|
|
Post by ideal4radio on Feb 24, 2017 0:22:39 GMT
Callaghan had recently become Prime Minister, but they also had Roy Jenkins, Tony Crosland, Dennis Healey, Barbara Castle, Peter Shore and, in addition Michael Foot and Tony Benn on the left of the party. Today's Labour politicians are but pygmies in comparison... Just watching Angela Rayner now on QT and it perfectly illustrates what you say. That said, that crowd you mention did a pretty good job of fucking up the country.. To be fair to them and their Tory opponents, they were dealt a particularly difficult hand... a plunging pound, a quadrupling of Oil prices within 18 months, Northern Ireland, Cod Wars, perpetual strikes and a tiny majority... no wonder they were knackered by 1979... Angela Rayner, you can just hear the nation's viewers cry, " Who ? " |
|
|
|
Post by ideal4radio on Feb 24, 2017 0:39:22 GMT
I rated Callaghan as a practical politician and as a party politician. He got the poisoned chalice from a failing way past it Wilson. The times were difficult and the natives fractious to a degree. He still managed to make appropriate moves but must have known that their time was up and managing defeat was his legacy for the party. He did that IMO supremely well and held more seats than I had expected to be possible. Yes that's all fair comment. I always had a bit of a soft spot for Jim Callaghan actually - he was the first PM I remember and my impression of him was as an avuncular gent being constantly hectored by some horrible woman (though it's fair to say my recollections are actually of Mike Yarwood and Janet Brown) I also had a soft spot for Callaghan ... from memory, his upbringing was very difficult..his mother was widowed twice, having been married twice to Royal Navy personnel. My admiration for him increased immensely, when I read that, when being given the hard word by an IMF negotiator, he replied " Now look here, boy " and went on to outline that Britain would implement a seige economy should the IMF continue to insist on the proposed terms, and effectively told him to " do one ", and not come back until he had a more reasonable proposal !! |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 24, 2017 10:05:49 GMT
I really don't think so. the campaign in Stoke will probably lead to a three car pile up (rather like the ones in the Wacky races) behind Labour with either UKIP, the Tories or lib dems in second. My money would be on the Lib Dems since they just campaign harder. Copeland is the much more likely Tory gain since they have a very solid vote base, it is already a very marginal seat and they can play the nuclear issue for all it is worth. I'm hoping for a narrow labour hold, but... How much money, because you could have made a killing earlier today further proof (if it were ever needed) why i don't bet.  |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 24, 2017 11:25:51 GMT
Just watching Angela Rayner now on QT and it perfectly illustrates what you say. That said, that crowd you mention did a pretty good job of fucking up the country.. To be fair to them and their Tory opponents, they were dealt a particularly difficult hand... a plunging pound, a quadrupling of Oil prices within 18 months, Northern Ireland, Cod Wars, perpetual strikes and a tiny majority... no wonder they were knackered by 1979... Angela Rayner, you can just hear the nation's viewers cry, " Who ? " As they say in chess, everybody was a beginner once. (that's not an endorsement of Rayner or anybody else for the record, just a more general observation) |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Feb 24, 2017 13:13:44 GMT
Copeland Lab 44 Con 35 UKIP 10 LD 8 Oth 3 Stoke on Trent Central Lab 44 UKIP 21 LD 16 Con 13 Oth 6 If I wasn't a conservative supporter and voter I would have put money on labour holding both seats at the odds that have been given pretty much throughout. Of course I could be wrong but commentators seem to be analysing these by-elections as though they are fighting these seats at a general election. It is very rare for a governing party to win a seat from the main opposition at a by-election, even with a massive opinion poll lead. And for a party in opposition to lose a seat to another opposition party, that other party usually has to show signs of being excellently organised throughout the campaign and really get their message through. And I was sooooo wrong. But delighted to be wrong in this case! |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 24, 2017 13:17:23 GMT
Copeland Lab 44 Con 35 UKIP 10 LD 8 Oth 3 Stoke on Trent Central Lab 44 UKIP 21 LD 16 Con 13 Oth 6 If I wasn't a conservative supporter and voter I would have put money on labour holding both seats at the odds that have been given pretty much throughout. Of course I could be wrong but commentators seem to be analysing these by-elections as though they are fighting these seats at a general election. It is very rare for a governing party to win a seat from the main opposition at a by-election, even with a massive opinion poll lead. And for a party in opposition to lose a seat to another opposition party, that other party usually has to show signs of being excellently organised throughout the campaign and really get their message through. And I was sooooo wrong. But delighted to be wrong in this case! Yes!!! Don't give up the day job! There is wrong and then there is W-R-O-N-G! Know what I mean? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 24, 2017 16:59:00 GMT
StokeLabour 8,903 35.0% Conservative 5,893 23.2% UKIP 5,090 20.0% Lib Dem 3,884 15.3% Green 948 3.7% Waifs & S 700 the rest Turn out 40.1% Recent events may lower t/o and UKIP. (cough) |
|
