Is this the most dangerous man in Britain?

With reference to the thread title, I would say John McDonnell is a hell of a lot more dangerous than George Osborne, if he genuinely draws inspiration from Mao's Little Red Book.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

With reference to the thread title, I would say John McDonnell is a hell of a lot more dangerous than George Osborne, if he genuinely draws inspiration from Mao's Little Red Book.

They're doing Dave with Hitlers book next week.

kids eh?

[rhyds]

It's like McDonnell has some kind of inverse Midas touch. He could have torn Osborne in to little tiny pieces, but thanks to the world's most ill judged publicity stunt no one will care...

There is a very good reason why these people haven't been allowed anywhere near the front bench at any point in their careers until now.

McDonnell has tried to run for leader twice but failed to get enough nominations the first time, and pulled out before officially failing to get enough nominations the second time.

There are plenty of good politicians in the Parliamentary Labour Party. Until now, they have exercised their political nous and declined to allow any of the loony left onto the ballot when the leadership falls vacant. Quite why they allowed themselves to be browbeaten into nominating Corbyn this time round is anybody's guess and will keep the pundits in beer for decades. But now Pandora's box is well and truly open, and all kinds of unpleasant things have come drifting out. A shadow chancellor quoting a bloodthirsty communist revolutionary in the opposition's official response to a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have seemed fanciful a few weeks ago, but now it's just another day at the office.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

How can it be? You asked "is he", not "could he be"? The things you said that would make him the most dangerous person aren't happening, so your initial premise was flawed.

Strange, isn't it - people listen to what people have to say, and they change things, they still get pilloried.

They don't listen/change, they are cold-hearted villains.

The key question here is this: did he change because he wanted to (your premise I guess) or was he made to (mine)?

I think you are viewing this with too much charity. George wanted to make this changes, this was his policy. Please tell me he has seen the light on the road to Damascus (bad choice of venue I suppose but run with it) and no longer believes that his initial plans were wrong? He wanted to make these cuts and probably still does but was thwarted.

As we are coming up to Christmas, is George Scrooge who when visited by the Ghosts of Christmas, saw the error of his mean spirited ways and had a change of heart, said "God bless the poor (and Police)" and was a good man for ever more ... or ... is he still Scrooge?

Let's see what is next on his ideological shopping list ..

[Osem]

Who'd have thought things could get worse for Labour and so much of it self imposed. They don't need their political opponents to make them appear unelectable, they're doing it all by themselves with gaffes, stunts, policy confusion, disharmony and above all an inept out of touch leadership which lacks any credibility at all. These people are making the likes of Miliband, Brown and Kinnock look good and that takes some doing.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Osem

Who'd have thought things could get worse for Labour and so much of it self imposed. They don't need their political opponents to make them appear unelectable, they're doing it all by themselves with gaffes, stunts, policy confusion, disharmony and above all an inept out of touch leadership which lacks any credibility at all. These people are making the likes of Miliband, Brown and Kinnock look good and that takes some doing.

I think Osem forgets that George is on Dave's team.

but Osem did tell me that he's missing Ed. and that he wishes he would come back for a big reunion.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Gary L

I think Osem forgets that George is on Dave's team

I am not sure he cares ..

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Osem

Who'd have thought things could get worse for Labour and so much of it self imposed. They don't need their political opponents to make them appear unelectable, they're doing it all by themselves with gaffes, stunts, policy confusion, disharmony and above all an inept out of touch leadership which lacks any credibility at all. These people are making the likes of Miliband, Brown and Kinnock look good and that takes some doing.

They could do with a John Smith or Robin Cook at the helm in my book but sadly at the moment they are being led by dunderheads and simpletons.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

There is a very good reason why these people haven't been allowed anywhere near the front bench at any point in their careers until now.

McDonnell has tried to run for leader twice but failed to get enough nominations the first time, and pulled out before officially failing to get enough nominations the second time.

There are plenty of good politicians in the Parliamentary Labour Party. Until now, they have exercised their political nous and declined to allow any of the loony left onto the ballot when the leadership falls vacant. Quite why they allowed themselves to be browbeaten into nominating Corbyn this time round is anybody's guess and will keep the pundits in beer for decades. But now Pandora's box is well and truly open, and all kinds of unpleasant things have come drifting out. A shadow chancellor quoting a bloodthirsty communist revolutionary in the opposition's official response to a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have seemed fanciful a few weeks ago, but now it's just another day at the office.

Selling of our national assets to said bloodthirsty communists would've seemed fanciful a few years back to

Originally Posted by denphone

They could do with a John Smith or Robin Cook at the helm in my book but sadly at the moment they are being led by dunderheads and simpletons.

I would have voted for john smith, he'd have saved us from bliar if nothing else and that alone would've put him up there with the greatest pm's imo

[techguyone]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The key question here is this: did he change because he wanted to (your premise I guess) or was he made to (mine)?

I think you are viewing this with too much charity. George wanted to make this changes, this was his policy. Please tell me he has seen the light on the road to Damascus (bad choice of venue I suppose but run with it) and no longer believes that his initial plans were wrong? He wanted to make these cuts and probably still does but was thwarted.

As we are coming up to Christmas, is George Scrooge who when visited by the Ghosts of Christmas, saw the error of his mean spirited ways and had a change of heart, said "God bless the poor (and Police)" and was a good man for ever more ... or ... is he still Scrooge?

Let's see what is next on his ideological shopping list ..

Does it matter why? He did, which if nothing else, shows he listens, which is more than anyone in Labour ever did. You should change your Avatar to 'keep left' it would be more apt.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Selling of our national assets to said bloodthirsty communists would've seemed fanciful a few years back to

Don't kid yourself - the pound shop commies running China today may be deeply unpleasant but they're not in the same league as Mao and his ilk.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by techguyone

Does it matter why? He did, which if nothing else, shows he listens, which is more than anyone in Labour ever did. You should change your Avatar to 'keep left' it would be more apt.

If you have to ask why it matters then we'll leave it there ..

I thought I was on your block list? Nice that you are debating the points and not getting personal

[tweedle]

Originally Posted by ianch99

If you have to ask why it matters then we'll leave it there ..

I thought I was on your block list? Nice that you are debating the points and not getting personal

The conservatives were elected by the people and they listened to the people. Are you saying Osbourne doing what the electorate wants is a bad thing? Would you of preferred him to ignore what people want?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by tweedle

The conservatives were elected by the people and they listened to the people. Are you saying Osbourne doing what the electorate wants is a bad thing? Would you of preferred him to ignore what people want?

Yes because then he could call Osborne an out of touch Tory toff who couldn't care less about ordinary working people, blah, blah, blah. You just can't please some folks evidently...