Sunday, December 19, 2010

Labour's big idea - playing with words




Stumbled across this article in today's Observer.

If nothing else it shows just how shallow Labour are. Rather than face the enormity of the errors both Blair and Brown are guilty during their time in office, it seems all Labour are capable of is spin & verbal abuse.

For the last few months labour have been using the term ConDem Government, like it's a four letter swear word and they're school kids, looks like this might become a thing of the past since Ed Milliband has issued a decree that the term " coalition" is not be used because it sounds too reasonable.

Last week I thought local labour were idiots, as they made a meal of their tennis court victory ( see last post) , now I know it comes from the top.

39 comments:

  1. Well somebody in the country thinks that lab are doing ok, or is it that the coalition is doing a bad job?
    Today's Sunday Times Yougov poll:

    con 37%, lab 39% libd 11%, others 13%.
    A bit of a fall for libd.

    And you know Tony that the current election system gives a lot more seats to lab per percentage point.

    ReplyDelete
  2. so the coalition has 48% - labour can't even top 40 in times like these.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But the coalition had 59% and lab 29% at the time of the election.
    The coalition has not got its message across, people still believe it was the Bankers that caused the problems, libdems have sold out and the speed of the cuts is going to cause untold misery.
    Normally at this time in a new parliament support increases.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Labour have no policies as admitted by Ed M, for he still has a blank piece of paper. The target, since the formation of the coalition, has been the Lib/Dems perceived, in that absence of any bright ideas, as the weakest link. Hence we have had all the daft names and long nosed pictures of Nick Clegg (see Dave Green's blog).

    Suddenly Ed has panicked and realised that they have forgotten the Tories and a nationwide survey reveals that the Conservatives would stand to gain at least as many extra seats as Labour, possibly more, from a Lib/Dem collapse. Hence the government must be known as 'Tory led' so they can call them silly names as well.

    These are supposed to be grown ups, our parliamentary representatives no less, and yet, this is the level of the UK's official opposition. Mind you, I suppose after their performance in government, it should come as no surprise.

    The polls are generally showing the two main parties fairly even which, considering the cuts that have to be made, is quite surprising. Normally such austerity measures should have the opposition well in front.

    As to 1:57PM's comment about most people blaming the bankers, all one can really say is in your dreams, sunshine. The bankers may have contributed to the world recession but they did not cause the UK's budget deficit. That stems entirely from spending more than we bring in. Most people I know think Gordon Brown and his government got us in the state we are in but I would not claim that, as other contributors frequently do, as representative of some mythical majority.

    Anyway, it is a time for cheer, so I would just like to wish Tony and all his followers, including Retired, the conspiracy theorists and Labour luvvies, a very happy Christmas. You are what you are and it is not your fault.

    ReplyDelete
  5. May be idiots in your view, but they're not slumped in the polls like the Liberal Democrats. Now why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The conservaties went 13 year without policies and much of the time without a effective leader, and the party split into pro and against Europe. They were unelectable. There is no need for labour to come up with new policies for a few years yet, they can wait to see how this experimentsl govenment turns out.

    And now the public have realised that its still the same old tory party prepared to put many out of work, to privitise the NHS, to create an education system that favours the rich and allowing big business friends to avoid paying billions in tax.
    If the public beleived the coalition is doing a good job in difficult times they would support them, but they believe they are doing a bad job.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Have you noticed that it's usually the bigots who are anonymous, and they usually can't spell either? Products of Barbara Castle's (failed by her own admission) education reforms.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the grand scheme is to forge a powerful centrist government to 'rule' in perpetuity and to prevent the populist movement, UKIP in our case, from grabbing the reins.

    http://www.ukcolumn.org/blogs/keeping-eye-news-lies-damned-lies-and-dictatorships

    Poverty stricken Lynn Forester de Rothschild has called for the same single party elitist dictatorship scam to be deployed in the States.

    http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/new_world_order/news.php?q=1291822015

    ReplyDelete
  9. So 3:42PM, once again you go speaking for the public. What you mean is that Labour supporters want to project the image of the same old Tories but, if you check the record of the Coalition so far, they have actually been more progressive in their first six months than New Labour was in 1997.

    Stick to your opinions, which you are quite entitled to hold, but please stop claiming that you speak for the public or the majority. You simply don't know that and have no way of judging until there is an election. Talking of which, there are local government elections and the vote on AV next May. Surely Labour should at least have some policies for that or is it to be just name calling all the way.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Speaking of which (elections)...

    I do find it strange that you, Mr Flaig, constantly churn out posts criticising Labour. Your Party is in Government, yet there are virtually no posts from you explaining and supporting Government policy.

    Are we to assume you are one of the growing band of disaffected Liberal Democrat supporters who are sickened by the Party's broken promises and pledges and policy reversals. Are you so scared of electoral oblivion that you can only think of lambasting Labour at every opportunity.

    Of course, seeing local Tories like Wells and Gregory crawling out of the woodwork to do the same, attempting to score cheap opportunistic political points, sort of gives weight to the notion that negative campaigning is all you, and they, have available.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well I have read it all now. A Labour supporter complaining about negative campaigning. This from the party of the name calling, the spin, the dirty tricks and Phil Woolas. On top the party who opened the immigration floodgates in the mistaken belief that the new arrivals would keep them in power.

    Nothing comes shabbier than Labour and, 10:32, if certain local councillors have commented on these pages it is only in response to other claims. Surely they have the same democratic right to a voice as you but then, as I foolishly forgot, democracy and socialism are the most unhappy bedfellows.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Merry Christmas Bluenote.

    I did send a submission to the Iraq Inquiry in the hope questions would be put to a recalled Jack Straw.

    Starting with his decision in 1999 to refuse to compel the inquiry and report called for by Kent Police Authority in August 97. (Into Deal Barracks security history, the bombing of the barracks by IRA 1989 and the police handling of security warnings including the intrinsic complaint of sabotage consistent with the IRA Garland terrorist plan. Sean Garland, for those who do not know, is sort of an IRA counterpart to Thanet tories' very own Cyril Hoser .. forger of dollars and documents. So strange indeed that the security warnings of 88/89 named a Thanet tory cllr who appears to have been an associate of both Garland and Hoser ?)

    There in the report to STRAW in 99 was a description of backup generatoir sabotage techniques. Including incidents at Credit Suisse London and Guys Hospital. Diesel transfer systems either not pumping (causing a del;ayed failure of backup power in an emergency) or overpump (Raising the danger of diesel being overpumped into a building and acting as an accelerant to any fires already ensuing.)

    Taking STRAW's own supplementary memorandum to the Iraq Inquiry he would have us believe he was much taken when initially Foreign Secretary with studying the 9.11 incident.

    And what dear STRAW did the New York Fire Brigade attribute the collapse of Tower Seven to ? An overpump of diesel by the tower's backup generator diesel transfer system which pumped 12000 gallons into the fires ensuing from the aircraft impacts.

    But apparentl;y not ding a ling in the STRAW napper "I have read a warning about this and I refused to compel inquiry. Fortunately Cllr Hayton a Thanet tory managed to fib on oath in the High Court in 98 otherwise a High Court judge may have learnt about the report."

    "Now what else did that report call for ? Ah yes inquiry under the Unlawful Drilling Act 1819 into paramilitary training activity using Kent gun ranges and the like. I know once I am Justice Secretary I will repeal the Act eh ?"

    Ms GOOM, solicitor to the Iraq Inquiry has emailed to say she thinks the matters may be beyond the terms of reference of the inquiry.

    I don't think so Ms GOOM and in any event Common Law and the fact of an obligatory information of treason laid with Kent justices before the inquiry was set up would make it an obligation on the inquiry to act upon the information.

    Ms GOOM has now elected silence.

    The rub. Jack STRAW was aware of an unlawful police no go area. He was aware that it benefitted individuals, whose organisations were founded and based at Deal Barracks, who were the UK contacts of Dr Wouter Basson. He was therefore aware that at least one pillar of the bogus case made about WMD was immersed in an historical unlawful police no go area he had failed to address.

    I won't hold me breath waiting for the questions to be asked let alone answered. Any more than I would hold my breath waiting for Cllr Hayton to come clean about his alleged perjury.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Retired, here's wishing you a good Christmas as well.

    I am not going to respond to your usual comments on conspiracies save to that point about the alleged perjury. If it is alleged it is not proven and I do think you should stop naming a decent and hardworking man in the way you do. He would not sink to your level and respond himself or even sue you though, frankly if it were me, I would have you in court asap.

    I am well aware of your letters to numerous councillors, MPs, policemen and sundry officials, most of which are so repetitive that they are generally ignored so why bother.

    You really are not going anywhere with all these old allegations so how about you give it a rest and enjoy life. By all means comment on blogs if that gives you pleasure but stick to the topic. This one was about Labour playing with words, not Iraq, Deal bombing or perjury issues.

    Actually, with the research you do, your thoughts on current issues might actually be quite interesting. Think about it!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bluenote, you are rapidly becoming the local voice of the Tory Party. Congratulations. Of course you started out as the self-appointed "voice of reason".

    Sadly your response is never "yes there is a problem here", but always, "well...look what is happening in the Labour Party, look what Labour is doing. A bit tiring really, but so typical of the political breed. And so negative!

    Again, look at Gale's silly name-calling, castigate that, then you may have acquired some respectability.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 10:47AM My postings are invariably in response to someone else or the subject matter of the blogger. I do not choose what other people say but simply respond.

    In my earlier comment I was replying to a Labour criticism of certain councillors tactics. I pointed out the irony of that coming from a Labour supporter.

    Let us get things straight. I am my own voice but if you perceive that to be of a Conservative persuasion then so be it. I do not seek either respectability or your approval.

    I have responded to you before on silly name calling and I reiterate that I find it pathetic whoever does it. Additionally, I could not agree more about politics being negative but are you not guilty of the same negativity. You do not answer points raised but simply castigate or criticise. Hardly positive or intellectual dabating!

    If it wasn't Christmas I might tell you to foxtrot oscar!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Don't let the season put you off. It seems to be the province of the political right - and indeed the political centre - to be abusive and offensive. You may well feel that extends to the political left. It does not extend to me.

    I do not presume to approve or otherwise of you or your views. You are fully entitled to hold and express them as I am mine. I respect your rights.

    You say that you dislike all name-calling. So do I. Where we differ is that whereas I will freely condemn any politician - Labour or otherwise - who resorts to it, you reserve your criticism for those in Labour. As on other areas of behaviour, you will not accept that there are unacceptable elements in the Tory Party. Your response is, every time, simply to try and shine the light back on Labour. A typiucal response will be, "well that might be the case, but what about the Labour Party". You are not even-handed, you are simply pursuing your bias, albeit in an articulate manner.

    As to being your own voice, maybe, but your propensity, on this and the other blogs you have visited, always to condemn Labour and justify and promote the Tory stance demonstrates where your interests lie. No problem with that. Just be honest about it and with yourself.

    As for your point about irony, it is a circular argument. The only safe conclusion is that everyone's tactics are suspect, which includes your Tory Councillor allies.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 3:58 PM, you did in your earlier comment refer to me acquiring some respectability and my response was that such is not what I seek. I simply respond to points raised and do not expect others to necessarily agree.

    This particular debate is about 'Labour's big idea - playing with words' so it is hardly surprising one refers to Labour in comments. Mr. Gale is not the issue and so what he might have called the Lib/Dems on his blog is irrelevant here.

    As to my fall from normal standards I apologise about the 'foxtrot oscar' comment but, in my defence, did qualify that by the prefix 'might.' In fact I probably would not as it achieves nothing.

    You clearly have your views which are at variance with mine in the main. Guess it would be pretty dull anyway if we were all of one mind.

    ReplyDelete
  19. anon 3.58

    Well said they are all a Big Lie

    LIB/LAB/CON defacto party all must be exposed for what they are !

    At all levels they work together to keep the public in the dark whilst appearing to do the opposite nothing more than a con trick !

    ReplyDelete
  20. So Vince thinks it all being done in haste.
    Maybe Vince will take the nuclear option and we can start again with new genersl election and get back to a one party government.
    Cat let out of the bag comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Given Mr Flaig's original strand, it is unfortunate to see that the Liberal Democrats' flagship - Vince Cable - also appears to be "playing with words". Publicly stressing the strength of the Coalition and its (alleged) integrity, while privately expressing grave doubts.

    A shame that politicians - of all Parties - play these games and treat the electorate like children, who need to be managed in terms of what they are/can be told. Honesty would be such a breath of fresh air.

    Of course there's also the question of how stupid can a Cabinet Minister be, sharing private thoughts with strangers in this way.

    Good that he can rely on your support, Mr Flaig. How did you describe him a couple of weeks ago - an honest politician?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Indeed a strange statement from Vince Cable including that he is at war with Rupert Murdoch. That would seem to be a no brainer and I can only see one winner in that battle.

    It sounds more like a deliberate airing of thoughts by Mr. Cable, than a slip of the tongue, so maybe he is seeking to move back to a position of No. 1 critic. Something he did well before from the opposition benches, even being highly rated as a potential Chancellor at one time. Always much easier from opposition than actually having to deliver.

    Don't hold your breath on a cabinet reshuffle after Christmas with goodbye Mr. Cable and welcome back Mr. Laws.

    As to bringing down the Coalition, well maybe, but who is ready to govern in their place. Len McCluskey maybe but certainly not Labour who have five years, one is told, to work on their, currently non existent, policies.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Who needs governing ? not me

    Providing services is what is needed and those doing it should be the ones whiter than white, we dont need criminals running the country. I say hurray up and collapse the sham system , do away with parties and elect only independents who can be made accountable for their actions


    Vince Cable: I could bring down the Government

    Vince Cable has privately threatened to “bring the Government down” if he is “pushed too far” during fractious discussions with his Conservative colleagues, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

    The Business Secretary also claims that David Cameron will seek to scrap or reduce the winter fuel allowance paid to pensioners from next year.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...overnment.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. Deftly - however predictably - taken back to the original anti-Labour argument, Bluenote! But at leasat you commented on the Coalition aspect a bit more fulsomely this time. Quite the wag.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 4:57PM Did not set out to be the wag, come to think of which I don't look remotely like Victoria Beckham, but more to comment on the Cable revelations in the press.

    Whatever ones political slant, this country desperately needs settled government for a bit and I would not consider an election in the shorter term to be in anyones best interests. Hence it is worrying that a currently eminent politician seeks to play king maker/breaker. Then, just maybe, he wants out and only time will tell.

    As to Labour, well I hope their leaders and shadow ministers have a good Christmas and maybe get one or two ideas from the crackers for that blank policy document.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bluenote, we agree. I do not think it would be a good idea to have an election now, nor do I think one is appropriate or necessary. Anyway, the longer it is left, the greater the chance of a meaningful Labour majority.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 8:09PM I don't mean to be unkind but Labour had a very meaningful majority in 1997 and the people's high hopes, even mine would you believe. They largely failed to deliver a truly progressive programme, missed a wonderful opportunity to make real progress and, in the final years, totally stuffed it by letting the dreadful Brown take over from Blair.

    Unless there is a dramatic change I don't think I would want to go through that again. Furthermore, Ed M is not looking good and it is a real shame his more talented big brother did not get the job. Mind you, that's AV for you.

    To be honest, I just want good government for our country but, like so often with our cricket team, we don't produce the quality captains anymore, or so it would seem. Be totally honest, if you were running your own large company, would you employ Cameron, Clegg or E. Milliband?

    ReplyDelete
  28. No, Bluenote, I do not feel enthused by any of the Party leaders - including Milliband before you press me to clarify!

    Unfortunately, I think the public and the media nowadays demand media-ripe politicians who look good and sound good rather than solid, workmen or businessmen-like individuals who can deliver the goods without, perhaps, the "shine".

    The ultimate triumph of spin over substance?

    ReplyDelete
  29. 4:38 said

    "Who needs governing ? not me

    Providing services is what is needed and those doing it should be the ones whiter than white, we dont need criminals running the country. I say hurray up and collapse the sham system , do away with parties and elect only independents who can be made accountable for their actions"

    Spot on! And we don't need to borrow money from the Bank of England (Inter Alpha Group) at interest; we can issue our own currency based on our assets. A nation's people are it's assets and at the moment those assets are being flushed down the pan, which should give an inkling as to what the Inter Alpha Group have in store for us if we don't do something about it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. No Need For Public Spending Cuts!

    Stop believing the lies !

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrjrnrqcWlc&feature=player_embedded#!

    ReplyDelete
  31. 4:38 and 11:08 are one and the same person. Keeping trying and you will have us all believing in Santa Claus next. Anyway, you have a good Christmas. The end may be nigh but not today!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Wrong again 12:04, we are not the same poster.

    So you think you are part of the club? Think again...

    "In Haig's presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as 'dumb, stupid animals to be used' as pawns for foreign policy."

    -- Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein, The Final Days, p. 208

    ReplyDelete
  33. 4:38PM You cannot possibly say "we are not the same poster" but, more correctly, you should have said "I am not the same poster as....."

    I still know that both postings were by one and the same person as you do also.

    What is all this thinking one is a member of the club, just which club would that be?

    As for Kissinger, well because he said something does not make it right. Trying being your own person in the New Year with some individual thoughts rather than reliance on the utterings of others. You are in danger of becoming a parrot!

    ReplyDelete
  34. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/49849/BILL_COOPER_EXPLAINS_IT_ALL___WAKE_UP_SHEEPLE_/


    I wish more people would wake up to the truth instead of working for secret societies to keep people in the dark !

    We dont have a democracy and never will have unless we have independent elected members who can be made personally liable, NOT defacto parties who all work together to deceive.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Here's an original thought for you...

    I believe the reason Prince Harry didn't go to Iraq was because they didn't want him exposed to depleted uranium, which is another word for death sentence by cancer.

    Kids, please remember before signing up for the military that there is NO FUTURE in it.

    Oh, and I see Herr Cameron is starting his 'Hitler Jugend' camps in the summer. Sieg heil!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10721364

    ReplyDelete
  36. Prince Harry did not go to Iraq because he was not commissioned into the army at the time of that war.

    There is more future in a service career than long distance lorry driving, higher fatality rate over a longer period in the latter, and what is wrong with camps? A few concentration ones for nutters would not go amiss.

    Happy New Year!

    ReplyDelete
  37. OK then, Afghanistan or wherever it was he didn't go.

    http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/depleted_uranium_iraq_afghanistan_balkans.html

    Happy New Year!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sadly you got it wrong again. Prince Harry did go to Afghanistan with his regiment.

    Perhaps your New Year resolution should be "Must try harder to get my facts right!"

    ReplyDelete
  39. To the anonymous poster who quoted Kissinger in support of his/her anti-facist, anti-military postings, may I remind you of something else Kissinger said.

    Kissinger, as revealed in the release of state department tapes, told the president that 'the slaughter of Jews in gas chambers by a foreign dictatorship was not an American concern.'

    Fine example of an anti-facist humanitarian what? On that note we end 2010 so all the best for 2011.

    ReplyDelete