Thetownend.com

Politics can be a pretty tedious subject for discussion. But as someone who, out of the two possible winners of an election, leans to the left, this sounds promising:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/slKZj6HNZmVn5iLRAfqL-dQ/view.m?id=15&gid=commentisfree/2012/oct/02/ed-miliband-one-nation-genius&cat=commentisfree

Another meaningless slogan that will be ditched when Labour win in 2015 (Milliband doesn't have to actually try, Tories won't win the next election nor any other one in the foreseeable future).

What an awful article, written by some pro-labour bum chum of Millibands no doubt. Milliband likeable? You kidding me. God help us if this muppet gets anywhere near 10 Downing Street, as he, somehow, comes across as more smarmy and more clueless than Cameron.

I'm no tory, but I'll definitely be hoping that Balls and Millband are left licking their wounds by the end of the next election, as both would be dangerous to the recovery of Britain.

That's not to say Osbourne and Cameron have got everything right, but I'd personally rather have them leading us out the mire than the two Eds.

As for One Nation Labour - give me a break.

Same shit, different party.

One huge popularity contest up until they get elected; then they panic and don't have a fucking clue how to run the country.

You're not wrong Sam.

Feel pretty much the same.

With the Tories we have the best of the bad bunch.

Labour made the wrong Milliband leader IMO.  David seems pretty clued up whilst Ed is pathetically feeble who who has made himself unelectable to lead the country

I'm hoping his a modern day Neil Kinnock. The population don't mind him as leader of the opposition but wouldn't give him a second to actually run the country.

Not my idea of a prime minister. That said policies mean more than the individual speaking.

I'm a Guardian reading pinko lefty and I took that article with a pinch of salt comparable to the size of the boiled off Dead Sea. Miliband is hopeless. He might still win though as the coalition are as popular as cancer. If our system was remotely set up to allow it, it would be a great time to launch a fourth party.

Shouldn't make any difference, but his appearance just doesn't equate to a PM

Whenever I see him, I think Mr Bean

It still baffles me how, after God knows how many examples, anyone really bothers to vote for any party.

Does anything really change. I'm sure if there was no government things would still trundle along.

Of the people, for the people, my arse

Appearance and public speaking etc. does matter though. As whether the bloke has a presence is key to his leadership abilities. In my line of work there are those who come along to events and you wouldn't know they're there, and there are others who when they walk into a room, you think, yep so and so's here. Because they almost attract your attention, as they have the presence. They also back it up by knowing their stuff which is equally as important, but in politics when you think of all the international events they have to attend, having that certain something can be key to getting things done.

#

It's not Bean...

[url width=298 height=195]http://thomasjpitts.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/beakerMAIN.jpg[/url]

Pretty much the same as I feel, but just the other way round - I despise Balls and Milliband just not quite as much as Cameron and Osbourne. My brother in law was invited to a "Tories in the City" (or something) fundraiser before the last election at which he met Osbourne and it actually stopped him voting Conservative so appalled was he by the man. "Wouldn't trust him in charge of his own bowels" was, IIRC, his verdict. He's done little in office to reverse that view. But I agree with your broad thrust that it's wafer thin as to which shower of shit seems less competent/trustworthy. I think Paul's "bowels" verdict applies equally well to all of them.

Not that I've got any evidence to back this up, but do you not think government was better with higher quality politicians, before the TV era - when there was no, or very little PR or having to be photogenic.

Michael Foot was a brilliant politician but looked like a horse's arse. Was he wasted on the country just because he looked like he did?

That's a really good point Kerry!  And 100% understand where you're coming from Paul.

Politics eh?

No, he was unelectable. He was a reasonable political thinker but a terrible politician. That doesn't necessarily negate your broader point though, just not a great example :)

http://www.standard.co.uk/incoming/article7827155.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/Miliband-%26-Wallace.jpg

That is spot on, and I would add the prevailing mood of the country evident by ever decreasing turnout numbers.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/10/labour-conference-the-anger-of-voters/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=labour-conference-the-anger-of-voters

I've got my finger on the pulse, me :)

That's a really good article, btw, thought it would be a hatchet job being in the Spectator but I'd say it's spot on. Politicians of both parties (because let's face it, the Lib Dems have euthanised themselves) would do well to read it. Instead they'll keep running round in ever decreasing circles blowing smoke up journos' arses.

So back to the article, which unles s I'm mistaken makes 2 points

  1. Labour has a crap new catchphrase
  2. NHS workers support a proposal by Labour not to quite shaft the NHS as much as the incumbents.

Regardless of allegiances, I'm not really sure this is the master stoke the article claims.

It doesn't even have that. It has tried to nick a very old Tory catchphrase - sums up Labour quite nicely, Tory retreads.

It never ceases to amaze me how bad political parties are still at selecting a leader.  Miliband (E) being favoured by unions is pretty much the exact reason that he is not going to be favoured by the population as a whole.  Never say never, but right now I just cannot see how he could be seen as a future PM.

In a similar vein, how did the Tories ever think that Iain Duncan Smith or William Hague (back then) was ever going to be elected PM?  (I say 'back then' because he seems to have a bit more about him these days.)  Local party activists may have liked them, but there was no way that the electorate would take to them.  Party memberships are the worst possible groups to be handed the responsibility of selecting a leader.

To be fair I think Ed and David Milliband are pretty much as bad as each other in terms of voter appeal. Labour should have gone with the third brother, Steve. I hear he's The Joker of the family.

Pedantic note, we don't actually elect PMs, though in my view we should

Point taken.   :)

All bastards....

Anybody who thinks different is deluded.

One Nation!  Fuck Off.

Purely on being a personable cove, Ed Balls comes across well

Is there a pun there?

Balls is a bully (which, incidentally, is why he would never win a in leadership bid...people don't like him).  And he has smugness leaking from his pores.  For me, he's up there with Osborne as someone I could never get behind, even if I did like their policies.

So, it's a benign dictator we need then.

Anyway, I've got no reason to moan - since I voted not to join the EEC in the 70s, which was obviously ignored, I haven't bothered to vote.

Bollocks to the lot of 'em!

I don't think I like any of today's politicians. Maybe Eric Pickles, because he's fat and has a funny name.

I think they go through a pattern. After losing power they go back to basics and elect someone they want. When they lose the next election they go for someone more favourable to the public and then when they lose the next election they give up on who they want and go for the publics choice. Then they win power.

As regards Miliband, I can't see him ever winning the next election. He might do ok in the opinion polls but when it comes down to actually voting a lot of people just won't want him as PM. He's like the square geek kid in school.

My big problem with all politicians as that all they're concerned about is power rather than doing their job and representing their constituents and the public as a whole. If one party actually had the guts to reinvent themselves as a party for the people and gave up on all the party politics they'd win with a landslide.

It's always amused me how you get the odd visitor to this site who see the prevailing tone as being a bit leftish, whereas the reality is more than a few would happily go for a dictatorship, as long as it got the trains running on time, or built some decent autobahns...

The nearest we've got to a dictatorship was Oliver Cromwell, but luckily he was a great man and despite being offered the opportunity to be a de facto king, turned it down as it contravened the concept of democracy for which he'd fought.

Our democracy is far from perfect...but is much better served by the likes of Milliband being involved than the apathy of people for the process.

Great sentiments - which the majority of the UK hold - but unfortunately any political party needs funds and wherever those funds come from is paid back with political largesse when in power.

It is, in fact, bollocks to the people, power to the City/unions/vested interests.

It is only ever a 2 dog race and both parties are willing to take their chances hoodwinking the dozy voters with soundbite politics.

We do get what we deserve

It's always amused me that some view fascism as right wing - it's almost like no-one remembers what 'Nazi' was short for, or that the majority of dictatorships that existed in 20th Century usually contained the words (in various forms) 'the People's Republic of...'

Stick Portillo in charge of a Labour party severed from it's Union head and I think you'll have something productive.  Portillo was the sort of cunt that made me want to gauge my own eyes and ears out whenever he spoke as a Tory MP.  Since being left to rot in the late night tv wilderness he's somehow become a pefectly reasonable bloke able to dabble in the best of the right and the left (and all things inbetween, pun intended)

I don't care what charisma the Labour leader has, Milliband at least has some credibility in the sense that he was not just another politician that came through Eton, he went to a comprehensive school and could possibly have an idea of the real world a bit more than Cameron.

Yes he is a plank, but the Cameron and Osborne (his real name is Gideon Osborne) team are despicable with that lying little nimby sell-out Clegg backing them up, all 3 of them are fucking odious toads, we did not elect The Conservative Party and we certainly didn't elect the Lib Dems.

The Tories are writing a cheque for £40'000 to every millionaire in The UK, himself and Gideon included. This is the man that looked down the camera and said "I feel your pain". The poor get poorer and the rich get even richer, same old Tories.

I couldn't give a fuck if Adrian Chiles ran the Labour Party, the unlucky subject just happens to be Red Ed, I will vote for them regardless.

I couldn't trust a Labour politician to run the country anyway. Miliband, Cooper and Balls were around when Brown was pissing all the money away and selling a good percentage of the country's gold reserves at the bottom of the market.

Got to admit the politicians of the day don't come across very well, but they're all mostly privately educated (and that includes quite a number of Labour and Lib Dems).

And that includes the jokers going for President of the US. Obama will get back in as Romney comes across as a moron. He makes Bush jnr sound like a genius !!

If only Brown went to Commercial Road, he would have got £11.20 per gram.

Labour did a lot wrong whilst they were in office, no doubt about it, The Tories will do the same, just in a shorter space of time. Too many cuts and way to quickly.

Can I ask what relevance is it if George Osbourne's real name is Gideon? I do find it very hypocritical of the 'anti-toff' attitude at times. Seems there are a lot of people with a chip on their shoulder. So some people were privileged to receive a private education, fair play to them.

I like him and will be voting Labour ,thought his speach was impressive apart from the "I met a man who " bits.

I think he's a cunt and won't be voting labour. I won't bother with the Tories or Lib Dems either.

Why is it hypocritical? I was pointing out to those that did not know that George is actually Gideon.

Gideon George Oliver Osborne, heir apparent to the Irish baronetcy of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon is hardly what you would call a toff is he?

I used to have a chunky McCain's oven chip on my shoulder, nowadays its just an Asda Smart Price one.

And this is coming from The Torygraph -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9580253/George-Osborne-blocked-cap-on-elderly-care-costs.html

The hypocritical point is that it seems okay to be 'anti-toff' like Billy Bragg and Coogan are quite openly, yet if one of those 'toffs' were equally as anti-working class they'd be uproar. That's the hypocritical point, wasn't meaning you personally. Although 'outing' George as a Gideon is a little 2009.

Also think it's strange that there's an anti-privately educated agenda, by the likes of Bragg and co. Don't see it as an issue myself.

what, like the entire tory party?

I just thank god we still have schools like eton and harrow and universities like Oxford and Cambridge to produce the Tory elite to run the Country for us and make sure no plebs like milliband from comprehensive schools  get in power and start redistributing the wealth of the Country. It would be terrible if people started getting on through hard work and talent rather than because of the schools they went to or who they know.

Some of the more recent Labour leaders and where they went to university...

Ed Miliband - Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Tony Blair - St John's College, Oxford
Michael Foot - Wadham College, Oxford
Harold Wilson - Jesus College, Oxford
Hugh Gaitskell - New College, Oxford
Clement Attlee - University College, Oxford

I see the point you're trying to make.  Just a bad example.   ;)

I prefer Steve Miller Band

I would guess the above got to Oxford on merit rather than wealth?

Not sure Cameron got to Eton on merit but I get your point

You do know that Miliband went to Oxford don't you? And that a large proportion of the last Labour Govt as well as the current shadow cabinet are privately educated and/or went to Oxbridge

I wouldn't go quite as far as outing, I wonder how many TEF contributors were aware of it? With this being a political discussion I thought I would add it in.

Take your point on Bragg and Coogan, the former being something of a die-hard socialist, so it is no suprise that private education doesn't agree with his agenda. He always seems to come on the radio moaning in the early hours, could be one of his records though.

For what its worth, I have no issue with private education, each to their own, what i do struggle with is disgustingly wealthy millionaires telling me they understand the hardship many of us face. How can they possibly understand what it is like to go down to Asda to change all your coppers up in one of those change machines so the kids have got something to eat in the evening or shame yourself by taking your few possesions to the likes of cash converters who prey on the hard up? They are fucking over students, pensioners, working class, even the disabled, as Osborne found out at the Paralympics, he is not a popular chap. Regardless of educational background, I don't want these people telling me they feel my pain when they quite clearly dont, and never will.

Wow. You actually believed Miliband when he said that.

Not every millionaire in the country will benefit to the tune of £40k, only those with an annual income of £1m - of which there are a total of 6,000. Plus if you take in to account the other tax changes the rich will actually be paying more.

Or his Grandad Glen.

Just a shame you couldn't have had a word in Hitlers ear.......he obviously didn't get it either.

Don't know why anyone uses those machines in a supermarket. I just stand there and feed all my change in to the self service tills. It's a bit of a pain in Asda but a piece of piss in Sainsbury's as they've got chutes to chuck it in.

Where did the statistic of 6000 people with an annual income exceeding £1m come from??

Not having a pop at you, jonny - just interested where the stat came from as you were quick to ridicule someone for believing what cunty Milliband had said.

Just the 6000? Oh, that's alright then, although I could think of better ways of spending a couple of million quid.

The rich will never pay more under Cameron, he will publicly take from them with one hand and give it back to them, privately, with both hands

According to the Office of National Statistics there were 13'000 people earning over £1m per year in 2011

It came from an article I found, the figure is for 2010/11 and the original source is this;

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/liabilities-april2012.pdf

The figure varies quite a bit, I chose 2010/11 as I presumed it the most accurate - the figures for later years must be estimates given the date on the publication. The four years covered by the report....

- 2009/10 16,000
- 2010/11 6,000
- 2011/12 10,000
- 2012/13 8,000

My point though is that Miliband carefully used the phrase "millionaire" to give the impression that a lot more people will benefit from it than actually will, whilst at the same time not technically lying. The same for not mentioning the additional tax burdens on the rich that will more than offset this - HMRC have said the change was tax neutral and wouldn't actually cost anything.


Again, check the actual facts. There has been no money spent nor lost with this tax change.

Think you're probably saying life's unfair, stop whinging and get on with your own life?  In which case, fair play.

However, receiving a private education is something you have no part in.  It is chosen for you, not by you.  It is paid, usually, by parents or grandparents who are very wealthy or a bit wealthy and who sacrifice for you. 

The reason for paying is, surprise surprise, because your child or grandchild will receive a better education (and sometimes better contacts) than the state educated children.  Freedom of choice?  Fair play, yes.

Can't myself see how "fair play" can be ascribed to passively receiving a better education and often more influential contacts than most other children.

The same chap that said this?

The problem with "proving" the Nazis are leftwing by using Hitler's words ghanimah is you're relying on extremist nutjobs to provide accurate descriptions of themselves. Which they don't. The Nazis were no more socialist than the various "People's Democratic Republics" were run by their people or in any way democratic (and yes, I'm fully aware of the full name of the NSDAP and if you like we can do a full blow-by-blow analysis of Hitler's usurping of the "Strasserite"/National Bolshevik faction before he seized full control of the party but I don't think anyone's interested. Even me).

I see your point, it's the old saw that at the extremes of left and right the authoritarian variants at either end end up looking remarkably similar in practice, but it's more a criticism of the limits of the left v right axis as a way of describing the political spectrum than anything else. All fascist parties have populist elements in their agenda and most use some form of anti-capitalism as populist propaganda, but it doesn't make them "left-wing" in any meaningful sense. The idea it does is just a bit of a fad going round the various Tea Party style internet circles to try to distance their brand of hard right politics from the "traditional far right" of fascism and do a bit of lefty-bashing at the same time. Like most stuff that emanated from the Tea Party milieu it's utter horseshit and bears very little examination.

Oh well look on the bright side under those terms I suspect that Messers Blair, Brown and Mandelson amongst others will do jolly well. But obviously they will give the cash to the working classes like their ideology suggests!

I don't care what colour they claim to be (and lets be honest they are all scrabbling for the middle ground whatever party they are!) they haven't got a clue whats its like in the real world. The fact that politics have now become a profession means that it will only ever attract those that have the background to afford to take it as a career. How many of us had the capital to leave university and work as researchers for political parties or stand for councils in our 20's, its only is ma and pa have that cash then you can achieve that.

And Labour made a great job of taxing the rich didn't they!

Nail, head, hit. Osbourne, Clegg, Cameron, Milliband, Balls - none of them have ever lived and worked in the real world, one of the massive problems with politics today is it's run by "policy wonks" who are just career politicians. They are becoming more and more disconnected every year and talking to an increasingly small circle of like-minded jerks.

Are you saying buying a sausage roll in Greggs isn't real world experience?

Thats a fairly strong midfield there...

I take it all back. My apologies to the wonks in question

Fuck off, Clegg's completely lightweight and usually facing the wrong direction anyway and a dandelion could get past Milliband. And Osbourne's only ever played the Wall Game with his fags. Balls, though, I'll give you - scored a hat-trick against the journos' XI the other day, IIRC, including a blatant dive for a pen.

Indeed, you can't play football without Balls.

They realised in the mid 90's that if they taxed the rich (middle class upwards) heavily they'd never get in to power, so they didn't. Anyone who thinks Labour tax the rich to benefit the poor have just bought in to their spin, seem to recall the wealth gap increased under them pretty substantially. See Brown and the 10p tax rate for more info.

If anything it's the Tories that keep taxes down for everyone. They cut public services and expense and hand it back in tax cuts - so you can spend it on what you want rather than what the Government wants. Whilst Labour raise everybody's taxes so they can increase and spend more on public services. Think that is the only real difference between them nowadays.

Lib Dem seem to be the only ones that want to tax the rich to benefit the poor. Their £10k personal allowance policy has probably done more to benefit the poor than Labour and the Tories have managed over the last 30 years.

Labour didn't spend the money on public services (well there were no improvements to public services to justify the spending anyway) so that raises the question. What was the extra money actually spent on? I'm guessing not much which is probably why the current government has cut taxes back to the level that is more reasonable and needed. OK sure they have made public services cuts in some areas but they had to given the shit the economy has been in over the past 4 years or so. I think some people are far too quick to jump on the Tories back in these hard times. If you think about it they've had to pick up the mess of Labour's over spending for the 12 years prior to their election to government.

There was a massive increase in spending on the NHS under Labour, they pretty much doubled it from around £60bn when they came to power to around £120bn when they left. A lot of the capital spending was through PFI, which we will be paying off for another 30 years.

I'd question whether that money was spent wisely.

There was real improvement in the NHS under Labour - but I'd have to agree that the improvement came at too high a price.  I'd say the rail network improved immensely as well.  In the late 1990s, the news was dominated by rail disasters and stories of dilapidated track and rolling stock etc.  You don't hear that any more.  There has been a lot of investment and, generally speaking, the trains now run on time.  But the present government has realised that it cannot sustain rail spending at that level, leading to the above inflation fare increases that commuters (like me) are now being hit with.  Can't complain about that.

The only area that Labour didn't seem to throw much money at was road infrastructure - largely, I guess, for ideological reasons.  And it shows now.  Don't expect everyone to agree with this, but road capacity is now very stretched due to lack of investment to the point where we're falling well behind most other western European countries.  Our motorway network, in particular, is short of several badly needed motorways...but I don't think the political will exists to do anything about it.

I'd question whether the investment in the rail network gave value for money. In general the money was spent on incremental improvements when what was really needed after decades of under investment was to rip out large sections and start again. Putting in a decent high speed network would have cost more upfront but would have saved in the long run.

Personally I'd say fuck the road network and put the money in to the rail network instead.

Interesting, might just have worked if Beeching hadn't damn the railways to hell.

The problem I see with rail at the moment is a) overpriced and b) overcrowded and c) inconvenient.

So what you need is a cheap and frequent rail service that runs to where you need it. That is just too damned expensive to provide unfortunately. Plus, even if the infrastructure was there would it be profitable?

They seem to make it work in most other countries. Not saying I know what the solution is but they did a comparison recently of the commuting costs in the UK, France, Germany, Italy etc and the differences are frightening. Presumably their rail networks aren't losing money hand over fist?

Think there is a mixture of reasons for that. A lot is due to higher public subsidies in other countries. Though there is a greater variety of prices here, whilst we have the highest prices we also have the lowest due to the various discounted tickets available. Our services are more frequent as well.

I actually think the service for some lines is good.

But off peak it can be a nightmare. Even even going to a gig in London and trying to make the last train back to Swindon. Not exactly branch line. Though I guess this is more timetable issues than frequency.