Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Big 'Ed

 
 
On 26 Sep 2010 at 10:56am Micheals Foot wrote:
After yesterdays result I think we can safely say that's the end of the Labour party for a few years.
 
 
On 26 Sep 2010 at 1:07pm Northern bigot wrote:
Why does the Labour party always favour as leaders those from elitist backgrounds, Blair Attlee,Gaitskill, or safe middle class intellectuals like Wilson,Brown and now Milliband. Since the war , it has only chosen 2 of its 10 leaders from a working class background Kinnock and Callaghan, neither won a general election. So perhaps the British people also prefer posh socialists?
 
 
On 26 Sep 2010 at 2:15pm Newmania wrote:
Yes NB from Brown SPAD to safe seat Ed has never had to do a lot of politics really. He positioned himself as the Brownite candidate and won with the public sector union votes whose sectional interests are directly opposed to tax payers.
As far as this area , the SE, is concerned there is slightly troubling thought that we are in a one Party region. New Labour score so low on every major issue that the 16% they managed at ther last GE may well be flattering. Not to worry , can`t see the Lib Dems leaving their habitually comfy impotent but populist chair for long
 
 
On 26 Sep 2010 at 5:53pm Grunge wrote:
@ Northern Bigot: don't confuse "posh" with "educated". From whatever background, we need educated leaders.
 
 
On 26 Sep 2010 at 6:34pm Newmania wrote:
Yes you can be educated withouit having known Tony benn as a child and hob-nobbed with the Toynbees. The Comprehensive he attended is more socially excluisve than most Grammars due to its leafy location and the fact is he has had a free pass through the system
 
 
On 26 Sep 2010 at 10:43pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
Let's face it Newmania - whoever was elected would have been objectionable in your eyes. Either too working class or not working class enough. You always find something personal to attack politicians on the left with which is why your views can't be taken seriously.
 
 
On 26 Sep 2010 at 11:32pm MC wrote:
Yes, on thin ice attacking a politician for elitist schooling leading to being out of touch with the electorate. And last time I looked public sector employees paid taxes, unlike many of the tax-dodging conservative rich boys.
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 9:13am kevsy wrote:
MC quite, rather have the TU's with a vote on the leader, than the murky world of parties being run by tax dodging nasties. At least the TU's in principle attempt to represent the people who belong to them and if they misbehave people can with draw their support via their fees. Seems nobody can shift Ashcroft - not even the Tory party itself.
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 9:25am Newmania wrote:
MC-Public sector Employees pay taxes but they are paid by taxes so they are net gainers from high tax...duh. That is why they overwhelmingly voted for Red Ed who positioned himself as the more left wing candidate. Simples and I think you are confusing tax evasion and tax avoidance
Brixton Belle you are a fine one to talk about personal attacks . You are a merciless brutal clogger incapable of times of playing the ball . As a footballer you would be Vinnie Jones
Leaving that aside it is a fact that the Labour Party produce a more incestuous elite than either Conservatives or (especially ) the Liberals. The Scarlet King is typical,his father was Ralph Milliband the famous Marxist and he is as well connected as it is possible to be .
The fact that the Party of equality is dominated by insiders may have no political meaning for you and there it seems we differ.
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 9:43am Newmania wrote:
Kevsy - Sainsbury and Mittall both out donated Ashcroft and the Liberal Party is currently surviving by retaining money actually stolen by a fraudster.
Ecclestone outright bought an exemption for F 1 from advertising restrictions and the whole cash for peerages scandal which you have forgotten was Blair`s attempt to free himself of the Unions . They now finance the Labour Party almost 100%, they openly buy Policy .
As The Unions are overwhelmingly in the Public Sector then that means the Labour Party are owned by 20% of the work force . That minority is better paid with better conditions than everyone else .They are more likely to be owner occupiers have degrees and obviously gold plated pensions .
I have no objection to them electing Derek Simpson leader of the Labour Party...I mean Red Ed ...all I am saying is that cannot represent me ,the tax exporting areas of the country or the vast majority who they will want to pay for the sinecures this parsite rentier class enjoy.
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 10:28am MC wrote:
Is it possible to have a more incestuous elite than the Bullingdon Club?
h**p://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/the-bullingdon-club/
These are the people you want to represent you Newmania. What do you have in common with them?
Unions or this bunch of silver-spoon b*****. I know which I prefer.
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 11:02am ht wrote:
There is nothing elitist about Haverstock school. I know, I taught there.
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 11:34am Newmania wrote:
Did you teach Oona King Ht ,way are so many lefty luminaries from that school then ?
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 12:00pm Independent thinker wrote:
Almost all of Newmania's "facts" are wrong. To take just one example from his above post, there are 15 trade unions affiliated to Labour, of which the vast majority are private sector (mining, transport, retail, musicians, telecommunications, construction, etc). Unite and Unison both have large public sector sections but also represent large numbers of members in the private sector. As of 2005 there were 2.7m private sector union members vs 3.6m public sector members, a 43/57 split. Not quite overwhelmingly public sector is it. In the leadership election Union members were balloted individually, and the split between Ed and David Miliband was 54/46, again hardly overwhelming even in that part of the electoral college. The right wing press and Tory activists are trying to portray EM as having been handed the leadership by some kind of Union block vote decided in a smoke filled room. They may even succeed in brainwashing people into believing it, because the real voting system is more complicated than this simple lie, but I hope not. So yes, there is a serious debate to be had about the speed and scale of cuts needed, but I suggest having it with someone who doesn't dress up their ideological rants as facts.

By the way, I see Ashcroft did a little tax dodge on 5 April to avoid the new rules that came in on 6 April, which he had pronounced himself in favour of before the election, saving himself nearly £4 million. I wonder which cuts could be avoided if he'd paid up as he promised he would?
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 12:38pm Newmania wrote:
Let me bring you up to date courtesy of the ONS Independent Labour apologist .
In 2009 2,600,000 private Sector employees in the UK were Union members down 785,000 from 3,400,000 in 1995. In the Public sector 4100,000 were Union members up 374,000 from 3700,000 in 1995.
In other words the Unions have lost a quarter of their private sector members but increased their Public sector membership by 10%.
60% of Trade Union members are concerntrated in education , public administration defence , health and social services . Much of this will be State managed expenditure of various sorts that does not register as Public Sector strictly but in effect is .
15% of private sector workers are unionised
15% . Got it ? Good
As you well know the Union members recieved electoral material recommending the rufescent pubescent with their ballot sheets but I have no objection to them voting for thier own interests . I only say they are not mine
As for your putting the Musicians Union etc. in one corner and Unite and Unison in the other .Is this seriously going to be the New Labour line ? Frankly its infantile .
You accuse me of ideological bias but the manner in which you have deliberately sought to misrepresnt Union membership sounds like an actual New Labour employee to me .
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 12:40pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
WTF does this mean "merciless brutal clogger incapable of times of playing the ball" Is there mixed metaphor in there ? What's a clogger ?
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 12:44pm Newmania wrote:
Let me bring you up to date courtesy of the ONS Independent Labour apologist .
In 2009 2,600,000 private Sector employees in the UK were Union members down 785,000 from 3,400,000 in 1995. In the Public sector 4100,000 were Union members up 374,000 from 3700,000 in 1995.
In other words the Unions have lost a quarter of their private sector members but increased their Public sector membership by 10%.
60% of Trade Union members are concerntrated in education , public administration defence , health and social services . Much of this will be State managed expenditure of various sorts that does not register as Public Sector strictly but in effect is .
15% of private sector workers are unionised
15% . Got it ? Good
As you well know the Union members recieved electoral material recommending the rufescent pubescent with their ballot sheets but I have no objection to them voting for thier own interests . I only say they are not mine
As for your putting the Musicians Union etc. in one corner and Unite and Unison in the other .Is this seriously going to be the New Labour line ? Frankly its infantile .
You accuse me of ideological bias but the manner in which you have deliberately sought to misrepresnt Union membership sounds like an actual New Labour employee to me .
They are everywhere you know ... watching ...
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 12:47pm Newmania wrote:
A clogger is some one who chops your legs off BB without seeking to play the game . That is how I would describe your ad hominem style
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 1:07pm fed up with fireworks wrote:
it is well known that people from the lower classes are thick
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 1:58pm sashimi wrote:
Newmania rants about elitism and then writes about Brixtonbelle's 'ad hominem' style. They used to say that Conservative MPs would use Latin tags without having a clue what they meant whilst Labour MPs would pretend not to understand them, though they invariably did. Is this what this thread is all about?
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 2:13pm Newmania wrote:
Latine dictum, sit altum videtur, as they say Sashimi , like the gag though.
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 2:48pm stan wrote:
Anyone else noticed how the party leaders all look the same now? Ed M is the latest bambi faced posh boy to join the club. As an ugly b......d myself I am bitter and twisted about it. Still, good luck to him I say. As far as union membership goes in a year or so a lot of those unionists will be out of work. Will they still be paying their union dues? Also,I love Newmania and think some of you should know when to take her posts in your stride. She puts a lot more effort into her posts than most people on this forum and takes her punishment on the chin.
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 5:18pm Grunge wrote:
Ita.
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 6:02pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
As a member of the lower classes I have no idea what ad hominem means.
Plus if I wanted to have any influence over the Labour Party leadership election I would join the party, rather than whinge about the result on a public forum. Seems to have been pretty transparent to me. As one of the 15 pc of private sector workers who you say are unionised I don't pay the political levy but I don't have any problem with union members who do having a say over the labour party leadership. Anyone who knows the history of the Labour party knows it grew hand and hand with the Labour movement, alongside the right to unionise. It's all perfectly legal. Unlike a few attempts to dodge tax by a certain Tory party tax exile...
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 6:21pm Newmania wrote:
Whatever... if we are reduced to the level of "Newmania is a girl" then I might as well discuss the matter with my five year old
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 6:57pm Grunge wrote:
I'm so relieved, Newmania. I've always thought of you as a chap, or does Stan know something we don't?
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 7:15pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Newmania, by charging the Millibands with being well-connected when so many of the cabinet went to Eton and ex-Bullingdon members are disproportionetly represented therein reinforces my belief that you are just a wind-up merchant!
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 7:28pm scarface wrote:
Paula Newman?!?!
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 7:51pm Peter Byron wrote:
Politics always ends in tears (apart from Blair, who was lucky, in some respects) the party who decides we do not need to live in a PC world will do well. Cheers, Peter ps Annie Widdecombe is dancing on TV now, so that is how serious we should take politics my friends of Lewes.
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 7:53pm Boris wrote:
Why is everyone so concerned about the Labour party, I thought you were all proud Lib Dems.
Ed Milliband, fantastic news for the Tory party , a right plonker if ever there was one, only to be out down by his dopey brother.
The red flag once again flies high over the Labour Party HQ.
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 8:21pm Independent thinker wrote:
Stan, you can love Newmania, or not. I'm just pointing out that his ideological rants are not based on facts.

Boring as it is, let's set this union membership thing straight. I admit my 5 mins of googling only found the 2005 figures, but the 2009 figures make the same point. It's roughly a 60/40 split between public and private sector union members. Which is hardly overwhelming. And given that's what the split is, it makes sense that about 60% of union members work in fields that are largely public sector, so not sure what point NM was trying to make there, other than perhaps hoping he could confuse people enough to get away with his "overwhelmingly public sector" claim.

And I'm not a Labour apologist, I just don't like people spreading ideologically based opinions as facts. It annoyed me on here during the election and it annoys me now. Yes, the Labour electoral college is complicated, and I only figured it out from reading coverage of the leadership election. But it's one man one vote for each of the three equal sections, MPs, Labour Party Members and Union Members, with candidates ranked in order of preference, and needing to cross 50% to be elected. And each section was very, very close, going to 3rd and 4th place votes to find a winner. Union members split 54-46 for Ed over David. No block vote, no mass brainwashing by an all powerful leaflet. Huge numbers of hustings events all over the country. And Ed won. Is Ed a better choice than David? I've no idea. Will he swing the party wildly to the left? I doubt it. He says he won't, and he's smart enough to know how important the centre is, but we'll see. But how about we judge him on what he actually does, rather than what Murdoch and Tory party activists want us to think about him.
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 9:52pm MC wrote:
Lovely. Spot on IT.
 
 
On 27 Sep 2010 at 10:45pm Grunge wrote:
One thing is sure, you'll know what he does before it happens, because somehow he can't help revealing his thoughts through his facial expressions. He'll have to train himself out of that!
 
 
On 28 Sep 2010 at 12:03am Newmania wrote:
IT- These are facts
Private Sector 15% Unionised
Public Sector 66% c., ( 6,000,000 appx. total)
Union membership is about four and a half times as likely for Public Sector workers
Unite gave Ed £100,000
GMB gave Ed £28,000
Of the 26 affiliates, not all unions, 11 only mustered under 1000 votes. Of the 247339 votes cast 111270 were cast by Unite, ( Was TGWU and Amicus), 43106 by GMB, 18957 by CWW and 28124 by Unison .Between them they account for 201475 or 82% of the votes .
IT has very much misrepresented the turth then with his tales of musicians
The 'turnout' ( votes cast) from Unite was as low as 7.8% and 10% quite normal for the Unions so we see the votes are actually cast by a poltically active minority of those Unions who have not opted out of paying a political levy. Given that Unite have already promised a Summer of strikes if Public Sector jobs are threatened ( and they only have about 200,000 ) we can see who dominates the strategy.
Clearly from their statements they see themselves as protectors of public sector employment but yes also of other sectional interests they represent . True .
They are not the same as the majority who are not unionised but to what extent anyone is represented by Unite say you will have to decide for yourself . This sectional interest was decisive as we know in electing Red Ed who now owes them.
I think we can judge Ed by what he has said and what he has not said by way of confronting special interest groups as compared with David who set his stall out to appeall to the country especially the South outside London where New Labour are dead( See Southern Discomfort to see how true that is ) That happens to be here and these opinions were freely expressed by David Milliband supporters not just Conservatives and the (yawn) Murdoch Press
To imagine that the Scarlet king is free to manouvre now seems absurd to me and as he will do nothing but talk between now and the next election the groups he relied on to get the job would be forgotten only by a fool. Certainly Labour MPs are briefing to that effect right now at the conference
It is assumed across the spectrum that he will pick a token fight with the Unions early on. Ignore that
I don`t see what is ideological about what I say in this context and I am not a Conservative activist
1
 
On 28 Sep 2010 at 8:21am sashimi wrote:
Newmania, I'm from a different part of the political spectrum from you and I fear there is a lot of truth in what you say. In choosing Ed, Labour have chosen the equivalent of William Hague, an articulate and clever man on the outsaide wing of the party. The Labour Party have never really sorted out their constitutional connection to the unions and because they wouldn't sort out party fuunding during their 13 years they are now 100% dependent on their money. Union money will be essential for the Party to fight the 2015 election and the union connection will ensure they lose it. This is a real tragedy for us all because an enfeebled opposition is really bad for democracy.
 
 
On 28 Sep 2010 at 10:34am Sashimi wrote:
Sashimi -You are only saying what many people who are Labour Party supporters and activists are also saying . It now appears that Unite spent £1,000,000 getting the Ed vote out although they admit to only £250,000.
IT says its all open and so on and the vote was close . Well I should think so. David Milliband was obviously the better candidate in every way and vastly more likely to deliver a win. Without the Unions Ed`s candidacy would never have got off the ground .
Bear in mind that his other supprt was all from the left. Balls and Abbots votes were all given to Ed.

Whatever IT says David Milliband is off to the back benches and the Labour Party is now at war. The beaten Party and MP`s are outraged and we have not heard the end of this shabby hollow victory
 
 
On 28 Sep 2010 at 11:07am Newmania wrote:
oops that was me Sashimi , sorry taking your name in vain and all that
 
 
On 28 Sep 2010 at 12:02pm Down and Out wrote:
Jeez. I was really trying to avoided getting dragged into this nonsense, but such is Newmania's relentless one-dimensional idiocy that it's hard to avoid it.
1. A vast number of union votes supported Tony Blair's ascendancy to the Labour leadership. I don't recall him acting like a Marxist once he got the job. Why should Ed be any different?
2. The press are massively overstating the ideological differences between the Milibands, simply because they need something to talk about and get their teeth into. They're both anodyne centre-leftists. Clause 4 was 15 years ago now; this is hardly Blair vs Militant, is it? The way the Telegraph would have it is that Ed would nationalise everything. Hardly.
3. The difference in the voting was marginal, and it's not as if all the unions supported Ed and all the members supported David. It wasn't as black and white as this.
4. To suggest that Ed is now in the unions' pockets, whilst not suggesting that Cameron is in the pocket of whichever corporations fund the Tories is blind hypocrisy of the highest order. Either all politicians are in the pockets of their backers, or they're not. There's no logic in suggesting one party acts in such a way whilst the other does not.
5. From a SE England perspective, David may have appeared the better candidate, but from a 'Labour heartland' perspective I suspect he's irrevocably tainted with the ultimate failure of New Labour. Ed is far less so.
6. The fact is that who gets elected in four year's time will be 80% dependent on the condition of the economy at that time, and 20% on the condition of the opposition. There's really not that much Labour can do. If people are happy, they'll vote for a second term; if they're not, they'll vote the coalition out.
Newmania's views are pretty much irrelevant anyway. He would never vote Labour in a million years, so it's not him that has to be convinced by either of the Milibands.
 
 
On 28 Sep 2010 at 1:31pm Newmania wrote:
Why the insults D and O ?
1 Blair came in after a long drout .Anyone who could win was the only option. What you have forgoten is that the scale of 97 wasnot forseen and victory had already seemed assurred when Major proved all the polls wildly wrong .
Blair moved to free himself from Union purse strings by selling peerages and tax breaks for Private Equity. Thereby hangs a tale ...
2 - Yes of course you are right he is not a Communist he is a Brownite Labour statist on the left of the Party. Did you like Brown?
3 - David Milliband was the best candidate, the clear favourite and obviously the most electable . No wonder not every union member could be persuaded to support Ed. Nonetheless the extent of support was sufficient to swing the vote against the Party . The Unions membership are not always left of the Party you know they have their own agenda
4- Ridiculous -The unions Finance New Labour there is no comparison , sorry but you are dead wrong there .
5 - You are probably right but its seats not votes that count. Labour`s heartland has nowhere to go and piling up votes there cannot bring enough
seats
My views are as relevant as anyone elses I suppose and like most right-ish people I am delighted to see Old Labour back . Not as before no but close enough.I did rather like David Milliband though
 
 
On 28 Sep 2010 at 2:20pm Down and Out wrote:
Newmania - apologies; I must just be in a tetchy mood.

3. OK. From a personal point of view I don't think DM would have been "obviously the most electable". Labour are between a rock and a hard place, right enough. I think the electorate would not stand for New Labour v2.0. At the same time, they can't move any further to the right so however they rethink their strategy, it must involve some sort of leftward shift. I think Balls and DM were too prominent in the Old Guard to undertake a serious rethink of what Labour is for. There were no great candidates, but EM will do for now.
4. I don't agree. I remember in the eighties when Tebbit (I think) proposed that all unions should be obliged to ballot their members before funding the Labour Party. To which Labour replied that all employees of a company should be balloted before that company funds the Tory Party - and the issue was dropped.
5. Well, OK, but the point I was making was that a Labour win would require, mostly, gains in peripheral post-industrial marginal type seats, and generally north of London. Lewes, Mid-Sussex and Eastbourne never will be on that agenda. I think the perception of what the Labour Party should represent differs around the country.
 
 
On 28 Sep 2010 at 3:32pm jrsussex wrote:
I too, as a Tory (working class) have tried to stay out of this one but have to agree with Sashimi. "This is a real tragedy for us all because an enfeebled opposition is really bad for democracy". Good Government is best realised by good opposition. Cannot see Ed providing that between now and 2015.
 
 
On 28 Sep 2010 at 3:57pm Leveller wrote:
Working class Tory, Hahahahahaha. One of the classic "oxymoron" cases, or maybe that should just be moron
 
 
On 28 Sep 2010 at 4:05pm Newmania wrote:
Not so leveller no Party can win without working class support and the Conservative party as a stone cold fact have always had significant support from working class people.



This thread has reached its limit now
Why not start another one


 

Ann of Cleves 2:132
Ann of Cleves

He runs this country in the current vacuum of effective leadership. It's a disastrous time for it to happen. more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.
John Adams