The Ed Balls files...

[Lizard]

Technically true, BUT, whoever leads a political party is generally the person the public will scrutinise more than anyone else before putting that big X in the box, do you honestly think that Nu-Labour would have been so popular and won 3 terms if it had not been for Blair, I don't think so.

[David Johnson]

Not taken your daily pill I see, Jimbo.

[David Johnson]

So am I not allowed to suggest that ALL political parties have scheming within their ranks to undermine people and/or gain political power? This is not permitted by you?

Please provide Thought Police guidelines, Jimbo on what criticisms can/cannot be made of political parties apart from Labour on this forum?

We await your forum guidelines with interest.

Maybe you could get them added to FAQ? Tnen you wouldnt have to keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. Just a helpful thought!

Cheerio
David

[Robches]

Come on David, you have to admit that the Blair/Brown feud was spectacular by any standards. It completely poisoned relations throughout the government, and divided Labour MPs into two camps. The Granita agreement really was unprecedented. People like Heseltine may have wanted to become PM, and plotted to get there, but they never had an agreement from the sitting MP that he or she would step down in their favour. It was a mark of Blair's political immaturity that he ever agreed to it. He should have told Brown to stand against him after John Smith died, and may the best man win.

[David Johnson]

Hi
I agree it was a spectacular feud and a lot of energy was wasted senselessly.

Having said that I still think that the two of them achieved a lot more in terms of meeting their electoral promises than the current lot will ever do even taking into account the fact that it is a coalition givernment.

As for Blair agreeing to let Brown take over, I don't see how that indicates more division in the Labour party, than the likes of Heseltine and Portillo biding their time for years to become Tory leader.

Cheers
D

[jimslip]

When you start having balanced debates rather than your hysterical, one sided, bludgeoning of other peoples opinions, when they don't tally with your New Labour dogma, then I am sure myself and others will take you seriously.

When you stop only applying "Facts" that tally with your own opinion, but choose to ignore or rubbish, facts that don't, then you will be worth debating with.

At the moment you are as interesting and challenging to argue with as it would be with a Fundamentalist Muslim or Christian or in fact any other deluded zealot of whatever crazed cause they believe in.

In your case it is your unquestionning loyalty to a mere political party. A party that is now devoid of all principles, honesty or even ideas. God in Heaven at least be a zeolot for something worthwhile, like World Peace or to Eradicate World Poverty, but to be a crazed fan of New Fucking Labour do me a favour! !laugh!

Read about the dreams and principles of Labour Governments after the war. People with a dream for the people of GB. People who selflessly governed for the benefit of us all.

This present day bunch of self serving tossers must adore the likes of you, zealots that are guaranteed to be apologists for absolutely any fuck up that they commit! Oh how they must cackle with laughter, whilst they discuss "policy" and sip bubbly in Quaglino's!! The old Labour hierachy would have been sick to the stomach by your present day puppet-masters!

Finally, there is always the hint of aggression and menace in your posts when you are faced with an opponent who dares to challenge you. However, I am glad to see that more and more are rising to the challenge of breaking your stranglehold on the OT forum! Your, relentless strutting up and down the corridors of the BGAFD, finger wagging and telling people off, are drawig to a close, revolution is afoot, Comrade!