Blue on Blue gets really nasty?

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

Maybe, but I cannot recall any occasion when when a former PM has been so viscious about members of his own party.

Have you not seen Blair's opinion of Corbyn then? Or Heath's of Thatcher? Or Benn's on pretty much anyone that disagreed with him?

Thrugelmir

Where are Labour on the issues that matter? Extremely disappointing to see a lack of any direction.

BobQ

lisyloo wrote: »

Ah right just very unfortunate when it's red on red?

Not what I said. Major' swords were very strong and personal. The example you quoted was not in the same league. I agree it was red on red, but it was not anywhere near as nasty.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Maybe, but I cannot recall any occasion when when a former PM has been so viscious about members of his own party.

as I recall, when he was actually PM he had a special word for many (most?) of his very close collegues
it starts with a 'b'

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

Have you not seen Blair's opinion of Corbyn then? Or Heath's of Thatcher? Or Benn's on pretty much anyone that disagreed with him?

I agree that these are examples. I cannot recall any of these things being very public. I am sure that Heath's views of Thatcher were quite venal in private. I doubt Blair hates Corbyn, is there evidence he does?

I am sure there are examples in Labour circles too, Kinnock and anyone connected with Militant I suggest (which possibly included Benn).

Generali

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/09/tony-blair-tragedy-of-labour-under-corbyn

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/tony-blair-corbyn-government-dangerous-experiment

Some strong stuff if you take your red blinkers off....which you won't.

Spidernick

michaels wrote: »

I can see why the media and labour find the idea of blue vs blue exciting but I would have thought concentrating on the issue at hand might be more important....

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer watching a bit of girl-on-girl rather than blue-on-blue action personally!

Conrad

BobQ wrote: »

outside we will become a vastly diminished county......


So independent prospering nations are somehow lacking and impotent then?


Mr Major will scoff at the sight of the flags of these nations when paraded at the Brazil Olympics then? Silly irrelevant independent nations.


playing Russion Roulette with ordinary people's futures.........


Says the Man that signed us up to Maastricht without asking any of us


Russian Roulette - there are many risks on the EU horizon - I notice remains ignore these risks

Me in red.......

Conrad

CLAPTON wrote: »

John Major was the wonder boy that signed us up to the ERM and has learnt nothing since.

This is why he's so touchy and frightened, as he will go down in history as a bit of clown that took us deeper into a failing concept

westernpromise

It does show how very, very confident (justifiably, in my view) the Tories now are and this in turn comes from how significant their victory was last May. They hammered Labour, they hammered the Lib Dems, and they denied UKIP any further seats. So Cameron has routed the left, the centre-left, and the hard right, by positioning himself as a centre-right socially liberal, fiscally right wing party. Frankly, I didn’t believe such a coup was possible, and neither did Miliband, Clegg, or Farage, either. Miliband believed the polls and thought the English would happily allow themselves to be robbed blind by a Labour-SNP coalition. The Liberals believed the polls and expected another coalition with Liberals in it. Farage believed the polls and thought the Conservatives’ only hope was to tack right and do a deal with him and his loonies, so he was mystified by the relentless Tory attacks.

The whole lot of them were wrong and all three now have what looks like an insoluble problem for the next few years. Labour has elected a lightweight, abject loony as leader who is unassailable within his party but unelectable in the country, and so will his successor be. The Liberals have been set back about 40 years in seats terms, and it’s no longer clear why you even need LibDems while the Conservatives look like they do under Cameron. UKIP’s problem is now existential. When Cameron said UKIP was a party of “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”, he was saying that it was a party for such people. They completely agreed and headed over there. Cameron has thus neatly detoxed his own party while handing the black spot to UKIP and thereby associating euroscepticism with every kind of whack job there is. This has contaminated euroscepticism as a respectable point of view, and means that when they lose even that USP, UKIP literally are then just the party of gay-bashers, the BNP and creeps like Neil Hamilton.

To wreck all three of your political opponents in one go and take all them out of contention for years to come is stupendous. I struggle to think of a military comparator. At Austerlitz and Eylau, Napoleon beat the armies of only two countries; likewise Montgomery at Alamein. I don’t think it’s really registered how significant that 2015 win was, nor how impressive a figure Cameron cuts as a political operator. The reason the Conservatives can now afford to let it all hang out is because in 2020 they are absolutely nailed on to win again. Four years from now, all this will be ancient history. What will be at the forefront of people’s minds in the polling booth in 2020 is, Do we in England want to be governed and taxed by a Labour-SNP coalition under Khorbiyn and Sturgeon? That was pretty much the question in 2015 and we know how that turned out.