Current Affairs The Labour Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its total cost was £789 million pounds and was open for less than a year. In the brief period that it was operating, it lost more money every two weeks than the O2 Arena (which replaced it) pays in ground rent for an entire year. It had four bailouts, totaling £179 million, in the time that it was open. They could only get rid of it by in effect giving it away, with later profits depending on development and whilst retaining the freehold (the O2 itself was later sold for £35 million between private firms).

This is not what is called success.

Don't think anyone can call it a success, but everything is easier in hindsight. I'm just happy it is still there (seeing was only supposed to be temporary) and it does bring in large events and therefore income now.

I'm sure you can go through countless examples of wrong decisions that have been profligate. Starting with the Olympic Stadium and the Garden Bridge, probably just between those two comes to half of the total for the dome.

While a government should be held accountable for the waste I don't think we should fixate on it.
 
I still don't understand why going to Oxbridge can be perceived as a bad thing. I'd prefer my party leader to have had a rigorous education at the best university in the world, than to have 2 Es at A level (Corbyn). Corbyn had far from a working class upbringing, and has also not done a proper job in his life.

Going to Oxbridge is not a bad thing at all, it's just when it is coupled with all the other aspects of the stereotypical politician (born into wealth, Eton/private school of high standing -> Oxbridge -> straight into politics) that makes me wonder if these people have the life skills and empathy to know what the country needs.
 
Since Labour can no longer call on the near 60 or so seats in Scotland they need someone to turn safe Tory seats red. Therefore you need a David Miliband type who has some crossover appeal as his centrist views are not going to alienate like a far leftie will.

I don't disagree with you that Labour needs someone with mass appeal, but I certainly don't think that person is David Miliband.
 
Are there any other prime candidates? I thought Burnham was probably the one who had the best chance. I can't see Watson/Smith/Eagle doing it.

It's difficult to say because I don't have a full knowledge of all the backbenchers and whether there are any decent prospects in there. However, in the recent leadership elections, you look at the likes of Corbyn, Owen Smith, Cooper, Kendall, etc, and it doesn't give you much confidence. I agree that Burnham was probably my pick of a bad bunch.
 
Regardless of which side people favour, Corbyn supported and advocated the PIRA's part in NI including a speech praising the Loughall Martyrs.

Different situations and scenarios of course, however I find it galling that Corbyn is lauded as a pacifist when he's certainly not.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

The ANC carried out all sorts of terrorist activities before apartheid fell and they and Mandela were (rightly IMO) lauded
 
I don't disagree with you that Labour needs someone with mass appeal, but I certainly don't think that person is David Miliband.

Always reminds me of this fella.....


norman-wisdom-exhibition-1422980008_20141003-1740-Norman-Wisdom.jpg



40962300_David_Mili_398630c.jpg
 
Going to Oxbridge is not a bad thing at all, it's just when it is coupled with all the other aspects of the stereotypical politician (born into wealth, Eton/private school of high standing -> Oxbridge -> straight into politics) that makes me wonder if these people have the life skills and empathy to know what the country needs.

The simple answer is that they don't. There should be no such thing as a professional politician.....
 
Don't think anyone can call it a success, but everything is easier in hindsight. I'm just happy it is still there (seeing was only supposed to be temporary) and it does bring in large events and therefore income now.

I'm sure you can go through countless examples of wrong decisions that have been profligate. Starting with the Olympic Stadium and the Garden Bridge, probably just between those two comes to half of the total for the dome.

While a government should be held accountable for the waste I don't think we should fixate on it.

The Garden Bridge hasn't been built - and hopefully never will - and the Olympic Stadium did actually deliver a Games that were rated as one of the best ever. The initial conception of the Dome delivered none of its promises and cost even more than the New Wembley did, which was itself a byword for massive overspending.

I agree we shouldn't fixate on waste, but waste of that kind was sort of a running theme in the New Labour years.
 
The Garden Bridge hasn't been built - and hopefully never will - and the Olympic Stadium did actually deliver a Games that were rated as one of the best ever. The initial conception of the Dome delivered none of its promises and cost even more than the New Wembley did, which was itself a byword for massive overspending.

I agree we shouldn't fixate on waste, but waste of that kind was sort of a running theme in the New Labour years.

I agree on the bridge, but how may millions have already been wasted on it? Again no problems with the stadium when it was designed and built for the olympics but the decisions after the games have been absurd and clearly wasted over £300 million of the tax payers money and looks like it has an on going cost to us also.

The dome is probably the worst example but all i was trying to point out was that waste is there whether it's a Labour or a Conservative government.
 
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

The ANC carried out all sorts of terrorist activities before apartheid fell and they and Mandela were (rightly IMO) lauded
Indeed. My point however was not about debating the Troubles (it's own thread indeed), but rather I disapprove with the pacifist view of Corbyn.

He can talk about non-military response to Syria and proclaim his desire global discussions for peace all he likes; for me it doesn't wash.

Corbyn has always leaned towards and praised groups who were involved in death and destruction here and abroad: PIRA; Hamas; Hezbollah et al.
 
Indeed. My point however was not about debating the Troubles (it's own thread indeed), but rather I disapprove with the pacifist view of Corbyn.

He can talk about non-military response to Syria and proclaim his desire global discussions for peace all he likes; for me it doesn't wash.

Corbyn has always leaned towards and praised groups who were involved in death and destruction here and abroad: PIRA; Hamas; Hezbollah et al.

You can say that about any politician though - Theresa May has proclaimed that she is a keen ally of the Saudis, that doesn't make her someone who thinks women shouldn't be allowed to drive or be outside unaccompanied by a male.
 
I agree on the bridge, but how may millions have already been wasted on it? Again no problems with the stadium when it was designed and built for the olympics but the decisions after the games have been absurd and clearly wasted over £300 million of the tax payers money and looks like it has an on going cost to us also.

The dome is probably the worst example but all i was trying to point out was that waste is there whether it's a Labour or a Conservative government.

I think the Garden Bridge* cost to the taxpayer is around £50 million, and you are right about it being a complete waste. I was just pointing out that the bridge will hopefully never get built, and the Olympic Stadium did actually deliver (over-deliver, really) on what it was initially planned to do. You could never say that about the Dome, and indeed the fact that a 20,000 seater basketball and tennis court is a massive improvement (on almost any measurable scale, especially profitability) should really tell you everything you need to know about it.

* sold initially as being entirely privately financed
 
Indeed. My point however was not about debating the Troubles (it's own thread indeed), but rather I disapprove with the pacifist view of Corbyn.

He can talk about non-military response to Syria and proclaim his desire global discussions for peace all he likes; for me it doesn't wash.

Corbyn has always leaned towards and praised groups who were involved in death and destruction here and abroad: PIRA; Hamas; Hezbollah et al.

The side that those groups are/were on though was - like the ANC - the one without the power and the one whose people were the ones who tended to be discriminated against and suffering.

It totally therefore fits in with Corbyns character that he saw that and sympathised with their aims (though I doubt he would have approved with the most extreme of their means).

I think he is a near (but not absolute) pacifist and as that describes my own views too it's why I like him.
 
It totally therefore fits in with Corbyns character that he saw that and sympathised with their aims (though I doubt he would have approved with the most extreme of their means).

I think he is a near (but not absolute) pacifist and as that describes my own views too it's why I like him.
Well, at a Wolfe Tone Society Meeting in 1987 he joined a minutes silence for the dead of Loughall and then proclaimed he was happy to...

"Commemorate all those who died fighting for an Independent Ireland". That's after using a bomb in a digger to blow up an RUC police station.

Personally, for me, that's as close as you can get to supporting their most 'extreme' means as you can get without out-right praising it.

I haven't got an issue with a desire of Irish Independence or challenging other issues by the way. There's just other ways of going about it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top