• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Johnson replaced by Balls

(You're responding to an amusing play on surnames in which they all play various parts that can normally be found in a gentleman's pants)
 
The colossal strategic error of Miliband saying that Labour are to now start from a 'blank sheet of paper' [ . . . ]
Well a larger strategic error may have been running for leader, but time will tell. The Tories made a similar mess of things and had an identity crisis not a millibandon miles from what Labour is doing. But they were always likely to be out of power for a couple of terms. Since the next election could still be anybody's, Labour can't really afford this sort of messing about with positioning for very long.
 
Last edited:
(You're responding to an amusing play on surnames in which they all play various parts that can normally be found in a gentleman's pants)

Crikey, now that I go back and reread my post I can see how you got that impression, though it's entirely coincidental.
Honest.
 
Well Johnson was prone to a lot of cock-ups. Red Ed's effort to show the party that he had dropped Balls has not worked. Similarly with his plan to keep the scent of Brown in the background.
 
cbc2388d-024f-475d-98c1-3a9c2ac5715b.jpg
 
What about it? It's a nickname. Probably won't stick. But as far as Miliband's economic position is concerned, his rejection that the Labour government overspent and mismanaged the public finances is likely to be a problem for him.
 
Speaking as a member of a former British colony, I had no idea what a shadow chancellor was.

Wikipedia was only slightly helpful:
The Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British Parliamentary system is the member of the Shadow Cabinet who is responsible for shadowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The title is in the gift of the Leader of the Opposition but is informal. The Shadow Chancellor has no constitutional role.
But after some further reading it sounds like the opposition forms a shadow government which mirrors the actual government but whose only job is to sit around and make nasty comments so that someday people might vote for their party so they can become the actual government and some other party can form a shadow government and make nasty comments about them.

It wasn't completely clear exactly what the actual chancellor of the exchequer did either, but it sounds like they might have something to do with monetary policy. If they don't what do they do and what entity does control monetary policy in the UK?

Also, is it a requirement that they all have sexually suggestive names?
 
The Chancellor is the same as the Finance Minister or the Treasury Secretary (except that the latter is not an elected politician, and the former two usually are). They don't have a role in monetary policy in countries with an independent central bank (and changing the mandate of the central bank requires primary legislation). They are primarily responsible for fiscal policy (although changes in public spending and tax have to be voted on).

The shadow chancellor is (probably) the MP who would be chancellor if the opposition party was governing.
 
Last edited:
whose only job is to sit around and make nasty comments so that someday people might vote for their party so they can become the actual government and some other party can form a shadow government and make nasty comments about them.

Seems like that. although their "job" would probably more accurately be stated as holding the minister they shadow to account through questions in parliament, debate etc.

For example a debate on foreign policy would see the Foreign Secretary lead for the government and his shadow lead for the opposition.
 
Also, is it a requirement that they all have sexually suggestive names?

A strict constitutional requirement. After all, this is a nation where men like John Major (Chancellor from 1989-90) screwed around behind their wives backs.
 

Back
Top Bottom