Bollitics The new leader of the Labour Party

[tonyh29]

drat01, on 26 Sept 2013 - 2:05 PM, said:

 

 to rely on a leader so intent on seeing his own party royally screwed (Clegg) to gain entrance into number 10.

 

 

he he  I love the re-writing of history going on here

 

Brown lost and yet still tried to cling to power  .... secret meetings and so on ... even offered to be PM and then resign a few months later just to appease the Lib Dems

 

anything to cling to power

[tonyh29]

drat01, on 26 Sept 2013 - 2:05 PM, said:

 

If VT allowed it I wonder how many would actually post something attacking Milliband for being Jewish? 

 

 

wow  .. an all time low in a long long long  list of lows

[peterms]

 

drat01, on 26 Sept 2013 - 2:05 PM, said:

 

 to rely on a leader so intent on seeing his own party royally screwed (Clegg) to gain entrance into number 10.

 

 

he he  I love the re-writing of history going on here

 

Brown lost and yet still tried to cling to power  .... secret meetings and so on ... even offered to be PM and then resign a few months later just to appease the Lib Dems

 

anything to cling to power

 

 

In a situation of no overall control, the convention is that the outgoing pm try to form a government, and if this is not possible, then the leader of largest opposition party has a go.

 

It's not only common sense, it's what constitutional guidance expects.  It's bizarre to try to portray it as some sort of personal pathology.

 

 

...Robert Blackburn, Professor of Constitutional Law at King’s College London, has written that the choice of the Prime Minister is not, and should not, be a personal matter for the monarch of the day:

…it is unreal politically and inappropriate constitutionally to acknowledge – and indeed to advocate – a personal discretionary power for an hereditary monarch to operate as the means for determining the outcome of a general election. There needs to be, and is already in existence, an established procedure and basis for the resolution of who will be Prime Minister after a general election that produces a House of Commons with no overall majority for a single party:

Procedures for prime ministerial appointment under “hung” Parliaments

• The incumbent Prime Minister has the first opportunity to continue in office and form an administration.

• If he is unable to do so (and resigns, or is defeated on the Address at the meeting of Parliament), then the leader of the largest opposition party is appointed Prime Minister.

There is really no problem in establishing the constitutional answer to the question of who is appointed Prime Minister under a hung Parliament…45...

 

(from parliamentary briefing note, here.)

[tonyh29]

peterms, on 26 Sept 2013 - 5:13 PM, said:

 

  It's bizarre to try to portray it as some sort of personal pathology.

 

 

 

sigh 

 

you know as well as anyone that Brown was a desperate man desperately trying to cling to power   ...  to pretend otherwise is delusion of the highest order  

[peterms]

 

peterms, on 26 Sept 2013 - 5:13 PM, said:

 

  It's bizarre to try to portray it as some sort of personal pathology.

 

 

 

sigh 

 

you know as well as anyone that Brown was a desperate man desperately trying to cling to power   ...  to pretend otherwise is delusion of the highest order  

 

 

Nonsense.  It was his role and duty as party leader to try to form an administration, and his constitutional role to have first shot at it.

 

Your personal animosity towards him seems to be blinding you to the obvious.

[Risso]

 

peterms, on 26 Sept 2013 - 5:13 PM, said:

 

  It's bizarre to try to portray it as some sort of personal pathology.

 

 

 

sigh 

 

you know as well as anyone that Brown was a desperate man desperately trying to cling to power   ...  to pretend otherwise is delusion of the highest order  

 

 

Cheer yourself up with this Tony, which along with the Dalian Atkinson v Wimbledon video, is one of my favourite things on the internet:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8680328.stm

 

The difference between photo 1 (smug, happy Gordon Brown), through picture 2 (tensely taking a call from Nick Clegg) to picture 5 (personal effects in a cardboard box) is a thing of beauty.

[bickster]

Maybe I didn't put it correctly, sorry. 

 

The meter man is there just to check everything is ok and check the figure, sort of like a stocktake if you like. The billing is done automatically. So if you send a couple of readings in they will adjust it. Well they did for me. The onus is really on the user to alter the figure

erm, no he's not, he's there to read the meter. The meter reading is then to be used to provide an accurate bill, anything billed above what has been used can be considered fraud under the 2006 fraud act

And not only that if the bill is paid by direct debit and the company refuse to adjust it when challenged, they can have the direct debit facility taken away from them and watch them shit a brick then. I did it to Virgin media, they got to within a hairs breadth of not being able to bill any customer by direct debit

[colhint]

I think that's sort of what I said. Its there to do a stocktake if you like that info is there to asses the direct debit. If you challenge it they will adjust it.

[bickster]

I think that's sort of what I said. Its there to do a stocktake if you like that info is there to asses the direct debit. If you challenge it they will adjust it.

No you really are missing he point, they should provide an accurate bill from the meter reading, they have no excuse to do anything but that. The company should be trustworthy enough so that you don't have to do anything else and if someone such as Xann is a four figure sum in credit after readings and they haven't refunded, that is FRAUD as the mechanism is clearly in place to demand under payments so it must therefore be there to refund over payments

[tonyh29]

peterms, on 26 Sept 2013 - 5:25 PM, said:peterms, on 26 Sept 2013 - 5:25 PM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 26 Sept 2013 - 5:22 PM, said:tonyh29, on 26 Sept 2013 - 5:22 PM, said:

 

peterms, on 26 Sept 2013 - 5:13 PM, said:peterms, on 26 Sept 2013 - 5:13 PM, said:peterms, on 26 Sept 2013 - 5:13 PM, said:

 

  It's bizarre to try to portray it as some sort of personal pathology.

 

 

 

sigh 

 

you know as well as anyone that Brown was a desperate man desperately trying to cling to power   ...  to pretend otherwise is delusion of the highest order  

 

 

Nonsense.  It was his role and duty as party leader to try to form an administration, and his constitutional role to have first shot at it.

 

Your personal animosity towards him seems to be blinding you to the obvious.

 

 

well at least one question has been answered

 

 

 

PS you seem to have confused Brown with Prescott

Edited September 26, 2013 by tonyh29

[blandy]

....Secondly even with the Aschcroft tax avoidance billions Cameron failed to gain a majority and had to rely on a leader so intent on seeing his own party royally screwed (Clegg) to gain entrance into number 10. Reading back through the political threads from the past few days it seems that the Right wing VT posters are very much intent on repeating the personality style of politics rather than anything based on policy. They are fulfilling all of the normal traits of the right wing in the style, content and tone of the comments. 

I know where you're coming from, and I think you're right about Cameron, Ian, but on Clegg, I'm not quite as sure.

He had 4 choices, really.

1 - do a coalition with labour, but that was a non starter for various reasons, including legitimacy in the eyes of the public, who'd just voted more tories in than labour.

2 - refuse to deal with anyone, get no Lib Dem policies ever implemented, trigger another election, stock markets etc. fall further - irresponsible

3 - come to agreements with other parties, so that one of them could form a minority gov't, with Lib Dem support on some issues.

4-  do a coalition with tories. The biggest party. Get some lib dem policies invoked.

 

4 was arguably the only "stable" way for the country, as well as enabling Libs to have some power, to show coalitions can work (he'd hope).

 

He probably has "screwed his own party" to get some power. You could argue that Blair did the same, as did Cameron. It's the way of these things. Parties out of power will for better or worse, change to get power, or give the illusion of change, to get it. There's no point in any party if it can't actually get any power. It's one of the problems with party politics.

 

With hindsight, and even some foresight, people with leftist views would prefer 3 had happened than 4, but I don't blame him for forming a coalition. Shooting themselves in the foot, and being naive, has cost them and cost the country, though.

[drat01]

 

drat01, on 26 Sept 2013 - 2:05 PM, said:

 

If VT allowed it I wonder how many would actually post something attacking Milliband for being Jewish? 

 

 

wow  .. an all time low in a long long long  list of lows

 

Not really - the undertone to posts on here - and some on other forums that I have seen certainly backs up the tone of what I am saying. You may not like the fact Tony but it's pretty clear to see what certain people actually feel but neither have the conviction nor (fortunately) the right to say it on here.  

[drat01]

 

drat01, on 26 Sept 2013 - 2:05 PM, said:

 

 to rely on a leader so intent on seeing his own party royally screwed (Clegg) to gain entrance into number 10.

 

 

he he  I love the re-writing of history going on here

 

Brown lost and yet still tried to cling to power  .... secret meetings and so on ... even offered to be PM and then resign a few months later just to appease the Lib Dems

 

anything to cling to power

 

Tony your now obsessive "ahhh but Labour ..." replies to any sort of questioning of the Tory party, and ironically here one of the party that you claim has nothing to do with this Gvmt is amazing. Maybe you could actually just answer a simple point with an answer to it rather than some "ahhh but the other lot ...." sort of reply?

 

I fail to see how you come to your ridiculous statement of rewriting history because there has been no reference to Brown other tthan from you. Maybe this rewriting is the history of the computer you are using and its making up things? So Tony in your desire and obsession to try and bring Labour into the subject being discussed basically you have made points on a totally different subject - that certainly is a new low 

 

drat01, on 26 Sept 2013 - 2:00 PM, said:

 

You mean Pop_idol politics? - I am surprised that Tony "liked" your post Pete because let's be honest TonyH has been a great "fan" of that style on VT at least

 

 

 

 

did someone call ?

 

 

 

 

and to prove my point here is more Tony obsession 

[colhint]

or perhaps they just don't say it at all and maybe you might be reading something into whatever that just isn't there. 

To be honest on VT whenever I have read anything racist anti-semetic homophobic etc it has been shot down in flames by regular posters

[tonyh29]

drat01, on 26 Sept 2013 - 2:05 PM, said:

to rely on a leader so intent on seeing his own party royally screwed (Clegg) to gain entrance into number 10.

he he I love the re-writing of history going on here

Brown lost and yet still tried to cling to power .... secret meetings and so on ... even offered to be PM and then resign a few months later just to appease the Lib Dems

anything to cling to power

Tony your now obsessive "ahhh but Labour ..." replies to any sort of questioning of the Tory party, and ironically here one of the party that you claim has nothing to do with this Gvmt is amazing. Maybe you could actually just answer a simple point with an answer to it rather than some "ahhh but the other lot ...." sort of reply?

I fail to see how you come to your ridiculous statement of rewriting history because there has been no reference to Brown other tthan from you. Maybe this rewriting is the history of the computer you are using and its making up things? So Tony in your desire and obsession to try and bring Labour into the subject being discussed basically you have made points on a totally different subject - that certainly is a new low

drat01, on 26 Sept 2013 - 2:00 PM, said:

You mean Pop_idol politics? - I am surprised that Tony "liked" your post Pete because let's be honest TonyH has been a great "fan" of that style on VT at least

did someone call ?

and to prove my point here is more Tony obsession

Quoting me 3 posts in a row it seems someone else has a "Tony obsession "

The Brown pic and caption is clearly a joke , lighten up fella

[drat01]

or perhaps they just don't say it at all and maybe you might be reading something into whatever that just isn't there. 

To be honest on VT whenever I have read anything racist anti-semetic homophobic etc it has been shot down in flames by regular posters

Maybe you have to look at certain posters and the subjects they bring up and the way it is written. As you rightly say luckily at least on this forum they are not allowed to spew their bile directly 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I kid, I love this tedious shit really.

[Xann]

Wait til we get nearer election time

[bickster]

I've never seen an anti-semitic post on VT, ever.

I've seen anti-Israeli posts by the bucketful but that isn't remotely the same thing (though the Jewish / Israeli lobby will have you believe it is)

I've seen plenty of anti-Jewish posts on here but that is anti the religion not anti the people (though the Jewish / Israeli lobby will have you believe it is)

Oh and the term anti-semitic is a very daft term for anti-jewish, as not all jews are semitic people (other semites are arabs and ethiopians for example) and not all speakers of a semitic languages are jewish

[Risso]

 

 

drat01, on 26 Sept 2013 - 2:05 PM, said:

 

If VT allowed it I wonder how many would actually post something attacking Milliband for being Jewish? 

 

 

wow  .. an all time low in a long long long  list of lows

 

Not really - the undertone to posts on here - and some on other forums that I have seen certainly backs up the tone of what I am saying. You may not like the fact Tony but it's pretty clear to see what certain people actually feel but neither have the conviction nor (fortunately) the right to say it on here.  

 

 

What have other forums got to with here?  If you're going to imply that people are racist, why don't YOU have the conviction to come out and say it?