Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Show More
Where is Boris?..I need to be inspired enthused and energised!!..this Shapps guy is dull dull dull.
we have a question from dominic in east london, are the roads to durham clear?
joyous news for the Pennines. WTF has this got to do with anything now????
Absolutely pointless slides yet again . Why don't they stop it ?
i wonder if some of the "big journo hitters" will appear?
like feck they will
like feck they will
questions are censored anyway so nothing untoward will get asked. answers pre-prepared.
It was "safeguarding" as defined by Dom so that's alright then.
johnson the coward should be answering these, not some patsy.
i dont like schapps but dont think this is fair on him. harries is embarassing and just toeing line
No one cares about this issue.
What is important is getting schools back and pubs open and end the furlough nonsense.
Good way for the government to avoid tough questions on why we are even in lockdown.
What is important is getting schools back and pubs open and end the furlough nonsense.
Good way for the government to avoid tough questions on why we are even in lockdown.
What a bunch of tw.ts these are ,I honestly believe the journalists would be suited if this pandemic lasts forever.
I want to know what the advise is on shielding the extremely vulnerable after the end of June and when hospitals will be back to normal services.
Could not care less about while Cummings goes to isolate.
Could not care less about while Cummings goes to isolate.
It's not whether you are left or right , white or black , male or female . The fact is he did not abide by the rules laid down by the government that he advises . He was wrong but is beyond reproach .
journo,s asking questions 99% of public want asking,if your in the other !% you may want to look in the mirror,while looking in it ,you can educate yourself on the cummings story, 
May 23, 2020 -- 4:38PM, foxy wrote:
Absolutely trader those are the important issues.
is this not an important issue ? government act with impunity , joe public thinks fk it, i'll do same, leads to more spreading of disease. bank holiday coming up, 25 degrees in south east, all cockernees heading to coast with their fizzy lager for a cultural day out
maybe foxy, but you knew press would be like a dog with a bone
Correct mm I think your earlier post was a very fair point it should have been boris answering questions on this issue.
Throughout all this crisis I think the press have been very poor ,quite often the public ask more appropriate questions
Throughout all this crisis I think the press have been very poor ,quite often the public ask more appropriate questions
at present the right don't want to talk about
63,000 deaths
priti,s I meet and greet service on kent coast,
priti,buisness class flights for fruitpicker,s
doris, border in irish sea
free trade deal with china
billions of public borrowing
pay rises for public workers,
free money for all
what do the right want to talk about these days,we do miss your sharp wit and repartee
63,000 deaths
priti,s I meet and greet service on kent coast,
priti,buisness class flights for fruitpicker,s
doris, border in irish sea
free trade deal with china
billions of public borrowing
pay rises for public workers,
free money for all
what do the right want to talk about these days,we do miss your sharp wit and repartee
thats true foxy, peston likes sound of his own voice, and takes about 10 mins to ask
Poor lad announces much improvement to the dreadful a66 and it never gets a mention.
the right wing knuckledragger,s want journo,s to ask shapps about £50 bicycle voucher,s , amidst a political scandal
,tbf Bap MM was a great contributer to the thread and in recognition of that couldn't leave him walk into that one.
he was like a pike in Lough Oughter sniffing a hot dog
I was lucky i only saw his name flash up in the caption underneath with my lazy eye,i won't have known that right wing scribe meself, sure MM was only sniffing anyway, Sonia needed a denny sausage rather than hot dog.
i would offer her my pepperami whilst Isabel Oakeshott was pouring my stout. Got a bit fruity that convo between them; a lot more exciting than the borefest at No10 anyhoos. Hodges used to be a Labour man, & talking of eyes; he lost his left one in a bar scrap some years ago
i shall cast again MM my good man[:wink:
i shall cast again MM my good man[:wink:
David Miliband has won, says Dan Hodges.
This Saturday David Miliband will become leader of the Labour party. He will have won a majority of his Parliamentary colleagues and the wider membership, along with sufficient support from unions and other affiliates to secure not just victory but an overwhelming mandate. The New Labour era will be over.
A few months ago I wrote that this leadership contest would tell us more about ourselves as a party than it did the candidates contesting it. It has. Less an election, more an exercise in psychoanalysis, we’ve delved into the deepest recesses of a party’s soul. Remorse, guilt, envy, hatred, love, fear, hope. Above all, hope.
We wept for the supporters abandoned to the government’s tender mercies. Felt shame for the crimes we committed in our own ruthless pursuit of power. Looked jealously upon those who wrested it from us.
We’ve hurled ourselves at the Tories, and honed our contempt for the Liberals. Dreamt of their precarious alliance splintering. Woken trembling from the nightmare it may not.
Throughout, we’ve looked longingly toward the horizon, straining eye and ear for the clattering of hoof or glint of sun on armour heralding the approach of a new champion.
All breathless stuff. But, as it turned out, champions were in short supply. Jon Cruddas judged the crown would lay too heavy. Harriet Harman opted not to relinquish her role as loyal deputy. Old soldiers Jack Straw, Alastair Darling and Alan Johnson sheathed their swords.
In the end, four contenders emerged, with a fifth drafted in at the last minute. And at that moment, the parameters of the campaign should have been set. With all the serious candidates coming from the centre-right of the party, the process was geared to managerial selection, rather than ideological confrontation. That it became infinitely more complex was down to a fateful strategic choice made by one of the candidates, and the emotional status of a party experiencing the political equivalent of post-traumatic stress disorder.
In retrospect, the contest can be divided into three distinct periods. The Fight For Definition, David’s Consolidation and Ed’s Dash To The Left.
At the start, the size of the field meant lots of jostling, cursing and confusion. And that was just from the people trying to cover it. Paul Routledge can legitimately claim loyalty as the basis for his prediction of an Ed Balls victory. Paul Richards’ and James Macintyre’s argument that Diane Abbott would prevail is more difficult to rationalise. The Daily Mail’s can be filed under wishful thinking.
But during this early period each of the candidates took decisions that ultimately shaped the outcome of the race. Diane Abbott chose to play safe, pitching to her narrow constituency and going negative with a succession of jabs at her opponents. In the debates, audiences loved it. But she squandered the opportunity to broaden her appeal, and lost momentum.
Momentum was a political commodity that remained tantalisingly beyond Andy Burnham’s reach. Playing on his northern roots, he managed to build a base, but at the price of becoming ghettoised and one dimensional.
Ed Balls opted to ignore that he was in a race at all, tearing at the hapless Michael Gove and a shell-shocked government. This display of machismo was a sound tactic on paper, and won admirers. Yet his legacy as Brown’s chief pistolero, meant that he, more than anyone, needed to address questions of biography and process. While people were searching for the warmth and empathy of a retail politician, Ed Cojones was piling in with the knuckle duster.
All of which meant that the contest was quickly whittled down to two. David Miliband, who unveiled a classic pitch of experience and gravitas; the man who passed the Number 10 test, (can you see him physically standing on the threshold of Downing Street, delivering bland statements about “doing not talking” while clinging, limpet-like, to his stoic wife).
And Ed Miliband, who deployed the equally classical opening gambit of the ‘change candidate’. It’s easy to forget now, but in the beginning Ed’s was a standard “change versus more of the same” mantra. The military beret, Cuban cigars and intoxicating revolutionary rhetoric were nowhere to be seen. In the speech that launched his campaign, New Labour didn’t even warrant a mention.
It was David’s message that resonated. The party needed and wanted a winner. 15 years in opposition? Bugger that. We could be fighting a new election in six months. Modernisation and change? We’ve heard that somewhere before. David consolidated.
But then the trauma of our election defeat began to play tricks with the mind. The contest was turning into another coronation. We needed a debate. We had to find a way to bury Blairism for good.
Ed saw his opening. Diane was becalmed. A treacherous but passable leftward route to the summit lay open. He struck out.
On August 27, New Labour got it’s first proper kicking. It had fallen, “into the same trap as old Labour, clinging to old truths that had served their time”. “The New Labour modernisers”, were “the New Labour traditionalists” and “out of touch”. The pressure was ratcheted up, the attacks personalised. By 1 September it was time to “move on from the politicians of a previous generation”. By 10 September, it was all out war: “You know, New Labour was right for its time but we need to move on from New Labour, and all the attacks on me from the New Labour establishment have helped crystallise that message”.
The mood changed. The coronation was now a contest. Red Ed had Big Mo.
On Sunday, September 12, he had the lead. YouGov, placed him two points up. The MPs had rejected his message. But the ordinary members, and the unions, had swung behind him.
Victory was in his grasp. A political earthquake for the ages. And then…
There are three main reasons why David Miliband won. The first was Ed’s willingness so readily to trade electability for perceived ideological purity. The party’s loyalty has been sorely tested in the years since dawn broke over Festival Hall. But never again will we view power as an optional extra.
The second was David Miliband’s political courage. He was slow to respond to attempts to define him as Blair’s successor, and the sheer audacity of his brother’s turn left surprised him. But he never departed significantly from his core strategy, nor joined in a scorched earth assault on the party’s past. Time will grant Gordon Brown the political rehabilitation he deserves. But the price we paid for unpopular and indecisive leadership will not be forgotten.
The third reason lies in the resilience and vision of the party itself. The defeat hit hard. We should have had time to regroup and lick our wounds before launching into a leadership contest. But, in the end, we saw beyond the impact on ourselves; our guilt, envy, hatred, love, fear, hope. We looked outward. And saw that the flags of the old guard could simply be lowered. There was no need to tear them down. The Blairite and Brownite camps were now deserted. Their few remaining followers dispersed. Change could be embraced. It did not need to be enforced.
This Saturday, David Miliband will be elected. It will not mean that we are on the path back to power. Nor that we have fully come to terms with our election defeat. But we will have a new leader. And the right one. For the moment, that is enough.
Dan Hodges is contributing editor of Labour Uncut
Hardly
This Saturday David Miliband will become leader of the Labour party. He will have won a majority of his Parliamentary colleagues and the wider membership, along with sufficient support from unions and other affiliates to secure not just victory but an overwhelming mandate. The New Labour era will be over.
A few months ago I wrote that this leadership contest would tell us more about ourselves as a party than it did the candidates contesting it. It has. Less an election, more an exercise in psychoanalysis, we’ve delved into the deepest recesses of a party’s soul. Remorse, guilt, envy, hatred, love, fear, hope. Above all, hope.
We wept for the supporters abandoned to the government’s tender mercies. Felt shame for the crimes we committed in our own ruthless pursuit of power. Looked jealously upon those who wrested it from us.
We’ve hurled ourselves at the Tories, and honed our contempt for the Liberals. Dreamt of their precarious alliance splintering. Woken trembling from the nightmare it may not.
Throughout, we’ve looked longingly toward the horizon, straining eye and ear for the clattering of hoof or glint of sun on armour heralding the approach of a new champion.
All breathless stuff. But, as it turned out, champions were in short supply. Jon Cruddas judged the crown would lay too heavy. Harriet Harman opted not to relinquish her role as loyal deputy. Old soldiers Jack Straw, Alastair Darling and Alan Johnson sheathed their swords.
In the end, four contenders emerged, with a fifth drafted in at the last minute. And at that moment, the parameters of the campaign should have been set. With all the serious candidates coming from the centre-right of the party, the process was geared to managerial selection, rather than ideological confrontation. That it became infinitely more complex was down to a fateful strategic choice made by one of the candidates, and the emotional status of a party experiencing the political equivalent of post-traumatic stress disorder.
In retrospect, the contest can be divided into three distinct periods. The Fight For Definition, David’s Consolidation and Ed’s Dash To The Left.
At the start, the size of the field meant lots of jostling, cursing and confusion. And that was just from the people trying to cover it. Paul Routledge can legitimately claim loyalty as the basis for his prediction of an Ed Balls victory. Paul Richards’ and James Macintyre’s argument that Diane Abbott would prevail is more difficult to rationalise. The Daily Mail’s can be filed under wishful thinking.
But during this early period each of the candidates took decisions that ultimately shaped the outcome of the race. Diane Abbott chose to play safe, pitching to her narrow constituency and going negative with a succession of jabs at her opponents. In the debates, audiences loved it. But she squandered the opportunity to broaden her appeal, and lost momentum.
Momentum was a political commodity that remained tantalisingly beyond Andy Burnham’s reach. Playing on his northern roots, he managed to build a base, but at the price of becoming ghettoised and one dimensional.
Ed Balls opted to ignore that he was in a race at all, tearing at the hapless Michael Gove and a shell-shocked government. This display of machismo was a sound tactic on paper, and won admirers. Yet his legacy as Brown’s chief pistolero, meant that he, more than anyone, needed to address questions of biography and process. While people were searching for the warmth and empathy of a retail politician, Ed Cojones was piling in with the knuckle duster.
All of which meant that the contest was quickly whittled down to two. David Miliband, who unveiled a classic pitch of experience and gravitas; the man who passed the Number 10 test, (can you see him physically standing on the threshold of Downing Street, delivering bland statements about “doing not talking” while clinging, limpet-like, to his stoic wife).
And Ed Miliband, who deployed the equally classical opening gambit of the ‘change candidate’. It’s easy to forget now, but in the beginning Ed’s was a standard “change versus more of the same” mantra. The military beret, Cuban cigars and intoxicating revolutionary rhetoric were nowhere to be seen. In the speech that launched his campaign, New Labour didn’t even warrant a mention.
It was David’s message that resonated. The party needed and wanted a winner. 15 years in opposition? Bugger that. We could be fighting a new election in six months. Modernisation and change? We’ve heard that somewhere before. David consolidated.
But then the trauma of our election defeat began to play tricks with the mind. The contest was turning into another coronation. We needed a debate. We had to find a way to bury Blairism for good.
Ed saw his opening. Diane was becalmed. A treacherous but passable leftward route to the summit lay open. He struck out.
On August 27, New Labour got it’s first proper kicking. It had fallen, “into the same trap as old Labour, clinging to old truths that had served their time”. “The New Labour modernisers”, were “the New Labour traditionalists” and “out of touch”. The pressure was ratcheted up, the attacks personalised. By 1 September it was time to “move on from the politicians of a previous generation”. By 10 September, it was all out war: “You know, New Labour was right for its time but we need to move on from New Labour, and all the attacks on me from the New Labour establishment have helped crystallise that message”.
The mood changed. The coronation was now a contest. Red Ed had Big Mo.
On Sunday, September 12, he had the lead. YouGov, placed him two points up. The MPs had rejected his message. But the ordinary members, and the unions, had swung behind him.
Victory was in his grasp. A political earthquake for the ages. And then…
There are three main reasons why David Miliband won. The first was Ed’s willingness so readily to trade electability for perceived ideological purity. The party’s loyalty has been sorely tested in the years since dawn broke over Festival Hall. But never again will we view power as an optional extra.
The second was David Miliband’s political courage. He was slow to respond to attempts to define him as Blair’s successor, and the sheer audacity of his brother’s turn left surprised him. But he never departed significantly from his core strategy, nor joined in a scorched earth assault on the party’s past. Time will grant Gordon Brown the political rehabilitation he deserves. But the price we paid for unpopular and indecisive leadership will not be forgotten.
The third reason lies in the resilience and vision of the party itself. The defeat hit hard. We should have had time to regroup and lick our wounds before launching into a leadership contest. But, in the end, we saw beyond the impact on ourselves; our guilt, envy, hatred, love, fear, hope. We looked outward. And saw that the flags of the old guard could simply be lowered. There was no need to tear them down. The Blairite and Brownite camps were now deserted. Their few remaining followers dispersed. Change could be embraced. It did not need to be enforced.
This Saturday, David Miliband will be elected. It will not mean that we are on the path back to power. Nor that we have fully come to terms with our election defeat. But we will have a new leader. And the right one. For the moment, that is enough.
Dan Hodges is contributing editor of Labour Uncut
Hardly
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539