Mozilla Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 did he not make a large donation to Woody Alan wife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 did he not make a large donation to Woody Alan wife Are you thinking of Rupert Murdoch's wife? Are you the only person ever to have confused Woody Allen and Rupert Murdoch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoatwobbler Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 Whats the problem with Tony supporting his party? If he convinces everyone else to give Ed the heave-ho at the same time as well then all the better. Let me put it the other way round. Why might there be a problem with Labour becoming dependent on Tony Blair for funding? If Labour does become dependent on one man for funding they will pay even less attention to what the rest of us want. Also, you have to bear in mind who the individual in question is. A criminally over-rated politician who gave us PFI and the Iraq war. The very best that you'd get out of Labour if they do become dependent on Blair for funding is a bunch of empty public school suits with no experience of life outside of politics stuck in a 1990's time warp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 empty public school suits. hardly any of the Labour front bench, and just one of the 5 contestants for the last Labour leadership contest received a private education. Balls. Harman. And that is about it. Even Hilary Benn, son of a toff, went to a state comprehensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Let me put it the other way round. Why might there be a problem with Labour becoming dependent on Tony Blair for funding? If Labour does become dependent on one man for funding they will pay even less attention to what the rest of us want. Also, you have to bear in mind who the individual in question is. A criminally over-rated politician who gave us PFI and the Iraq war. The very best that you'd get out of Labour if they do become dependent on Blair for funding is a bunch of empty public school suits with no experience of life outside of politics stuck in a 1990's time warp. What on Earth are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Let me put it the other way round. Why might there be a problem with Labour becoming dependent on Tony Blair for funding? If Labour does become dependent on one man for funding they will pay even less attention to what the rest of us want. Maybe its just a stop gap until they sort out other sources of funding once the union subs dry up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I bet the senior national Tories joke when they're in wine and among 'friends', that why Labour are so useless at governing is precisely because so few of them received expensive private educations like them, and that is why they haven't got a clue. But they realise they can never say that in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puisseguin Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 why Labour are so useless at governing is precisely because so few of them received expensive private educations like them, and that is why they haven't got a clue. I suppose you have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Those 29 toffs that make up the current cabinet are nearly worth that. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9290520/Exclusive-Cabinet-is-worth-70million.html David Cameron is worth almost £4million according to a new analysis that estimates the combined wealth of the Cabinet (29 people) at nearly £70million. You are forgetting Cameron's other money. You know, the stuff that isn't counted in these surveys. The £30M or so sloshing around. You know... the kind of wealth that makes you unsure of exactly how many houses you own. Mind you, they've done well. Samantha grew up on an estate, you know. If Blair wants to waste his money on the Labour Party he has a perfect right to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I suppose you have a point. the point is that the Tories haven't been able to say look we were born to rule, it's in our blood and that is it, since 1964. They lost that election. After that they realised they could not try to say that, so they got a carpenter's son to lead them. The chances of a the next leader of the Tory party, after Cameron, to be like Heath, or Thatcher, or Major were - from a modest background - are miniscule. The Tory party leadership, has gone back to the toffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.