neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 6, 2019 14:48:02 GMT
I've mentioned it before, but I'm totally convinced that Dimbleby interviews someone called Ball Powell late on in the show (around 9-10pm if one starts watching at 9am). I've spent ten years thinking this since I last watched it so I'll be disappointed if I'm wrong!
|
|
|
|
Post by chorleyboy on May 6, 2019 15:25:58 GMT
I've mentioned it before, but I'm totally convinced that Dimbleby interviews someone called Ball Powell late on in the show (around 9-10pm if one starts watching at 9am). I've spent ten years thinking this since I last watched it so I'll be disappointed if I'm wrong! He was a city gent who voted Labour IIRC š¤. There seems to be no trace of him on the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by chorleyboy on May 6, 2019 16:42:13 GMT
He is on now! š
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 6, 2019 16:59:29 GMT
He is! I paused it and got a photo just to prove it! Several hours earlier than I thought. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 6, 2019 17:18:29 GMT
He is! I paused it and got a photo just to prove it! Several hours earlier than I thought. Now I am confused because the caption called him "Sir Ball Powell" but the interviewer referred to him as "Mr Val Powell". If there is confusion about his name, that might explain why he's ungoogleable. P.S. A Google search for "Sir Val Powell" produced this(under the name V.A.L. Powell), which isn't much: sas-space.sas.ac.uk/2611/ |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on May 7, 2019 2:34:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 2, 2019 16:35:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 11, 2019 9:31:36 GMT
Just uploaded some of the TV coverage of the Birmingham Hodge Hill and Leicester South byelections of 2004. We then had a Labour Party leader who was a proven election winner with integrity. We were in government with a majority, heading for re-election, and delivering improved services for working people. Seems like a different world as the leader's office is now occupied by a proven election loser who is ethically compromised.
Highlights:
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,001
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 11, 2019 10:07:34 GMT
And we lost one of the byelections and only just held the other.
"Compromised" is a very good word to describe Blair in 2004, as well.
Had he stood down that year as reportedly originally planned, Brown would have easily won the subsequent GE and the party would likely have been in a better place in the longer term. Which likely means Corbyn never becomes leader. But then again, you are actually well aware of all this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 11, 2019 10:13:25 GMT
'Reportedly' is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
Given the way the Brown government actually turned out not to have a really clear vision for what it wanted to do (until circumstances gave it one in terms of saving the world after the economic crisis), I'm not sure how you sustain the argument that the 2005 election would have been better after nine months of Brown. Labour would have done considerably worse in England and would have had a much narrower majority at a time when a deep political crisis was on the way.
I notice you can't defend the ethically compromised proven election loser currently blocking the chair in the Leader's office.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,001
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 11, 2019 10:16:23 GMT
Well an important point there is that a GE was expected in 2005 anyway, rather than Brown having to design a rationale for a "snap" poll.
(and of course, that coming to grief was when it all started to go wrong)
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on Aug 19, 2019 17:02:35 GMT
House of Lords Televising Experiment 1968 (not an election but this might be of interest).
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 26, 2019 19:59:15 GMT
Everyone who watched this at the time was either drunk, flanked by an angry dog, or undressed.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 26, 2019 22:12:03 GMT
Everyone who watched this at the time was either drunk, flanked by an angry dog, or undressed. I watched it at the time and was not drunk, flanked by a dog (although I do believe my pet cat at the time was trying to snuggled down on me) or undressed. What I was though was so incensed by that Justice for Fathers candidate that the following day I e-mailed the report to a friend of mine from Iowa who also deals with fathers having access to their children in divorce cases and he agreed with me that that did more damage to the campaign and that, if he was a member, he would have resigned immediately. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,732
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Sept 12, 2019 19:36:17 GMT
Everyone who watched this at the time was either drunk, flanked by an angry dog, or undressed. David, 'tis like you really know me/ |
|
|
|
Post by gasman2019 on Sept 17, 2019 14:15:58 GMT
Well an important point there is that a GE was expected in 2005 anyway, rather than Brown having to design a rationale for a "snap" poll. (and of course, that coming to grief was when it all started to go wrong) Biggest mistake by Brown was not holding that snap election, I still believe he would of won the election with a reduced majority (10-20 seats), but he would of had a mandate to govern. Plus by 2012 the green shoots of recovery were taking place and the economy would of been improving, which would of given Brown or another Labour leader (D or E Milliband) a chance to hold onto power or lose well enough to bounce back for 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Sept 17, 2019 14:36:09 GMT
Well an important point there is that a GE was expected in 2005 anyway, rather than Brown having to design a rationale for a "snap" poll. (and of course, that coming to grief was when it all started to go wrong) Biggest mistake by Brown was not holding that snap election, I still believe he would of won the election with a reduced majority (10-20 seats), but he would of had a mandate to govern. Brown would have copped flack for anything less than a majority of 66 as throwing things away too soon. And yes, 66, even if boundary changes had come in and reduced the notional majority Labour was defending. (Had they?) |
|
|
|
Post by polaris on Sept 17, 2019 14:55:15 GMT
Well an important point there is that a GE was expected in 2005 anyway, rather than Brown having to design a rationale for a "snap" poll. (and of course, that coming to grief was when it all started to go wrong) Biggest mistake by Brown was not holding that snap election, I still believe he would of won the election with a reduced majority (10-20 seats), but he would of had a mandate to govern. Plus by 2012 the green shoots of recovery were taking place and the economy would of been improving, which would of given Brown or another Labour leader (D or E Milliband) a chance to hold onto power or lose well enough to bounce back for 2017. Not necessarily - Labour would have had to make at least some austerity cuts in 2010/11, and they would have paid a much heavier political price for doing so than the Tories would have done. People expect the Tories to make cuts, but they don't expect Labour to do so. In particular, there would have been a major backlash from Labour's base. |
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Sept 17, 2019 15:13:23 GMT
Well an important point there is that a GE was expected in 2005 anyway, rather than Brown having to design a rationale for a "snap" poll. (and of course, that coming to grief was when it all started to go wrong) Biggest mistake by Brown was not holding that snap election, I still believe he would of won the election with a reduced majority (10-20 seats), but he would of had a mandate to govern. Plus by 2012 the green shoots of recovery were taking place and the economy would of been improving, which would of given Brown or another Labour leader (D or E Milliband) a chance to hold onto power or lose well enough to bounce back for 2017. Given the state of the polls, we may have taken back a lot of the 2005 Lib Dem losses eight years earlier than we did. In fact they may have ended up being to a 2007 snap election as the Scottish Tory seats were to the 2017 snap election. One of those gains, incidentally, could have been East Dunbartonshire... |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 17, 2019 16:32:37 GMT
Well an important point there is that a GE was expected in 2005 anyway, rather than Brown having to design a rationale for a "snap" poll. (and of course, that coming to grief was when it all started to go wrong) Biggest mistake by Brown was not holding that snap election, I still believe he would of won the election with a reduced majority (10-20 seats), but he would of had a mandate to govern. Plus by 2012 the green shoots of recovery were taking place and the economy would of been improving, which would of given Brown or another Labour leader (D or E Milliband) a chance to hold onto power or lose well enough to bounce back for 2017. Just a pedantic correction. Shouldn't that be "the green shoots have recovery"?  |
|
