Election called in the UK.

Brown, a worthless untrustworthy slug that has zero leadership skills and far less presence. He also looks like a testicle that’s been sun-dried.
Cameron, the sort of kid that needed to be beaten up more at school. Would you trust him with your loose change?
The other one, don’t care ‘cos it don’t matter.
The other other one, in You kip. Yes, stay asleep.

Thank you for so eloquently describing my reply as a diatribe. You are of course entitled to your view. BTW it was John Smith, the greatest Prime Minister we never had, that made Labour electable and personally I had much admiration for him. He was a very principled man.

Agreed, had John Smith lived I might even have been tempted to vote Labour-something I vowed never to do. Yes I am working class and have fared better under Tory governments than Labour.

I take your point but I would suggest that the way it was phrased it could be literally taken both ways. The use of the word “greatest” still implies the potential to have been the greatest ever. And I would respectfully defer from that opinion of John Smith, fine man and principled politician though he was.

And I respect your right to defer from that opinion and I stand by mine with apologies for the ambiguity which was not my intention. GA, appreciate the input.

We will have to agree to differ then, as the distinction is crystal-clear to me.

I take your point but I would suggest that the way it was phrased it could be literally taken both ways. The use of the word “greatest” still implies the potential to have been the greatest ever. And I would respectfully defer from that opinion of John Smith, fine man and principled politician though he was.

OK, I’ll try.

He said that, in his opinion, John Smith was the greatest PM that we never had. In other words, that Smith had the potential to be a great PM but that we will never know for sure due to his untimely death.

You seem to have taken him to mean that Smith would have been the best PM that we ever had – ie, greater than Pitt, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd-George, Churchill, etc.

That would be a different kettle of fish entirely, and was not what Interflug62M said at all.

If I am, then it is quite genuine, so please clarify, as I have clearly missed his point, or misunderstood it.:)

I can’t help thinking that you’re missing the point “accidentally on purpose” here, Joey. :p

His quote: BTW it was John Smith, the greatest Prime Minister we never had,

Indeed and we have had a couple who might deserve that accolade for real, whereas Mr Smith, as regarded by our friend, deserves it despite not having achieved it.

I don’t see where it assumes that the late Mr Smith would have been our greatest ever PM.

We’ve had a couple of good ‘uns over the years, you know.

To be fair, that wasn’t what Interflug62M actually said.

He made a statement of fact that John Smith WAS the greatest Prime Minister we never had. That assumes rather a lot, in my humble opinion.

I’ll vote Labour, but not with any great enthusiasm, and realising that a spell in opposition might just curb their big government/surveillance-of-all tendencies a little.
Truth be told, I find it difficult to get overly enthusiastic about British elections. American ones, whether presidential or mid-term congressionals, are an entirely different matter…

To be fair, that wasn’t what Interflug62M actually said.

We’ll never know whether or not he would have been “the greatest Prime Minister ever”, so it’s a bit much to endow him with those qualities.

The first part of your diatribe could have been lifted from the 1960s, so utterely out of date is it.

Political activists always forget that if they want power they have to bend to the electorate, because without their support the power will be unachievable.

So, Blair, clever political animal that he is, but loathsome in all other respects, saw that labout would NEVER be elected unless it changed its spots. He knew the Tories werre a busted flush by 1997 and were easily beatable, as long as he couild tap into enough of their core vote to swing it his way. The rest is history, as they say.

Now Cameron is doing exactly the same as Blair had to do and, with luck, the vistory might be his. And the irony is that if they lose Labour will probably revert to their unelectable roots, or at best be riven between left and right, much as the Tories were for 10 years.

Thank you for so eloquently describing my reply as a diatribe. You are of course entitled to your view. BTW it was John Smith, the greatest Prime Minister we never had, that made Labour electable and personally I had much admiration for him. He was a very principled man.

The first part of your diatribe could have been lifted from the 1960s, so utterely out of date is it.

Political activists always forget that if they want power they have to bend to the electorate, because without their support the power will be unachievable.

So, Blair, clever political animal that he is, but loathsome in all other respects, saw that labout would NEVER be elected unless it changed its spots. He knew the Tories werre a busted flush by 1997 and were easily beatable, as long as he couild tap into enough of their core vote to swing it his way. The rest is history, as they say.

Now Cameron is doing exactly the same as Blair had to do and, with luck, the vistory might be his. And the irony is that if they lose Labour will probably revert to their unelectable roots, or at best be riven between left and right, much as the Tories were for 10 years.

I hate to say it, but in my humble opinion Labour appear to be the only party to vote for.
The lesser of two evils one might say.

The Torries will only make sure that the rich fat cats get fatter and richer and we working class people will suffer for it. More so than we would under another Labour government.

And Labour didn’t ? I was a Labour activist for more than 25yrs right from the age of 18 and I’m afraid that now I would not p**s on them if they were on fire! I detest the Tories but say what you like about them, they have never pretended to be anything other than what they are and always have been…defenders come hell and high water of those who have much more than enough….as you so rightly put it…the fat cats! Labour have ditched their core values, ideology and principles at the expense of their core support. That clown Blair obtained his “victories ” as a wolf wearing sheep’s clothing, the Party that I once loved and admired is now heading for a well deserved defeat….a crying shame 🙁

Exactly – that is the best and only definition which means anything these days.

Ah, so if you work less than 35 hours a week and earn less than 20k what are you then or what if you are self-employed ?

Also what if you own your own house, does that make you middle class ?

I would say that anyone who has to work for a living (i.e. no private income) is working class, despite the lifestyle and quality of life they have achieved through hard work…

Anyone who still divides the population into distinct classes is living in the past. And labour might be making a mistake in deploying this particular “weapon” in the election.

I have known and worked with members of what were once described as working, lower, middle, and upper classes and still number friends and acquaintances from all walks of life. The notion of class is antiquated and only held on to by those remnants of the old classes with either chips on their shoulders or deep seated hereditary instincts.