Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Wow! Lammy to consider running for Labour leadership
Any other links?
I have favoured Andy Burnham, but with David in the running, this would be a game changer.
https://mobile.twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/596947289727488000
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Same old leader-leader-leader bullshit! Focusing on 'The One'; And ignoring teamwork. The question of 'Who?'. Instead of. crucially, reconsidering the 'What', 'Why' and 'How'.
The Guardian on 8 May was was full of commentators whose articles assumed a hung Parliament and that the political class would be deep in coalition wrangling. Instant obsolescence. (And perhaps enjoyable if you like alternative universe Sci-Fi.)
Though Gaby Hinsliff's "Letter to the Losing Party Leaders" made me think that Ed Miliband may have been overhasty. She suggests there was potential for departing leaders to have a constructive temporary "caretaker" role.
-
Permalink Reply by stuart on
-
I have not had a lot to laugh about lately but this this has left me rolling in the isles, To be a leader , you MUST lead , Mr Lammy is a sheep (a follower ) trying to forge out his life as a career politican., This last election show this , the amount of canvassing done on the ladder by him or his grassroots followers was zero to my knowledge. He will set the party back even further than they are now
-
-
I have not had a lot to laugh about lately but this this has left me rolling in the isles,
Stuart, I take it that would be in the Western Isles, as opposed to the local supermarket aisles, yes?
-
-
Granted , my spelling is not good . But can you honestly see this man as a leader of anything.
-
-
No! is my only possible answer, Stuart. And that goes for the Mayoralty, too.
-
Permalink Reply by matthew cuthbert on
-
Here's the article Alan mentioned
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/07/letter-to-elec...
-
-
May thanks, Matthew. Apologies for my sloppiness in mentioning an article and then forgetting to cut and paste the link.
-
-
Anoush Chakelian of YouGov, suggested on the BBC that Labour might be better to select a fresh face, not associated with Labour's previous term in Government.
Plausible contenders in summary :
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/ed-miliband-resigns-wh...
-
-
Still focussed on Who?
Even though it may be "discovering" a relative newcomer with star qualities. Maybe even some "junior" MP who's been researching or otherwise working in the Leader's office and perhaps ghosting hit speeches behind the curtain. And who can now step out of the shadows. A star is born.
Sounds silly? I think the silliness is in the idea that politics can always be reduced to who will be the President, Caudillo, Duce, Leader etc. One person - charismatic, telegenic all-powerful Party Leader. And the same model can then be imposed on every other elected body. To give us pumped-up, jumped-up over-powerful unchecked Mayors and Council Leaders.
But now suppose, Matthew, that we ask some far more sensible questions. Such as where's the team? And what do we want them to do? Then, specifically thinking of the New Statesman article, how daft that it lists some talented interesting people, and then tells us we can only have one.
Who says? The TV producers who insist on a leaders debate? Actually we can try to have all of them. And answer fruitful questions about how would we get people with different experience, talents and abilities to storm and norm and form a team which wins "matches" in the House of Commons and in the country? And eventually the "cup"?
Perhaps there's a parallel with the decline of amateur sport and a focus on elite competition and gold medal winners. But in a healthy democracy shouldn't "politics" be a very widespread activity at every level?
One of the consequences of the decline of traditional political membership organisations is that the pool of people narrows. They can become little echo chambers The obsession with picking "leaders" is both a consequence and a cause of this situation worsening. If you're just leaflet delivering and door-knocking fodder and the leadership is not interested in your views, why stay in a political party or attend its increasingly empty meetings?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
I'm more convinced that people vote for parties rather than personalities.
In Tottenham, people voted for the incumbent, despite his qualities and in H&WG, people voted against the incumbent, despite her qualities. The absence of any element of proportional representation is unfair to the smaller parties who still have significant support: UKIP, Lib Dems and Green. The Conservatives, Labour and Scottish National parties all take seats disproportionately large to their vote.
--
Many HoLers may have missed an electronic advertising hoarding in Highgate Ward, that ran for several days in the run-up to the election.
It's enormous (IMO, too big for all purposes), behind an Archway Road bus-stop and faces down the twin-lanes of the heavily trafficked arterial road at the point where two lanes are forced to merge into one. It will have been seen by tens of thousands and the thrust of the message was probably in the mind of many voters who never saw it.
The puppeteer is unmistakably the formidable Ms Sturgeon The head of the puppet is a generic male, rather than Ed Milliband; though few doubt Ms Sturgeon when she said that if Labour won, Ed would have to change his tune the day after the election (on dealing with the SNP).
The small print, that must be a record for smallness, is on the left, turned 90° and is illegible; since this ad was aimed at drivers and just one cycling through many commercial ones, I doubt anyone was able to read it. Though it's probably not hard to guess which party put this up – and I suspect it was effective (click to enlarge).
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
