Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now EdM is in a standoff with the biggest union baron of th

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited April 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now EdM is in a standoff with the biggest union baron of them all

Just when you thought politics was getting boring EdM takes on Len Mcluskey – goo.gl/PL9aA twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    This is a rite of passage every Labour leader goes through. 'twas ever thus.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    I think he'll end up a poor moderate (as in one unable to afford to fight the next election).
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @Jonathan Very true. But the timing isn't great for Ed Miliband. He's looking very short of friends just now.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    What's the Times fp story they're teasing us with?
  • Ed bites the hand that feeds him. Genius.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    I doubt it'll ever have much impact beyond theatrics.

    The unions put up with Blair at three elections, they're not going to stop funding Ed while he's attempting to remove Dave.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    It's no worry for Ed M I think; the Unions will back down. In fact, it may be good timing - there's been a concentration of some anti-EdM stories in recent weeks, so he's appeared slightly more vulnerable while still being safe given the poll lead and what amounts to a government.

    Therefore, that slight vulnerability may counter-intuitively enable him to be bolder in taking on (or being seen to be taking on) the Unions and other internal enemies. Why? Because despite a mostly strong position, many in Labour may have been slightly rattled by the anti-Ed M stuff, and more worried than they were about not winning in 2015. As such, he may be able to count on more rallying to him because of that fear, and more support for breaking his image as the union's man, who in turn will back down, as they certainly don't want to undercut Ed M so much that he risks throwing away such a simple win in 2015 so long as they do not implode.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited April 2013
    Interesting use of 'baron' there. I'm unfamiliar with stylistic rules, but it generally seems restricted to the shady or reprehensible - robber baron, porn baron, media baron.

    Why does Baron have such negative connotations in general useage? And which noble title is eviller? Marquis?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    Carola said:

    What's the Times fp story they're teasing us with?

    Curious isn't it?
    Daniel Wittenberg ‏@DannyWittenberg 11m

    Interesting MT @thetimes: "Front page will be tweeted later than usual as our exclusive story is under embargo."
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Ed bites the hand that feeds him. Genius.

    Given they will fear not having a guard dog through starvation if they stop feeding him, Ed M may well end teaching them to feed him on demand, and put up with bites and scratches too, and they will put up with it.

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    We've been here before, haven't we?

    There was a brief, very brief, outbreak of reality in January 2012:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16558820

    That gave rise to a bit of a contest.

    Reality lost.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited April 2013

    Reality lost.

    I thought that was the whole point of politics. It usually does.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    @kle

    What a silly count...

    as Dame Edna said in a Barry MacKenzie film as a vampire died.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    Mind you (and this is certainly the first, and will no doubt be the last, time I say this): I think Len McCluskey makes an interesting point. If 2015 comes down to Austerity vs Austerity Lite, then why would voters choose the latter? Either they believe spending needs to be reined back towards sanity, or they don't. If they do, why not vote for the party which is serious about it? If they don't, why should the lite version appeal?
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    kle4 said:

    Interesting use of 'baron' there. I'm unfamiliar with stylistic rules, but it generally seems restricted to the shady or reprehensible - robber baron, porn baron, media baron.

    Why does Baron have such negative connotations in general useage? And which noble title is eviller? Marquis?

    Baron and marquis both derive from the French (coming over with the Norman invasion) whereas other titles (Lord, Earl, etc) come from Anglo-Saxon and old English.

    No idea whether that's relevant.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    Can't really see this doing Ed much harm. Would Len really want to be seen to be pulling the purse strings? The PR would be terrible and he would appreciate what a gift it would be to the tories.

    Probably a storm in a tea cup but Ed is once again (as with the internal changes he forced through) making it clear that for good or ill this is his show. Unlike his brother I don't think he is going to die wondering.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    "If 2015 comes down to Austerity vs Austerity Lite, then why would voters choose the latter?"

    Fair enough actually - although it wouldn't have and likely never will make a difference in my neck of the woods, when I cast my vote in 2010 I did want a Cameron premiership, principally on the basis that trying to eliminate the deficit in five painful years seemed better than a promise to stretch it out for longer.

    Of course, now they may just about half erase it by 2015 and it will be until 2020 to eliminate it entirely if at all (I don't know if they've officially admitted it will take until 2020 yet, but I imagine it will be coming, just like it went from 2015 to 2017 to 2018), so it turns out it really would have made no difference! The apathetic public who don't vote were right all along!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,914
    kle4 said:

    Interesting use of 'baron' there. I'm unfamiliar with stylistic rules, but it generally seems restricted to the shady or reprehensible - robber baron, porn baron, media baron.

    Why does Baron have such negative connotations in general useage? And which noble title is eviller? Marquis?

    The Red Baron?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Rather agree with Jonathan - this isn't a row that's going anywhere.

    Responding to taffs upthread, this analysis gives useful background:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check/2013/apr/24/benefits
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Scoring Guide to tomorrow's UK Masters
    +0.5% up         Hole in One, Drinks all round
    +0.4% to +0.5% Eagle
    +0.2% to +0.3% Birdie
    --------------------------------------
    +0.1% to -0.1% Par
    --------------------------------------
    -0.2% to -0.3% Bogey
    -0.3% to -0.5% Double Bogey
    -0.5% down George loses PGA card
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    edited April 2013
    @kl4
    "If 2015 comes down to Austerity vs Austerity Lite, then why would voters choose the latter?"

    Fair enough actually - although it wouldn't have and likely never will make a difference in my neck of the woods, when I cast my vote in 2010 I did want a Cameron premiership, principally on the basis that trying to eliminate the deficit in five painful years seemed better than a promise to stretch it out for longer.

    Of course, now they may just about half erase it by 2015 and it will be until 2020 to eliminate it entirely if at all (I don't know if they've officially admitted it will take until 2020 yet, but I imagine it will be coming, just like it went from 2015 to 2017 to 2018), so it turns out it really would have made no difference! The apathetic public who don't vote were right all along! "

    Do you really think that a party that refused to even have a spending review before the election in case they had to face up to any hard choices (other than wiping out the capital investment budget) would have made even the modest progress that the Coalition has made? Look at what Darling was promising and then insert the real growth figures instead of his fantasy efforts. It was truly scary.

    As I have said before the epic deficit the Coalition inherited was only a part of the problem. They also inherited a system that essentially had no return valves built into it ensuring that future spending only went in one direction. For anyone who believes that the deficit and, you know, having the money to pay for things, is important the next election is shaping up to be a no brainer. Nothing Ed has said or is doing is changing that one iota.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    kle4 said:

    Interesting use of 'baron' there. I'm unfamiliar with stylistic rules, but it generally seems restricted to the shady or reprehensible - robber baron, porn baron, media baron.

    Why does Baron have such negative connotations in general useage? And which noble title is eviller? Marquis?

    The Red Baron?
    Maybe, but I thought we still respected and even admired the Red Baron.

    Dukes usually get portrayed ok, maybe due to a martial or royal focus. Earls I certainly don't recall being evil in public conciousness.

    Maybe it's all down to either foreigny (Count) or closeness - dukes and earls are probably not likely to go around oppressing you personally, but Barons are more likely to. Certainly some of our appointed Barons upset me from time to time at any rate.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Tomorrow Yvette Cooper will be in South Shields to reveal the 5th pledge alongside Emma Double Surname
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. kle4: surely count is the most evil?
  • On topic.
    Looks to me a manufactured row to beef up Ed M as not being the puppet of the Unions.
    All timed very conveniently just before the local elections.
    Or maybe I'm just being cynical.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    @David L

    I used to give the Coalition a lot of leeway and even credit, but the cumulative weight of failure to meet promises or expectations, and an inability to, in the generous view, communicate anything effectively and, more realistically, actually being pretty incompetent at so many things, wore me down.

    Labour hold far fewer fears for me than they used to, because a 'probable inability to do any better', trumps 'certainly cannot do any better'.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,914
    @kle4

    Sorry didn't make clear I made that point as an example of a "good" Baron (even though he flew for the "bad guys" in WW1!).
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited April 2013

    kle4 said:

    Interesting use of 'baron' there. I'm unfamiliar with stylistic rules, but it generally seems restricted to the shady or reprehensible - robber baron, porn baron, media baron.

    Why does Baron have such negative connotations in general useage? And which noble title is eviller? Marquis?

    The Red Baron?
    My guess is that the pejorative connotations of "Baron" originate in WWI. The title Baron was far more frequent use in the German speaking states and many schoolboy will have identified such anti-heroes as Baron von Richthofen as the devil incarnate.

    My grandparents used the expression "speak German", for example, to describe flatulent emissions.

  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Interesting use of 'baron' there. I'm unfamiliar with stylistic rules, but it generally seems restricted to the shady or reprehensible - robber baron, porn baron, media baron.

    Why does Baron have such negative connotations in general useage? And which noble title is eviller? Marquis?

    The Red Baron?
    Maybe, but I thought we still respected and even admired the Red Baron.

    Dukes usually get portrayed ok, maybe due to a martial or royal focus. Earls I certainly don't recall being evil in public conciousness.

    Maybe it's all down to either foreigny (Count) or closeness - dukes and earls are probably not likely to go around oppressing you personally, but Barons are more likely to. Certainly some of our appointed Barons upset me from time to time at any rate.
    Dukes would come from the Romans, latin Duc. So the pre-norman good (lord, earl, duke etc), norman/french (baron, count, marquess) bad trend holds up a bit.

    Historically I think barons not only tended to be lower down, but also created so they tended to be those who needed to carve out land or money often brutally. (in the Norman conquest William rewarded those who'd gambled on supporting him with baronies and pretty much let them loose to suppress the populace and establish themselves, again pretty brutally).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited April 2013
    @ Sunil

    Fair enough - it's even weirder then, as I cannot offhand think of evil barons (who are known specifically as barons) that would justify the title being associated with shady or ruthless business, media etc kingpins.

    I think corporeal has the best explanation so far. When in doubt, I'd prefer to think such things have a longstanding historical reason behind them.

    It's such an unfair life, being a baron I guess.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    One of the amusing things I picked up whilst dipping into the 1979 election program replayed recently was at that time the BBC spent almost as much time interviewing Union leaders as they did politicians and they felt very free to express political opinions on any range of issues.

    This row (and that is probably a slightly flattering word) shows how far we have come from that. Going back is inconceivable under either major party now which makes the Unions as bogey men a lot less effective for the tories than they were. Such is the price of success!
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Interesting use of 'baron' there. I'm unfamiliar with stylistic rules, but it generally seems restricted to the shady or reprehensible - robber baron, porn baron, media baron.

    Why does Baron have such negative connotations in general useage? And which noble title is eviller? Marquis?

    The Red Baron?
    Maybe, but I thought we still respected and even admired the Red Baron.

    Dukes usually get portrayed ok, maybe due to a martial or royal focus. Earls I certainly don't recall being evil in public conciousness.

    Maybe it's all down to either foreigny (Count) or closeness - dukes and earls are probably not likely to go around oppressing you personally, but Barons are more likely to. Certainly some of our appointed Barons upset me from time to time at any rate.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron

    Wiki, uncited fwiw suggests it's not just an English language thing with barons.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited April 2013
    Talking of the meanings of words.

    What on earth did Ed Miliband mean when he called McCluskey "reprehensible"?

    The adjective comes from the verb to reprehend (Latin "re" = back + prehendere = to seize, grasp or arrest).

    Is Ed suggesting that McCluskey should be seized and brought back into custody?

    I am quite at loss to understand what Ed was going on about,
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I can't believe this Labour spat. Just what Ed didn't want in the run up to South Shields.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    edited April 2013
    Barons stitched up King John at Runnymede - ended up with a piece of parchment - Magna Carta.

    "I have in my hand a piece of paper signed by King John."
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    AndyJS said:

    I can't believe this Labour spat. Just what Ed didn't want in the run up to South Shields.

    Or what he did want - how can his enemies use the 'he's in thrall to the unions' argument now, which is one of the most oft repeated attacks against him?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kle4 said:

    @David L

    I used to give the Coalition a lot of leeway and even credit, but the cumulative weight of failure to meet promises or expectations, and an inability to, in the generous view, communicate anything effectively and, more realistically, actually being pretty incompetent at so many things, wore me down.

    Labour hold far fewer fears for me than they used to, because a 'probable inability to do any better', trumps 'certainly cannot do any better'.

    Not if "probable inability to do any better" becomes "probably will do worse" or "possibly be as bad as Greece".

    I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt with what we have learnt from the eurodisasters over the last three years that Darling/Brown would have done much worse than they claimed or that Osborne/Cameron are.
  • To get an 80's kids tv reference in for Sunil or TSE.
    Baron Silas Greenback.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited April 2013
    corporeal said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Interesting use of 'baron' there. I'm unfamiliar with stylistic rules, but it generally seems restricted to the shady or reprehensible - robber baron, porn baron, media baron.

    Why does Baron have such negative connotations in general useage? And which noble title is eviller? Marquis?

    The Red Baron?
    Maybe, but I thought we still respected and even admired the Red Baron.

    Dukes usually get portrayed ok, maybe due to a martial or royal focus. Earls I certainly don't recall being evil in public conciousness.

    Maybe it's all down to either foreigny (Count) or closeness - dukes and earls are probably not likely to go around oppressing you personally, but Barons are more likely to. Certainly some of our appointed Barons upset me from time to time at any rate.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron

    Wiki, uncited fwiw suggests it's not just an English language thing with barons.
    True.

    The Baron in German language Operetta is generally a baritone and baritones are generally baddies.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    AveryLP said:

    Talking of the meanings of words.

    What on earth did Ed Miliband mean when he called McCluskey "reprehensible"?

    The adjective comes from the verb to reprehend (Latin "re" = back + prehendere = to seize, grasp or arrest).

    Is Ed suggesting that McCluskey should be seized and brought back into custody?

    I am quite at loss to understand what Ed was going on about,

    It seems to be from the latin reprehensibilis actually: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reprehensible

    Something deserving of censure.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    kle4 said:

    @David L

    I used to give the Coalition a lot of leeway and even credit, but the cumulative weight of failure to meet promises or expectations, and an inability to, in the generous view, communicate anything effectively and, more realistically, actually being pretty incompetent at so many things, wore me down.

    Labour hold far fewer fears for me than they used to, because a 'probable inability to do any better', trumps 'certainly cannot do any better'.

    Not if "probable inability to do any better" becomes "probably will do worse" or "possibly be as bad as Greece".

    I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt with what we have learnt from the eurodisasters over the last three years that Darling/Brown would have done much worse than they claimed or that Osborne/Cameron are.
    I may not think they would have done any better, but that's no reason to reward Cameron and co, who in all things increasingly (well ok, not so much the last few months, they've gotten a little better) appear unable to get a grip on anything, anything at all.

    If Labour get in at the next GE and things still do not turn around (although simple time elapsed may mean things pick up), you can guarantee someone will make the same argument, that there can be no reasonable doubt that Cameron and co would have done much worse.

    As I see it, Ed M and co, who I would prefer not get in straight away as I don't think that would be good for the Labour party's ego after so long in power before, may not fix things, but will likely be no worse than any crappy government would be, but the possibility exists they could be better than expected. Cameron and co have deteriorated fast, and are very unconvincing that they could do better than we have seen.

    It's a shame, but since I voted LD last time, it's not like it's costing the Tories a vote if I did switch, not that that is my intention at this stage - growing up in the Tory shires, I have a deep apprehension at the prospect of voting Labour. Plus I detested Blair.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815



    If 2015 comes down to Austerity vs Austerity Lite, then why would voters choose the latter?

    But Richard, voters chose Blair as Thatcher lite in 1997.

    What is difficult to believe is that they will choose Miliband as Kinnock lite in 2015.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    "But Richard, voters chose Blair as Thatcher lite in 1997."

    But he wasn't going up against Thatcher Classic at the time.

    That said, on reflection people might choose between Austerity and Austerity lite and pick the latter - they didn't last time, but truth of the extent of austerity conducted to date or not, the perception has shifted to that it doesn't work, so 'the same thing, but less so' might work 5 years on when it didn't then.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    The thread header is a joke right?

    There's nothing more boring than a Labour leader v Union spat.

    I thought politics was getting interesting, with the Tories deciding to fight back a bit, and their media / spinners saying that Cameron is up for it, Ed is short of friends right now etc etc.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232

    Mind you (and this is certainly the first, and will no doubt be the last, time I say this): I think Len McCluskey makes an interesting point. If 2015 comes down to Austerity vs Austerity Lite, then why would voters choose the latter? Either they believe spending needs to be reined back towards sanity, or they don't. If they do, why not vote for the party which is serious about it? If they don't, why should the lite version appeal?

    Quite right. Miliband has been reading too many Dan Hodges columns. He desperately needs to keep his hard-left base and also mop up a few toff-hating moderates to get over the line. If he keeps antagonizing his hard-left supporters they'll return to the Lib Dems or defect to Galloway. Ed needs to stop trying to model himself on David Cameron and concentrate on the Mr and Mrs Angrys up and down the land.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    AveryLP said:



    If 2015 comes down to Austerity vs Austerity Lite, then why would voters choose the latter?

    voters chose Blair as Thatcher lite in 1997.

    Even you can't believe that.

    Thatcher was a big selling point for Labour well into the 21st century.

    She probably still is.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013

    Scoring Guide to tomorrow's UK top of the fops

    +0.5% up        Fops get very drunk 
    +0.4% to +0.5% Clegg and Vince try to take the credit
    +0.2% to +0.3% Osbrowne breathes sigh of relief till May 2nd
    --------------------------------------
    +0.1% to -0.1% Triple Dip headline margin
    --------------------------------------
    -0.2% to -0.3% omnishambles
    -0.3% to -0.5% AAA omnishambles
    -0.5% down Theresa May gives Osbrowne her 'loyal' support
    Indeed. ;)
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    DavidL said:

    AveryLP said:

    Talking of the meanings of words.

    What on earth did Ed Miliband mean when he called McCluskey "reprehensible"?

    The adjective comes from the verb to reprehend (Latin "re" = back + prehendere = to seize, grasp or arrest).

    Is Ed suggesting that McCluskey should be seized and brought back into custody?

    I am quite at loss to understand what Ed was going on about,

    It seems to be from the latin reprehensibilis actually: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reprehensible

    Something deserving of censure.

    David

    [re]prehends- is the past participle stem of the Latin verb [re]prehendere.

    The adjective was formed from the stem + ibilis.

    I can see how the meaning "deserving of censure" has developed from the primary source but Ed's usage remains ambiguous.

    Of course, Ed may think that McCluskey should be arrested but only be brave enough to call for censure when speaking in public.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750

    Mind you (and this is certainly the first, and will no doubt be the last, time I say this): I think Len McCluskey makes an interesting point. If 2015 comes down to Austerity vs Austerity Lite, then why would voters choose the latter? Either they believe spending needs to be reined back towards sanity, or they don't. If they do, why not vote for the party which is serious about it? If they don't, why should the lite version appeal?

    QIf he keeps antagonizing his hard-left supporters they'll return to the Lib Dems
    Lib Dems? Hard left?

    Mike, where do you find these people!?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kle4 said:

    If Labour get in at the next GE and things still do not turn around (although simple time elapsed may mean things pick up), you can guarantee someone will make the same argument, that there can be no reasonable doubt that Cameron and co would have done much worse.

    If your concern is that the present government (including LDs) have failed to close the deficit fast enough, what we know for a fact is that they've tried and Labour have not.

    They didn't try in government, they never came up with any plans, they never did a review, they expanded the deficit in almost every one of their 13 years in power.
    They've not tried in opposition. They've opposed every cut and not named a single one of their own they'd do instead.

    In good times and bad Labour increased the deficit in almost every year. In what are undeniably bad times for our continent, the worst that can be said about the current government is its standing still. Standing still is a lot better than getting worse.

    Balls and Ed were both heavily involved in Treasury decisions of the last government so its not like there's a vacuum here - either that we're operating in (Europe) or to judge them with.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,914

    To get an 80's kids tv reference in for Sunil or TSE.
    Baron Silas Greenback.

    Kids' TV was so much better back in the 80s!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    @AveryLP

    Hmm...One thing you need to remember with Latin is that it was dominant language for the best part of a 1,000 years. In this country we tend to study classical latin from the time of the late republic. Having done this at school I found translating some of the Digest from Justinian's time surprisingly difficult.

    The source I referred to indicated that this was late Latin which was perhaps not as pure as the earlier version. Certainly the meaning of this word seems to have developed somewhat and it is rather curiously found its way into English, or at least political English. When was the last time someone other than a politician used the word reprehensible?
  • carlcarl Posts: 750

    kle4 said:

    If Labour get in at the next GE and things still do not turn around (although simple time elapsed may mean things pick up), you can guarantee someone will make the same argument, that there can be no reasonable doubt that Cameron and co would have done much worse.

    If your concern is that the present government (including LDs) have failed to close the deficit fast enough, what we know for a fact is that they've tried and Labour have not.

    They didn't try in government, they never came up with any plans, they never did a review, they expanded the deficit in almost every one of their 13 years in power.
    They've not tried in opposition. They've opposed every cut and not named a single one of their own they'd do instead.

    In good times and bad Labour increased the deficit in almost every year. In what are undeniably bad times for our continent, the worst that can be said about the current government is its standing still. Standing still is a lot better than getting worse.

    Balls and Ed were both heavily involved in Treasury decisions of the last government so its not like there's a vacuum here - either that we're operating in (Europe) or to judge them with.
    Deficit blah.

    We still kept our AAA rating under the last Government, unlike this Tory lot.

    Public services were improved, unlike under the Tories. And living standards improved, unlike under this Tory Government.

    Cameron and Osborne have made lots of things worse and improved nothing.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    Times front page seems to be about the chumocracy again with Boris's brother getting a job a number 10.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    carl said:

    AveryLP said:



    If 2015 comes down to Austerity vs Austerity Lite, then why would voters choose the latter?

    voters chose Blair as Thatcher lite in 1997.

    Even you can't believe that.

    Thatcher was a big selling point for Labour well into the 21st century.

    She probably still is.
    Please refer to the recent YouGov polling, as analysed by Hopi Sen, and blogged by John Rentoul and linked here by Carola.

    Link: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/24/some-more-thatcherite-than-others/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    But don't worry, Carl, Pork was confused too.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    AveryLP said:

    The Baron in German language Operetta is generally a baritone and baritones are generally baddies.

    “Opera is when a tenor and soprano want to make love, but are prevented from doing so by a baritone.” – George Bernard Shaw.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    AveryLP said:

    But don't worry, Carl, Pork was confused too.

    So the incompetent fop Cammie models himself on being a second rate Blair impersonator, while Blair himself modelled his 'reforms' on Thatcher, and you think it's me who is confused, Seth O Logue?

    Hardly. :)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Mensch on Newsnight now.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Its ok Tim called it as a non story.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited April 2013

    AveryLP said:

    The Baron in German language Operetta is generally a baritone and baritones are generally baddies.

    “Opera is when a tenor and soprano want to make love, but are prevented from doing so by a baritone.” – George Bernard Shaw.
    And perfectly applied as a summary of La traviata.

    What is confusing me at the moment is the link between the aria from Bach's Goldberg Variations and Sky's screening of their "Hannibal" series. I had always thought it written to send a Russian diplomat to sleep.

    I am waiting for Plato, TSE or MD to explain.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    AveryLP said:

    carl said:

    AveryLP said:



    If 2015 comes down to Austerity vs Austerity Lite, then why would voters choose the latter?

    voters chose Blair as Thatcher lite in 1997.

    Even you can't believe that.

    Thatcher was a big selling point for Labour well into the 21st century.

    She probably still is.
    Please refer to the recent YouGov polling, as analysed by Hopi Sen, and blogged by John Rentoul and linked here by Carola.

    Link: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/24/some-more-thatcherite-than-others/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    But don't worry, Carl, Pork was confused too.
    Did you really tip Andrew Lansley... Andrew Lansley!.... for Prime Minister?
  • roserees64roserees64 Posts: 251
    Apparently the lower Labour leads with You Gov are an antidote to complacancy and may help Labour on May 2nd and in the long run. Cameron and Miliband were both on good form today, I am always struck by how similar they are in some ways. In the end the choice comes down to authenticity.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited April 2013
    tim said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    Times headline seems to be about the chumocracy again with Boris's brother getting a job a number 10.

    Have they had Number Ten reconstructed as an Eton dorm yet?
    Charles will confirm or deny, but my understanding is that Eton is one of very few public schools where boarders are not required to sleep in dormitories.

    I am not sure, however, that this applied when Macmillan attended and departed,

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    tim said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    Times headline seems to be about the chumocracy again with Boris's brother getting a job a number 10.

    Have they had Number Ten reconstructed as an Eton dorm yet?
    Meteoric rise isn't it? Many could be forgiven for not realising Boris's brother was the hottest thing in policy making. Including, I suspect, quite a few non-etonian tories who might have thought they were in with a chance.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    carl said:

    Did you really tip Andrew Lansley... Andrew Lansley!.... for Prime Minister?

    How dare you! Only I am allowed to remind Seth of his tipping prowess lest he get too upset at all the attention. ;)

  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    Mick_Pork said:

    carl said:

    Did you really tip Andrew Lansley... Andrew Lansley!.... for Prime Minister?

    How dare you! Only I am allowed to remind Seth of his tipping prowess lest he get too upset at all the attention. ;)

    Political insight of that magnitude deserves wider attention.

    What's his next tip going to be!?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    I see Farage has claimed that Thatcher would have joined UKIP today and may have challenged him for his job
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    DavidL said:

    @AveryLP

    Hmm...One thing you need to remember with Latin is that it was dominant language for the best part of a 1,000 years. In this country we tend to study classical latin from the time of the late republic. Having done this at school I found translating some of the Digest from Justinian's time surprisingly difficult.

    The source I referred to indicated that this was late Latin which was perhaps not as pure as the earlier version. Certainly the meaning of this word seems to have developed somewhat and it is rather curiously found its way into English, or at least political English. When was the last time someone other than a politician used the word reprehensible?

    I can certainly hear counsel at the criminal bar using the word, David.

    It starts early. A fellow student reading law as an undergraduate who later became Chairman of the Bar Council of E&W, saw a suspicious youth running away from a distressed old aged pensioner in the street outside his college.

    His reaction was to strut manfully towards the Porters Lodge and demand that the Police be rung immediately as "he had seen a dishevelled youth and suspected thief ambulate in a westerly direction in a manner which could only be described as guilty".

    Yes, David, I feel sure "reprehensible" would be used by barristers.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Around Brick Lane - East End of London in 1976":

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWW1NGOB288
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    tim said:

    Strange Sun front page

    @hendopolis: Sun: Kaboom Qatada #tomorrowspaperstoday #BBCpapers http://t.co/gZh0ltppzo

    What in god's name are they drinking over at the Sun these days??

    That's yet another one that looks like it's been ripped straight from a very confused conspiracy loon website. They just threw random alarming words at the headlines and hoped something would stick.

    Bizarre.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    HYUFD said:

    I see Farage has claimed that Thatcher would have joined UKIP today and may have challenged him for his job

    I think Bill Deedes might have cautioned that Farage is a man whose priapism was sublimated in goats.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Evening all. Great result for PBers in the football :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    "If your concern is that the present government (including LDs) have failed to close the deficit fast enough, what we know for a fact is that they've tried and Labour have not. "

    Well, the debate then becomes, which is better 1)Someone who tries to do something and only gets it half done, or 2)Someone who offers to try half as much but gets it done as promised?

    Now, Labour may not have got it done. Probably wouldn't have. But I suspect that the message 'We promised 5 years of pain on the basis the job would be done by then, only now it will ten years of pain to do it' will not beat 'We promised half as much pain, to achieve the same end'

    In effect a con trick? Maybe, and I would hate to think there is no difference in outcomes whatever the choice, but the challenges will remain immense, and if one lot could not get it done, and are unable to convince the public that it was the best that could be achieved (and the government have lost that argument in the last year when their comptency in the public perception took a nosedive), then fear stories of predictions of Labour doing worse will not convince either.

    I truly hope things will turn around - it would be nice to think either of the parties could stem the tide properly.

    Night all.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    Mick_Pork said:

    tim said:

    Strange Sun front page

    @hendopolis: Sun: Kaboom Qatada #tomorrowspaperstoday #BBCpapers http://t.co/gZh0ltppzo

    What in god's name are they drinking over at the Sun these days??

    That's yet another one that looks like it's been ripped straight from a very confused conspiracy loon website. They just threw random alarming words at the headlines and hoped something would stick.

    Bizarre.

    I think the Sun are trying to suggest that Cameron is trying his best to get rid of a terrorist, who is a massive nuclear threat, but the Lib Dems are stopping him.

    I also think Sun staff should spend less time on PB and Guido.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2013
    "The number of evangelical Christians in Brazil, the world’s largest Catholic country, has soared over the last decade, from 15% of the population in 2000 to to 22% of the population in 2010, according to a report issued on Friday.

    Over the same period, the proportion of Catholic Brazilians fell from 74% of the population to to 65%, Brazil’s National Statistics Institute reported.

    In overall terms, the percentage of evangelicals rose 44%, as evangelical churches won over the faithful, especially women and people in poorer communities.

    The rise of evangelical Christianity is a growing trend across Latin America."


    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/29/ratio-of-evangelicals-in-brazil-jumps-44-in-10-years/
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,914
    carl said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    tim said:

    Strange Sun front page

    @hendopolis: Sun: Kaboom Qatada #tomorrowspaperstoday #BBCpapers http://t.co/gZh0ltppzo

    What in god's name are they drinking over at the Sun these days??

    That's yet another one that looks like it's been ripped straight from a very confused conspiracy loon website. They just threw random alarming words at the headlines and hoped something would stick.

    Bizarre.

    I think the Sun are trying to suggest that Cameron is trying his best to get rid of a terrorist, who is a massive nuclear threat, but the Lib Dems are stopping him.

    I also think Sun staff should spend less time on PB and Guido.
    Haven't you spent a lot of time on PB? :)
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    carl said:


    I think the Sun are trying to suggest that Cameron is trying his best to get rid of a terrorist, who is a massive nuclear threat, but the Lib Dems are stopping him.

    Trying being the word. Even is we leave aside the lunacy of a nuclear Qatada (which we can't since the badly photoshopped image and clunking headline attempt at finding something to go with Qatada dominates) it just looks like a hopelessly confused mess. A doorway into the minds of those who wrote and passed that but hardly a textbook case of witty or concise tabloiding.

    They had the Suarez ban to work with, SUAREZ! That's pure tabloid crack and it writes itself.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Barons are definitely evil, in popular culture. Robber Barons, Baron Cimmetiere etc.

    Earls, Dukes and Lords are okay. Counts are sinister.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sean_F said:

    Barons are definitely evil, in popular culture. Robber Barons, Baron Cimmetiere etc.

    Earls, Dukes and Lords are okay. Counts are sinister.

    Count Duckula was never sinister. /80skidstvreference
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited April 2013
    Mick_Pork said:

    Times front page seems to be about the chumocracy again with Boris's brother getting a job a number 10.

    The Telegraph have article on the same thing. The 'conservative parliamentary advisory board' thingy looks more interesting.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10016467/David-Cameron-recruits-Boriss-brother-for-Number-10.html

    I'm not sure if its just Mr Cameron desperately sucking up to Conservative MPs, or if they really are going to have some input into government policy making. I suspect the former.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Apart from one comment from Sean Fear I seem to be the only pb'er posting about impressions from the local elections. Any other insights? Nothing very dramatic is happening with Labour voters - the people who came over in 2011/12 still seem generally keen, without a further influx. If there's anything exciting happening it will be on the Tory/UKIP side, as Sean suggested - I wouldn't know, since non-Labour voters generally just say "no" without elaboration.

    And are we expecting a South Shields poll?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I have received one leaflet from the Conservatives. I was hoping for the other parties to distribute literature in this area as well.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2013
    The East End video from 1976 I posted is a bit depressing. Goes to show why turning back the clock might not be such a good idea!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Apart from one comment from Sean Fear I seem to be the only pb'er posting about impressions from the local elections. Any other insights? Nothing very dramatic is happening with Labour voters - the people who came over in 2011/12 still seem generally keen, without a further influx. If there's anything exciting happening it will be on the Tory/UKIP side, as Sean suggested - I wouldn't know, since non-Labour voters generally just say "no" without elaboration.

    And are we expecting a South Shields poll?

    I reckon Lab 55%, UKIP 25% Con 10% LD 5% ;D
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    AnotherDave - Dave obviously taking LBJ's advice and deciding it is better to have Johnsons 'inside pissing out, than outside pissing in'
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    AndyJS said:

    I have received one leaflet from the Conservatives. I was hoping for the other parties to distribute literature in this area as well.

    I have had only one, from the LibDem focus team. Very disappointing as no bar chart, and the man pointing at things did not have a beard. Shall vote for him anyway, as he is a good bloke who I chat to when walking the dog.

    I have seen a UKIP poster, against immigration, on Tigers way in Leicester near the Rugby ground and University. A little bit odd in that Leicester (as opposed to the county) is not having elections. Perhaps they want to catch people who park on the street while braving the urban wasteland to watch the Rugby. They seem to like the player Tulangi, who may be one of those furriners, so not sure if it will work.


  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2013
    The Middlesbrough by-election might be a guide to how some of the parties will perform in South Shields. For instance Labour went from 15,351 to 10,201.

    Applying that to South Shields, Labour would go from 18,995 to 12,622. That sounds like a good prediction to me as far as the Labour vote is concerned.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    HYUFD said:

    AnotherDave - Dave obviously taking LBJ's advice and deciding it is better to have Johnsons 'inside pissing out, than outside pissing in'

    I just looked up Johnson Junior, his wife writes for The Guardian!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ameliagentleman
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    AndyJS said:

    I have received one leaflet from the Conservatives. I was hoping for the other parties to distribute literature in this area as well.

    I have had only one, from the LibDem focus team. Very disappointing as no bar chart, and the man pointing at things did not have a beard.

    I'll investigate, put in a few calls and get that corrected ASAP.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    kle4 said:

    @ Sunil

    Fair enough - it's even weirder then, as I cannot offhand think of evil barons (who are known specifically as barons) that would justify the title being associated with shady or ruthless business, media etc kingpins.

    I think corporeal has the best explanation so far. When in doubt, I'd prefer to think such things have a longstanding historical reason behind them.

    It's such an unfair life, being a baron I guess.

    Baroness Thatcher ?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Why are English people so cold and unfriendly?

    Why are English people so cold? Perhaps this is the reason so many foreigners fail to integrate properly into society in the UK? I am a foreigner totally grateful to the UK for giving me a passport (married to a Brit for 21 years) as the chances of being killed where I come from are pretty good.

    However, in all the time I spent living in the UK (five years in total), although I'm blue-eyed, blonde and speak perfect English with just a 5% accent, I am always regarded as being foreign. All my friends are foreign too mainly because we have come to realise we are all in the same boat.

    My best friend is Swedish and has lived here in the UK for about 12 years. Even after that length of time living in the UK she says I am still the only person who has ever invited her home for a coffee!

    We're told we have to be patient and that it takes time for an English person to trust you (say four years of knowing you), but then once they are friends with you, they are the best friends in the world. Well, I'm afraid I've given up trying and hoping.

    Is it perhaps because your mothers never breast fed you and thus did not expose you to the first essential human warmth that we should all know? Or is it because you really are all xenophobic and your government, in its multicultural tendencies has failed to realise this basic truth? Perhaps it is just because you are SO polite, politically correct and you really don't want us to be here, so instead of telling us sincerely, you pretend to put up with us because you really don't want to become our friends?

    Since first moving to the UK, I decided to move away again and have lived abroad for seven years. During that time I have never failed to make friends with the locals, and quickly too. So why are the English so aloof with foreigners?"


    http://www.weeklygripe.co.uk/a393.asp
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    AndyJS said:

    "Why are English people so cold and unfriendly?

    Why are English people so cold? Perhaps this is the reason so many foreigners fail to integrate properly into society in the UK? I am a foreigner totally grateful to the UK for giving me a passport (married to a Brit for 21 years) as the chances of being killed where I come from are pretty good.

    However, in all the time I spent living in the UK (five years in total), although I'm blue-eyed, blonde and speak perfect English with just a 5% accent, I am always regarded as being foreign. All my friends are foreign too mainly because we have come to realise we are all in the same boat.

    My best friend is Swedish and has lived here in the UK for about 12 years. Even after that length of time living in the UK she says I am still the only person who has ever invited her home for a coffee!

    We're told we have to be patient and that it takes time for an English person to trust you (say four years of knowing you), but then once they are friends with you, they are the best friends in the world. Well, I'm afraid I've given up trying and hoping.

    Is it perhaps because your mothers never breast fed you and thus did not expose you to the first essential human warmth that we should all know? Or is it because you really are all xenophobic and your government, in its multicultural tendencies has failed to realise this basic truth? Perhaps it is just because you are SO polite, politically correct and you really don't want us to be here, so instead of telling us sincerely, you pretend to put up with us because you really don't want to become our friends?

    Since first moving to the UK, I decided to move away again and have lived abroad for seven years. During that time I have never failed to make friends with the locals, and quickly too. So why are the English so aloof with foreigners?"


    http://www.weeklygripe.co.uk/a393.asp

    Probably too embarrassed about her preferring coffee to tea.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Hi all!
    I am a norwegian student (so forgive my bad english - I'm working on it!), and I recently started to study here in England, near London.

    Before I came here I had the impression that british people were some of the most friendly and polite people in the world. I have never been in the Uk before I started to study here, but I got these impressions from tv, movies, newspapers, other peoples experiences and so on. It's a general impression where I come from that british people are very friendly.

    The first month I was here I was really amazed of how kind, helpful and polite the english people were. Everyone seemed to be in such a good mood, and when I asked for help everyone were so kind and patient. I was really looking forward to study here!

    However, now that I started university, my impression has slightly changed. I find it really hard to get to know people in my class. Nobody ever try to speak to me or get to know me. If I try to talk to them of course they will reply, but they will not try to talk to me. I can sit all alone at a table while 3-4 brits are having a conversation above my head. It's like all the british students have isolated themselves inside their own big bubble, and they do not want to let anyone else inside.

    I do not understand why...

    We are about 35 students in my class. I think 11 of us are from other countries, and everyone share the same impression: brits are cold and hard to get to know! And if I meet a friendly brit it turns out he/she isn't british afterall, but come from another country.

    I have always heard from foreigners that Norwegians are cold and unfriendly, that's why I find all this so odd. I do not want to offend anyone, I only want to try and understand why it's like this.

    What do you think?"

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1445505
  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    edited April 2013
    corporeal said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Why are English people so cold and unfriendly?

    Why are English people so cold? Perhaps this is the reason so many foreigners fail to integrate properly into society in the UK? I am a foreigner totally grateful to the UK for giving me a passport (married to a Brit for 21 years) as the chances of being killed where I come from are pretty good.

    However, in all the time I spent living in the UK (five years in total), although I'm blue-eyed, blonde and speak perfect English with just a 5% accent, I am always regarded as being foreign. All my friends are foreign too mainly because we have come to realise we are all in the same boat.

    My best friend is Swedish and has lived here in the UK for about 12 years. Even after that length of time living in the UK she says I am still the only person who has ever invited her home for a coffee!

    We're told we have to be patient and that it takes time for an English person to trust you (say four years of knowing you), but then once they are friends with you, they are the best friends in the world. Well, I'm afraid I've given up trying and hoping.

    Is it perhaps because your mothers never breast fed you and thus did not expose you to the first essential human warmth that we should all know? Or is it because you really are all xenophobic and your government, in its multicultural tendencies has failed to realise this basic truth? Perhaps it is just because you are SO polite, politically correct and you really don't want us to be here, so instead of telling us sincerely, you pretend to put up with us because you really don't want to become our friends?

    Since first moving to the UK, I decided to move away again and have lived abroad for seven years. During that time I have never failed to make friends with the locals, and quickly too. So why are the English so aloof with foreigners?"


    http://www.weeklygripe.co.uk/a393.asp

    Probably too embarrassed about her preferring coffee to tea.
    I can only assume the person smells and the English were too polite to say so and the foreigners did not mind as much?
    A tad sexist, and with apologies, but I have also noticed that being a cute female seems to be an advantage in bringing those cultural barriers down, at least with males who I know....and I am sure they would have been tempted to invite her home for a coffee, although I am not sure if that would have been offered on arrival. : )
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    Re British being cold, but having the reputation for being friendly, reminds me of an old observation/joke about the British vs the French.

    The British and the French are exactly the same: they both will accept anyone. However, for the French to accept you, you must fully embrace all French culture, and then they will accept you as French, regardless of your origins. The British, on the other hand, will accept all foreigners as they are. However, they will never be British.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 24th April - CON 31%, LAB 39%, LD 10%, UKIP 11%; APP -34
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    YouGov

    If you had to choose, which of the following
    options would be best for Britain?

    A majority Conservative government 29(+1)
    Con/LD Coalition 9(+1)
    LAB/LD Coalition 13(0)
    Labour Majority 29(-2)
    DK 21(+2)

    LD voters are split: 2/36/45/2/14 but
    LD 2010 voters : 10/16/32/23/19

    UKIP voters say: 40/6/9/11/34
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Does EdM have the courage of his convictions?

    He could say that McCluskey is operating against the best interests of the UK and its people and invite union members and other supporters to send their political donations direct to Labour HQ.

    A resolute stand against the vested political interests of this union leader could gain EdM a lot of support especially from the Don't Knows.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Financier said:

    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 24th April - CON 31%, LAB 39%, LD 10%, UKIP 11%; APP -34

    This is now the longest run of sub-10 Labour leads since March 2012.....curiously Labour voters seem less convinced about the benefits of a majority Labour government than Conservatives of a Conservative govt:

    Maj own party gov:
    Con: 88
    Lab: 77
This discussion has been closed.