• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: Norwich North

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Norwich North"

Collapse

  • sweetandsour
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    I didn't know that you applied for a peerage these days. F*** me, what has this country come to?
    Originally posted by The Lone Gunman View Post
    Funny isnt it. NL wanted to abolish the upper house, and the class system is anathama to left of centre politics, but tit seems they can put those ideals to one side when it comes to advancing their own cause.
    NL are in the process of "reforming" the House of Lords.

    They haven't finished the job yet but most of the hereditary seats have gone now and that was probably as far as their agenda wanted to take them.

    Does anyone know why the Norwich North count is not taking place until tomorrow? Is there a rat to be smelt?

    Leave a comment:


  • centurian
    replied
    Originally posted by lilelvis2000 View Post
    Does anyone know if he was a blairite or a brownite?
    I don't think he could stand either of them. Very much old-labour.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilelvis2000
    replied
    Originally posted by PM-Junkie View Post
    That's an interesting viewpoint. Particularly since even labour have admitted they don't stand much chance of winning, and are conducting a damage limitation exercise saying that their vote will plummet because labour voters "will stay home because of the way the previous MP was treated".

    At best, labour will come 4th.


    Perhaps. I think the Greens got the most votes in the euro voting...but doubt that will translate into a seat here. I still think voters will tick next to the Labour candidate...perhaps because they felt the MP got a raw deal?

    Does anyone know if he was a blairite or a brownite?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Lone Gunman
    replied
    Originally posted by sweetandsour View Post
    EDIT

    There was an article in the New Statesman a couple of months ago talking about the number of Labour MPs that have applied for the House of Lords:
    http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/05/...ps-party-lords
    In case you don't want to click the link (and I wouldn't blame you) it essentially says that 52 current Labour MPs have applied to join the House of Lords. This is a record and suggests that the MPs are expecting a heavy defeat.
    Funny isnt it. NL wanted to abolish the upper house, and the class system is anathama to left of centre politics, but tit seems they can put those ideals to one side when it comes to advancing their own cause.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilelvis2000
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Since when do chavs vote?
    Since they fell in love with the one eyed bastard.

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    I didn't know that you applied for a peerage these days. F*** me, what has this country come to?
    You used to be able to buy them. For 50 Gs Lloyd George would flash you a peerage.

    Now there was nothing new about the practice of selling honours, or indeed of using the funds as a means of party financing. This had been going on for some time, but by tradition such deals were made with a nod and a wink over a glass of port in the Carlton or Reform clubs. What distinguished the sale of honours under Lloyd George was the sheer scale of the operation and the brazen manner in which honours were offered for sale. Ostensibly handled by Lloyd George's Chief Whip Freddy Guest and his press agent William Sutherland, the operation was actually run by a former actor and theatrical impressario by the name of Maundy Gregory. Gregory had his own offices in Parliament Square and openly touted the sale of honours on official government letters that were sent out boasting of the "exceptional opportunity" on offer. There was even a published tariff with a knighthood being available for £10,000, a baronetcy for £30,000, with a peerage title costing upwards of £50,000.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by sweetandsour View Post
    I haven't done any research but I would assume that those all had independent incomes outside the House of Commons and could afford to fund themselves through the wilderness years.

    The ousted Labour MPs are going to have to get day jobs. That won't necessarily stop them coming back but does make it rather less likely.

    EDIT

    There was an article in the New Statesman a couple of months ago talking about the number of Labour MPs that have applied for the House of Lords:
    http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/05/...ps-party-lords
    In case you don't want to click the link (and I wouldn't blame you) it essentially says that 52 current Labour MPs have applied to join the House of Lords. This is a record and suggests that the MPs are expecting a heavy defeat.
    I didn't know that you applied for a peerage these days. F*** me, what has this country come to?

    Leave a comment:


  • Menelaus
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Since when do chavs vote?
    it's worse than that, the ****ers breed

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
    I take the place is full of thick-as-pigtulip chavs on benefits and public sector workers then?
    Since when do chavs vote?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cyberman
    replied
    My money is on UKIP to win this one, with Tories second, and Labour third.

    Leave a comment:


  • sweetandsour
    replied
    Originally posted by Menelaus View Post
    Not necessarily. See:
    • Malcolm Rifkind
    • Michael Portillo
    • Alan Clarke

    Admittedly, all Tories, but after losing elections were subsequently returned to the Commons in a different constituency.
    I haven't done any research but I would assume that those all had independent incomes outside the House of Commons and could afford to fund themselves through the wilderness years.

    The ousted Labour MPs are going to have to get day jobs. That won't necessarily stop them coming back but does make it rather less likely.

    EDIT

    There was an article in the New Statesman a couple of months ago talking about the number of Labour MPs that have applied for the House of Lords:
    http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/05/...ps-party-lords
    In case you don't want to click the link (and I wouldn't blame you) it essentially says that 52 current Labour MPs have applied to join the House of Lords. This is a record and suggests that the MPs are expecting a heavy defeat.
    Last edited by sweetandsour; 23 July 2009, 12:52. Reason: Added the link.

    Leave a comment:


  • Menelaus
    replied
    Originally posted by sweetandsour View Post
    On the one hand that would make a lot of sense but timeframes for politicians are different from everybody else's.

    Labour MPs now might be resigned to the fact that they will be out of government next year and the best that the party can hope for will be to be back four or five years later, but it will be the end of their political career for the MPs that lose their seats.
    Not necessarily. See:
    • Malcolm Rifkind
    • Michael Portillo
    • Alan Clarke

    Admittedly, all Tories, but after losing elections were subsequently returned to the Commons in a different constituency.

    Leave a comment:


  • Menelaus
    replied
    Originally posted by PM-Junkie View Post
    I'm not so sure he is calling the shots anymore. Watch out, there's a Machievellian twunt about
    fixed that for you.

    HTH

    Leave a comment:


  • expat
    replied
    Originally posted by PM-Junkie View Post
    I'm not so sure he is calling the shots anymore. Watch out, there's a mandy about
    Good point, unfortunately.

    Leave a comment:


  • Menelaus
    replied
    Originally posted by PM-Junkie View Post
    ...indeed. Says a lot about labour's expectations doesn't it?

    I personally am coming to the opinion that they don't actually want to be re-elected next year. I reckon their strategy is to let the tories take the flack for having to implement policies that will hack people off and try to blame them for the grief that people suffer because the country is broke - and then get elected next time. Problem is that there are enough dumb people in this country to actually fall for that if it is true.
    Yep.

    Watching the psychiatric breakdown of Brown is like the end of Downfall (excellent film, btw - for Bruno Ganz if nothing else) but its something of a concern that people look on it as a spectator sport.

    This strikes me as being very, very similar to the final months of the Major government in 1997. He knew there was no hope in hell of winning but, unlike the current incumbent, he was a decent chap who didn't decide to engage in a scorched earth policy.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X