Jacqui Smith just looks flaky. Darling is narcoleptic. Yvette Cooper is tetchy. Ruth Kelly sounds like a WPC making an appeal on Crimewatch. Purnell and Andy
Burnham aren't good enough communicators. While Ed Balls has all Gordon Brown’s worst habits plus a few of his own to boot. Meanwhile Harriet Harman – job sharing as party chairman and Leader of the House and the person nominally tasked with raising the party standard aloft on the Today programme - is simply too plodding and dull-witted to articulate the Government’s case properly.
The poor deluded fool reckons that the answer to the Labour Party's problems is ... wait for it ... cue the drumroll ... Shaun 'where's my butler' Woodward. Laugh? I nearly cried.
28 comments:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure there has been serious party division and conflict within the Tory party since 1996...
A Swansea Blog
I never said there hadn't been. But what's going on in the Labour Party reminds me of the Tory Party in the mid 1990s. That's all.
There are two very big differences between now and 1996, Iain. (1) The public has not thus far responded to Cameron with anything like the enthusiasm with which it responded to Blair back then, and (2) Notwithstanding these sorts of mutterings on Labour Home, there is no great single issue dividing the Labour Party as there was for the Tories at that time.
Off topic but you mentioned inflation last night on Sky. Who is working out the rate. My wife assures me that food is going up, I know petrol, gas, electric and coal have rocketed. The same goes for Council tax. I know some consumer goods are falling in price but how many tellies do you buy?
It won't be long until that post is censored by Labour. They always remove comments they don't like...
Let's face it, Labour are history. But shouldn't Cameron being doing better than he is at the moment? DC is losing his tenacity...
Conservative leaders have to win because of their policies and management skill, despite being Conservative.
Labour win because they are Labour, despite their policies and management abilities.
Cameron could not do a "Blair' as in the UK Conservatives are tolerated at best, and voted for only in dire circumstances, when managerial competence is required - as now, or in 1980's.
Blair cross dressed and appealed to many earlier Conservative voters, offering the ideal political brand with almost nil managerial competence - at a time when the economy was good enough to abandon sensible management for a while.
In the US Obama is now dressing up the Democrats as the party of managerial competence, and sound policies. He could well pull away enough former Republicans to win the Presidency.
He and Cameron are playing the same game at the same time. Neither is the preferred brand, but they are both right for their times.
Obama is the Tony Blair des nos jours. He is equally lethal.
Indeed, how bizarre that the Manchurian Candidate turned out to be from Kenya.
It would have been even funnier if he had come from Manchuria...
Obama is not a Blair IMO, Verity.
He is from the left leaning side of politics which in the USA is the less attractive brand to the majority of US voters. He is offering to break up corruption, and lobby-style politics, and focus on longterm strategic goals.
Blair rode upon short-termism and corruption of everything he touched. Blair was from the leading political brand in the UK (which is undoubtedly Labour and not Conservative as British politics are the opposite of American, with the left naturally in the ascendant).
Obama has more in common with Cameron, coming from the lesser political brand, and wanting to change politics in a longer term game, more managerial, and with more efficient use of resources.
Blair and Brown couldn't care how many billions were/are wasted as long as the headlines look OK - as with Clinton.
Cameron could steal a few tricks from Obama, in terms of confidence, rhetoric and policy. Blair he is not.
The poor deluded fool reckons that the answer to the Conservative Party's problems is ... wait for it ... cue the drumroll ... David 'where's my Bollinger' Cameron. Laugh? I nearly cried.
No Iain they are nowhere near like the Conservative Party was in 95-7.
They are much much worse, more divided then a pack of Dairy Lee cheese slices.
The difference is how the media and most of all the BBC report things.
Not that division and inner party decent is a bad thing anyway for the people. That is if the people even know such a thing is taking place.
However you cant blame Labour MPs for not rocking the boat to often or to publicly. Far too many of those that have, seem to vanish or have sudden fatal heart attacks, for any sane Labour MPs likeing.
Tapestry
A logical way of looking at things, and lets hope you are right. However I think Obama is dangerous for completely different reasons to Verity.
Obama is a New World Order puppet. As most likely is Cameron. Although there is a lot of devils in the detail for ordinary people.
So if I was a real black man living in the USA I would be more scared of Obama then Hillery Clinton. Which is very much scared enough.
Obama will screw the blacks of America because that is what his job will be. The hope is that because he has black credentials the blacks will not notice him doing it until its too late.
Remember Conservatives are supposed to believe in conservatism. Which is basically freedom, liberty and prosperity, created and moderated by free market capitalism. Also not attempting to repair things that are not broken.
Why does the media persist in calling Obama the potential first Black American president. As he is clearly not BLACK, or in fact even dark. He looks like most white people with a good sun tan.
He is as racially white Anglo-Saxon as myself. Not only this but he has had more educational and financial advantages in life as any other president of the United States possibly more in some cases.
One arsey blogger gets a bit uppity and it's 1996?! Not at all. The Labour Party have these precious qualities called "unity" and "loyalty" - - - unlike the Tories, who still have their own pathetic Militant Tendency, only one in charge of most of the Tory press.
It is, alas, the Tories in 2008 who are much closer to the Tory party c.1996 than Labour are.
Woodward? Woodward!
Don't. Please do not.
I'm in severe pain from laughing so much.
What has the cretinous Woodward got to offer - apart from Sainsbury's cash, that is?
A complete intellectual and moral pygmy.
Iain,
You linked to the blogger Lionheart in an earlier post.
Any opinion?
Don't feel you have to be brave :-)
To be honest, it looks like a post from Conservative Home.
"There's so much about the present day Labour Party that reminds me of the Conservative Party circa 1996. They're turning in on themselves."
Oops Iain! Looks like even you swallowed the Labour/BBC spin circa 1996. Did the Conservative Party REALLY turn in on itself in 1996? No. They were a united party - yes, admittedly with one or two disagreements on issues like Europe, but no more than is healthy in any party.
Did the Labour Party/BBC successfully manage to dupe much of Britain - including seemingly you, Iain - into THINKING the Conservative Party had turned in on itself? Yes.
The splits we see in Labour now are the real deal. Alas, even some in the Conservative Party seemed to have fallen for the Labour/BBC Stalinist rewriting of history as regards the Conservatives in 1996.
;-)
Posters who are pointing out the difference that BBC coverage has made, is very accurate. The media coverage in general, has been a lot less critical of Labour, either on policy, or on the internal divisions. Media control has been central to New Labour, as it helps control the perceptions of the masses and especially the floating vote. Labour still have more than a few, Old Labour lefties, in Parliament, it's just that, NuLab's friends in the media, choose not to mention them these days. But every time a disgruntled Tory, not in a safe seat, backbencher bitched about John Major, it was plastered across the BBC 1 nine o'clock news headlines.
And even with the big majority that Labour has had, they have nearly lost votes and have had to negotiate the Conservatives on education, for example, to be sure of winning votes and the divisions between Brownies and Blairites have been very obvious for years, yet when have you seen headlines about Labour being split?
Labour has had and always will have, divisions, due to the discredited socialist ideology that many still believe in, and the party's internal culture. It's just that the BBC like to say that Labour divisions are part of healthy democratic debate, and then claim that Tory divisions make them split and unfit to govern! That is why public perception and reality, are never the same and have favoured Labour for the last 15 years.
And Mr Linford, "enthusiasm" for Blair in '96, was based on people like you in the media, giving him endless positive headlines and airtime to spin his messianic rantings. Cameron, being a Conservative, doesn't have the media, especially broadcast news, support to create "enthusiasm" amongst the gullible and easily led prols, but that might not be so bad, Blair and Brown's fall has been and will be much harder, because of the hype which they and their media friends created. People are now starting to realise that they have been lied to in a very big way. Cameron, whether by choice or not, is managing expectations, in the longer run, that may be a good thing, as he can concentrate on building a government that can actually run the country, rather just concentrating on giving the impression that they can run it.
"The divisions between Brownies and Blairites have been very obvious for years, yet when have you seen headlines about Labour being split?"
Good point - prior to you posting this comment I didn't realise there had ever been any divisions between Blairites and Brownites. I thought they were entirely united, but clearly the entire mainstream media decided to ignore any disagreements between the two.
You do sound a little paranoid, you know.
Iain, try all you like but the Labour party now are not a patch on the Tories in 96...
You do sound a little paranoid, you know
And you sound like a Labour troll.
And as such, you clearly do not have the intelligence to understand the obvious point I was making, so I shall spell it out for you again.
It is about media presentation, splits and divisions are not framed in way, as to tell the prols that this makes for bad government and that Labour are therefore unfit to govern. Splits and divisons were usually framed (especially by the BBC) as normal and democratically healthy. Contrast that in the way that the last Conservative government was protrayed over Europe.
Excellent post geezer.
Did the Conservative Party REALLY turn in on itself in 1996? No. They were a united party - yes, admittedly with one or two disagreements on issues like Europe, but no more than is healthy in any party.(Cam4me 10.12am)
I can only speak for myself of course. But, as a former CP member, benefactor, worker, canvasser etc I could not wait to see the end of John Major's ghastly government. Good bloody riddance. And if that in turn meant electing an (expletive deleted) Labour government pro tem, then so be it.
So, yes, the Conservatives, in my case at any rate, certainly DID turn in on themselves. Give the opportunity I would personally and with pleasure have garroted Ken Clark and Michael Heseltine. And I'm sure I wasn't the only one. It's all written up in "Guilty Men" by Hywel Williams.
Another totally superficial post.
While it's fun to poke fun, why do even Tory bloggers miss so many issues?
I think I'm not the only lifelong Labour voter (never again) looking for a credible opposition, but really. It's hard.
It's only January 5 and already rail fares have risen 11 per cent, energy bills 27 per cent. That's pushed many (understatement) families to breaking point.
Why not attack Labour's total ineptitude at devising any kind of energy or infrastructure policy? In ten years, they had the time.
Just one example. I'm 60, and this is the first time in my lifetime Liverpool Street Station - a London Mainline Station - has been closed.
Superbugs have closed 70 per cent of hospital wards. Cameron's answer is to fine hospitals. This only shows he has no clue about the extent to which Labour has already squeezed NHS resources and doubled up (read halved) staff as both nurses and (unqualified) domestics and (unqualified, re-gen oven) cooks. Of course standards suffer.
I was born in a local hospital that used to provide A&E, pharmacy, X-Ray. It was sold off and is now a Tesco and yuppie maisonettes. If I fell under a bus it would now take an hour longer to be treated. Plus half an hour to find somewhere to park, assuming I could afford the parking on my Pension Credit . . .
But if you don't know the extent to which Labour has strapped the NHS for cash, you are probably not working in the NHS.
Northern Rock and the 'credit crunch' has revealed the unserviceable debt mountain in the UK. To which we now, thanks to T Blair, can add every single student leaving college. (11 years to pay off student loans.) But it was 'prudent' to have Brits borrow (at absurd interest rates) to pay Gordon's taxes . . wasn't it?
What about Labour's housing policy? Or should one say, homeless policy? If Labour had invested any money into the economy, it wouldn't be so dependent upon shortening the housing supply and the credit/equity borrowing cycle. As it is, there are just three places in the British Isles where average incomes can support a mortgage of 3 times a salary. (Sick joke, one of them is the Shetland Isles.) 1.4 million people, and rising, can never own their own home thanks to NuLab. Unless your kids inherit, your kids have no chance. Ever.
Look at some other wonderful coups by Gordon Brown. Abolishing tax relief on pensions. Figures now show that thousands are retiring without adequate pensions. Talk about storing up problems for later. Selling off the gold reserves at the market bottom was another. (Presumably to pay for Blair's War.) I could go on . . .
All we've had from Labour is the demonising of young people, locking people up (no reason, but give us 90 days and we'll find one), ASBOs, Rescue Squads (what a failed Blairist piece of bigotry) wars, ID cards, HIPS (what a joke) . . . nothing positive or remotely relevant at all. And all from a bunch of pigs who are only good at fiddling their electoral expenses, getting their mortgages paid by Berlusconi, getting a million bung from Russian gangsters moving to Londongrad or fast tracking immigrant nannies.
If only there was an opposition.
Oh for God's sake. So you'd like me to slag off Labour in every post would you? There's plenty of opposition on the blog.
If you want rid of Labour, vote Conservative. Simple as that. If you actuially followed the news you'd see the Tories stepping up their opposition to Labour.
КАЛИНИНГРАД:
Very good post. (What's with the funny name?)
Iain, I think you're rather missing the point. It's not that you might make a posting like that one. It's more that the tories are largely ignoring the main story i.e. this country is falling to pieces. Personally I think it's because the tories and the libs basically agree with all the most destructive policies of nulab and can therefore only concentrate on the trivial.
"If you want rid of Labour, vote Conservative. Simple as that."
No, Iain. It is not as simple as that. The requirement is to be rid of all the politicians and policies that have created this mess. There is no way that any of the lib/lab/cons are going to do that.
We need an Opposition not just a change of snouts in the trough.
Incidentally, I was phoned by a polling organisation a few days ago. I told them that I would either vote for anyone except the lib/lab/cons or spoil my ballot paper but I was only allowed to choose between definitely voting or not, so I said definitely voting. Then I was asked if you definitely vote would you be more inclined to vote lib, lab or con. To that I answered 'Conservative' though actually there is no way I would vote for such a non-opposition.
КАЛИНИНГРАД aka SOVIET WOMEN NEWS
"I think I'm not the only lifelong Labour voter (never again) looking for a credible opposition, but really. It's hard."
There's the Tories, UKIP, LibDems, The new Libertarian Party or even the BNP. If you want to get rid of NuLab vote Tory.
Secondly, perhaps you should apologise for helping to foist the present bunch af hapless, greedy, crooks on us, it is after all partly your fault.
Post a Comment