I’ve said before that one of the problems the Tories have is that outside of their Bullingdon boys, no-one really knows who Cameron’s ‘team’ actually are. Unlike 1997 when the likes of Prezza, Mandelson, Straw, Blunkett, Cook, Beckett and Short joined the Brown/Blair Cabinet, Team Cameron seem to be centred almost exclusively around the Boy Dave and his old school chum. Most would probably be able to identify Wee Wullie, because he has spent the best part of a decade making an arse of himself on our televisions, and Tubby Clarke…. maybe, as a relic of Thatcher’s days. But do you think if you walked down your local High Street with photographs of the likes of Grayling, Grieve, Herbert, Lansley and Gove, that actually two people out of a hundred could name more than one of them. In fact, ask yourself honestly, dear reader, could you do it?
Anyway, via Left Foot Forward, we find that the Sky News team even have difficulty with the Bullingdon kids.
- For a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families...
-
On the Side of the Angels
- A Very Public Sociologist
- A week is a long time in politics
- Andy Howell
- Beau Bo D'Or
- Bench
- Bloggerheads
- Chicken Yoghurt
- Councillor Mike Leddy
- Councillor Tim
- Dave Osler
- Enemies of Reason
- Fat Man in the Bathtub
- Frank Owen's Paintbrush
- Freemania
- From One End of Kent
- Grimmer Up North
- Hagley Road to Ladywood
- Hopi Sen
- Jailhouse Lawyer
- Jon's Union Blog
- Julian's Musings
- Labour List
- Labour News
- Labour of Love
- Labour2
- Left Foot Forward
- Left of the Line
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Liverpool Lefty
- Luke's Blog
- Ministry of Truth
- Never Trust a Hippy
- Next Left
- Obsolete
- Occupied Country
- Our Man in Hanoi
- Paul Linford
- Political Hack
- Putting Members First
- Raincoat Optimism
- Skipper
- Skuds
- Slugger O'Toole
- Stephen Newton's Diary
- The Daily (Maybe)
- The Methodist Preacher
- The Middle of the Line
- The Plastic Hippo
- The YamYam
- Though Cowards Flinch
- Three Score Years & Ten
- Tom Watson MP
The Dark Side
The Media
-
Recent Posts
-
Archives
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
Meta
Cameron should be flattered, at least George looks normal with his wrinkles and an expressive face.
Here you go Bob.
A policy to ensure consistency and fairness across a Council’s area, rather than causing uncertainty, risk and unecessary expense for shops when applying for alcohol licences.
http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/Published/C00000117/M00002085/AI00012068/$100128NM05ResponsibleLicensingGrnGrp.docA.ps.pdf
Unlike your gung-ho, ad-hoc, “I’ll do whatever I feel like because I’m not responsible to any kind of manifesto or party mandate because I openly admit I do not agree with many Labour policies”.
Why don’t you tell us which Labour policies you do support?
It can’t be sticking up for Trade Unions, because Sandwell Labour Party keeping privatising services and schools against the recommendations of Trade Unions:
The NUT opposes Academies: http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/10584
UNISON opposes the privatisation of public services and the involvement of the private sector in NHS services, such as LIFT Co developing health clinics:
http://www.unison.org.uk/campaigns/index.asp
So again the question – why do you remain a Labour party member when you openly oppose not only national but your local party’s policies?
Is it to massage your massive ego, mr bobpiper.co.uk ?
But Connor, you’re in the Green Party. Yout this Green isn’t: http://jimjay.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-thanks-mr-mayor.html
You’re in favour of all-night boozing establishments in residential areas… is Aldo Mussi, one of your candidates in the local elections in Sandwell (Oh, and a lecturer in… PUBLIC HEALTH).
You seem to oppose the smoking ban… tell us, is Aldo?… because I’ve asked you five times now and you either don’t know or you’re coming over all shy.
You see… that’s how political parties work. We don’t swallow every policy dot and comma wholesale. You’ll learn when you get into big boy politics.
“A detailed and startling analysis of how unequal Britain has become offers a snapshot of an increasingly divided nation where the richest 10% of the population are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10% of society”.
Researchers analyse inequality according to a number of measures; one indicates that by 2007-8 Britain had reached the highest level of income inequality since soon after the second world war.
The new findings show that the household wealth of the top 10% of the population stands at £853,000 and more – over 100 times higher than the wealth of the poorest 10%, which is £8,800 or below (a sum including cars and other possessions).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/27/unequal-britain-report
You admit you do not agree with many of Labour’s policies.
Then you say you’re in the Labour Party because you want to defend Trades Unions – despite the fact that Sandwell Labour Party is relentlessly pursuing an agenda opposed by the main trades unions.
So it can’t be that either.
Then you say you’re in the Labour Party because you want to defend the working class.
The Labour Party has increased inequality between rich and poor to the levels outlined in the above article.
Is that what you mean by “defend” the working class?
Or, because there is no agreed definition of what the “working class” mean, you are assuming that the working class are something else other than those less privileged?
Being a neo-liberal, you won’t have read Lynsey Hanley’s book “Estates”. She makes a compelling case that class is a state of mind. Or, put another way, prejudice. Prejudice that dictates your ambitions, your attitudes to your health, your attitides to education, your attitudes to culture.
It’s clear that Labour does not deliver on reducing inequality. So are you suggesting that you’re in the Labour Party to defend the prejudice of an undetermined section of society?
Exhausting those possibilities, you say that you didn’t get elected by piggybacking on a ticket that you openly disagree with simply for the allowance or expenses. Fine, I’ll give you that too.
So what’s left? Why Bob, are you a member of the Labour Party when none of your reasons stack up?
Is it because you know you won’t get elected as an independent, or if you did on the back of your personal vote, you’d be isolated away from your buddies without anyone to second your motions?
Ahhhh, that’s it. Great. Thanks for your deceit. That’s great respect of democratic mandates and for the goodwill of your voters.
Ermm, Connor, why are you talking complete arsebiscuits? These little screeds are all very well (in a kind of sixth form shouted debate kind of way), but they are unrelated to the posts they appear under, and just come across as bitter personal attacks.
Bob, I’m not sure why you indulge this stuff, but I’m sure that replying only seems to encourage him. Let him vent on his own (barely read) blog.
And yet I think I’d rather vote Cameron then Brown, we have had so many lies and bull from new labour, it does not matter anymore we have got use to it, so bull shit from the Tories will be nothing new. but in fact we expect it, we did not expect it from new labour, but we didget it by the bucket full.
Danivon, I’m sure you’re right. I suspect he is just trying to attract traffic.
Yes dear I could
On topic – I think you are being harsh.
Prescott was widely known because he had won the deputy leadership campaign.
Beckitt was known as previous deputy leader and acting leader for Labour after John Smith’s death. The relic status you attach to Clark can also be attached to her.
Cook, Short and Straw are well known with hindsight. Prior to the election I am not sure they were such household names. Certainly not as high as William Hague.
Mandelson was known and loathed as some new dark master of spin. Not exactly a positive and a reputation that has taken over a decade to shake.
So I think your argument basically rests on the fact that you had better known individuals because you elect two leadership roles and had to do so twice in 2 years due to the sad early death of John Smith.
Obviously if Iain Duncan-Smith or David Davis re-joined the shadow cabinet, parity may me achieved. But in the end it is a largely meaningless yard-stick. Plus in the case of most Governments (including this one) familiarity eventually breeds comtempt.
James, I think you are right about Beckett, and maybe Prescott, although a Deputy Leadership campaign hardly gave him the full glare of the public spotlight.
But I think you are entirely wrong about Cook, Short and Straw. Jack had been pretty well known from his days in student politics (as had Peter Hain, who never made that first Cabinet but had a public profile. Short had a public reputation and persona around Irish issues in particular, and at the time of leadership contest it was widely thought in the media that Cook would have been a better leader than Blair if he had been even slightly more photogenic.
Nor am I sure about your point over IDS, although I think David Davis would certainly be better known than that group of anonymous Tories I mentioned. I wasn’t really point scoring though (well, only a bit, but it is a Labour councillor’s blog) but really pointing out that whilst Cameron is a big plus for the Tories, the remainder of his team are more shadow than they are Cabinet.
Can I just take this opportunity to praise Sky News for their excellent choice in relation to the LATEST NEWS ON MADELEINE referring people to my Justice For Madeleine blog and the post “See you in court Mr and Mrs McCann”?
Instead of Sky’s claim First for news, perhaps it should read Hirst first for news?
Bob – I don’t live in Sandwell and I don’t support Labour – but I do really enjoy your blog. You are one of the few bloggers that continue to engage in debate they start (even on more light-hearted subjects like this).
However, to the point. Your defence of Cook, Short and Straw points to the weakness in your argument. If you were a Labour activist – you would know about Straw’s student politics. The general public probably wouldn’t. Similarly, the same people who take an active interest in Northern Irish politics beyond the headlines would know Short – but many wouldn’t. As for Cook – maybe you are correct, but identifying talent from other alternative wings of the party to contest leadership elections is also usually the preserve of activists and those interested in politics.
To prove the point, you could probably do a poll of some people on the street and you find at least one example at the other extreme where someone will fail to recognise either Alastair Darling or David Cameron despite all the media coverage.
The media generally focus on personalities, the public look for results. All the Tories you lambast will be given the opportunity to shine or fail if the Conservatives are elected.
James, thanks for your kind words. I don’t think I lambasted them though, I was just pointing out they were a bit anonymous and that Cameron might actually do better to promote a wider ‘team’. If there are voters who are marginal and worried that Cameron is a bit oily or posh, then trooping out a bigger team might benefit him. I can’t really understand why he hasn’t done it, unless the Party are worried about the lack of talent in depth.
On your other points, we’ll have to agree to disagree on Jack. And on Clare, it would be difficult to have even a vague interest in politics not to be aware of Northern Irish issues in the 1980′s and 1990′s.
I think this is mostly a matter of POV I am interested in the character s you pick out though, you have put your finger on something …
Short ( Resignation)
……. The security council resolution that you and Jack have so secretly negotiated contradicts the assurances I have given in the House of Commons and elsewhere about the legal authority of the occupying powers, and the need for a UN-led process to establish a legitimate Iraqi government. This makes my position impossible……..
Cook ( Resignation)
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.
You have forgotten to mention Frank Field still greatly respected who has had a word or two to say mmm ?
Now Bob lets talk about Bob Ainsworth … is he actually an MP ir did they give the job to someone coming for an interview as a cleaner ? Enlighten me , on this team of many talents and as for Mandy I know that of possible your opinion of him is even lower than mine …its bit of limbo dance though .
Cook and Short resigned in disgust Hain is faded joke , does anything about this say to you ..vote Brown ?