the BIG three tonight

[g jones]

Originally Posted by Taggy

I'm a traditional Labour voter, and i make no bones in saying that i think you would make a very good MP for Hyndburn because i know you do put the interests of local people uppermost, however whilst under normal circumstances, you would be pretty much guaranteed my vote, i'm afraid there is a very real chance that you might have to suffer because of the conduct of the current bunch of spivs.

I accept that. That's life. I don't think I will be standing again. This is my one chance to represent the place where I live. One resident in Haslingden asked me to stand twice so he could vote for me next time! It's all about choices.

If Gordon loses but I win, then we will have to start looking for new leader within months (despite the football manager cliche - "I have a job to do") and you'll probably have the best of both worlds reading your post Taggy.

The worst scenario is regretting allowing in a poor Conservative MP with no say in who the new Labour Leader is and propping up Britcliffe. Labour rejuvenated with an electric leader contest yet someone who could have made a real difference to Hyndburn (for the remaining 3 half years post Gordon) on a lifetimes gardening leave.

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by g jones

The worst scenario is regretting allowing in a poor Conservative MP with no say in who the new Labour Leader is and propping up Britcliffe. Labour rejuvenated with an electric leader contest yet someone who could have made a real difference to Hyndburn (for the remaining 3 half years post Gordon) on a lifetimes gardening leave.

Sorry Graham, I've had a glass of beer already and I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you explain please?

[Taggy]

Originally Posted by g jones

I accept that. That's life. I don't think I will be standing again. This is my one chance to represent the place where I live. One resident in Haslingden asked me to stand twice so he could vote for me next time! It's all about choices.

If Gordon loses but I win, then we will have to start looking for new leader within months (despite the football manager cliche - "I have a job to do") and you'll probably have the best of both worlds reading your post Taggy.

The worst scenario is regretting allowing in a poor Conservative MP with no say in who the new Labour Leader is and propping up Britcliffe. Labour rejuvenated with an electric leader contest yet someone who could have made a real difference to Hyndburn (for the remaining 3 half years post Gordon) on a lifetimes gardening leave.

Graham...when you say that you dont think you'll stand again, are you talking win or lose there...meaning you'll only sit for one Parliament?

As i say..this is a real dilemma for me, because i know of all the candidates for Hyndburn, you are the one i know will try their best for the local people and area. But i dont see how i can vote for one of the major parties and yet still send out the message that i'm not happy with the current state of British Politics!...Its just going to revert to same old same old.

Again, counterbalancing that is that i really cannot stand Cameron, and what he stands for! His latest gimmic is saying that he want "the public"to be given more control over how the Country is run....yet he wouldn't even allow Local Conservative Associations, control over selection of prospective candidates...so not much chance for the rest of us oiks if he did get in is there!

So there's the problem...the best chance of defeating Cameron is to stick with labour! Labour then gets in...and feels vindicated for the decisions they've made...and nothing changes! Even if Brown where to go...i dont see any dynamic replacement on the Horizon ....Johnston is probably the obvious standout alternative...but i'm not convinced by him either!

So thats where i'm stuck....vote Labour for the best candidate for Hyndburn and to keep Cameron out!...Or protest vote/No vote...to try to engineer a radical change in politics!! Its a tough one Graham!


Best Regards - Taggy

[g jones]

It would be sad to lose because of an anti-Gordon Brown feeling. I doubt I'll stand again. I'd like to think I'll bring something grassroots to politics that is missing. Yet perversely if I lose I am concerned we creep back to career politicians.

A week is long time in politics. Cameron could go after the election. So could Brown (and the normal thing is to go after not winning if we are being honest). If Taggy 'believes I would make a good MP' and he also believes 'Brown goes, Labour will be resurgent' post Brown, where next?

Was a protest vote/abstention worth it?

I'd like to think we'll vote on what's best for Hyndburn over the next 4 years, not just 2 months if Gordon did decide to pack it in.

[g jones]

double post

[g jones]

Originally Posted by Taggy

Graham...when you say that you dont think you'll stand again, are you talking win or lose there...meaning you'll only sit for one Parliament?

As i say..this is a real dilemma for me, because i know of all the candidates for Hyndburn, you are the one i know will try their best for the local people and area. But i dont see how i can vote for one of the major parties and yet still send out the message that i'm not happy with the current state of British Politics!...Its just going to revert to same old same old.

Again, counterbalancing that is that i really cannot stand Cameron, and what he stands for! His latest gimmic is saying that he want "the public"to be given more control over how the Country is run....yet he wouldn't even allow Local Conservative Associations, control over selection of prospective candidates...so not much chance for the rest of us oiks if he did get in is there!

So there's the problem...the best chance of defeating Cameron is to stick with labour! Labour then gets in...and feels vindicated for the decisions they've made...and nothing changes! Even if Brown where to go...i dont see any dynamic replacement on the Horizon ....Johnston is probably the obvious standout alternative...but i'm not convinced by him either!

So thats where i'm stuck....vote Labour for the best candidate for Hyndburn and to keep Cameron out!...Or protest vote/No vote...to try to engineer a radical change in politics!! Its a tough one Graham!


Best Regards - Taggy

I'll sit for more than one if people want me to. If I lose then that's my time gone. I will not stand outside of Hyndburn. I am not a carpet bagger.

I think there are some complex issues. It's not a presidential campaign and it is being turned in to that I think. It is about individual members of parliament and then the Leader has to win the votes of members - say me if I was elected. Gordon has to earn his spurs.

I think these are the class acts for Labour and Gordon will be under a lot of pressure. I would consider Ben Bradshaw for Leader in the near future. Honest, intelligent, down to earth, class act and comfortably better than the three on the stage last night.

Ben Bradshaw 66/1
Alistair Darling 20/1
John Denham 33/1
Alan Johnson 6/1
Douglas Alexander (no odds)
Liam Byrne 80/1
Sean Woodward 50/1
Sadique Khan

[Taggy]

Originally Posted by g jones

It would be sad to lose because of an anti-Gordon Brown feeling. I doubt I'll stand again. I'd like to think I'll bring something grassroots to politics that is missing. Yet perversely if I lose I am concerned we creep back to career politicians.

A week is long time in politics. Cameron could go after the election. So could Brown (and the normal thing is to go after not winning if we are being honest). If Taggy 'believes I would make a good MP' and he also believes 'Brown goes, Labour will be resurgent' post Brown, where next?

Was a protest vote/abstention worth it?

I'd like to think we'll vote on what's best for Hyndburn over the next 4 years, not just 2 months if Gordon did decide to pack it in.

Yes Graham..I do believe you would make a good MP...unfortunately i dont believe that if Brown goes...that Labour would be resurgent!...As i say..i'm pretty sure Johnston would get the nod if that were the case! Ok he's prob got more going for him than Gordon....but it doesn't fill me with excitment.....and hell neither does Darling at 20/1!!

The problem isn't Brown to my way of thinking...the Problem is Polictics itself...and how its delvered and apparently accepted these days!

I think the time may now have come to be more radical.....how else will things change! Yes if i'm just thinking local...then your the one i'd plump for...but in sticking with a mainstream party then the message doesn't get through does it...at the end of the day for the most part you'd have to toe the party line...willingly or otherwise....and where would be the breath of fresh air we need?.....where would the change thats needed in politics come from?

Best Regards - Taggy

[g jones]

I accept your point Taggy.

[g jones]

I accept your point Taggy.

I know exactly what causes and what I would line to do and I know that I'll have to stand my ground on some.

[garinda]

I just think it's hilariously sad, that as a country, we've now become so obsessed with media performance. In exactly the same way America has been for the last fifty years.

There have been no new policies, or manifestos issued since the orchestrated debate was broadcast, but based on the best acting performance, we've awarded the competitors a first, second, and third place. All that was missing was Simon Cowell, giving each contestant a little critique, and telling them if the public vote them back, they'll have to give 110% next week.

To me, what's important are polices. What's actually going to happen if a party forms the next government.

Do I care who the best orator is, in this equivalent of the upper sixth form debating society? No, I couldn't give a fig, as long as they have the ability to communicate effectively.

The most watched programme on our boxes is Britain's Got Talent, and to me this 'live' debate was just as farcical.

They are done in front of an invited audience, who are forbidden from spontaneous applause, or making audible comments. The participants have been coached for weeks, by media experts flown in from the U.S. Teams of people have worked on everything from their voice tone, to the way their ties are knotted.

It's theatre.

Not very good theatre.

All this talk of us needing a great 'statesmen' is nonesense too.

Why?

Are we going to send them off to the finals of World Statesman of the Year 2010 in Latvia, later in the year?

You don't need to be a great orator, physically 'attractive' to the masses, well groomed, and more polished than the Koh-i-Noor diamond, to be a great politican.

As a closing thought, regarding statesmenship. The history books will probably record the greatest British statesmen of the last half century, as being someone who carried a handbag.

[Taggy]

Originally Posted by g jones

I accept your point Taggy.

I know exactly what causes and what I would line to do and I know that I'll have to stand my ground on some.

I'd have found it very easy to vote for you if you ran as an Independant Candidate...but i guess that could never have been on the cards Graham!

Best Regards - Taggy

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by garinda

I just think it's hilariously sad, that as a country, we've now become so obsessed with media performance. In exactly the same way America has been for the last fifty years.

There have been no new policies, or manifestos issued since the orchestrated debate was broadcast, but based on the best acting performance, we've awarded the competitors a first, second, and third place. All that was missing was Simon Cowell, giving each contestant a little critique, and telling them if the public vote them back, they'll have to give 110% next week.

To me, what's important are polices. What's actually going to happen if a party forms the next government.

Do I care who the best orator is, in this equivalent of the upper sixth form debating society? No, I couldn't give a fig, as long as they have the ability to communicate effectively.

The most watched programme on our boxes is Britain's Got Talent, and to me this 'live' debate was just as farcical.

They are done in front of an invited audience, who are forbidden from spontaneous applause, or making audible comments. The participants have been coached for weeks, by media experts flown in from the U.S. Teams of people have worked on everything from their voice tone, to the way their ties are knotted.

It's theatre.

Not very good theatre.

All this talk of us needing a great 'statesmen' is nonesense too.

Why?

Are we going to send them off to the finals of World Statesman of the Year 2010 in Latvia, later in the year?

You don't need to be a great orator, physically 'attractive' to the masses, well groomed, and more polished than the Koh-i-Noor diamond, to be a great politican.

As a closing thought, regarding statesmenship. The history books will probably record the greatest British statesmen of the last half century, as being someone who carried a handbag.

I agree with most of what you say.Probably the greatest Labour leader was Clem Attlee. Brought in the Welfare State, National Health Service etc. And yet Attlee would not have come over well in a debate such as last night.

[Taggy]

Originally Posted by garinda

I just think it's hilariously sad, that as a country, we've now become so obsessed with media performance. In exactly the same way America has been for the last fifty years.

There have been no new policies, or manifestos issued since the orchestrated debate was broadcast, but based on the best acting performance, we've awarded the competitors a first, second, and third place. All that was missing was Simon Cowell, giving each contestant a little critique, and telling them if the public vote them back, they'll have to give 110% next week.

To me, what's important are polices. What's actually going to happen if a party forms the next government.

Do I care who the best orator is, in this equivalent of the upper sixth form debating society? No, I couldn't give a fig, as long as they have the ability to communicate effectively.

The most watched programme on our boxes is Britain's Got Talent, and to me this 'live' debate was just as farcical.

They are done in front of an invited audience, who are forbidden from spontaneous applause, or making audible comments. The participants have been coached for weeks, by media experts flown in from the U.S. Teams of people have worked on everything from their voice tone, to the way their ties are knotted.

It's theatre.

Not very good theatre.

All this talk of us needing a great 'statesmen' is nonesense too.

Why?

Are we going to send them off to the finals of World Statesman of the Year 2010 in Latvia, later in the year?

You don't need to be a great orator, physically 'attractive' to the masses, well groomed, and more polished than the Koh-i-Noor diamond, to be a great politican.

As a closing thought, regarding statesmenship. The history books will probably record the greatest British statesmen of the last half century, as being someone who carried a handbag.

All that you say is pretty much on the mark there, but it does leave the question to be answered then....who in Politics do you trust....Yes its Policies that Matter.....but Policies..like Pledges, have to be turned into reality, who do you trust to do that....how many governments have actually honoured their Policies/Pledges?....i would bet if we had to disect the manifesto's of previous Governments through the ages, we would find that most have failed to deliver!

If we accept that.....then on what do we base our future choices??


Best Regards - Taggy

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Bernard Dawson

I agree with most of what you say.Probably the greatest Labour leader was Clem Attlee. Brought in the Welfare State, National Health Service etc. And yet Attlee would not have come over well in a debate such as last night.

Some of the best politicans this country ever produced wouldn't have been telegenic enough to attain power today.

Even Churchill wouldn't have made the selection stages to be a M.P., having a face more suited to the wireless.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Taggy

All that you say is pretty much on the mark there, but it does leave the question to be answered then....who in Politics do you trust....Yes its Policies that Matter.....but Policies..like Pledges, have to be turned into reality, who do you trust to do that....how many governments have actually honoured their Policies/Pledges?....i would bet if we had to disect the manifesto's of previous Governments through the ages, we would find that most have failed to deliver!

If we accept that.....then on what do we base our future choices??


Best Regards - Taggy

Well personally I give my trust in the party/person who has the best policies.

I won't be basing my decision on who can look, and act, the most honest.