RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Yep, I think he was a decent chap trying to do some good, he just went about it in ways I didn't like.

I thought him a smarmy careerist. Each to their own.

as Jim Telfer observed you've got to want it. nonetheless I thought he was good, and I thought he'd helped the Labour Party grow up a bit, turns out it only worsened the backlash from the window lickers in the party. when I say I liked him it was never enough to want to vote for him, and he loused plenty up and left plenty he never even got into, but his wider ambitions for what a society should look like didn't alarm me, similar to Cameron, whereas Corbyn and the Tory right I'd have big concerns about

Some of his aims were good as you said, the method of achieving them less so. I found him profoundly unlikeable, smug, smarmy, patronising, almost evangelical at times; he's even worse now not in power.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I thought him a smarmy careerist. Each to their own.

as Jim Telfer observed you've got to want it. nonetheless I thought he was good, and I thought he'd helped the Labour Party grow up a bit, turns out it only worsened the backlash from the window lickers in the party. when I say I liked him it was never enough to want to vote for him, and he loused plenty up and left plenty he never even got into, but his wider ambitions for what a society should look like didn't alarm me, similar to Cameron, whereas Corbyn and the Tory right I'd have big concerns about

Some of his aims were good as you said, the method of achieving them less so. I found him profoundly unlikeable, smug, smarmy, patronising, almost evangelical at times; he's even worse now not in power.

Aye. He came into power when I went to secondary school and I loved him then. But considering in my early teens I also loved BoJo, it kinda says something...

By the time I left school, I really did not like Blair and agree with all those words to describe him. There's only one politician I dislike more, and that's Liam Fox, a rather disgusting creature I had the great dishonour to meet and talk to.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I thought him a smarmy careerist. Each to their own.

as Jim Telfer observed you've got to want it. nonetheless I thought he was good, and I thought he'd helped the Labour Party grow up a bit, turns out it only worsened the backlash from the window lickers in the party. when I say I liked him it was never enough to want to vote for him, and he loused plenty up and left plenty he never even got into, but his wider ambitions for what a society should look like didn't alarm me, similar to Cameron, whereas Corbyn and the Tory right I'd have big concerns about

Some of his aims were good as you said, the method of achieving them less so. I found him profoundly unlikeable, smug, smarmy, patronising, almost evangelical at times; he's even worse now not in power.

His methods made me want to bang my head against the wall, I mean PFI, that was obviously one of the worst ideas going back when they first mentioned it, and yet, perhaps with his evangelical belief in something being right because it was him doing it he was persuaded good would come of it. Whether he's worse now I don't know, he's certainly rather toxic, but none of the big names in the Labour party who'd be worth listening to are putting their heads above the parapet which is leaving a vacuum. It's a shame someone like David Milliband isn't willing to stand up as it's too easy for many people to dismiss Blair because it's Blair, I'm sure he must realise that even if he doesn't like it, Blair's not the brightest but he's not that thick.

It's going to keep happening though that until a big name follows up a path Blair is creating, and he's done it a few times, until then Blair will keep stepping into the void as someone like Kinnock just isn't a big enough political figure. At this point it's even hard to see how a Milliband, or Cooper, or Umuna goes about restraining Momentum and the momentum behind the perception that Corbyn is the person to deliver for the greater good (and clearly none of them have read their Harry Potter and understood Corbyn is something of a Voldemort). It's good that other names on the political spectrum like a John Major are speaking out, but it needs a centre left big name too, so far they've lacked the courage.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
as Jim Telfer observed you've got to want it. nonetheless I thought he was good, and I thought he'd helped the Labour Party grow up a bit, turns out it only worsened the backlash from the window lickers in the party. when I say I liked him it was never enough to want to vote for him, and he loused plenty up and left plenty he never even got into, but his wider ambitions for what a society should look like didn't alarm me, similar to Cameron, whereas Corbyn and the Tory right I'd have big concerns about

Some of his aims were good as you said, the method of achieving them less so. I found him profoundly unlikeable, smug, smarmy, patronising, almost evangelical at times; he's even worse now not in power.

Aye. He came into power when I went to secondary school and I loved him then. But considering in my early teens I also loved BoJo, it kinda says something...

By the time I left school, I really did not like Blair and agree with all those words to describe him. There's only one politician I dislike more, and that's Liam Fox, a rather disgusting creature I had the great dishonour to meet and talk to.

I found it odd at the time that so many were so happy with Blair as opposed to the Tories simply being out. For me people were too pro Blair back then, and often too anti now.

I did want the Tories to lose in '97, but then I think it's a good thing if any 3 term government loses as it gives them a chance to step back from not being able to see the wood for the trees, to think about what it is they want to achieve, and recharge and bring in some new names so when they come back into office they're not the same rather stagnated bunch.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
as Jim Telfer observed you've got to want it. nonetheless I thought he was good, and I thought he'd helped the Labour Party grow up a bit, turns out it only worsened the backlash from the window lickers in the party. when I say I liked him it was never enough to want to vote for him, and he loused plenty up and left plenty he never even got into, but his wider ambitions for what a society should look like didn't alarm me, similar to Cameron, whereas Corbyn and the Tory right I'd have big concerns about

Some of his aims were good as you said, the method of achieving them less so. I found him profoundly unlikeable, smug, smarmy, patronising, almost evangelical at times; he's even worse now not in power.

His methods made me want to bang my head against the wall, I mean PFI, that was obviously one of the worst ideas going back when they first mentioned it, and yet, perhaps with his evangelical belief in something being right because it was him doing it he was persuaded good would come of it. Whether he's worse now I don't know, he's certainly rather toxic, but none of the big names in the Labour party who'd be worth listening to are putting their heads above the parapet which is leaving a vacuum. It's a shame someone like David Milliband isn't willing to stand up as it's too easy for many people to dismiss Blair because it's Blair, I'm sure he must realise that even if he doesn't like it, Blair's not the brightest but he's not that thick.

It's going to keep happening though that until a big name follows up a path Blair is creating, and he's done it a few times, until then Blair will keep stepping into the void as someone like Kinnock just isn't a big enough political figure. At this point it's even hard to see how a Milliband, or Cooper, or Umuna goes about restraining Momentum and the momentum behind the perception that Corbyn is the person to deliver for the greater good (and clearly none of them have read their Harry Potter and understood Corbyn is something of a Voldemort). It's good that other names on the political spectrum like a John Major are speaking out, but it needs a centre left big name too, so far they've lacked the courage.

yep PFI and overstuffing the public sector were just two of the long term issues he created; PFI is a spectacular hampering of the NHS. I know two almost brand new hospitals that are hardly used, and the amount of money charged for simple building works in PFI funded and well used hospitals is eye watering.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Some of his aims were good as you said, the method of achieving them less so. I found him profoundly unlikeable, smug, smarmy, patronising, almost evangelical at times; he's even worse now not in power.

His methods made me want to bang my head against the wall, I mean PFI, that was obviously one of the worst ideas going back when they first mentioned it, and yet, perhaps with his evangelical belief in something being right because it was him doing it he was persuaded good would come of it. Whether he's worse now I don't know, he's certainly rather toxic, but none of the big names in the Labour party who'd be worth listening to are putting their heads above the parapet which is leaving a vacuum. It's a shame someone like David Milliband isn't willing to stand up as it's too easy for many people to dismiss Blair because it's Blair, I'm sure he must realise that even if he doesn't like it, Blair's not the brightest but he's not that thick.

It's going to keep happening though that until a big name follows up a path Blair is creating, and he's done it a few times, until then Blair will keep stepping into the void as someone like Kinnock just isn't a big enough political figure. At this point it's even hard to see how a Milliband, or Cooper, or Umuna goes about restraining Momentum and the momentum behind the perception that Corbyn is the person to deliver for the greater good (and clearly none of them have read their Harry Potter and understood Corbyn is something of a Voldemort). It's good that other names on the political spectrum like a John Major are speaking out, but it needs a centre left big name too, so far they've lacked the courage.

yep PFI and overstuffing the public sector were just two of the long term issues he created; PFI is a spectacular hampering of the NHS. I know two almost brand new hospitals that are hardly used, and the amount of money charged for simple building works in PFI funded and well used hospitals is eye watering.

I've said before I really don't like the idea of printing yet more money, a peoples quantitative easing as per the Corbynistas, but it would be worth crunching some numbers in this area to rid us of the last cunning financial plan a Labour government had. Were it another policy I might mock it was given to Prescott to deliver, but it was such a bad idea even a competent thinker couldn't have made a success of it

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Blair might not be a moderate if only looking to the Labour party, but withing British politics as a whole Blair was very much a moderate or centrist. I always rather liked Blair other than his actual policies which always seemed rather poorly thought out through to just being shit. There is I think we'd have to allow Blair came in following more than a decade of chronic lack of investment under the Tories in a variety of public services, and now after another decade of Tory government someone is going to have to bite the bullet on a chronic lack of investment, and that's both expensive and in political terms takes a long time to pay off so it's not obvious in advance you'd get any credit.

cripes.

We all have our surprise faves,...I've always thought John Major was a thoroughly decent bloke and a fine PM.

In terms of who or what the Labour party needs at the moment..... another John Smith would be good. Preferably a version with a bit more longevity this time.

Len McCluskey is on the Ken Loach bandwagon now that supposes any criticism of the Glorious Leader™ is inherently a bad thing, even if it's a good thing, and all bad things they might be doing should be ignored in the name of the greater good.

Well, I say McCluskey is on that bandwagon now, like many Corbyn supporters with their healthy disregard for democracy he was already there. The suggestion that those speaking truth to power 'can expect to be held to account' is a regrettable if not surprising stance within the new Labour Party being built in the image of the Glorious Leader™

To be fair, the anti semitism thing does seem to have some ulterior motives...

Claiming it has ulterior motives without addressing it has ulterior motives

Digby wrote:Claiming it has ulterior motives without addressing it has ulterior motives

Well yes. But I'm on my phone and can't be arsed

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Claiming it has ulterior motives without addressing it has ulterior motives

Well yes. But I'm on my phone and can't be arsed

I think that's almost verbatim what Jezza told the board of deputies

Digby wrote:Claiming it has ulterior motives without addressing it has ulterior motives

It's clearly getting disproportionate coverage. C'mon.
There are plenty of protests that garner more than 200-300 protesters on the lawn and don't get nearly as much coverage.

Digby wrote:Len McCluskey is on the Ken Loach bandwagon now that supposes any criticism of the Glorious Leader[emoji769] is inherently a bad thing, even if it's a good thing, and all bad things they might be doing should be ignored in the name of the greater good.

Well, I say McCluskey is on that bandwagon now, like many Corbyn supporters with their healthy disregard for democracy he was already there. The suggestion that those speaking truth to power 'can expect to be held to account' is a regrettable if not surprising stance within the new Labour Party being built in the image of the Glorious Leader[emoji769]

Genuine question. Do you think that calling Corbyn "Glorious Leader" with the little trademark makes you look clever?

canta_brian wrote:

Digby wrote:Len McCluskey is on the Ken Loach bandwagon now that supposes any criticism of the Glorious Leader[emoji769] is inherently a bad thing, even if it's a good thing, and all bad things they might be doing should be ignored in the name of the greater good.

Well, I say McCluskey is on that bandwagon now, like many Corbyn supporters with their healthy disregard for democracy he was already there. The suggestion that those speaking truth to power 'can expect to be held to account' is a regrettable if not surprising stance within the new Labour Party being built in the image of the Glorious Leader[emoji769]

Genuine question. Do you think that calling Corbyn "Glorious Leader" with the little trademark makes you look clever?

I do it as it amuses me, which is typically the only reason I put any posts up. You might think I'd be hesitant to post monotonous style, but I'm confident my posting history will confirm no such concerns.

Fair enough,.... as long as we remember that the trademark sign used on forums is as a direct result of The Hask.
..and you just copied it.

To my best recollection that's not the case, it's possible but I'd lean toward saying go whistle, or ♫

Digby wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Digby wrote:Len McCluskey is on the Ken Loach bandwagon now that supposes any criticism of the Glorious Leader[emoji769] is inherently a bad thing, even if it's a good thing, and all bad things they might be doing should be ignored in the name of the greater good.

Well, I say McCluskey is on that bandwagon now, like many Corbyn supporters with their healthy disregard for democracy he was already there. The suggestion that those speaking truth to power 'can expect to be held to account' is a regrettable if not surprising stance within the new Labour Party being built in the image of the Glorious Leader[emoji769]

Genuine question. Do you think that calling Corbyn "Glorious Leader" with the little trademark makes you look clever?

I do it as it amuses me, which is typically the only reason I put any posts up. You might think I'd be hesitant to post monotonous style, but I'm confident my posting history will confirm no such concerns.

Ok, fair enough. Seems an unfortunate section of the thread to use it in. The discussion was around the demonisation of Corbyn by the right wing press and their attempts to create a toxic brand around him. Using you "amusing" trade mark does suggest you have bought their bait hook, line and sinker.

canta_brian wrote:

Digby wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Genuine question. Do you think that calling Corbyn "Glorious Leader" with the little trademark makes you look clever?

I do it as it amuses me, which is typically the only reason I put any posts up. You might think I'd be hesitant to post monotonous style, but I'm confident my posting history will confirm no such concerns.

Ok, fair enough. Seems an unfortunate section of the thread to use it in. The discussion was around the demonisation of Corbyn by the right wing press and their attempts to create a toxic brand around him. Using you "amusing" trade mark does suggest you have bought their bait hook, line and sinker.

And yet on the other side there are people lining up to say one mustn't criticise the Glorious Leader™ in the name of the greater good. I've also yet to see Corbyn being demonised, more he's being held to account for things he's said and done, and for what he might do, though maybe you read more unconventional media than I

Digby wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Digby wrote:
I do it as it amuses me, which is typically the only reason I put any posts up. You might think I'd be hesitant to post monotonous style, but I'm confident my posting history will confirm no such concerns.

Ok, fair enough. Seems an unfortunate section of the thread to use it in. The discussion was around the demonisation of Corbyn by the right wing press and their attempts to create a toxic brand around him. Using you "amusing" trade mark does suggest you have bought their bait hook, line and sinker.

And yet on the other side there are people lining up to say one mustn't criticise the Glorious Leader™ in the name of the greater good. I've also yet to see Corbyn being demonised, more he's being held to account for things he's said and done, and for what he might do, though maybe you read more unconventional media than I

Who has said that Corbyn shouldn't be criticised? Can you please point to these people 'lining up' to say this?

The fact of the matter is you're just a jumped up propagandist useful idiot of the rightwing press, who thinks far too much of himself.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Ok, fair enough. Seems an unfortunate section of the thread to use it in. The discussion was around the demonisation of Corbyn by the right wing press and their attempts to create a toxic brand around him. Using you "amusing" trade mark does suggest you have bought their bait hook, line and sinker.

And yet on the other side there are people lining up to say one mustn't criticise the Glorious Leader™ in the name of the greater good. I've also yet to see Corbyn being demonised, more he's being held to account for things he's said and done, and for what he might do, though maybe you read more unconventional media than I

Who has said that Corbyn shouldn't be criticised? Can you please point to these people 'lining up' to say this?

The fact of the matter is you're just a jumped up propagandist useful idiot of the rightwing press, who thinks far too much of himself.

You haven't noticed a narrative forming that criticism in certain areas is unhelpful to the wider aims of installing a Corbyn led government?

And I'm amused to find myself labeled as being among the right wingers

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
And yet on the other side there are people lining up to say one mustn't criticise the Glorious Leader[emoji769] in the name of the greater good. I've also yet to see Corbyn being demonised, more he's being held to account for things he's said and done, and for what he might do, though maybe you read more unconventional media than I

Who has said that Corbyn shouldn't be criticised? Can you please point to these people 'lining up' to say this?

The fact of the matter is you're just a jumped up propagandist useful idiot of the rightwing press, who thinks far too much of himself.

You haven't noticed a narrative forming that criticism in certain areas is unhelpful to the wider aims of installing a Corbyn led government?

And I'm amused to find myself labeled as being among the right wingers

You might well have identified the issue there. What is considered centrist and liberal on this board seems to leave an awful lot of ground to the left.

canta_brian wrote:You might well have identified the issue there. What is considered centrist and liberal on this board seems to leave an awful lot of ground to the left.

I've no issues with say Yvette Cooper, once you start going further left such as with Andy Burnham I'm less a fan, once we start veering all the way out towards Corbyn I'm inclined to ridicule what is by then the loony left.

Digby wrote:

canta_brian wrote:You might well have identified the issue there. What is considered centrist and liberal on this board seems to leave an awful lot of ground to the left.

I've no issues with say Yvette Cooper, once you start going further left such as with Andy Burnham I'm less a fan, once we start veering all the way out towards Corbyn I'm inclined to ridicule what is by then the loony left.

I'd agree with this. Though, as a Conservative, albeit a liberal one, I'm practically a fascist.

Zhivago wrote:[
who thinks far too much of himself.

This coming from a man who will tell people who disagree with him that they believe propaganda and aren't well enough read. A bit of self awareness would do you a world of good.