Is Tony trying to stir trouble in his capacity as Thatcher's heir? Is he right? Is he causing trouble in the hope of making a come back or paving the way for Ed's brother to take the call and do his bit for party and country by dropping all in NYC? Or it is just that he's the only one who can safely say Ed's unelectable? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... otest.html

Is Tony trying to stir trouble in his capacity as Thatcher's heir? Is he right? Is he causing trouble in the hope of making a come back or paving the way for Ed's brother to take the call and do his bit for party and country by dropping all in NYC? Or it is just that he's the only one who can safely say Ed's unelectable? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... otest.html

He's missing being headline news is all.

If you rhink he could ever credibly run for high office again then my c0cks a kipper.

Tony getting his hands back on the PM job has as much a chance of success as Maggot Fracture getting a state funeral attended by the queen.

It'll never happen

Quote ="Dally"Is Tony trying to stir trouble in his capacity as Thatcher's heir? Is he right? Is he causing trouble in the hope of making a come back or paving the way for Ed's brother to take the call and do his bit for party and country by dropping all in NYC? Or it is just that he's the only one who can safely say Ed's unelectable? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... otest.html'" No. He's written an article for the Staggers, which, if you read it occasionally, you'd know that it runs articles like that all the time, inviting contrary views and everything.

Quote ="Dally"Is Tony trying to stir trouble in his capacity as Thatcher's heir? Is he right? Is he causing trouble in the hope of making a come back or paving the way for Ed's brother to take the call and do his bit for party and country by dropping all in NYC? Or it is just that he's the only one who can safely say Ed's unelectable? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... otest.html'" No. He's written an article for the Staggers, which, if you read it occasionally, you'd know that it runs articles like that all the time, inviting contrary views and everything.

Shh! There'll be people on here who'll want to eat it for breakfast.

Perhaps one or two already have?

Labour 14 points ahead of the tories and Blair feels the need to offer his advice?

Given the state of the country that lead should be bigger. Maybe some advice is in order?

This is the thing with politicians if they have a problem they can't just let them know in person and give advice, they have to spout of little soundbites to the media.

Labour's problem was electing wet Ed as leader when the ideal candidate was only half his genes away from perfect.

In this day personality or a polished persona unfortunately counts for something, Ed is just so dreary it makes him difficult to vote for.

As a Labour supporter of many years and left leaning, Ed Milliband worries me as leader. He does not possess the gravitas you would expect of someone hoping to become PM (mind you it didn't stop 'call me Dave) and whenever he speaks he says the right things, but does not come across as though HE believes in them. I honestly think he will be an election liability and seeing as the Lib Dems have blown themselves up, we could end up with a majority Conservative government, despite what the polls say.

The Libs will have lost the majority of their core support come the generals, the trouble with the Tories is UKIP (the only party with a charismatic leader) will steal votes off them.

I do wonder if the greens will pick up some of the disenfranchised leftie votes.

I haven't read Blair's article yet as my copy of the [iNew Statesman[/i arrives on Saturdays these days (it used to arrive on Thursdays).
I very much doubt that Grant Shapps (quoted in the [iDaily Mail[/i article about the [iNew Statesman[/i article) had read it either when he was asked by [iThe Wail[/i for a predictable quote which he duly gave.

If Blair's article really is accurately summed up by the soundbite "Labour should be the seekers of answers rather than just a repository for people's anger", then it's a fair point, Labour shouldn't be letting the tories set the agenda, as they'll just be seen as negative nay-sayers of tory policy.
If you only react to what the Tories do, then you are letting them determine what you talk about and all the Tories have to do is point at each example of Labour's nay-saying and add it to a list of money-not-saved.
Labour needs to start revealing policy now, at least in general terms. Obviously detail can't be brought out now because, not knowing what the situation will be like two years hence, you can't cost accurately this far ahead of an election.

Milliband isn't Labour's problem. It's Balls.

I probably disagree, as I think he is one of the few politicians in Westminster who actually knows more about economics than is contained in [iEconomics for Dummies[/i ... but I am interested in why you say that.
Please expand.

Could be argued that he knows the same amount as any of the many other MPs, from all parties, who did a PPE at Oxford.

Like in so many things, the world and it's people just seemingly look like card board cut outs, generic and boring.

I want my MP's bordering on unpopular with the courage of their conviction. Thatcher had it, Blair had it.

Brown was a ditherer, Cameron is a popularity seeker.
I don't like the career politicians either, good school courtesy of mummy and daddy, GCSE, A-Levels, Degrees, Houses of Parliament.
Where's the life experience part, living in the real world part?

It could be argued

but Balls actually taught economics at Harvard.

I don't think Milliband is any more lightweight than Blair was in 1995. But at that time Blair and Brown were able to convince the voters that they weren't bogeymen and were capable of making a fresh start. They ended up turning their inexperience to their advantage.

Balls just has too much baggage. He's too strongly associated with Brown. He'll tie himself up in knots during a general election campaign trying to justify his previous record whilst at the same trying to give the impression that he
has learned his lessons. His undoubted economic knowledge will work aginst Labour because he comes across as too clever by half, too clever to acknowledge his mistakes. He'll come across as Viv Nicholson re-incarnated.

And its an open secret that he wants himself or his missus to take over from Milliband. The rift between Blair and Brown didnt really affect Labour initially because by the time it came into the open the public seemed to be convinced that they were still capable of working together. An opposition party can't get away with any sign of division because it leaves the electorate even more unsure as to who/what they are voting for.

Fair point.
A taint is a taint even when its only a perception of a taint.


A real shame and, again, an issue of perception.


I wasn't aware of that open secret, if such it is.
Didn't Yvette stand aside in the leadership contest?
Actually, no need to answer that, I'm not up for an argument about that, I was just wondering about your reasons why Balls was a liability and I have that answer.

That is true to a degree but all opposition parties are hamstrung by this. The government sets the agenda by its policies. The problem for Labour is IMO it is wary of outright condemnation when that is what is required. The idea the Tories can refute such opposition by trotting out the money-not saved argument is no reason to hang back when polices are simply unjust.



Even revealing in general terms could be risky. I don't recall the Tories doing much else except moan prior to 2010. Labour have had a big policy review going on for a while and in any case Jon Cruddas who is key to the policy review is revealing bits here and there.

This gives a hint.

[urlhttp://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/what-jon-cruddass-speech-told-us-about-labours-policy-review[/url

As to Blair his main comment was don't assume just because the banks caused a crash a lurch to the left is on the cards. It sounded as though he was after peddling the status quo that has existed for the last 30 years. What Ed M and Balls have said in response is more or less that isn't going to wash and changes are required.

Now his wife is a different animal all together as she seems awfully 'clued up'.
She made mince meat of a certain home secretary to the point that she stopped showing her face when she knew she was on the warpath.
Her as the shadow chancellor or leader of labour and 'Dave' has a problem.

She looks too weak to be a leader. Labour's best people have all moved over. I can't see them producing an electable leader in the next 10 years.