Labour hypocrisy
“We can expose the duplicity and opportunism of the Tories” said Ms Harman to rally support for the Labour party in the May local elections. The words pot, kettle and black come to mind.
Would that be the same duplicity in spending 10 years in office espousing the need for electoral finance reform before it turns out that almost every candidate in the deputy-leadership election did not adhere to the laws they helped pass on the topic?
Would that be the same opportunism, Ms Harman, as when Gordon Brown decided to call an election in 2007… then call it off when the Tories looked too strong in the polls? Would it be the same opportunism as nicking their policy on inheritance tax in the process? Surely the right honorable Labourites would not steal the policies of “the same old nasty party” as she described them…
This is a fairly typical display of why I find it so hard to support Labour - not only do they display complete incompetence in government (election that never was, credit crisis, data handling, campaign financing and I am sure I have missed one or two other blunders from the last few months) but they also have the audacity to opportunistically accuse other parties of opportunism to save some face.
Well, Ms Harman, you have certainly lost my vote, and many others’ besides. Not that you ever really had mine in the first place.
I agree. And seeying as the Tories seeming to be suffering from similar hypocrisy (see Derek Conway), presumably you would agree that the only real option would be to vote Lib Dem?
Fortunately, this country recognises that our current government led by, (as Vincent Cable called him), a fusion of Mr.Bean and Stalin, with a cabinet of incompetents, are a complete joke. They will no doubt suffer the consequences of their incompetence at the next election.
Gordon Brown did not decide to call an election in 2007; and even if he did, why should he go ahead with it if he thinks he’s going to lose? Do you think any other candidate belonging to any other party would have acted differently?
As for blunders you’ve missed, you might want to mention the floods, poor result for ‘Atonement’ at the Baftas, and my [Ed: redacted].
Though I agree that Harman is insufferable.
Leo, don’t be ridiculous! Gordon Brown allowed a media circus to develop around the idea that he was due to hold a general election. He did not deny it, fed the hype, then bottled it when he knew he would lose! Quite ironic considering that he wrote a book called “Courage”. I just hope he does not display similar indecision on the important choices he must make as PM on a daily basis. Though, as can be seen with the current lack of focus and direction in his cabinet, it would appear he does not have a clue what he is doing their either!
Even if I were to concede that he “decided” to hold an election, which you haven’t come close to proving, it still doesn’t change the main point which is that any politician in any political party would have done the same thing. Of course he’s not going to call an election if he thinks he’ll lose. It’s called politics.
Also, I’m relieved to discover that the former title, “Labour Hypocracy” wasn’t some pun that I didn’t get, but was rather just a spelling error.
You quite clearly were not following the news at the time, Leo. Brown refused to say whether or not he would hold an election which fed the idea that he was. He clearly intended to; if he did not even consider holding an election then he would have said no to the speculation immediately. Labour do not deny they considered it either.
And I perfectly well understand WHY Brown decided not to call it. Exactly as you say, because he would lose it. All I am saying though is that that is the same opportunism as Harman points to only existing in other parties, and is a great display of weakness and indecision in the PM. Sure the reason is politics, but it doesn’t mean he isn’t a weak, indecisive and shoddy leader.
James, you quite clearly don’t understand the rudiments of English syntax. Somehow you have managed to turn “refused to say whether or not” into “decided to”. As you say, he did not make a decision one way or another - you can hardly say that he fed a media circus, since he was merely keeping his options open.
It became politically unwise to call an election, so he didn’t call one - not that he ever said that he would. That’s how the game is played, and he played by the rules. You can judge him as weak etc. if you wish, but if making rash decisions that aren’t thought through and considered is your idea of strength, then you’re welcome to it.
(Though Cameron hardly seems the towering fortress of iron resolve.)
My right honourable friend James, if you had been in Gordon Brown’s position, and, being the idealistic youth that you apparently are, had a number of noble changes you wanted to make to the country of Britain, are you honestly saying that if you thought you’d lose the elections you’d still call them?
There’s nothing immoral about using the political system the way it was meant to be used. Criticising Brown for not calling an election is like criticising Labour for not giving the LibDems a ‘fairer’ number of MPs, more proportional to the number they would receive in a PR system.
[quote] This is a fairly typical display of why I find it so hard to support Labour - not only do they display complete incompetence in government… [/quote]
Whereas of course John Major’s government was a beacon of great leadership and ran the country exceptionally.
This point about calling an election: the government can call one whenever they want. Brown decided not to call one, mainly, if you had actually read the real reasons behind it, because Labour had a lack of funds to fight an election, whereas the Tories had plenty of money. He was worried that this would mean they couldn’t fight the election to the fullest extent.
What was actually “opportunism”, was that Cameron decided to try and “score points” by criticisng Brown for not calling the election.
Thank you Adam for you patronising reply.
I never said anything in favour of John Major - you assume I like him. Nor did I say Cameron was not opportunistic. What I did say was that Labour are hypocritical in claiming not to be when they so clearly are.
I am aware that Brown can call an election whenever he wants; I am studying politics to degree level. Nor did I deny it. But funding was a small part - if you had been reading real newspapers which had been polling at the time you’d realise that the Tories shot up in the polls after announcing attractive policies on inheritance taxes which scared Brown. He decided not to call the election. He was entitled to do so. But it was opportunistic, and Harman should not go around making out like her party is nothing but opportunistic as ALL parties are. It’s a shame, Adam, that you do not apply the same critique to the Labour party as you do to “the nasty party”. Perhaps you are as deluded as Ms Harman.
Thank you Adam for you patronising reply…..if you had been reading real newspapers
That says it all really..the word contradiction springs to mind.
Undoubtedly, the Tory’s shot up in the polls, but it was only following Mr. Brown’s decision not to call an election that they overtook Labour in the opinion polls.
My point about when you can call an election, is that you claim it was opportunistic not to. However, the whole idea of Opportunism, is that you take advantage of something. Mr. Brown didn’t take advantage of anything.
Young Adam! I said you were being patronising - I didn’t say I wouldn’t be in response. I see no contradiction.
Thanks for defining opportunism.
Firstly, if your definition is correct, then Gordon Brown was opportunistic. He took advatnage of the polls. But of course your definition is wrong anyway.
Dictionary.com defines opportunism as “the policy or practice, as in politics, business, or one’s personal affairs, of adapting actions, decisions, etc., to expediency or effectiveness regardless of the sacrifice of ethical principles.”
Clearly, taking advantage of something is not its definition - it is the adaptation of action to situation. As Gordon Brown did.
If you wish to rebut my argument, do not invent definitions and point out faux-contradictions.
From the free dictionary: taking immediate advantage, often unethically of any circumstances of any possible benefit.
Are you now gonna say my dictionary was written by the Labour party?
I think I already showed you that he did indeed “take immediate advantage” of the situation. Under that definition he was opportunistic!