What is so special about a rich MP?

What is so special about a rich MP is that he thinks he is special because he is rich.

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/the-real-economic-free-riders-are-the-privileged-not-the-poorest-citizens/

POGS. Or is it natural to do that because they are defensive. So see all posts as being about themselves?

djen by 'one of you' I meant that he was Labour ( and not Socialist) although of course, one person's thoughts of Socialism may be different to another ones.
Monica you have just said all the things I was about to say, so saved me the bother.

What makes anybody think that a labour party under Gordon Brown would be electable? The only election Brown faced as Prime Minister he lost! What is more for all his famed prudence he thoroughly 'b***d up the economy.

As it was he gambled that all the money he borrowed to fulfill all his dreams would easily be repaid as the economy grew. If he had been as prudent as he said he was, he would have factored in the possibility of an economic catastrophe and had a Plan B. In fact if he had read the newspapers, listened to the media pundits and political colleagues in other parties or just listened to the views of ordinary people, he would have realised that theeconomy was already probably on a fast route to economic collapse and should, if he was so prudent, not have borrowed so much.

For those who abhor the Blair/Brown years and believe there is strong electoral support for a true socialist labour party I would ask them to look at the way the vote has gone in the last two elections. When labour was dumped in 2010 the electors, voted for parties to the right of labour, not for the greens or other groups with socialist leanings. In 2015 they moved even further to the right, rejecting the lib dems for a solidly conservative government. What makes you think that these voters are going to vote en masse for a leftwards moving labour party?

Elections are won on the votes of voters who do not belong to any party at all. So how ever much the party zealots of any party rush round talking to each other and convincing each other that the world is their oyster because every party member thinks like them. When it comes to elections it is one person one vote and the majority of voters are not party zealots.

You've answered your own point there, roses.
There is no way that you and I should be voting for the same person/party.
It proves Blair was not a socialist, as you would never vote for one.

I thought Monicas post very good and an interesting point actually, all this ' unperson-ing' of Tony Blair which is going on.A sort of 'we don't like you,you are
NOT ONE OF US!'
Well, he was one of you, he made the Labour Party modern and popular, and was the nearest I ever came to voting Labour.
The question now is, who will replace Corbyn ( because he will have to go.)He is doing the opposite of Blair in making Labour un-electable.

Well, I went back to Labour and voted for Blair as I thought I saw a Labour Party that had moved forward from the idioicy of the past, a modern Labour party fit for the age. I think what we now call New Labour proved successful with the voter but like all parties the warts started to get noticed , hence a change of government .

There is a mantra by those who dislike Blair , usually they say something like he was never Labour and I didn't/haven't voted Labour for years because of him. I don't know why I defending Monica but her post was not making personal comments she was generalising a pattern of behaviour in a general sense. The faux upset that followed was expected, as others have noted too, because posters elect to twist or misrepresent threads to make it all about them.

I know Brown didn't stand I mentioned him because only Blair and Mandelson were mentioned

Blair was besotted with Clinton's system of triangulation. It had worked for the President of the USA – it got him elected – and it worked for the PM of the UK – it got him elected. Draw a pattern of lines about who wants what and go for where they cross. Some of it was good – Northern Ireland Peace Treaty being the best – some of it was shit.

Yes, but Brown didn't stand. If ifs and ans were pots and pans there'd be no need for tinkers.

In which case it would have been a completely different Labour party, as it would if John Smith hadn't died. But he did.

Grumppa, Blair, Mandalson and Brown, I believe if Brown had stood for leadership he would have won .

The trouble with Blair and Mandelson was that they made Labour electable again, and this destroyed the purity of the Party's policies. How much better it would have been if Labour had not been in power since Callaghan but had remained pure while the country enjoyed thirty-six uninterrupted years of Conservative government.

The vote of no confidence in Jim Callaghan's government:
Labour politician Roy Hattersley was later to remark that the vote marked "the last rites" of 'old Labour'.

So can they be revived?

ps is this the wrong thread?
It seemed to follow on from previous posts, but has changed from the OP.

So, let me get this sorted out in my head.

If Blair only pretended to be Labour because he didn't think that he would be elected if he was real Labour, and he was really a Conservative, we have not actually had a proper Labour Government since, um, 1979.
We can't count Gordon Brown as he was not elected by the general public.

That is 37 years?
Surely not?

Actually Eloethan it WAS djen that made the comment that Blair ' only pretended to be Labour in order to get elected.' Just for the sake of accuracy you understand.

Do hope you feel better soon Elegran
and I agree - again you have put it so much better than I could

Some posters seem to be rich in feeling but a little lacking in logic and in accuracy in quoting from others. There have been many occasions where a statement has been interpreted as something far removed from what the poster said. It may have been inaccuracy on the poster's part, but my impression is of biassed interpretation.

I imagine someone will now demand that I substantiate that with a direct quote - sorry, at this very moment (with a high temperature and a raging sore throat) I can only offer it as a general impression without searching the archives. If anyone would really like exact examples, then do ask. I shall keep a lookout for them and collect them for a future post.

How many times do I have to say it. I did NOT liken durhamjen's way of thinking to that of a terrorist.

I just said that those in the Labour party who are taking part in the unpersoning of Tony Blair are using a thought process that can end in extremism. I have not said that any of them have reached the end of the road and are extremists of any kind. The reports of the process of unpersoning now taking place have been in the media for weeks and none of my comments refer to any individual on Gransnet or anywhere else. However since the subject was aired in this thread I wrote down the worries I felt when I first read the media reports.

I don't entirely agree with durhamjen's analysis because some people who traditionally vote Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat - sometimes more as a matter of habit rather than commitment - may be swayed to vote differently, particularly if they feel that party's proposals are more personally beneficial to them.

It is perhaps different for people who have signed up for Labour or Conservative party membership and/or who are wholly committed to its underlying ideology. I do agree that Blair positioned himself to appeal to Conservative and Lib Dem voters and in so doing shifted the party far from its original values.

I certainly don't think that "durhamjen*'s way of thinking should be likened to that of a terrorist.

Blair was labour, the villain was Mandelson . Some confuse Blairs time as PM with his life after Westminster . He was wrong on Iraq but he got many things right. There was a difference between labour and new labour ,Blair was new labour

Eloethan, you need to reread dj's post of sun 19.46pm

Monica It was Anniebach who suggested that Blair was not truly Labour but had just pretended he was in order to get elected, and so your remark re terrorism was aimed at her and others expressing a similar view. You obviously vehemently disagree with some of the opinions expressed on here but I don't think your comment adds anything sensible to the debate.

Trisher has already detailed how Blair's actions did not reflect his originally stated beliefs. Perhaps from the outset he "made the right noises" in order to get elected. Or perhaps he felt it necessary to change his stance in order to placate the right wing media which helped him to maintain popularity and power. Whatever one's opinion as to his motives, there is no denying that he adopted policies that were more in line with Conservative values than Labour ones, especially with regard to privatisation.

Can't be bothered, Monica.

I left the Labour party because of Blair, like many others I know. I did not unperson him, whatever that clever word means.

Are you telling me, and others, that Blair is/was a socialist? Your definition of socialist is different from mine, in that case.
My thought processes do not lead to Maoist or Stalinist thoughts, whatever you mean by that phrase.

Believe it or not, people are allowed to belong to any group and vote for any group still in this country. Nothing like Stalinist Russia or Maoist China.
I think you are trying to conflate things to fit your theory. It doesn't work.

If members of a group within the labour party wish to misinterprete what I have written and think I am insulting them, they are free to do so, I did not say they thought like terrorists. I said the thought processes that lead to people choosing to 'unperson' someone within a group they all used to belong to because they do not agree with them are the same kind of thought processes that lead other people into terrorism. These same thought processes led to the purges and show trials of Stalin and Mao.

In the your post immediately above you also misquoted what I said about members and voters.In an earlier post I made it clear that my comments referred only to those members of the labour party who are of the 'Blair was never really labour' persuasion. You promptly transposed that remark to refer to the electors at Sedgefield who voted for Tony Blair.

Now you are saying that I made a distinction between labour party members and voters. I did that in a situation where you took words from one paragraph I wrote where it was clear who these referred to and applied them to an entirely separate group mentioned in a different context in a different paragraph.

Please read the words in my posts in the order they are written and do not take a selection of words from my posts that appeal to you and rearrange them into a meaning that suits you better. That is a very right wing media habit.