Who gives a t*ss?

He’s right though isn’t he?

PippaZ yet again you are making assumptions about what I may/may not delight in

You asked a question regarding the G7 tax implications and my not posting about it, I reminded you that I had already done so.

I wonder why the opposition parties (Labour in particularly) are relying on yesterdays men , why not use some of the current politicians to get their current points/policies across?

Like my reply to growstuff our current PM is constantly accused of being a liar and a charlatan, if it’s ok to vilify the PM then it is totally ok to vilify Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair.

The constant references to the Iraq War are quite interesting.
For several months during the run up and then during that war my OH and I had several arguments with friends, who were either LP supporters or members and who all accepted the arguments put forward for the war.

My OH was part of the large samba band organised by the London School of Samba that formed part of the march against the Iraq War. I didn't go because I was ill. I don't suppose now that anybody who supported the war at that time would still agree with their then position. But I suspect that many on here would have supported the war at the time.

Many people on here are lambasting Blair and Campbell for what they did 20 odd years ago. So I would ask you to cast your minds back to Churchill, who most people would agree, was a hero during WW2.

Churchill's earlier history was quite different.

The Siege of Sydney Street in 1911 when he was Home Secretary. He went to Stepney to watch the action, which was filmed by Pathe News. When the newsreel was shown in cinemas and Churchill was clearly visible, he was booed by the audience.

Following the Irish Uprising in 1916, Churchill as Minister for War and the War Cabinet were unable to come to terms with the rise of Irish Republicanism. In 1920 he sent in the Black and Tans, a force of temporary constables recruited to assist the Royal Irish Constabulary in keeping order. A fairly devastating error.

During his 5 years as Chancellor of the Exchequer his actions led to the miners' strike and ultimately to the General Strike of 1926.

All in all the history of his earlier years (apart from the Boer War when he was regarded as a hero) was not good.

Despite all this, he was and still is thought of as a hero.

Just saying, if you want to influence the undecided, disillusioned voter (me), if you want my vote, pulling in Campbell as your spokesman isn’t going to do it.

But if you don’t want my vote, it doesn’t matter at all.

You’ll have the comfort of knowing you won the argument.

GG13 The difference is Johnson is being villified for his actions now whereas the other two were in power 20 years ago. What they did was important that the time and have had long term ramifications. However, we are concerned with the present and Johnson's actions have been dire too.

Please don't mention the vaccine roll out. Johnson was, I assume, partly responsible for hiring Kate Bingham (who has just been made a dame) at someone else's recommendation. But, it was the NHS, the army and the thousands of volunteers who organised the roll out. All he said was get it done. Which many other people could also have said.

Peasblossom

Just saying, if you want to influence the undecided, disillusioned voter (me), if you want my vote, pulling in Campbell as your spokesman isn’t going to do it.

But if you don’t want my vote, it doesn’t matter at all.

You’ll have the comfort of knowing you won the argument.

In that case there's no hope for you. Feel free to report me.

Dinahmo I think Peasblossom has made a very good point.

Labour both past and present should be looking to garner support from floating and disenfranchised voters AC article and such like is not the way to go. This is only my opinion of course.

I would be interested to see a centre party hoovering up the politically homeless from either side.

Dinahmo

GG13 The difference is Johnson is being villified for his actions now whereas the other two were in power 20 years ago. What they did was important that the time and have had long term ramifications. However, we are concerned with the present and Johnson's actions have been dire too.

Please don't mention the vaccine roll out. Johnson was, I assume, partly responsible for hiring Kate Bingham (who has just been made a dame) at someone else's recommendation. But, it was the NHS, the army and the thousands of volunteers who organised the roll out. All he said was get it done. Which many other people could also have said.

I will not repeat myself as it’s boring for all concerned, but I think I covered some if not most of your points in my post of 10.16 yesterday.

GrannyGravy13

PippaZ yet again you are making assumptions about what I may/may not delight in

You asked a question regarding the G7 tax implications and my not posting about it, I reminded you that I had already done so.

I wonder why the opposition parties (Labour in particularly) are relying on yesterdays men , why not use some of the current politicians to get their current points/policies across?

Like my reply to growstuff our current PM is constantly accused of being a liar and a charlatan, if it’s ok to vilify the PM then it is totally ok to vilify Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair.

You didn't remind me GrannyGravy13, you told me for the first time. I still can't see a thread about it and I'm afraid I don't feel inclined to stalk your posts.

I have no idea what Labour or the other parties are doing. I just want to hear the opinions of those who know more than I do and I would guess more than you do too. Dinahmo's* point is excellently made. What Blair and Campbell did was years ago but for some posters that makes nothing that they can say worthwhile. What a weak and baseless argument.

What is a "yesterday's" person? Are they not longer allowed to express their, in many cases, very knowledgeable opinions? Even we, in our older years and with considerably less insight, are allowed to hold and express an opinion so why not listen/read and discuss what they say. Shall we stop including you when you post because you are yesterday's person?

The current PM's behaviour is believed by many to have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary covid deaths on his watch. He is known and catalogued as a serial liar, a man who cannot be trusted even by those that currently know and work with him, who fails to commit to anything long term, and who has attempted to destroy our parliamentary democracy.

This man didn't even attend the first meeting of Cobra, did not close our borders to India in time because he wanted a political hit with his acolytes. But that's all okay - look at his happy chappiness, note how he boosts us to believe that all will be well on the date he conjures, or the next date he comes up with, or the next one when all will return to normal. Oh no, we must not talk about this fool unless we praise him.

It is all about the sense some have of not giving a toss unless it makes them feel they have scored a win. Truth doesn't come into it.

Dinahmo

Peasblossom

Just saying, if you want to influence the undecided, disillusioned voter (me), if you want my vote, pulling in Campbell as your spokesman isn’t going to do it.

But if you don’t want my vote, it doesn’t matter at all.

You’ll have the comfort of knowing you won the argument.

In that case there's no hope for you. Feel free to report me.

Not my style?

Campbell is a sexist pig. He sees no wrong in his behaviour i do not count the opinion of someone who patronises women still in the 21st Century as valid. .
He has never apologised for sexing documents up about the Iraq War leading us falsely to follow Bush wherever he took us for years.
People who were for the Iraq war and then later weren't? Probably because it came out about the lies.
Please don't say that AC thinks he is going to emanate Sir Winston Churchill fighting fascism on Twitter. All of the criticism of Churchill is with hindsight he didn't pretend to be anything other than what he was at that time (all his life). He was an aristocratic Tory because of his like the Labour Party was formed.
New Labour were supposed to head a new era of anti-sleaze instead they carried on the yellow brick road.
People still site Thatcher for destroying this country and making it the not giving a toss society it is today but we can't point a finger at Campbell for his actions and failings twenty years ago and pre the 2019 GE against Corbyn.
Labour lost their safe seats cos they had sat pretty on them for too long taking their constituents for granted. BoJo capitalised on that because the electorate were sick of broken promises and same old for too long. AC is part of that.

It is absolutely clear to me that most people on this thread don't give a toss about the current corrupt, incompetent and undemocratic government because they're too busy holding on to the past to care at all about the future.

Campbell has called it correctly, I think...

It is clear to me that most people on this thread don't give a toss about what Campbell says.

MaizieD I respectfully disagree.

The Labour Party continuously rolls out past MPs and Prime Ministers, why?

Should they not be showcasing their new MPs, getting them onto TV and writing articles?

Show us the electorate people who can go forward, let us know what this Labour cohort stands for.

(I am not dismissing the fact that lessons can be learnt from the past in any way)

MaizieD

It is absolutely clear to me that most people on this thread don't give a toss about the current corrupt, incompetent and undemocratic government because they're too busy holding on to the past to care at all about the future.

Campbell has called it correctly, I think...

Yes. Shame that the arrows are fired at the messenger rather than the message.

Always a useless exercise.

By focussing on Campbell and his intentions, does not get posters off the hook by failing to address criticisms and arguments that have substance.

We’re not on the hook ww and posters don’t give two hoots what Alistair Campbell says.

MaizieD

It is absolutely clear to me that most people on this thread don't give a toss about the current corrupt, incompetent and undemocratic government because they're too busy holding on to the past to care at all about the future.

Campbell has called it correctly, I think...

I'm afraid there is huge prejudice switching off any sort of reasoned discussion Maizie. Campbell did call it correctly. Some posters are getting far more out of ranting about what happened nearly two decades ago than thinking about what is happening today. As I said rehashing what Blair and Campbell did is a weak and baseless argument for not addressing what is happening today.

PippaZ

MaizieD

It is absolutely clear to me that most people on this thread don't give a toss about the current corrupt, incompetent and undemocratic government because they're too busy holding on to the past to care at all about the future.

Campbell has called it correctly, I think...

I'm afraid there is huge prejudice switching off any sort of reasoned discussion Maizie. Campbell did call it correctly. Some posters are getting far more out of ranting about what happened nearly two decades ago than thinking about what is happening today. As I said rehashing what Blair and Campbell did is a weak and baseless argument for not addressing what is happening today.

Yep. They put themselves on the hook, by posting about the author of the piece but refusing to discuss the content.

I don't usually agree with GrannyGravy13 but I do think that is a very good point, that Labour should be bringing forward new talent, letting us get to know them, instead of keep wheeling out Blair, Campbell , Mandelson etc.

It's an interesting point but not what the OP was about and so far the original pile on hasn't allowed that to be discussed. Something to do with red facts and blue facts I would guess. (That's nothing to do with Tory and Labour for those who haven't come across them )

Why not start a new thread discussing it Ilovecheese. I think it's a bit early (I'm always starting threads to early) but it is or certainly will be an interesting discussion at some point.

I did post regarding the content of AC’s ranting article at the beginning of the thread.

People going about their daily lives and not being engrossed in all and everything in the Westminster Bubble is far from not giving a toss it’s called living/working/rearing children/looking after elderly relatives etc.

It’s not those of us who lean to the right that have closed minds...

GillT57 I am in the car so can't comment properly but wanted to say I agree with you wholeheartedly.

"Why not start a new thread discussing it Ilovecheese. I think it's a bit early (I'm always starting threads to early) but it is or certainly will be an interesting discussion at some point."

I don't know enough about new Labour talent to start a thread about it.
I am grateful for you starting threads though, it is appreciated.