuff and the rather uncalled for attacks on the Lib Dems is beginning to put you in the box marked “creatures”. If you want to engage with people here, that’s fine, but just hectoring, as you did today, makes you look like the pub bore. at least SeanT’s aggression is flecked with wit- you just sound like a bloke in cordroy trousers.
Gay Gordon, Milliblip, Yvette Bollocks, Slapper Flint you could’nt make it up. Goodby Britain.