Jump to content

blandy

Moderators
  • Content Count

    15,545
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

blandy last won the day on November 14 2019

blandy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12,864 Excellent

About blandy

  • Rank
    Legend

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    @blandyp

Profile Information

  • Location
    Earth
  • Interests
    Fettling, Cricket, Ale, Music.

Recent Profile Visitors

7,341 profile views
  1. I'm going on things like Gov't transport spending per Capita, where the North (the area whose towns LN is talking about) gets and got far less than the south. Factor on to that that what the North does get is biased towards cities and people in towns and villages suffer with some pretty dire transport compared to the south. Also in terms of the refugees example I mentioned And so on. I understand your comments and it's far from a universal single "well these cities get this and those towns don't" type situation, but given what LN has raised, facts do back up what she's saying about a lot of towns being left behind. By the way there's aspects that the gov't is powerless to change - the world is different, and businesses, students, workers etc. want to move to cities for very good reasons. But Gov't needs to not just forget about the places which have been hollowed out, let alone dump asylum seekers there, where there are already inadequate facilities and infrastructure.
  2. It needs a bit of that - I mean in your example Warrington and St Helens, you're right, but the one that's not doing so well needs focusing on and helping. There are loads of St Helens type examples. These places desperately need some TLC. They need a degree of freedom as well - everything in the UK is control freaked by London, some cities now have a mayor with a bit of power, some have alleged help from "Northern Powerhouse" or Midlands Engine, though much of it is just waffle. But what there is is concentrated on cities, again. You're right that Us and Them is not the answer, but like I say, she's got a diagnosis right-ish, but as you say, not really any clue about the cure.
  3. I dunno, I'm no Nandy fan either, but she's sort of right about Towns, to an extent. Not the solution, but a problem. It's the case that London gets disproportionately too much money and attention, and has been for ages. So everyone else was left out. Then cities like Manchester, Leeds, Brum etc. started to get attention and funding....so it was more towns that suffered. Add to that if you invest in a City, it pulls in people to work there from around and further away, meaning people leaving the towns, either all day, or for good. So the transport links, which in the North are often awful become highlighted for the day workers as a real problem - "London gets billions for cross rail and we have to commute in ancient rickety diesel trains. And because people (usually the young and able and bright) have left towns to go to wherever, the towns are left with the elderly, the unwell, the jobless..... And on top of that they can become dumping grounds for refugees etc. where there are already overstretched, underfunded hossies and schools etc. And the people there blame the refugeees and immigrants, and the EU for the problems. Neither Labour nor Tories have helped them, they've ignored them. Their votes are taken for granted by Labour (or were). I think she's right-ish, but hasn't got any answers.
  4. It's interesting, this little to and fro. She talked about "setting up an international commission to look at examples of how nationalism had been beaten by socialism" and then mentioned Quebec and Catalonia as examples of how nations had in her view "beaten nationalists with social justice". All a bit (a lot) bonkers in my view, but I didn't take from it that she supported the Spanish state or what it has actually done in every regard. I suppose you could infer that, but you'd also have to look at Quebec and Canada to really deduce whether she is a bit facisty or whatever. I rather suspect she's not remotely so, more that she's a bit ignorant of Catalonia/Spain and some of the more draconian steps taken - as Peter says, garbled thoughts - and would have been better off not revealing that ignorance. In terms of leadership of Labour I don't think she's likely to win and I don't think she'd be very good at it anyway. But in terms of not being a clone, it's good that there are folk like her in Labour. When different people put different ideas forward (even daft ones) it's better than a situation where everyone agrees with whatever they imagine the dear leader thinks on any given matter, or what is a nice radical position to take and and telling anyone who differs from that spoken or unspoken ideal to naff off to the tories.
  5. blandy

    General Chat

    Isn't it the bugs that have the resistance, rather than the human?
  6. It's basically Tory, now. A few massive powerful richos syphoning off all the weath, and every one else **** ed
  7. Well, he's clearly not. His own party MPs have rather made that clear. The bloke is one of the effwits I was talking about. It's abundantly clear. Sometimes, even most times, people's views of politicians are formed from witnessing their performances in interviews and debates and so on. And those views are widely held. Gardner's a case in point. Sure people may have their view skewed by the media, by their personal political stance, or by other things - friends, family, prejudices etc. but most often someone who appears to be an incapable idiot is seen as exactly that - it's not party political - Liz Truss, Richard Burgeon, Mark Francois, Leadsom, Corbyn and an endless stream of others - they are all irredeemably too dim to be allowed anywhere near leadership roles, whatever their other charachterisitics. Then there's the clever fools, like Gove. People see this.
  8. Yeah, I suppose if all politicans started refusing to answer what they saw as daft questions aimed at here today gone tomorrow headlines we might get better information. But on the other hand any reasonably bright person ought to be able to deal with idiotic questions relatively easily and in the process highlight the stupidity. On this specific question, it's not (IMO) that daft a question. The context of Labour just having been horsed in an election, where the Tories were split, have largely wrecked the place over the last 9 and a half years, have created the Brexit mess and so on and yet still won massively is one in which it's absolutely fair and right to ask Labour leader candidates whether the problem they have was caused by their previous leader and/or how good a leader was he in the opinion of the candidate. Shorthanded, that's "can you give him marks out of 10?". The question, as you pointed out, exposed (in your twitters view) 3 of the candidates as (paraphrasing) effwits. At a slight tangent, we could almost turn round your sage advice, in a way - I mean there are far too many imbeciles with jobs as politicians and it's essentially pointless (the media) trying to get any sense from them, so the media are often left with little choice but to ask very simpleton questions of the effwits. It's like a mutual stupidity conspiracy, the media-politican thing. And it's been handed an extra dimension in recent times by the new approach of Trump and Johnson of just blatantly lying. At least we used to get to see that either a politican either couldn't fog a mirror, or was intellectually capable.
  9. 2 correct (or OK) answers Lewis and Starmer. Even I wouldn't give Corbz a 0 and I can't stand the bloke as a politician (leader), he's absolutely dreadful and proven so, now. 0 and 10 are ludicrous. Starmer's is an intelligent answer and Lewis is also OK by me (I'd score him about 2 or 3), but Lewis resigned his post because he disagreed with Corbz, and the score he gave recognises that and their disagreements, but doesn't slaughter him. It's essentially an honest answer reflecting a kind of reality. Starmer's could be used by a Tory to say "he wouldn't even say what he thought..." or "avoided answering" - not fair, but that's the way boliticians mostly are.
  10. Yeah, possibly. I can only speak personally but who Len McLuskey or whoever "recommended" I voted for made not the slightest difference. I suspect that's the same for most Union members and for that matter local party members. But yeah, it's nice for him I suppose and he seems a capable sort and probably the one of the best 2 options to be leader.
  11. I stopped paying the political levy of my Union subs once Corbyn took over, so don't get a vote anymore, and I'm in Unite, not Unison, but anyway...Does it mean anything, because the members decide individually who they cast their votes for, not the Leadership. At least that's my recollection.
  12. Not gonna happen, and not wise anyway, IMO - at least not for a decade or more. The argument you identify, in the later post is right - but it's more about (once the clusterpork effects start biting), having been ahead of the game in terms of being as close as possible, without being in. The idea of any party proposing "let's pay them billions a year, maybe adopt the Euro, open the borders to free movement, let them determine rules we set for ourselves, now" is just not going to fly, plus I doubt anyone will want a re-run of the last 3 years. You've also got to consider whether the EU nations would want to let us back in, given the trouble we've caused. Non-starter IMO.
  13. There are multiple reserve currencies.. Sure the dollar is the most common or the dominant one, but there's nothing other than inertia to stop that changing, or to stop the Euro, the Yen or whatever being more widely or extensively used between parties, is there? - basically governments already do what you suggest, though ours admittedly seems to be going in the opposite direction.
  14. I'm with Bicks on that interview. The question was (as you say) just about a fair one and she dealt with it OK in my view. It's clear that she (like many members of parties) is/was conflicted about her leader. It turns out she was right to be. But whether it's the tories that left their party because of Johnson, or Labour MPs and Corbyn, when someone has a long relationship in or with a party and then it elects a complete plum as a leader they will be torn. Do I leave my job and my livelihood because of this bell, or do I stay and hope the leader goes, or do I raise my head above the parapet and criticise... She was, as events have shown, completely right about Corbyn, she was IMO right to stay in the Labour party, she was clearly torn and says it was a hard thing to do - there are a lot like that. She comes across as being honest, IMO.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â