Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: tyke1962 on March 01, 2024, 05:31:59 am
-
Takes Rochdale from Labour who held a 10k Majority .
-
Labour didn’t put a candidate up for election!
-
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
-
Galloway on Assad’s chemical weapon attack
"The British state was up to its neck in a fake chemical weapons attack canard in Douma...a chemical weapons attack that was staged, filmed, reported, propagandised for"
Galloway on Ukraine
"So I don't believe that Bucha was a war crime I believe it belongs in the long line of false flag operations used to trigger war."
-
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
Not sure how you come to that conclusion, given that Labour did not field a candidate in the by election
-
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
Not sure how you come to that conclusion, given that Labour did not field a candidate in the by election
I didn't mention the discredited Labour candidate,
Seems Starmer is not the only one who cannot read the room.
-
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
Not sure how you come to that conclusion, given that Labour did not field a candidate in the by election
I didn't mention the discredited Labour candidate,
Seems Starmer is not the only one who cannot read the room.
So if labour don't stand any candidates in the GE they'll lose, is that the logic here?
-
Ooh George Galloway MP. When's hus show coming to GB News?
-
Ooh George Galloway MP. When's hus show coming to GB News?
When they pay more than Russia Today.
-
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
Tories came third - to an Independent who didn't even know he could post leaflets out - with their biggest ever fall of the Tory vote in a Labour constituency and Reform candidtae lost his deposit.
Yup, seems a few people can't read the room.
-
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
Tories came third - to an Independent who didn't even know he could post leaflets out - with their biggest ever fall of the Tory vote in a Labour constituency and Reform candidtae lost his deposit.
Yup, seems a few people can't read the room.
Apologies to Mr Danczuk who with 6.3% of the vote did indeed keep his deposit.
-
You've got to have sympathy for the people of Rochdale!
Labour effectively told people not to vote for their (un)official candidate
The Tories and Lib Dems pretty much didn't bother
George Galloway comes along on a seemingly single policy mandate i.e. Gaza
As a result the turn out was pretty low
Then to add to the insanity of it all, former BNP leader Nick Griffin comes out in support of Galloway!!!
It's like some sort of mad soap opera.
-
Labour could lose up to the best part of 5 million votes if Galloway really gets organised in what are now died in the wool inner city Labour seats.
The wolf is at the door for all the old guard parties, and we as country have let things go too far in education and lack of control by the authorities.
You reap what you sow. Although if old George gets the PMs job, at least Prime Ministers question time would be more interesting.
-
You've got to have sympathy for the people of Rochdale!
Labour effectively told people not to vote for their (un)official candidate
The Tories and Lib Dems pretty much didn't bother
George Galloway comes along on a seemingly single policy mandate i.e. Gaza
As a result the turn out was pretty low
Then to add to the insanity of it all, former BNP leader Nick Griffin comes out in support of Galloway!!!
It's like some sort of mad soap opera.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
-
Labour could lose up to the best part of 5 million votes if Galloway really gets organised in what are now died in the wool inner city Labour seats.
The wolf is at the door for all the old guard parties, and we as country have let things go too far in education and lack of control by the authorities.
You reap what you sow. Although if old George gets the PMs job, at least Prime Ministers question time would be more interesting.
Have been saying this for quite a wile selby, glad we agree
-
I also remember Hartlepool which was going to be the end of Starmer and then Uxbridge and South Ruislip which was going to be the end of Starmer ...........
-
Seen it all before with Galloway, time and time again.
He'll have his moment in the spotlight. He'll get turfed out in the General Election.
Then he can go back to being paid by the Kremlin to peddle shite on RT.
-
You've got to have sympathy for the people of Rochdale!
Labour effectively told people not to vote for their (un)official candidate
The Tories and Lib Dems pretty much didn't bother
George Galloway comes along on a seemingly single policy mandate i.e. Gaza
As a result the turn out was pretty low
Then to add to the insanity of it all, former BNP leader Nick Griffin comes out in support of Galloway!!!
It's like some sort of mad soap opera.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
We talking about THIS George Galloway and the far right?
https://twitter.com/antelava/status/1131838636591386626
Socialist my f**king arse. He's a Kremlin asset trying to cause as much upheaval as he can.
-
Labour could lose up to the best part of 5 million votes if Galloway really gets organised in what are now died in the wool inner city Labour seats.
The wolf is at the door for all the old guard parties, and we as country have let things go too far in education and lack of control by the authorities.
You reap what you sow. Although if old George gets the PMs job, at least Prime Ministers question time would be more interesting.
I don't think that education is the problem Selby. Over recent years we've seen trust in the traditional authorities and establishments (Political, the Royals, The Police, The Church etc...) erode due, largely, to them often being found out. There's one scandal after another. As a consequence, people are looking for alternatives so any old rabble rouser can come along, promise anything, and be voted in. Look at the amount of Populist leaders and the amount of authoritarian regimes around the world right now. The problems are far larger than education.
-
When George Galloway was elected to a seat in Bradford briefly the Liberal Democrat candidate and supporters were warned off canvassing in parts of that constituency. They were told we don’t want your sort around here by groups of males.
Very democratic. He should stick to drinking milk from a saucer.
-
This is the guy who's most famous for pretending to be a cat on Big Brother. Not a serious operator. Politically incoherent by design, because it lets him be whatever he needs to be to get his name in the spotlight.
-
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
Not sure how you come to that conclusion, given that Labour did not field a candidate in the by election
I didn't mention the discredited Labour candidate,
Seems Starmer is not the only one who cannot read the room.
So if labour don't stand any candidates in the GE they'll lose, is that the logic here?
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
Tories came third - to an Independent who didn't even know he could post leaflets out - with their biggest ever fall of the Tory vote in a Labour constituency and Reform candidtae lost his deposit.
Yup, seems a few people can't read the room.
Apologies to Mr Danczuk who with 6.3% of the vote did indeed keep his deposit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/01/labour-at-risk-of-taking-muslim-voters-for-granted-says-thinktank-rochdale-byelection
Seems quite a few of you completely missed the point of my post this morning,
It wasn't about the discredited racist Labour candidate or the position of where anyone else came in the election, it wasn't even about anyone in the actual election vote.
It was about the Labour party, a party readying itself for government having completely alienated an electorate and a demographic that would always vote for them.
Its about a tin eared party leader who cannot see the wood for the trees in his dealings with sensitive situations, managing to look so bad as to make an extremist like Galloway look presidential and speaking for the people of a town that Starmer does not give two hoots for bar having it as a Labour seat.
This badly advised and focus group junkie who has the convictions of a coward can make a situation like Rochdale into a badly publicised horror show and allow feelings of mistrust and downright disgust to prevail in the populace. In effect he shows all and sundry what the UK will look like under his deluded regime.
This country has had its fill of charlatans and just base incompetents, to have to look forward to some brought and paid for shrill attempting to instil his version of disaster on us all is really going to be something to look forward too.
If he and his minions can create this Rochdale farce just think what he can do when let loose on the whole nation?
Lucky us!
-
You've got to have sympathy for the people of Rochdale!
Labour effectively told people not to vote for their (un)official candidate
The Tories and Lib Dems pretty much didn't bother
George Galloway comes along on a seemingly single policy mandate i.e. Gaza
As a result the turn out was pretty low
Then to add to the insanity of it all, former BNP leader Nick Griffin comes out in support of Galloway!!!
It's like some sort of mad soap opera.
The Green Party also told people not to vote for their candidate.
-
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
Not sure how you come to that conclusion, given that Labour did not field a candidate in the by election
I didn't mention the discredited Labour candidate,
Seems Starmer is not the only one who cannot read the room.
So if labour don't stand any candidates in the GE they'll lose, is that the logic here?
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
Tories came third - to an Independent who didn't even know he could post leaflets out - with their biggest ever fall of the Tory vote in a Labour constituency and Reform candidtae lost his deposit.
Yup, seems a few people can't read the room.
Apologies to Mr Danczuk who with 6.3% of the vote did indeed keep his deposit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/01/labour-at-risk-of-taking-muslim-voters-for-granted-says-thinktank-rochdale-byelection
Seems quite a few of you completely missed the point of my post this morning,
It wasn't about the discredited racist Labour candidate or the position of where anyone else came in the election, it wasn't even about anyone in the actual election vote.
It was about the Labour party, a party readying itself for government having completely alienated an electorate and a demographic that would always vote for them.
Its about a tin eared party leader who cannot see the wood for the trees in his dealings with sensitive situations, managing to look so bad as to make an extremist like Galloway look presidential and speaking for the people of a town that Starmer does not give two hoots for bar having it as a Labour seat.
This badly advised and focus group junkie who has the convictions of a coward can make a situation like Rochdale into a badly publicised horror show and allow feelings of mistrust and downright disgust to prevail in the populace. In effect he shows all and sundry what the UK will look like under his deluded regime.
This country has had its fill of charlatans and just base incompetents, to have to look forward to some brought and paid for shrill attempting to instil his version of disaster on us all is really going to be something to look forward too.
If he and his minions can create this Rochdale farce just think what he can do when let loose on the whole nation?
Lucky us!
Given that you have inflicted on this country, austerity, the economic chaos of Brexit, Johnson, Truss & Sunak - forgive us for ignoring your proselytizing.
And No, I dont think I read your post wrong. You just didn't like my answer.
-
Net favourability of UK politicians:
Keir Starmer: -8
Rachel Reeves: -16
David Cameron: -22
Jeremy Hunt: -28
Farage -28
Sunak -32
Yvette Cooper -34
Cleverly -36
Jeremy Corbyn -38
Suella Braverman -44
Lee Anderson: -44
Lammy -46
George Galloway -52
Liz Truss: -58
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1763608915604893735
-
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
Not sure how you come to that conclusion, given that Labour did not field a candidate in the by election
I didn't mention the discredited Labour candidate,
Seems Starmer is not the only one who cannot read the room.
So if labour don't stand any candidates in the GE they'll lose, is that the logic here?
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
Tories came third - to an Independent who didn't even know he could post leaflets out - with their biggest ever fall of the Tory vote in a Labour constituency and Reform candidtae lost his deposit.
Yup, seems a few people can't read the room.
Apologies to Mr Danczuk who with 6.3% of the vote did indeed keep his deposit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/01/labour-at-risk-of-taking-muslim-voters-for-granted-says-thinktank-rochdale-byelection
Seems quite a few of you completely missed the point of my post this morning,
It wasn't about the discredited racist Labour candidate or the position of where anyone else came in the election, it wasn't even about anyone in the actual election vote.
It was about the Labour party, a party readying itself for government having completely alienated an electorate and a demographic that would always vote for them.
Its about a tin eared party leader who cannot see the wood for the trees in his dealings with sensitive situations, managing to look so bad as to make an extremist like Galloway look presidential and speaking for the people of a town that Starmer does not give two hoots for bar having it as a Labour seat.
This badly advised and focus group junkie who has the convictions of a coward can make a situation like Rochdale into a badly publicised horror show and allow feelings of mistrust and downright disgust to prevail in the populace. In effect he shows all and sundry what the UK will look like under his deluded regime.
This country has had its fill of charlatans and just base incompetents, to have to look forward to some brought and paid for shrill attempting to instil his version of disaster on us all is really going to be something to look forward too.
If he and his minions can create this Rochdale farce just think what he can do when let loose on the whole nation?
Lucky us!
Brilliant post, DD.
-
Labour could lose up to the best part of 5 million votes if Galloway really gets organised in what are now died in the wool inner city Labour seats.
The wolf is at the door for all the old guard parties, and we as country have let things go too far in education and lack of control by the authorities.
You reap what you sow. Although if old George gets the PMs job, at least Prime Ministers question time would be more interesting.
in the North they've even said Labour have majorities from last time but only marginal ones.
-
"Sunak and Starmer are two cheeks of the same backside, and it's been well and truly spanked tonight".
Oratory genius. Well done George.
-
"Sunak and Starmer are two cheeks of the same backside, and it's been well and truly spanked tonight".
Oratory genius. Well done George.
Rumours are carried by haters, spread by fools & accepted by idiots’.
-
"Sunak and Starmer are two cheeks of the same backside, and it's been well and truly spanked tonight".
Oratory genius. Well done George.
Rumours are carried by haters, spread by fools & accepted by idiots’.
You need to brush up on your semantics. The first part of that sentence isn't a rumour, it's an opinion. The second part is a fact.
Also, I'm neither an idiot, nor a fool.
-
SS.
I wonder where Galloway got his inspiration for the "two cheeks of the same backside" quip from?
https://twitter.com/antelava/status/1131838636591386626
There he is. Proud socialist. Supporter of the oppressed Muslims. Man of the people. With a white supremacist far right ex-investment banker and author of "Destroying the Great Satan: The Rise of Islamic Facism". (sic)
-
I could listen to Galloway speaking all day. I agree with some of what he says, I disagree with lots.
Either way, he is, as Scawsby says, an oratory genius.
If Starmer had an ounce of this skill, a skill that is crucial in his position, then he might be taken seriously by more people.
-
SS.
I wonder where Galloway got his inspiration for the "two cheeks of the same backside" quip from?
https://twitter.com/antelava/status/1131838636591386626
There he is. Proud socialist. Supporter of the oppressed Muslims. Man of the people. With a white supremacist far right ex-investment banker and author of "Destroying the Great Satan: The Rise of Islamic Facism". (sic)
BST, Galloway stands up, rightly or wrongly, for Muslims. He's also pledged to try and help Rochdale FC. Whether he does or not remains to be seen.
What does Starmer stand up for? What are his policies on anything? What is he going to do differently to the current motley crew?
-
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
Not sure how you come to that conclusion, given that Labour did not field a candidate in the by election
I didn't mention the discredited Labour candidate,
Seems Starmer is not the only one who cannot read the room.
So if labour don't stand any candidates in the GE they'll lose, is that the logic here?
Starmer being put on notice, those fence splinters are becoming bloody great wedges.
Why do i get the distinct impression that this fella just cannot read the room?
Tories came third - to an Independent who didn't even know he could post leaflets out - with their biggest ever fall of the Tory vote in a Labour constituency and Reform candidtae lost his deposit.
Yup, seems a few people can't read the room.
Apologies to Mr Danczuk who with 6.3% of the vote did indeed keep his deposit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/01/labour-at-risk-of-taking-muslim-voters-for-granted-says-thinktank-rochdale-byelection
Seems quite a few of you completely missed the point of my post this morning,
It wasn't about the discredited racist Labour candidate or the position of where anyone else came in the election, it wasn't even about anyone in the actual election vote.
It was about the Labour party, a party readying itself for government having completely alienated an electorate and a demographic that would always vote for them.
Its about a tin eared party leader who cannot see the wood for the trees in his dealings with sensitive situations, managing to look so bad as to make an extremist like Galloway look presidential and speaking for the people of a town that Starmer does not give two hoots for bar having it as a Labour seat.
This badly advised and focus group junkie who has the convictions of a coward can make a situation like Rochdale into a badly publicised horror show and allow feelings of mistrust and downright disgust to prevail in the populace. In effect he shows all and sundry what the UK will look like under his deluded regime.
This country has had its fill of charlatans and just base incompetents, to have to look forward to some brought and paid for shrill attempting to instil his version of disaster on us all is really going to be something to look forward too.
If he and his minions can create this Rochdale farce just think what he can do when let loose on the whole nation?
Lucky us!
Given that you have inflicted on this country, austerity, the economic chaos of Brexit, Johnson, Truss & Sunak - forgive us for ignoring your proselytizing.
And No, I dont think I read your post wrong. You just didn't like my answer.
Totally clueless old fella,
Not sure where you get that I inflicted anything on this country?, seems like you get plenty of things wrong
-
There's a reason Galloway is great at getting elected, but less so at staying elected.
I don't go for this horseshoe theory cack at all but he is similar to Johnson in a lot of ways. Which makes it more odd that his election is beyond the pale, but Johnson and Truss being made PM is the sign of a normal healthy democracy.
-
Not sure you will find too many on here who were over enamoured with either Johnson or Truss or even Sunak while were at it.
Im also struggling to think back to when we did have some form of normal, healthy democracy.
ft.com
UK public trust in political parties collapses to 12%
Valentina Romei
~3 minutes
Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
UK public faith in political parties fell sharply in 2023, cementing their reputation as the country’s least-trusted institution, according to official data that highlights the challenges for politicians ahead of the general election expected this year.
Only 12 per cent of the British public said they trusted political parties, down from 20 per cent in the same survey run in 2022, the Office for National Statistics said on Friday. Approximately 68 per cent said they distrusted political parties.
Political parties were the least trusted of any UK public institution, as they were in 2022. In contrast, some 62 per cent of people surveyed by the ONS in 2023 said they had faith in the judicial system, 56 per cent trusted the police and 45 per cent trusted the civil service.
Bar chart of Levels of trust in public institutions, UK, 2023, % of adults showing Few British people have faith in political parties
The drop in trust “is very serious because this is what liberal democracy is about”, said Tony Travers, professor in the department of government at the London School of Economics.
He attributed the fall in trust to the political chaos surrounding the premierships of former Conservative leaders Boris Johnson and Liz Truss along with factional infighting within the governing Tory party.
Travers also highlighted the cost of living crisis and long NHS waiting lists. There is a “sense that government and I think politics, endlessly over promises and under delivers”, he said.
The data comes as the controversial left-winger George Galloway won a by-election in Rochdale after a chaotic campaign where Labour, which had held the seat, withdrew support from its candidate after he made incendiary comments about Israel.
The ONS figures chime with data reported at the end of last year by the market research company Ipsos, which found trust in politicians had reached its lowest score in 40 years in 2023.
Just 9 per cent of the British public said they trusted politicians to tell the truth, down from 12 per cent in 2022, the lowest score since records began in 1983, making it the least-trusted profession in Britain, according to Ipsos.
The ONS data also showed that the proportion of adults trusting the UK government was down from 35 per cent to 27 per cent between 2022 and 2023. Trust in parliament was down 10 percentage points to 24 per cent over the same period.
“These are institutions that are the very bedrock of democracy and the fall in trust is something that all political parties need to think about,” said Travers.
-
As many have said George is a great orator and can put a good debate together , the way he defended himself in Washington all those years ago when summoned by a Senate committee was genius .
I just think he enjoys pyssing off the Labour Party to be honest and would probably do and say almost anything to accomplish that .
-
As many have said George is a great orator and can put a good debate together , the way he defended himself in Washington all those years ago when summoned by a Senate committee was genius .
I just think he enjoys pyssing off the Labour Party to be honest and would probably do and say almost anything to accomplish that .
What? Like hugging Steve Bannon and denying that the Bucha massacre took place? He just does that to bait the Libs does he?
You still calling yourself a socialist?
-
SS.
I wonder where Galloway got his inspiration for the "two cheeks of the same backside" quip from?
https://twitter.com/antelava/status/1131838636591386626
There he is. Proud socialist. Supporter of the oppressed Muslims. Man of the people. With a white supremacist far right ex-investment banker and author of "Destroying the Great Satan: The Rise of Islamic Facism". (sic)
BST, Galloway stands up, rightly or wrongly, for Muslims. He's also pledged to try and help Rochdale FC. Whether he does or not remains to be seen.
What does Starmer stand up for? What are his policies on anything? What is he going to do differently to the current motley crew?
I think Starmer has bigger fish to fry than the future of Rochdale AFC Steve.
-
There's a reason Galloway is great at getting elected, but less so at staying elected.
I don't go for this horseshoe theory cack at all but he is similar to Johnson in a lot of ways. Which makes it more odd that his election is beyond the pale, but Johnson and Truss being made PM is the sign of a normal healthy democracy.
You don't buy the Horseshoe theory?
Who do you reckon Stalin was closer to? Hitler or Clem Attlee?
Or, more up to date, what about the ideological trajectories of Mick Hume and Claire Fox?
Or the remnants of the CPGB and others like the useful idiots in Stop The War now tacitly or openly supporting Putin's war aims?
-
As many have said George is a great orator and can put a good debate together , the way he defended himself in Washington all those years ago when summoned by a Senate committee was genius .
I just think he enjoys pyssing off the Labour Party to be honest and would probably do and say almost anything to accomplish that .
What? Like hugging Steve Bannon and denying that the Bucha massacre took place? He just does that to bait the Libs does he?
You still calling yourself a socialist?
Clearly he gets under your skin though doesn't he .
Your a bit wide open tonight Billy aren't you .
Furthest to the Right the Labour Party's ever positioned itself and your as moist as a 14 year old schoolboy with a porn mag .
-
As the saying goes, it's called horseshoe theory because you need to be hit with one to believe in it. It's b*llocks, completely unsuited to modern politics which is rife with ideologically muddled people who have socialist economic views and quite hard right social views, and vice versa.
Fish hook theory is more accurate but still mostly hyperbolic nonsense. But it is true that, if faced with a binary choice between the hard right and soft left, the centre will more often than not indulge and enable the hard right, possibly while wringing their hands and tutting, but still.
Clare Fox and her shit mates from Spiked being left wing grifters who became right wing grifters sort of pales in comparison to the very real harm done by the way the centre have indulged the far right in this country.
Having to go back to Hitler and Stalin for a real example for what feels like the millionth time sort of proves that enough. How did Hitler end up in power anyway?
-
From #21 DD
''It wasn't about the discredited racist Labour candidate or the position of where anyone else came in the election, it wasn't even about anyone in the actual election vote.
It was about the Labour party, a party readying itself for government having completely alienated an electorate and a demographic that would always vote for them''
What do you want dd? Maybe it's about time you put your marker down and explained in plain english and hopefully fairly concise what you want a party to be.
-
As the saying goes, it's called horseshoe theory because you need to be hit with one to believe in it. It's b*llocks, completely unsuited to modern politics which is rife with ideologically muddled people who have socialist economic views and quite hard right social views, and vice versa.
Fish hook theory is more accurate but still mostly hyperbolic nonsense. But it is true that, if faced with a binary choice between the hard right and soft left, the centre will more often than not indulge and enable the hard right, possibly while wringing their hands and tutting, but still.
Clare Fox and her shit mates from Spiked being left wing grifters who became right wing grifters sort of pales in comparison to the very real harm done by the way the centre have indulged the far right in this country.
Having to go back to Hitler and Stalin for a real example for what feels like the millionth time sort of proves that enough. How did Hitler end up in power anyway?
I'd go left and right seriously disillusioned and the only show in town is centrist apathy .
-
As many have said George is a great orator and can put a good debate together , the way he defended himself in Washington all those years ago when summoned by a Senate committee was genius .
I just think he enjoys pyssing off the Labour Party to be honest and would probably do and say almost anything to accomplish that .
What? Like hugging Steve Bannon and denying that the Bucha massacre took place? He just does that to bait the Libs does he?
You still calling yourself a socialist?
Clearly he gets under your skin though doesn't he .
Your a bit wide open tonight Billy aren't you .
Furthest to the Right the Labour Party's ever positioned itself and your as moist as a 14 year old schoolboy with a porn mag .
Aye. Fascist enablers to tend to get under my skin. Whereas you appear to be besotted with this one.
-
It's hard to know where tyky sits aye
4/4/2020 tyke on Starmer
''As far as I can see he's got to the very top of the Labour Party without making a single enemy .
Crown and public prosecutions top man and knighted for his services .
Working class kid whose rose to the top through study and hard work .
The classic pull yourself up by your bootstraps that the Tories are so fond of telling the electorate''
-
Far-right and far-left overlap
- Mistrust of mainstream media
- Anti-globalist
- Anti-intervention in foreign affairs / wars
- Us versus “the elites”
- Prone to conspiracies
-
It's hard to know where tyky sits aye
4/4/2020 tyke on Starmer
''As far as I can see he's got to the very top of the Labour Party without making a single enemy .
Crown and public prosecutions top man and knighted for his services .
Working class kid whose rose to the top through study and hard work .
The classic pull yourself up by your bootstraps that the Tories are so fond of telling the electorate''
''The wild wind is rising
It whispers my name
With promises made of tomorrow
As sure as the darkness will swallow the day
Where the wind blows, I will follow''
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa9q8Nr3cGg
-
It's hard to know where tyky sits aye
4/4/2020 tyke on Starmer
''As far as I can see he's got to the very top of the Labour Party without making a single enemy .
Crown and public prosecutions top man and knighted for his services .
Working class kid whose rose to the top through study and hard work .
The classic pull yourself up by your bootstraps that the Tories are so fond of telling the electorate''
Nowt hard about it Sydney , whilst you may be incapable of thinking due to your rabid tribalism .
When the facts change so do opinions and they may change again if he makes a good fist as PM as unlikely as that is right now .
-
tyke from the same comment ..................
''So much so I'll rejoin the party and do my bit .
Congratulations to Keir''
-
When did you resign from the labour party tyke 1963?
asking for a friend
-
As many have said George is a great orator and can put a good debate together , the way he defended himself in Washington all those years ago when summoned by a Senate committee was genius .
I just think he enjoys pyssing off the Labour Party to be honest and would probably do and say almost anything to accomplish that .
What? Like hugging Steve Bannon and denying that the Bucha massacre took place? He just does that to bait the Libs does he?
You still calling yourself a socialist?
Clearly he gets under your skin though doesn't he .
Your a bit wide open tonight Billy aren't you .
Furthest to the Right the Labour Party's ever positioned itself and your as moist as a 14 year old schoolboy with a porn mag .
Aye. Fascist enablers to tend to get under my skin. Whereas you appear to be besotted with this one.
Your a bit salty this evening Billy , I'm neither besotted with Galloway nor dislike him .
Cheer up Billy your party will be running the country soon enough and you can look forward to Utopia .
When the five years is up we'll probably fall well short of fascism , Suella isn't that far right so lighten up a bit .
-
It's hard to know where tyky sits aye
4/4/2020 tyke on Starmer
''As far as I can see he's got to the very top of the Labour Party without making a single enemy .
Crown and public prosecutions top man and knighted for his services .
Working class kid whose rose to the top through study and hard work .
The classic pull yourself up by your bootstraps that the Tories are so fond of telling the electorate''
Nowt hard about it Sydney , whilst you may be incapable of thinking due to your rabid tribalism .
When the facts change so do opinions and they may change again if he makes a good fist as PM as unlikely as that is right now .
Too right about time changing opinions tyke.
Good grief, I can remember several posters on here backing Corbyn to the hilt, then post the 2019 GE humiliation denouncing him an idiot and a disgrace to the Party.
Aye.
-
When did you resign from the labour party tyke 1963?
asking for a friend
That's a lie for a start , you couldn't possibly have any friends .
I never joined at all in the end , I think the bit where Keith said he was building on the work started by Corbyn only to do the opposite might have had something to do with it .
-
When did you resign from the labour party tyke 1963?
asking for a friend
That's a lie for a start , you couldn't possibly have any friends .
I never joined at all in the end , I think the bit where Keith said he was building on the work started by Corbyn only to do the opposite might have had something to do with it .
So, you call Starmer out but can't keep your own word, sort of a fair weather friend.
How many heroes can you have
corbyn, starmer, mick (grow up) lynch and now galloway ............... for a couple of weeks at least aye?
oops forgot about andy burnham
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuf_SPvX-Y
-
People celebrating the election of an anti-semitic, pro-Putin, anti-NATO, terrorist sympathiser into the UK Parliament.
Be careful you don't get what you wish for.
-
from the parrot 4/4/2020
''IMO Starmer is the best choice for leader of the Labour Party.
He speaks well and will probably give them a chance at the next GE''
-
"Sunak and Starmer are two cheeks of the same backside, and it's been well and truly spanked tonight".
Oratory genius. Well done George.
Rumours are carried by haters, spread by fools & accepted by idiots’.
You need to brush up on your semantics. The first part of that sentence isn't a rumour, it's an opinion. The second part is a fact.
Also, I'm neither an idiot, nor a fool.
You could have fooled me.
To be so besotted by danumdon’s post, you must be one or the other.
-
Sydney. This trawling through the archives makes for really interesting reading, a bit creepy mind, but interesting.
If anyone was in any doubt that Starmer has lost all credibility over the last four years, they won’t be now.
Was that your intention?
-
By god, there are some f**king bad losers on this forum. It's like 2016 all over again.
Revote anyone?
-
from the parrot 4/4/2020
''IMO Starmer is the best choice for leader of the Labour Party.
He speaks well and will probably give them a chance at the next GE''
I think the consensus was that Keith could be the acceptable face of a left leaning Labour Party Sydney in a way that Corbyn couldn't be given his history .
He certainly got the backing of the left during the leadership election on that ticket .
There wasn't anything wrong with Corbyn's policies , the problem was his history , Keith had none of that baggage .
That's not quite how it's played out hence my view has changed , how simple does it have to be Syd ? .
The delve in to the archives game on forums or even in real life has been done to death to try and discredit people who don't agree with them .
It's a favourite pastime of the liberal class so it comes as no surprise that you are playing this game other than engage in proper debate .
It's designed to shut your opponent up or keep the debate narrow when the debate takes them to uncomfortable places that go against their beliefs .
Keep em coming Syd .
-
As said on tv tonight. If George Galloway is stood between, as he said two cheeks of the same arse and he is in the middle.
What does that make him?
-
from the parrot 4/4/2020
''IMO Starmer is the best choice for leader of the Labour Party.
He speaks well and will probably give them a chance at the next GE''
I think the consensus was that Keith could be the acceptable face of a left leaning Labour Party Sydney in a way that Corbyn couldn't be given his history .
He certainly got the backing of the left during the leadership election on that ticket .
There wasn't anything wrong with Corbyn's policies , the problem was his history , Keith had none of that baggage .
That's not quite how it's played out hence my view has changed , how simple does it have to be Syd ? .
The delve in to the archives game on forums or even in real life has been done to death to try and discredit people who don't agree with them .
It's a favourite pastime of the liberal class so it comes as no surprise that you are playing this game other than engage in proper debate .
It's designed to shut your opponent up or keep the debate narrow when the debate takes them to uncomfortable places that go against their beliefs .
Keep em coming Syd .
There must be an aviary full of parrots on the Labour side of the fence tyke based on the views held in favour of Corbyn pre the 2019 battering compared to what some of them squawk about him since then.
Have you saved the screen shot Syd?
-
When did you resign from the labour party tyke 1963?
asking for a friend
That's a lie for a start , you couldn't possibly have any friends .
I never joined at all in the end , I think the bit where Keith said he was building on the work started by Corbyn only to do the opposite might have had something to do with it .
So, you call Starmer out but can't keep your own word, sort of a fair weather friend.
How many heroes can you have
corbyn, starmer, mick (grow up) lynch and now galloway ............... for a couple of weeks at least aye?
oops forgot about andy burnham
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuf_SPvX-Y
This is what you need to answer tyke ...............
-
from the parrot 4/4/2020
''IMO Starmer is the best choice for leader of the Labour Party.
He speaks well and will probably give them a chance at the next GE''
I think the consensus was that Keith could be the acceptable face of a left leaning Labour Party Sydney in a way that Corbyn couldn't be given his history .
He certainly got the backing of the left during the leadership election on that ticket .
There wasn't anything wrong with Corbyn's policies , the problem was his history , Keith had none of that baggage .
That's not quite how it's played out hence my view has changed , how simple does it have to be Syd ? .
The delve in to the archives game on forums or even in real life has been done to death to try and discredit people who don't agree with them .
It's a favourite pastime of the liberal class so it comes as no surprise that you are playing this game other than engage in proper debate .
It's designed to shut your opponent up or keep the debate narrow when the debate takes them to uncomfortable places that go against their beliefs .
Keep em coming Syd .
Aye. Corbyn had all the right domestic policies. He was just never, ever going to get elected. Fancy that eh?
And that's before you get started on his foreign policies, where he and his cronies did and still do bend over backwards to not criticise Putin.
-
Far-right and far-left overlap
- Mistrust of mainstream media
- Anti-globalist
- Anti-intervention in foreign affairs / wars
- Us versus “the elites”
- Prone to conspiracies
Is this you being against both far left/right, and those 5 "overlaps"? Would I be correct to infer that you are for centerists, and for the opposite of the 5 "overlaps"?
-
Aye. Corbyn had all the right domestic policies. He was just never, ever going to get elected. Fancy that eh?
And that's before you get started on his foreign policies, where he and his cronies did and still do bend over backwards to not criticise Putin.
Being as how his policies wouldn't have benefitted the super rich of course he wouldn't get elected, with the mass mainstream media narrative being controlled by those same super rich.
I think that's what you call democracy? And yet you bang on and on and on about other undemocratic nations. Are you a bit confused, or just super rich?
-
Sydney. This trawling through the archives makes for really interesting reading, a bit creepy mind, but interesting.
If anyone was in any doubt that Starmer has lost all credibility over the last four years, they won’t be now.
Was that your intention?
As I have said, I don't have to think too much about what I would have said, but you know what is said about lack of truth and memory. As for creepy, is there something in your back catalogue?
If you can find where I have dubbed starmer as perfect you may have to do a bit of trawling yourself, if you look at those dishing it out on starmer they mostly don't have a position themselves, dd, selby, rabble ........ etc.
Starmer is the best man to defeat the tories imho.
-
Sydney. This trawling through the archives makes for really interesting reading, a bit creepy mind, but interesting.
If anyone was in any doubt that Starmer has lost all credibility over the last four years, they won’t be now.
Was that your intention?
As I have said, I don't have to think too much about what I would have said, but you know what is said about lack of truth and memory. As for creepy, is there something in your back catalogue?
If you can find where I have dubbed starmer as perfect you may have to do a bit of trawling yourself, if you look at those dishing it out on starmer they mostly don't have a position themselves, dd, selby, rabble ........ etc.
Starmer is the best man to defeat the tories imho.
Baldrick could defeat the Tories at the next election. Without any help from a dachshund named Colin.
-
Then put your house on a labour win belton
-
Sydney. This trawling through the archives makes for really interesting reading, a bit creepy mind, but interesting.
If anyone was in any doubt that Starmer has lost all credibility over the last four years, they won’t be now.
Was that your intention?
As I have said, I don't have to think too much about what I would have said, but you know what is said about lack of truth and memory. As for creepy, is there something in your back catalogue?
If you can find where I have dubbed starmer as perfect you may have to do a bit of trawling yourself, if you look at those dishing it out on starmer they mostly don't have a position themselves, dd, selby, rabble ........ etc.
Starmer is the best man to defeat the tories imho.
Baldrick could defeat the Tories at the next election. Without any help from a dachshund named Colin.
You reckon Labour would win the next Election with Corbyn as leader?
A man who wants Ukraine to lay down its weapons and give Putin the territory he has stolen.
A man who lost one election against a PM who literally couldn't get her mouth to work when put under pressure on the Election campaign trail.
Personally, as a Labour party member, I could not vote for a Corbyn- Milne-McCluskey-Murray controlled Labour party, given the current threat to Europe from Putin.
-
BST is displaying the same obsequious ways to the establishment as this Sky reporter interviewing Gorgeous George. Worth watching, hilarious! :laugh:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7p7CAyxHgg
-
I can see a shift moving away from the old traditional parties slowly which may be a good thing but not if you're like myself and don't want Tories in again next time.
It does certainly give Labour plenty to think about.
That said the independent candidate did get a good turn out as well but it is hard to see whether GG is in it for the publicity or to actually do it for the people of Rochdale. He said it was for Gaza however his constituents in that town I am sure have had it hard as well with 14 years of tories.
If this is replicated elsewhere and as the candidate for Labour wasn't endorsed by them it most likely needs an election where there isn't any controversy to see what the outcome is.
However if constituents start moving away from Labour as well as the Tories it could be a problem for Labour in my view.
-
Sydney. This trawling through the archives makes for really interesting reading, a bit creepy mind, but interesting.
If anyone was in any doubt that Starmer has lost all credibility over the last four years, they won’t be now.
Was that your intention?
As I have said, I don't have to think too much about what I would have said, but you know what is said about lack of truth and memory. As for creepy, is there something in your back catalogue?
If you can find where I have dubbed starmer as perfect you may have to do a bit of trawling yourself, if you look at those dishing it out on starmer they mostly don't have a position themselves, dd, selby, rabble ........ etc.
Starmer is the best man to defeat the tories imho.
Baldrick could defeat the Tories at the next election. Without any help from a dachshund named Colin.
You reckon Labour would win the next Election with Corbyn as leader?
A man who wants Ukraine to lay down its weapons and give Putin the territory he has stolen.
A man who lost one election against a PM who literally couldn't get her mouth to work when put under pressure on the Election campaign trail.
Personally, as a Labour party member, I could not vote for a Corbyn- Milne-McCluskey-Murray controlled Labour party, given the current threat to Europe from Putin.
I think you should show Baldrick some damn respect man, rather than make political comparisons to Corbyn.
-
As many have said George is a great orator and can put a good debate together , the way he defended himself in Washington all those years ago when summoned by a Senate committee was genius .
I just think he enjoys pyssing off the Labour Party to be honest and would probably do and say almost anything to accomplish that .
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1366063132402147329?lang=en
I’m voting #Tory with my first vote for the incumbent MSP. And then for myself and
@doonhamer1963
and
@Jamie_Blackett
on the list. Now THAT is
@Alliance4Unity
3:30 AM · Mar 1, 2021
-
As many have said George is a great orator and can put a good debate together , the way he defended himself in Washington all those years ago when summoned by a Senate committee was genius .
I just think he enjoys pyssing off the Labour Party to be honest and would probably do and say almost anything to accomplish that .
Here is the great orator himself kissing the feet of saddam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIy_GmvUElE
-
Far-right and far-left overlap
- Mistrust of mainstream media
- Anti-globalist
- Anti-intervention in foreign affairs / wars
- Us versus “the elites”
- Prone to conspiracies
Is this you being against both far left/right, and those 5 "overlaps"? Would I be correct to infer that you are for centerists, and for the opposite of the 5 "overlaps"?
Not necessarily, it’s important to keep an open mind about things.
And not necessarily all of them at the same time to the nth degree, like someone on the far-right or far-left might be.
Maybe there could be a case made for anti-semitism as both a far left and far right quality too.
Another example. Distrust of big-pharma would have been a classic old school left trait, now the fringes of the right reflexively do.
That’s just some patterns I’ve noticed, if you can dispute them?
Galloway is also a Tucker Carlson fan.
Another example - Wanting a one-state Israel / Palestine resolution.
-
Sydney. This trawling through the archives makes for really interesting reading, a bit creepy mind, but interesting.
If anyone was in any doubt that Starmer has lost all credibility over the last four years, they won’t be now.
Was that your intention?
As I have said, I don't have to think too much about what I would have said, but you know what is said about lack of truth and memory. As for creepy, is there something in your back catalogue?
If you can find where I have dubbed starmer as perfect you may have to do a bit of trawling yourself, if you look at those dishing it out on starmer they mostly don't have a position themselves, dd, selby, rabble ........ etc.
Starmer is the best man to defeat the tories imho.
Baldrick could defeat the Tories at the next election. Without any help from a dachshund named Colin.
You reckon Labour would win the next Election with Corbyn as leader?
A man who wants Ukraine to lay down its weapons and give Putin the territory he has stolen.
A man who lost one election against a PM who literally couldn't get her mouth to work when put under pressure on the Election campaign trail.
Personally, as a Labour party member, I could not vote for a Corbyn- Milne-McCluskey-Murray controlled Labour party, given the current threat to Europe from Putin.
I don't personally believe Labour will win the forthcoming election obviously if I am proved wrong then thats fair enough.
However, as much as people don't like Jeremy Corbyn don't know what he has supposed to have done and the claims substantiated?
His policies weren't to the liking of the MSM and establishment which is why he was smeared so much (wrongly which has been proven).
Also he appealed more to the younger generation and his commitment to nationalizing all the public services which in my view should be in public hands anyway.
Keir Starmer doesn't appeal to the younger generation that's the difference.
-
Way, way, way back in the midsts of time I was actively involved with the left of the Labour Party and all it stood for particularly Michael Foot and Tony Benn. It took me a few years to arrive at some (at the time) uncomfortable and painful conclusions though:
A) The left rarely give consideration to how much their policies will cost the country
B) Many on the left are more concerned with minority, selective ‘pet policies’ than an overall strategy of running a country.
C) In reality, many left wingers who I knew didn’t truthfully want Labour in power. They were far more comfortable with the politics of radicalism and protest than responsibility.
During the Miners strike of 84/85 I remember going along to events and sharing stories about what was going on in the northern mining communities. I was shocked by how many people in the south didn’t really care. Most Tory voters felt that the Miners had it coming all along and deserved all that Thatcher was dishing out to them. Those on the left of Labour, who should have been natural allies of the miners, were more concerned with how to use the situation to beat Thatcher than they were with supporting the Miners.
It was at this point that I began to see the left for what it really was. Lots of good people, but many with priorities at odds with mine. So in my opinion, if Labour wants power then it has no choice at all but to stick with a left of centre approach.
-
BST is displaying the same obsequious ways to the establishment as this Sky reporter interviewing Gorgeous George. Worth watching, hilarious! :laugh:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7p7CAyxHgg
I wonder what Galloway would think if a guest on his tv shows answered his questions like that? And then got the mob in the room to close the interview (and summary) down?
Reminds me of Johnson. And populists everywhere.
As to whether or not he will be a good MP for Rochdale? Search Hansard. As MP for Bethnal Green and then Bradford he never held a local surgery, hardly ever appeared in Parliament and certainly never spoke unless it was on a foreign policy issue.
-
tyke
''The delve in to the archives game on forums or even in real life has been done to death to try and discredit people who don't agree with them .
It's a favourite pastime of the liberal class so it comes as no surprise that you are playing this game other than engage in proper debate .
It's designed to shut your opponent up or keep the debate narrow when the debate takes them to uncomfortable places that go against their beliefs''
It's a bit of a weird world you inhabit tyke, you spend a lot of your forum life (as we all do) looking back to what politicians say and have done and said and picking them up and yet you don't want the same standard for yourself and maybe others.
And add a conspiracy theory to boot
-
from the parrot 4/4/2020
''IMO Starmer is the best choice for leader of the Labour Party.
He speaks well and will probably give them a chance at the next GE''
I think the consensus was that Keith could be the acceptable face of a left leaning Labour Party Sydney in a way that Corbyn couldn't be given his history .
He certainly got the backing of the left during the leadership election on that ticket .
There wasn't anything wrong with Corbyn's policies , the problem was his history , Keith had none of that baggage .
That's not quite how it's played out hence my view has changed , how simple does it have to be Syd ? .
The delve in to the archives game on forums or even in real life has been done to death to try and discredit people who don't agree with them .
It's a favourite pastime of the liberal class so it comes as no surprise that you are playing this game other than engage in proper debate .
It's designed to shut your opponent up or keep the debate narrow when the debate takes them to uncomfortable places that go against their beliefs .
Keep em coming Syd .
Aye. Corbyn had all the right domestic policies. He was just never, ever going to get elected. Fancy that eh?
And that's before you get started on his foreign policies, where he and his cronies did and still do bend over backwards to not criticise Putin.
Didn't I once read on here that you went out and canvassed for the Labour Party in the two elections Corbyn fought Billy ?
I could be wrong on that and I'm sure you'll correct me if I was .
-
''Didn't I once read on here that you went out and canvassed for the Labour Party in the two elections Corbyn fought Billy ?''
no looking back tyke
-
Way, way, way back in the midsts of time I was actively involved with the left of the Labour Party and all it stood for particularly Michael Foot and Tony Benn. It took me a few years to arrive at some (at the time) uncomfortable and painful conclusions though:
A) The left rarely give consideration to how much their policies will cost the country
B) Many on the left are more concerned with minority, selective ‘pet policies’ than an overall strategy of running a country.
C) In reality, many left wingers who I knew didn’t truthfully want Labour in power. They were far more comfortable with the politics of radicalism and protest than responsibility.
During the Miners strike of 84/85 I remember going along to events and sharing stories about what was going on in the northern mining communities. I was shocked by how many people in the south didn’t really care. Most Tory voters felt that the Miners had it coming all along and deserved all that Thatcher was dishing out to them. Those on the left of Labour, who should have been natural allies of the miners, were more concerned with how to use the situation to beat Thatcher than they were with supporting the Miners.
It was at this point that I began to see the left for what it really was. Lots of good people, but many with priorities at odds with mine. So in my opinion, if Labour wants power then it has no choice at all but to stick with a left of centre approach.
I also think you have to factor in that Thatcher did make a significant number of working class people better off , it just boiled down to where you lived in the country or what jobs you did .
Given the times and less communication and media outlets this is something that wasn't apparent in mining and other heavy industrial communities .
We thought ALL the working class were getting hammered by Thatcher and that wasn't the case .
The classic example is perhaps Essex Man who isn't the caricature he's often painted , he really does exist , they loved Thatcher , they loved the entrepreneurial narrative , they bought their council house for a pittance and saw it increase in value to astronomical levels .
The country was already changing even before the strike began , Scargill was a reminder of the 70's , winter of discontent , power cuts and three day weeks , the NUM was capable of bringing governments down and many people in this country didn't much care for it especially those who were doing alright .
The defeat of the NUM in my opinion just completed the transformation in the country rather than it's beginning .
I could never understand at the time how the woman kept winning with increased majorities with the carnage she'd caused , it's only as I've got older that I realised just how possibly insular we probably were although that's just down to the times of the day .
Saying that there were some clues during the strike which I never picked up on , it wasn't just Tory voters who quite liked the NUM getting a kicking , there were plenty of people outside of the industry in my circle who didn't much care for the legitimacy of the strike and caused confrontations at that time .
It never was as solid even in mining communities as it's often portrayed today , there were many who did their duty simply because if they hadn't they knew their lives would be made intolerable .
Scargill wasn't as popular as many would have you believe .
That's just my assessment of that time but it could of course be different to how others saw it .
My personal fear at that time wasn't so much the industry closing down , my concern was what came after ? , what did the future offer ?
-
Sydney. This trawling through the archives makes for really interesting reading, a bit creepy mind, but interesting.
If anyone was in any doubt that Starmer has lost all credibility over the last four years, they won’t be now.
Was that your intention?
As I have said, I don't have to think too much about what I would have said, but you know what is said about lack of truth and memory. As for creepy, is there something in your back catalogue?
If you can find where I have dubbed starmer as perfect you may have to do a bit of trawling yourself, if you look at those dishing it out on starmer they mostly don't have a position themselves, dd, selby, rabble ........ etc.
Starmer is the best man to defeat the tories imho.
Baldrick could defeat the Tories at the next election. Without any help from a dachshund named Colin.
You reckon Labour would win the next Election with Corbyn as leader?
A man who wants Ukraine to lay down its weapons and give Putin the territory he has stolen.
A man who lost one election against a PM who literally couldn't get her mouth to work when put under pressure on the Election campaign trail.
Personally, as a Labour party member, I could not vote for a Corbyn- Milne-McCluskey-Murray controlled Labour party, given the current threat to Europe from Putin.
I don't personally believe Labour will win the forthcoming election obviously if I am proved wrong then thats fair enough.
However, as much as people don't like Jeremy Corbyn don't know what he has supposed to have done and the claims substantiated?
His policies weren't to the liking of the MSM and establishment which is why he was smeared so much (wrongly which has been proven).
Also he appealed more to the younger generation and his commitment to nationalizing all the public services which in my view should be in public hands anyway.
Keir Starmer doesn't appeal to the younger generation that's the difference.
Which planet have you just arrived from?
-
SS.
I wonder where Galloway got his inspiration for the "two cheeks of the same backside" quip from?
https://twitter.com/antelava/status/1131838636591386626
There he is. Proud socialist. Supporter of the oppressed Muslims. Man of the people. With a white supremacist far right ex-investment banker and author of "Destroying the Great Satan: The Rise of Islamic Facism". (sic)
BST, Galloway stands up, rightly or wrongly, for Muslims. He's also pledged to try and help Rochdale FC. Whether he does or not remains to be seen.
What does Starmer stand up for? What are his policies on anything? What is he going to do differently to the current motley crew?
Unfortunately Steve he's very choosy which muslims he stands up for aye?
The Uyghur Muslims must be feeling a bit miffed.
NO CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN CHINA - Their muslim population is growing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMwqYRLgjs8&t=1s
-
Whilst we watch George have a few fun months wiping the floor with Starmer, Sunak and their gangs, there's a bigger snowball rolling down the hill. Andrew Feinstein who is going to be running against Starmer in the Holborn, St Pancras ward.
Starmer won't like that, it upsets his need for control. He could, at best for him, be vulnerable to serious damaging gaffs under that pressure/anxiety, at worst, lose his seat.
-
Whilst we watch George have a few fun months wiping the floor with Starmer, Sunak and their gangs, there's a bigger snowball rolling down the hill. Andrew Feinstein who is going to be running against Starmer in the Holborn, St Pancras ward.
Starmer won't like that, it upsets his need for control. He could, at best for him, be vulnerable to serious damaging gaffs under that pressure/anxiety, at worst, lose his seat.
Please tell me you want 5 more years of tory rule
-
I don't want ANY party in control who are continuing feeding the very rich. That directly harms the majority, and also the quality of life in every way. The wealth gap that is growing is making us all worse off.
Labour, Liberals, Tories are all the same. They support the establishment, including the very rich. Voting for any of those is a turkey voting for Christmas.
-
I don't want ANY party in control who are continuing feeding the very rich. That directly harms the majority, and also the quality of life in every way. The wealth gap that is growing is making us all worse off.
Labour, Liberals, Tories are all the same. They support the establishment, including the very rich. Voting for any of those is a turkey voting for Christmas.
Next you'll be telling me your radical politics is limited to a 4 tier football off topic forum. If you were thinking of replacing Starmer and the labour party and have a grand plan to defeat the tories you should have spoken up a bit earlier, I think you've left your run a little late.
-
Way, way, way back in the midsts of time I was actively involved with the left of the Labour Party and all it stood for particularly Michael Foot and Tony Benn. It took me a few years to arrive at some (at the time) uncomfortable and painful conclusions though:
A) The left rarely give consideration to how much their policies will cost the country
B) Many on the left are more concerned with minority, selective ‘pet policies’ than an overall strategy of running a country.
C) In reality, many left wingers who I knew didn’t truthfully want Labour in power. They were far more comfortable with the politics of radicalism and protest than responsibility.
During the Miners strike of 84/85 I remember going along to events and sharing stories about what was going on in the northern mining communities. I was shocked by how many people in the south didn’t really care. Most Tory voters felt that the Miners had it coming all along and deserved all that Thatcher was dishing out to them. Those on the left of Labour, who should have been natural allies of the miners, were more concerned with how to use the situation to beat Thatcher than they were with supporting the Miners.
It was at this point that I began to see the left for what it really was. Lots of good people, but many with priorities at odds with mine. So in my opinion, if Labour wants power then it has no choice at all but to stick with a left of centre approach.
I also think you have to factor in that Thatcher did make a significant number of working class people better off , it just boiled down to where you lived in the country or what jobs you did .
Given the times and less communication and media outlets this is something that wasn't apparent in mining and other heavy industrial communities .
We thought ALL the working class were getting hammered by Thatcher and that wasn't the case .
The classic example is perhaps Essex Man who isn't the caricature he's often painted , he really does exist , they loved Thatcher , they loved the entrepreneurial narrative , they bought their council house for a pittance and saw it increase in value to astronomical levels .
The country was already changing even before the strike began , Scargill was a reminder of the 70's , winter of discontent , power cuts and three day weeks , the NUM was capable of bringing governments down and many people in this country didn't much care for it especially those who were doing alright .
The defeat of the NUM in my opinion just completed the transformation in the country rather than it's beginning .
I could never understand at the time how the woman kept winning with increased majorities with the carnage she'd caused , it's only as I've got older that I realised just how possibly insular we probably were although that's just down to the times of the day .
Saying that there were some clues during the strike which I never picked up on , it wasn't just Tory voters who quite liked the NUM getting a kicking , there were plenty of people outside of the industry in my circle who didn't much care for the legitimacy of the strike and caused confrontations at that time .
It never was as solid even in mining communities as it's often portrayed today , there were many who did their duty simply because if they hadn't they knew their lives would be made intolerable .
Scargill wasn't as popular as many would have you believe .
That's just my assessment of that time but it could of course be different to how others saw it .
My personal fear at that time wasn't so much the industry closing down , my concern was what came after ? , what did the future offer ?
You’re right. I came down to London in 1982 after being laid off twice in 2 years. My old man pretty much forced me to do it as he could see the way things were going for towns like Donny. Overnight I went from a town where work was at a premium to one where I was quite literally able to name my price for any job that I wanted. You could walk onto any building site and be paid whatever you asked for. I’ve said it before; there was no early 80’s recession in the south east.
As you say, Essex man was a ‘thing’ down here and they exemplified everything that Thatcher stood for. It wasn’t just confined to them though. From my experience, the vast majority of people down here were, at best, apathetic about conditions in the north. At worst, they saw it as a price worth paying to keep the south prosperous. During that time I saw that England is fundamentally 2 separate nations, and that remains to this day.
Thatcher created the ‘enemy within’ with the unions and particularly the miners. It was the classic divide and conquer policy against the working classes. And it worked. At the time, almost all the blokes that I worked with were typical working class Tories. To them Socialism was akin to selling out to the Soviet Union.
Labour didn’t help themselves either during this period. They weren’t a credible opposition and spent too much time infighting rather than representing the very people who needed them.
All in all it was a very depressing time.
-
"Sunak and Starmer are two cheeks of the same backside, and it's been well and truly spanked tonight".
Oratory genius. Well done George.
Rumours are carried by haters, spread by fools & accepted by idiots’.
You need to brush up on your semantics. The first part of that sentence isn't a rumour, it's an opinion. The second part is a fact.
Also, I'm neither an idiot, nor a fool.
You could have fooled me.
To be so besotted by danumdon’s post, you must be one or the other.
OK, Einstein, enamour us all with your pearls of wisdom. Tell us all in detail what is so wonderful about Starmer's Labour Party, and exactly what they're going to do differently to the Tories.
-
Way, way, way back in the midsts of time I was actively involved with the left of the Labour Party and all it stood for particularly Michael Foot and Tony Benn. It took me a few years to arrive at some (at the time) uncomfortable and painful conclusions though:
A) The left rarely give consideration to how much their policies will cost the country
B) Many on the left are more concerned with minority, selective ‘pet policies’ than an overall strategy of running a country.
C) In reality, many left wingers who I knew didn’t truthfully want Labour in power. They were far more comfortable with the politics of radicalism and protest than responsibility.
During the Miners strike of 84/85 I remember going along to events and sharing stories about what was going on in the northern mining communities. I was shocked by how many people in the south didn’t really care. Most Tory voters felt that the Miners had it coming all along and deserved all that Thatcher was dishing out to them. Those on the left of Labour, who should have been natural allies of the miners, were more concerned with how to use the situation to beat Thatcher than they were with supporting the Miners.
It was at this point that I began to see the left for what it really was. Lots of good people, but many with priorities at odds with mine. So in my opinion, if Labour wants power then it has no choice at all but to stick with a left of centre approach.
I also think you have to factor in that Thatcher did make a significant number of working class people better off , it just boiled down to where you lived in the country or what jobs you did .
Given the times and less communication and media outlets this is something that wasn't apparent in mining and other heavy industrial communities .
We thought ALL the working class were getting hammered by Thatcher and that wasn't the case .
The classic example is perhaps Essex Man who isn't the caricature he's often painted , he really does exist , they loved Thatcher , they loved the entrepreneurial narrative , they bought their council house for a pittance and saw it increase in value to astronomical levels .
The country was already changing even before the strike began , Scargill was a reminder of the 70's , winter of discontent , power cuts and three day weeks , the NUM was capable of bringing governments down and many people in this country didn't much care for it especially those who were doing alright .
The defeat of the NUM in my opinion just completed the transformation in the country rather than it's beginning .
I could never understand at the time how the woman kept winning with increased majorities with the carnage she'd caused , it's only as I've got older that I realised just how possibly insular we probably were although that's just down to the times of the day .
Saying that there were some clues during the strike which I never picked up on , it wasn't just Tory voters who quite liked the NUM getting a kicking , there were plenty of people outside of the industry in my circle who didn't much care for the legitimacy of the strike and caused confrontations at that time .
It never was as solid even in mining communities as it's often portrayed today , there were many who did their duty simply because if they hadn't they knew their lives would be made intolerable .
Scargill wasn't as popular as many would have you believe .
That's just my assessment of that time but it could of course be different to how others saw it .
My personal fear at that time wasn't so much the industry closing down , my concern was what came after ? , what did the future offer ?
Couple of excellent posts there.
HA. I had similar experiences with the Left in the 80s. More interested in ideological purity than the dirty job of actually winning power. One SWP member I knew told me he voted Tory all through the 80s, because a working class radicalised by Thatcherism was more likely to rise up on the streets than one softened by the support of a Labour government. Kitsons, the lot of them. Mostly upper middle class Kitsons.
Tyke. I agree with pretty much every word you wrote there. But I'm scratching my head how you can write that, but be so angry at a Labour party prepared to make compromises to ensure it wins power.
-
Way, way, way back in the midsts of time I was actively involved with the left of the Labour Party and all it stood for particularly Michael Foot and Tony Benn. It took me a few years to arrive at some (at the time) uncomfortable and painful conclusions though:
A) The left rarely give consideration to how much their policies will cost the country
B) Many on the left are more concerned with minority, selective ‘pet policies’ than an overall strategy of running a country.
C) In reality, many left wingers who I knew didn’t truthfully want Labour in power. They were far more comfortable with the politics of radicalism and protest than responsibility.
During the Miners strike of 84/85 I remember going along to events and sharing stories about what was going on in the northern mining communities. I was shocked by how many people in the south didn’t really care. Most Tory voters felt that the Miners had it coming all along and deserved all that Thatcher was dishing out to them. Those on the left of Labour, who should have been natural allies of the miners, were more concerned with how to use the situation to beat Thatcher than they were with supporting the Miners.
It was at this point that I began to see the left for what it really was. Lots of good people, but many with priorities at odds with mine. So in my opinion, if Labour wants power then it has no choice at all but to stick with a left of centre approach.
I also think you have to factor in that Thatcher did make a significant number of working class people better off , it just boiled down to where you lived in the country or what jobs you did .
Given the times and less communication and media outlets this is something that wasn't apparent in mining and other heavy industrial communities .
We thought ALL the working class were getting hammered by Thatcher and that wasn't the case .
The classic example is perhaps Essex Man who isn't the caricature he's often painted , he really does exist , they loved Thatcher , they loved the entrepreneurial narrative , they bought their council house for a pittance and saw it increase in value to astronomical levels .
The country was already changing even before the strike began , Scargill was a reminder of the 70's , winter of discontent , power cuts and three day weeks , the NUM was capable of bringing governments down and many people in this country didn't much care for it especially those who were doing alright .
The defeat of the NUM in my opinion just completed the transformation in the country rather than it's beginning .
I could never understand at the time how the woman kept winning with increased majorities with the carnage she'd caused , it's only as I've got older that I realised just how possibly insular we probably were although that's just down to the times of the day .
Saying that there were some clues during the strike which I never picked up on , it wasn't just Tory voters who quite liked the NUM getting a kicking , there were plenty of people outside of the industry in my circle who didn't much care for the legitimacy of the strike and caused confrontations at that time .
It never was as solid even in mining communities as it's often portrayed today , there were many who did their duty simply because if they hadn't they knew their lives would be made intolerable .
Scargill wasn't as popular as many would have you believe .
That's just my assessment of that time but it could of course be different to how others saw it .
My personal fear at that time wasn't so much the industry closing down , my concern was what came after ? , what did the future offer ?
Couple of excellent posts there.
HA. I had similar experiences with the Left in the 80s. More interested in ideological purity than the dirty job of actually winning power. One SWP member I knew told me he voted Tory all through the 80s, because a working class radicalised by Thatcherism was more likely to rise up on the streets than one softened by the support of a Labour government. Kitsons, the lot of them. Mostly upper middle class Kitsons.
Tyke. I agree with pretty much every word you wrote there. But I'm scratching my head how you can write that, but be so angry at a Labour party prepared to make compromises to ensure it wins power.
It might be just me because I don't really come from mining stock , both sides of the family weren't involved in mining , my grandparents weren't and my old man wasn't .
It wasn't really in my blood in the way it traditionally is around these parts and I simply fell in to it .
I didn't much care for it to be honest and I never intended to spend my whole working life in it , it's just that 1980's northern town's weren't exactly wick with opportunities and jobs .
Two years after the strike ( 1987 ) my old man gave me the best piece of advice I've ever had , we all knew what was coming down the road and he said I'd be better getting out asap and getting a head start before inevitably competing with 30k others for the few jobs that would be available and b@llax to the redundancy which wouldn't last two minutes on the dole anyway .
In answer to your question , what you have to factor in Billy is that there's a before Corbyn and an after Corbyn effect that many people don't take in to consideration .
If Corbyn hadn't ever become leader I probably wouldn't be as pyssed off as I am with the Labour Party .
Corbyn offered hope and someone in the corner of working people for once and it's hard to get past that with the current offerings or lack of them , business will always come before people and Labour are no different to the Tories in that respect .
The more Starmer has led the party the less I've liked and I simply don't trust the bloke one jot .
I don't know why you get so worked up about it to be honest , Barnsley Central isn't going to vote anything other than Labour anyhow , if they could hold on in 2019 then it's never going to switch to any other party .
The country had the opportunity to vote in a different economic model and decided not to .
That opportunity will never happen again in my lifetime and as I say that takes some stomaching as we once again stick to this market led economy that's had it's day if it ever had one at all .
The left is completely finished other than the radicalised loons making spectacles of themselves in central London every Saturday these days , you couldn't give me a year's salary to even spend 10 minutes with these lunatics .
Someone is going to have to come up with something other than this current market led shyteshow that's a vote winner .
It's appetite for cheap Labour and insane consumption just isn't sustainable .
-
Tyke.
I've heard that line about how Corbyn changed everything. Never really understood it though.
What was it about Corbyn's domestic policy that was significantly different to that offered by Ed Miliband?
-
Tyke.
I've heard that line about how Corbyn changed everything. Never really understood it though.
What was it about Corbyn's domestic policy that was significantly different to that offered by Ed Miliband?
There just seemed more authenticity attached to Corbyn given the fact he was always on the backbenchers and not the career politician type .
To be fair I misjudged Milliband , I thought he'd leave politics once he lost the election like his brother did and he hasn't .
I take a Miliband Labour Party anyday with the benefit of hindsight today .
-
And wasn't the issue with Corbyn that he was on the back benches for a good reason? That being that he was utterly inept at dealing with the issues that leadership throws up on a daily basis?
Corbyn had spent his life talking to people who agreed with him. So he never had to compromise. But the essence of leadership is knowing that you absolutely DO have to compromise to bring people with you who don't agree with everything you say.
Corbyn showed how hopeless he was at this in the very first week he was in power. He was asked "Will you kneel when you meet the Queen?"
There are two answers to that.
1) Yes of course, what a stupid question.
2) No it's against my principles.
What he actually did was to angrily berate journalists for days for asking, before grumpily mumbling that he would. Which left everyone knowing that he didn't want to but he'd been forced into a position that he didn't want.
Then the nadir was his performance in Parliament after Salisbury. An act of aggression by a foreign power. And he couldn't bring himself to condemn it, because he's spent his life with people who's ideology is that you don't emphasise Russia's crimes because it takes the heat off the West.
I think you have to factor in how repulsive that attitude is to the great majority of Britons if you are ever going to come to terms with how Starmer had no option but to make an abrupt and clear break with Corbyn.
-
And wasn't the issue with Corbyn that he was on the back benches for a good reason? That being that he was utterly inept at dealing with the issues that leadership throws up on a daily basis?
Corbyn had spent his life talking to people who agreed with him. So he never had to compromise. But the essence of leadership is knowing that you absolutely DO have to compromise to bring people with you who don't agree with everything you say.
Corbyn showed how hopeless he was at this in the very first week he was in power. He was asked "Will you kneel when you meet the Queen?"
There are two answers to that.
1) Yes of course, what a stupid question.
2) No it's against my principles.
What he actually did was to angrily berate journalists for days for asking, before grumpily mumbling that he would. Which left everyone knowing that he didn't want to but he'd been forced into a position that he didn't want.
Then the nadir was his performance in Parliament after Salisbury. An act of aggression by a foreign power. And he couldn't bring himself to condemn it, because he's spent his life with people who's ideology is that you don't emphasise Russia's crimes because it takes the heat off the West.
I think you have to factor in how repulsive that attitude is to the great majority of Britons if you are ever going to come to terms with how Starmer had no option but to make an abrupt and clear break with Corbyn.
Superb post.
-
Way, way, way back in the midsts of time I was actively involved with the left of the Labour Party and all it stood for particularly Michael Foot and Tony Benn. It took me a few years to arrive at some (at the time) uncomfortable and painful conclusions though:
A) The left rarely give consideration to how much their policies will cost the country
B) Many on the left are more concerned with minority, selective ‘pet policies’ than an overall strategy of running a country.
C) In reality, many left wingers who I knew didn’t truthfully want Labour in power. They were far more comfortable with the politics of radicalism and protest than responsibility.
During the Miners strike of 84/85 I remember going along to events and sharing stories about what was going on in the northern mining communities. I was shocked by how many people in the south didn’t really care. Most Tory voters felt that the Miners had it coming all along and deserved all that Thatcher was dishing out to them. Those on the left of Labour, who should have been natural allies of the miners, were more concerned with how to use the situation to beat Thatcher than they were with supporting the Miners.
It was at this point that I began to see the left for what it really was. Lots of good people, but many with priorities at odds with mine. So in my opinion, if Labour wants power then it has no choice at all but to stick with a left of centre approach.
I also think you have to factor in that Thatcher did make a significant number of working class people better off , it just boiled down to where you lived in the country or what jobs you did .
Given the times and less communication and media outlets this is something that wasn't apparent in mining and other heavy industrial communities .
We thought ALL the working class were getting hammered by Thatcher and that wasn't the case .
The classic example is perhaps Essex Man who isn't the caricature he's often painted , he really does exist , they loved Thatcher , they loved the entrepreneurial narrative , they bought their council house for a pittance and saw it increase in value to astronomical levels .
The country was already changing even before the strike began , Scargill was a reminder of the 70's , winter of discontent , power cuts and three day weeks , the NUM was capable of bringing governments down and many people in this country didn't much care for it especially those who were doing alright .
The defeat of the NUM in my opinion just completed the transformation in the country rather than it's beginning .
I could never understand at the time how the woman kept winning with increased majorities with the carnage she'd caused , it's only as I've got older that I realised just how possibly insular we probably were although that's just down to the times of the day .
Saying that there were some clues during the strike which I never picked up on , it wasn't just Tory voters who quite liked the NUM getting a kicking , there were plenty of people outside of the industry in my circle who didn't much care for the legitimacy of the strike and caused confrontations at that time .
It never was as solid even in mining communities as it's often portrayed today , there were many who did their duty simply because if they hadn't they knew their lives would be made intolerable .
Scargill wasn't as popular as many would have you believe .
That's just my assessment of that time but it could of course be different to how others saw it .
My personal fear at that time wasn't so much the industry closing down , my concern was what came after ? , what did the future offer ?
You’re right. I came down to London in 1982 after being laid off twice in 2 years. My old man pretty much forced me to do it as he could see the way things were going for towns like Donny. Overnight I went from a town where work was at a premium to one where I was quite literally able to name my price for any job that I wanted. You could walk onto any building site and be paid whatever you asked for. I’ve said it before; there was no early 80’s recession in the south east.
As you say, Essex man was a ‘thing’ down here and they exemplified everything that Thatcher stood for. It wasn’t just confined to them though. From my experience, the vast majority of people down here were, at best, apathetic about conditions in the north. At worst, they saw it as a price worth paying to keep the south prosperous. During that time I saw that England is fundamentally 2 separate nations, and that remains to this day.
Thatcher created the ‘enemy within’ with the unions and particularly the miners. It was the classic divide and conquer policy against the working classes. And it worked. At the time, almost all the blokes that I worked with were typical working class Tories. To them Socialism was akin to selling out to the Soviet Union.
Labour didn’t help themselves either during this period. They weren’t a credible opposition and spent too much time infighting rather than representing the very people who needed them.
All in all it was a very depressing time.
The fourty years anniversary of the strike has of course seen a number of documentaries on tv marking it but to be honest I haven't bothered to watch any of them .
There's nowt going on there that we didn't know back then and it's best left where it was as far as I'm personally concerned .
I respect those who feel differently of course and have mining in their blood , collect memorabilia and so forth but it was only ever a job I fell in to with a big strike in the middle of it before I left the industry .
It's probably taken the best part of 30 years for my town to recover from the industry closing for good and I think that's a total disgrace and pretty symbolic of what that woman actually was .
However she's where she is right now and we've just built a new town centre that's booming and I have to say a vibe I've never seen before .
The Essex today I gather is a crime and gang infested shyte hole and if you'd had any sense you'd have moved away years ago , that's just what I hear from lorry drivers who deliver to my place of work .
Funny old world mate isn't it .
-
''Didn't I once read on here that you went out and canvassed for the Labour Party in the two elections Corbyn fought Billy ?''
I don’t recall seeing an answer to this.
-
Not necessarily, it’s important to keep an open mind about things.
And not necessarily all of them at the same time to the nth degree, like someone on the far-right or far-left might be.
Maybe there could be a case made for anti-semitism as both a far left and far right quality too.
Another example. Distrust of big-pharma would have been a classic old school left trait, now the fringes of the right reflexively do.
That’s just some patterns I’ve noticed, if you can dispute them?
Galloway is also a Tucker Carlson fan.
Another example - Wanting a one-state Israel / Palestine resolution.
Interesting. Essentially both rejecting the controlling "establishment", however the definitions of establishment are very different, so in reality there is a confusion being rhetorically abused here.
The left may be distrustful of the corporate private pharma to some degree, not to the overall pharma centred health system, which would always be controlled by "big pharma" in the broader sense, whether private or more state integrated. The right are more objecting to big pharma being used as social control.
Galloway/Carlson - where do you get that he's a fan?
Israel/Palestine - which one state solution?
Mistrust of mainstream media - well yes, MSM is a central tool of the establishment in abusing democracy.
Anti-globalist - this has its nuances, but basically yes, again it is a tool of the establishment.
Anti-intervention in foreign affairs / wars - if you mean worldwide regime changing eg as per US policy, yes. But really they are very different. The right is more focused on issues "at home" and key nationalistic wars -eg Malvinas, the left is against globalist wars and interventions such as Libya, Iraq.
Us versus “the elites” - yep. Mainly the same elites, but not entirely so.
Prone to conspiracies - yep, but so is the centre eg weapons of mass destruction, the need to not over tax the very rich.
Like with the horseshoe, there is a significant gap between the ends.
-
And wasn't the issue with Corbyn that he was on the back benches for a good reason? That being that he was utterly inept at dealing with the issues that leadership throws up on a daily basis?
Corbyn had spent his life talking to people who agreed with him. So he never had to compromise. But the essence of leadership is knowing that you absolutely DO have to compromise to bring people with you who don't agree with everything you say.
Corbyn showed how hopeless he was at this in the very first week he was in power. He was asked "Will you kneel when you meet the Queen?"
There are two answers to that.
1) Yes of course, what a stupid question.
2) No it's against my principles.
What he actually did was to angrily berate journalists for days for asking, before grumpily mumbling that he would. Which left everyone knowing that he didn't want to but he'd been forced into a position that he didn't want.
Then the nadir was his performance in Parliament after Salisbury. An act of aggression by a foreign power. And he couldn't bring himself to condemn it, because he's spent his life with people who's ideology is that you don't emphasise Russia's crimes because it takes the heat off the West.
I think you have to factor in how repulsive that attitude is to the great majority of Britons if you are ever going to come to terms with how Starmer had no option but to make an abrupt and clear break with Corbyn.
You've got to factor in the whole story with Corbyn Billy .
Labour had lost the last two elections and had lost millions of votes since 1997 , continuity Brown lost , Miliband lost .
They only stuck Corbyn's name on the list as the lefty for a bit of balance , no bugga thought he'd win , I'd hardly heard of the bloke to be honest .
Let's not forget it was the members who voted him in .
Everyone underestimated him , Cameron virtually laughed at him , the arrogant prick sneered down his privileged nose at the man , May called an election thinking it would be a breeze and lost the Tory majority , I've never laughed so much in my life when the exit poll was announced .
Yeh I know he didn't win but neither did Brown or Miliband so whose to say who was right and who was wrong back then .
Starmer wouldn't have beaten May or Johnson either .
Nobody wants a Tory or Labour government Billy but the system says we have to have one or the other , it just happens to be your turn this year .
There really isn't anything to get excited or positive about .
It's a total shyte show and as I've said to you before something else is coming down the road after Starmer has done his five years .
There isn't a chance Labour will have a second term with what they've got to deal with , the UK electorate will forgive the Tories and make allowances but not Labour .
My bet is Braverman will be next Tory leader and PM in five years time .
-
Way, way, way back in the midsts of time I was actively involved with the left of the Labour Party and all it stood for particularly Michael Foot and Tony Benn. It took me a few years to arrive at some (at the time) uncomfortable and painful conclusions though:
A) The left rarely give consideration to how much their policies will cost the country
B) Many on the left are more concerned with minority, selective ‘pet policies’ than an overall strategy of running a country.
C) In reality, many left wingers who I knew didn’t truthfully want Labour in power. They were far more comfortable with the politics of radicalism and protest than responsibility.
During the Miners strike of 84/85 I remember going along to events and sharing stories about what was going on in the northern mining communities. I was shocked by how many people in the south didn’t really care. Most Tory voters felt that the Miners had it coming all along and deserved all that Thatcher was dishing out to them. Those on the left of Labour, who should have been natural allies of the miners, were more concerned with how to use the situation to beat Thatcher than they were with supporting the Miners.
It was at this point that I began to see the left for what it really was. Lots of good people, but many with priorities at odds with mine. So in my opinion, if Labour wants power then it has no choice at all but to stick with a left of centre approach.
I also think you have to factor in that Thatcher did make a significant number of working class people better off , it just boiled down to where you lived in the country or what jobs you did .
Given the times and less communication and media outlets this is something that wasn't apparent in mining and other heavy industrial communities .
We thought ALL the working class were getting hammered by Thatcher and that wasn't the case .
The classic example is perhaps Essex Man who isn't the caricature he's often painted , he really does exist , they loved Thatcher , they loved the entrepreneurial narrative , they bought their council house for a pittance and saw it increase in value to astronomical levels .
The country was already changing even before the strike began , Scargill was a reminder of the 70's , winter of discontent , power cuts and three day weeks , the NUM was capable of bringing governments down and many people in this country didn't much care for it especially those who were doing alright .
The defeat of the NUM in my opinion just completed the transformation in the country rather than it's beginning .
I could never understand at the time how the woman kept winning with increased majorities with the carnage she'd caused , it's only as I've got older that I realised just how possibly insular we probably were although that's just down to the times of the day .
Saying that there were some clues during the strike which I never picked up on , it wasn't just Tory voters who quite liked the NUM getting a kicking , there were plenty of people outside of the industry in my circle who didn't much care for the legitimacy of the strike and caused confrontations at that time .
It never was as solid even in mining communities as it's often portrayed today , there were many who did their duty simply because if they hadn't they knew their lives would be made intolerable .
Scargill wasn't as popular as many would have you believe .
That's just my assessment of that time but it could of course be different to how others saw it .
My personal fear at that time wasn't so much the industry closing down , my concern was what came after ? , what did the future offer ?
You’re right. I came down to London in 1982 after being laid off twice in 2 years. My old man pretty much forced me to do it as he could see the way things were going for towns like Donny. Overnight I went from a town where work was at a premium to one where I was quite literally able to name my price for any job that I wanted. You could walk onto any building site and be paid whatever you asked for. I’ve said it before; there was no early 80’s recession in the south east.
As you say, Essex man was a ‘thing’ down here and they exemplified everything that Thatcher stood for. It wasn’t just confined to them though. From my experience, the vast majority of people down here were, at best, apathetic about conditions in the north. At worst, they saw it as a price worth paying to keep the south prosperous. During that time I saw that England is fundamentally 2 separate nations, and that remains to this day.
Thatcher created the ‘enemy within’ with the unions and particularly the miners. It was the classic divide and conquer policy against the working classes. And it worked. At the time, almost all the blokes that I worked with were typical working class Tories. To them Socialism was akin to selling out to the Soviet Union.
Labour didn’t help themselves either during this period. They weren’t a credible opposition and spent too much time infighting rather than representing the very people who needed them.
All in all it was a very depressing time.
The fourty years anniversary of the strike has of course seen a number of documentaries on tv marking it but to be honest I haven't bothered to watch any of them .
There's nowt going on there that we didn't know back then and it's best left where it was as far as I'm personally concerned .
I respect those who feel differently of course and have mining in their blood , collect memorabilia and so forth but it was only ever a job I fell in to with a big strike in the middle of it before I left the industry .
It's probably taken the best part of 30 years for my town to recover from the industry closing for good and I think that's a total disgrace and pretty symbolic of what that woman actually was .
However she's where she is right now and we've just built a new town centre that's booming and I have to say a vibe I've never seen before .
The Essex today I gather is a crime and gang infested shyte hole and if you'd had any sense you'd have moved away years ago , that's just what I hear from lorry drivers who deliver to my place of work .
Funny old world mate isn't it .
I’ve not watched the strike documentaries either Tyke. Primarily because I know that it’ll infuriate me all over again.
It’s good to know that Barnsley town centre is on the up. I confess that it must be about 30 years since I ventured into the town centre. Used to go to a nightclub there called ‘Japanese Whispers’ when I was young and daft and was often an eventful night! I went to the Spain World Cup on a trip organised by a couple of lads from Barnsley.
As for Essex, I live not too far from there now. Crime and gang infested certainly isn’t how I’d describe it but it has its problems like many areas of the country. In the 90’s many of the old eastenders moved out there from east London which gave it a different dynamic shall we say! As with everywhere I suspect, there’s many more good people than bad but they don’t make good headlines do they?
-
Tyke.
I'll have whatever sized bet you want that a) The Tories won't be back in in 5 years, and
b) The Tories will never win an election under Braverman.
You're a strange one. Total and utter insistence that Labour will not do any good. Total refusal to even look at all the positive things that Labour did last time. I really don't get it.
-
from the parrot 4/4/2020
''IMO Starmer is the best choice for leader of the Labour Party.
He speaks well and will probably give them a chance at the next GE''
I think the consensus was that Keith could be the acceptable face of a left leaning Labour Party Sydney in a way that Corbyn couldn't be given his history .
He certainly got the backing of the left during the leadership election on that ticket .
There wasn't anything wrong with Corbyn's policies , the problem was his history , Keith had none of that baggage .
That's not quite how it's played out hence my view has changed , how simple does it have to be Syd ? .
The delve in to the archives game on forums or even in real life has been done to death to try and discredit people who don't agree with them .
It's a favourite pastime of the liberal class so it comes as no surprise that you are playing this game other than engage in proper debate .
It's designed to shut your opponent up or keep the debate narrow when the debate takes them to uncomfortable places that go against their beliefs .
Keep em coming Syd .
Aye. Corbyn had all the right domestic policies. He was just never, ever going to get elected. Fancy that eh?
And that's before you get started on his foreign policies, where he and his cronies did and still do bend over backwards to not criticise Putin.
Didn't I once read on here that you went out and canvassed for the Labour Party in the two elections Corbyn fought Billy ?
I could be wrong on that and I'm sure you'll correct me if I was .
Yes you did by the way.
Because the most critical issues in both those elections was domestic economic policy, and Corbyn's Labour had the better policies on offer.
The most critical issue facing the whole of Europe right now is how we keep NATO together to prevent Putin taking a step westwards. Britain's role in that may be particularly crucial if Trump wins in November and America start flashing signals to Putin that he can have Poland and the Baltics if he wants.
Corbyn as PM would be a disaster in such a scenario. His naive pacifism would be a green light to Moscow that NATO wouldn't have the will to arm the eastern nations.
Thank God we don't have to choose between him and the Tories next time.
-
Tyke.
I'll have whatever sized bet you want that a) The Tories won't be back in in 5 years, and
b) The Tories will never win an election under Braverman.
You're a strange one. Total and utter insistence that Labour will not do any good. Total refusal to even look at all the positive things that Labour did last time. I really don't get it.
But it isn't 1997 Billy , it's not even 2010 , at least your a bit nearer to 2024 I'll give you that , the Tories still think it's 1988 .
Unless the two major parties dump this market led economic model and replace it with something better then no bugga can fix it .
I wouldn't underestimate Braverman if I was you Billy , that's not an endorsement either for her .
-
Tyke.
I'll have whatever sized bet you want that a) The Tories won't be back in in 5 years, and
b) The Tories will never win an election under Braverman.
You're a strange one. Total and utter insistence that Labour will not do any good. Total refusal to even look at all the positive things that Labour did last time. I really don't get it.
But it isn't 1997 Billy , it's not even 2010 , at least your a bit nearer to 2024 I'll give you that , the Tories still think it's 1988 .
Unless the two major parties dump this market led economic model and replace it with something better then no bugga can fix it .
I wouldn't underestimate Braverman if I was you Billy , that's not an endorsement either for her .
Yep, that's just what the UK needs to branch out with a new version of economics ........... different to everywhere else in the world.
Any ideas what this new model looks like tyke?
-
As the UK has withdrawn from the wealthiest trading bloc in the world and poverty is on the rise, what about subsistence farming.
Each family is allocated a black of land and a bag of mixed seeds and when crops fail they can top up their needs at the ever flourishing food banks.
Digging for Britain?
-
Who said this ................ (another creepy, liberal blast from the past)
''Someway Starmer has to keep the metropolitan Labour voters onside , recapture the red wall and then the small matter of eating further in to the tory seats .
It's a monumental task but neither is it impossible .
Starmer has to put his own mark on the party that shifts it away from New Labour and Corbyn and not only retains support it attracts it in its millions .
There's some brainstorming to be done here to say the least .
This is why it makes me uneasy when I see a new party headed by George Galloway appear because we need every vote there is , the red wall simply has to return .
I've nowt against George , he's smart operator , brilliant orator and speaks his mind , his brand of socialism is what you'd expect from him but I'm pragmatic enough to know it's for the fairies in this day and age but there's enough who will buy in to it and I'm long past supporting protest groups even if I can reconcile with much of what they say .
Farage put the shyts up the tories but we can't afford that , we've nowt in the bank to play with''
-
Who said this ................ (another creepy, liberal blast from the past)
''Someway Starmer has to keep the metropolitan Labour voters onside , recapture the red wall and then the small matter of eating further in to the tory seats .
It's a monumental task but neither is it impossible .
Starmer has to put his own mark on the party that shifts it away from New Labour and Corbyn and not only retains support it attracts it in its millions .
There's some brainstorming to be done here to say the least .
This is why it makes me uneasy when I see a new party headed by George Galloway appear because we need every vote there is , the red wall simply has to return .
I've nowt against George , he's smart operator , brilliant orator and speaks his mind , his brand of socialism is what you'd expect from him but I'm pragmatic enough to know it's for the fairies in this day and age but there's enough who will buy in to it and I'm long past supporting protest groups even if I can reconcile with much of what they say .
Farage put the shyts up the tories but we can't afford that , we've nowt in the bank to play with''
Ooh this is a tough one.
Because of the quote ‘It’s a monumental task but neither is it impossible’, I’m going for General Kanematsu in ‘Bridge on the River Kwai’.
-
That AI, eh?
https://twitter.com/PostLeft**tch/status/1763757000012554545
Galloway's face with a Farage rant coming out of his mouth.
But yeah, the horseshoe theory is b*llocks.
-
The link to the Twitter account doesn’t work for me either Billy.
But I’m sure Bristol can go on to Post Left Watch on there and find lots of brilliant examples of what we’re talking about.
“Trump is the leader of the anti-war movement”
Galloway also suggesting Russell Brand was framed for sexual assault for talking out against the Ukraine war and vaccines.
Lots of praise from him for Tucker and Putin from him on there.
Galloway also talking about how the Jan 6th insurrection was a false flag.
“Like with the horseshoe, there is a significant gap between the ends.” Yes that’s why it’s called the horseshoe theory and not the doughnut theory BRR.
-
That AI, eh?
https://twitter.com/PostLeft**tch/status/1763757000012554545
Galloway's face with a Farage rant coming out of his mouth.
But yeah, the horseshoe theory is b*llocks.
More blithe BST rhetoric.
-
NC
It's the swearing filter on here going a bit OTT.
Copy and paste this whole link.
https://x.com/PostLeft**tch/status/1763757000012554545?s=20
Then, replace "**" with 'Wa"
-
The link to the Twitter account doesn’t work for me either Billy.
But I’m sure Bristol can go on to Post Left Watch on there and find lots of brilliant examples of what we’re talking about.
“Trump is the leader of the anti-war movement”
Galloway also suggesting Russell Brand was framed for sexual assault for talking out against the Ukraine war and vaccines.
Lots of praise from him for Tucker and Putin from him on there.
Galloway also talking about how the Jan 6th insurrection was a false flag.
“Like with the horseshoe, there is a significant gap between the ends.” Yes that’s why it’s called the horseshoe theory and not the doughnut theory BRR.
Lots of incidents you cite, then you generalise from there. See your problem? Hopefully you replied to my other post on this.
So, a horseshoe is not a donut. Correct. There is a gap, not an overlap. And in a horseshoe, the centre isn't far from the ends either. As an analogy it makes a point. As a theory, used in the way BST tries, its lazy. I suggest its good for a donkey.
-
Galloway, public views
11% favourable,
46% unfavourable
42% don't know
Rochdale by-election.
16% voted Galloway
24% voted for other candidates
60% didn't vote
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1763938567061963206
-
BST, Sydney, NC Rover. You don't like the Tories, you don't like Galloway, you don't like Corbyn, you don't like the right, you don't like the left.
Just what the f*ck do you lot and Starmer stand for? What do you all want?
Please list it all out, because we're all baffled by it.
-
Galloway, public views
11% favourable,
46% unfavourable
42% don't know
Rochdale by-election.
16% voted Galloway
24% voted for other candidates
60% didn't vote
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1763938567061963206
Galloway got a clear mandate then!
-
BST, Sydney, NC Rover. You don't like the Tories, you don't like Galloway, you don't like Corbyn, you don't like the right, you don't like the left.
Just what the f*ck do you lot and Starmer stand for? What do you all want?
Please list it all out, because we're all baffled by it.
My preference would be for a combination of Keynesian economics, with Government being prepared to use fiscal stimulus aggressively when needed, investment in state education, the NHS and green power generation, together with a hard headed approach to the threat that Russia is now posing.
All in all, not a million miles from Attlee's Government approach.
Funny eh? There's loads of space between the extremes that you list.
So I think a Labour Government under Starmer will deliver all those? Frankly, no. But I think they'll get closer than any of the alternatives. And, as a grown up, I choose the least flawed alternative when I vote.
What do YOU do, SS?
-
Galloway, public views
11% favourable,
46% unfavourable
42% don't know
Rochdale by-election.
16% voted Galloway
24% voted for other candidates
60% didn't vote
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1763938567061963206
Galloway got a clear mandate then!
A lot of (well only a couple but like Galloway they make a big noise) people making a lot of fuss about the very unusual circumstances surrounding a very unusual by-election. And coming to conclusions that they want to be true rather than those supported by data.
-
BST, Sydney, NC Rover. You don't like the Tories, you don't like Galloway, you don't like Corbyn, you don't like the right, you don't like the left.
Just what the f*ck do you lot and Starmer stand for? What do you all want?
Please list it all out, because we're all baffled by it.
I’m a centre-right liberal probably:
- I believe free markets are the best way to make everyone better off.
- With that comes pro-EU and pro-immigration
- Civil liberties are important to me so socially liberal
- Pro-NATO / globalist but can recognise the west is a very good place and that sometimes actions need to be taken to protect it.
- Change and progress is good but I can recognise the importance of traditional and family values. Will more often tilt towards progress - fear-mongering against it never really comes to fruition.
- Build more houses / nuclear power
Don’t mind Starmer personally. Not sure who to vote for. Probably closest to Lib Dem’s but what does that achieve?
(BRR probs about to comment “oh dear” :lol: )
-
BST, Sydney, NC Rover. You don't like the Tories, you don't like Galloway, you don't like Corbyn, you don't like the right, you don't like the left.
Just what the f*ck do you lot and Starmer stand for? What do you all want?
Please list it all out, because we're all baffled by it.
My preference would be for a combination of Keynesian economics, with Government being prepared to use fiscal stimulus aggressively when needed, investment in state education, the NHS and green power generation, together with a hard headed approach to the threat that Russia is now posing.
All in all, not a million miles from Attlee's Government approach.
Funny eh? There's loads of space between the extremes that you list.
So I think a Labour Government under Starmer will deliver all those? Frankly, no. But I think they'll get closer than any of the alternatives. And, as a grown up, I choose the least flawed alternative when I vote.
What do YOU do, SS?
Whoa, hold on a minute. Someone came on here the other day and stressed how much better things were for the working class in the 1940s(Atlee's Labour Government) and the 1960s(Wilson's Labour Government), and you and others dissed it, saying things were better now, despite the fact that you've been saying for years how shit everything is under the Tories.
All this going round in circles has got me dizzy. Also, you asked what I would like to see done. That's simple; all the socialist pledges that Starmer deceitfully made just to get the Labour leadership, including the public ownership of the railways and utilities, and the cap on bankers' bonuses, amongst others.
I think the bloke's a fraud and not to be trusted.
-
Syds, BST, NC and others - I'd be interested to hear how you would see taxation and benefits as being most effective in helping everyone? Some detail including rates and thresholds of income tax, VAT, wealth tax, windfall tazes, ideal benefits system.
-
There's not much in this world that anyone can guarantee these days.
But something you can guarantee is that a Labour party headed by that individual will not be enacting anything like its been spouting for the last couple of years. How can anyone vote for a party that has no foundation or solid footing but will sway with the wind and promise you the earth but in reality you will get the negative end of Tory light (if such a thing could ever be envisaged)
Now every man and his dog has been castigating these policies for the last decade, why would we want an even more inferior version of this policy?
We have a really big problem in the country today, we can't have a repeat of the stillborn policies we've had to endure under this government and its predecessor, but the alternative to this screams disaster over the horizon.
As a nation we need far better, but as things stand we won't be getting it. In this instance to vote for the least worst option is not going to recover this country out of this malaise. Its almost like going back to a wartime footing, we need a government of National unity to attempt to correct what will be under Labour many years of alternative policies that will take the country many steps backwards before it can ever attempt to take it forwards.
This is too important to get wrong.
-
BST, Sydney, NC Rover. You don't like the Tories, you don't like Galloway, you don't like Corbyn, you don't like the right, you don't like the left.
Just what the f*ck do you lot and Starmer stand for? What do you all want?
Please list it all out, because we're all baffled by it.
My preference would be for a combination of Keynesian economics, with Government being prepared to use fiscal stimulus aggressively when needed, investment in state education, the NHS and green power generation, together with a hard headed approach to the threat that Russia is now posing.
All in all, not a million miles from Attlee's Government approach.
Funny eh? There's loads of space between the extremes that you list.
So I think a Labour Government under Starmer will deliver all those? Frankly, no. But I think they'll get closer than any of the alternatives. And, as a grown up, I choose the least flawed alternative when I vote.
What do YOU do, SS?
Whoa, hold on a minute. Someone came on here the other day and stressed how much better things were for the working class in the 1940s(Atlee's Labour Government) and the 1960s(Wilson's Labour Government), and you and others dissed it, saying things were better now, despite the fact that you've been saying for years how shit everything is under the Tories.
All this going round in circles has got me dizzy. Also, you asked what I would like to see done. That's simple; all the socialist pledges that Starmer deceitfully made just to get the Labour leadership, including the public ownership of the railways and utilities, and the cap on bankers' bonuses, amongst others.
I think the bloke's a fraud and not to be trusted.
SS.
It's not hard really.
1) Things are WAY better now than they were in absolute terms.
2) Things are nowhere near as good now as they should be.
Economic development occurs because of two things. Developments in science and technology that make jobs easier and sensible government management.
Only an idiot would want us to return to the actual level of the economy in 1945-60. Things improve through developments in science and technology. I wouldn't want us to go back to most men earning wages through back breaking manual labour, living in houses without baths or central heating or inside toilets and the air being so full of shit you could cut it.
But the Attlee Govt understood how to set the economy moving in a better direction. They set us off on an unprecedented 30 year program of economic and societal improvements.
Of course generally the standard of life is better today than it was after those 30 years. Because generally things improve over time. But the last 15 years of Tory rule in particular has been a catastrophe. Little if any improvement in living standards. Reduction in life expectancy. An almost total stop in productivity growth.
It's not hard to see. One of the reasons there's so much anger around today is that, for the first time since the War, people's lives aren't getting better. Attlee would have known what to do.
-
There's not much in this world that anyone can guarantee these days.
But something you can guarantee is that a Labour party headed by that individual will not be enacting anything like its been spouting for the last couple of years. How can anyone vote for a party that has no foundation or solid footing but will sway with the wind and promise you the earth but in reality you will get the negative end of Tory light (if such a thing could ever be envisaged)
Now every man and his dog has been castigating these policies for the last decade, why would we want an even more inferior version of this policy?
We have a really big problem in the country today, we can't have a repeat of the stillborn policies we've had to endure under this government and its predecessor, but the alternative to this screams disaster over the horizon.
As a nation we need far better, but as things stand we won't be getting it. In this instance to vote for the least worst option is not going to recover this country out of this malaise. Its almost like going back to a wartime footing, we need a government of National unity to attempt to correct what will be under Labour many years of alternative policies that will take the country many steps backwards before it can ever attempt to take it forwards.
This is too important to get wrong.
Beyond the vague (it is) sketch above, what exactly are you wanting or is it a case of you waiting until someone presents you with something?
-
BST, Sydney, NC Rover. You don't like the Tories, you don't like Galloway, you don't like Corbyn, you don't like the right, you don't like the left.
Just what the f*ck do you lot and Starmer stand for? What do you all want?
Please list it all out, because we're all baffled by it.
C'mon Steve you change your mind who you want for leader of labour at the drop of a hat and spend most of yous forum life criticising the same, what the hell!,you haven't even addressed the mick lynch comments telling you to grow up (naive) swallow your pride and vote the tories out.
-
This may help some know where they sit
https://www.britainschoice.uk/the-quiz/
-
Do we have any current or prospective leaders with any sort of semblance of these qualities to take us forward?
Many have said the last "True leader" Labour had was John Smith.
-
Go on DD. I'll bite.
What were Smith's qualities that put him above every Labour leader since?
-
NC
It's the swearing filter on here going a bit OTT.
Copy and paste this whole link.
https://x.com/PostLeft**tch/status/1763757000012554545?s=20
Then, replace "**" with 'Wa"
I've read the same comments almost word for word on this forum
-
BST, Sydney, NC Rover. You don't like the Tories, you don't like Galloway, you don't like Corbyn, you don't like the right, you don't like the left.
Just what the f*ck do you lot and Starmer stand for? What do you all want?
Please list it all out, because we're all baffled by it.
My preference would be for a combination of Keynesian economics, with Government being prepared to use fiscal stimulus aggressively when needed, investment in state education, the NHS and green power generation, together with a hard headed approach to the threat that Russia is now posing.
All in all, not a million miles from Attlee's Government approach.
Funny eh? There's loads of space between the extremes that you list.
So I think a Labour Government under Starmer will deliver all those? Frankly, no. But I think they'll get closer than any of the alternatives. And, as a grown up, I choose the least flawed alternative when I vote.
What do YOU do, SS?
Whoa, hold on a minute. Someone came on here the other day and stressed how much better things were for the working class in the 1940s(Atlee's Labour Government) and the 1960s(Wilson's Labour Government), and you and others dissed it, saying things were better now, despite the fact that you've been saying for years how shit everything is under the Tories.
All this going round in circles has got me dizzy. Also, you asked what I would like to see done. That's simple; all the socialist pledges that Starmer deceitfully made just to get the Labour leadership, including the public ownership of the railways and utilities, and the cap on bankers' bonuses, amongst others.
I think the bloke's a fraud and not to be trusted.
SS.
It's not hard really.
1) Things are WAY better now than they were in absolute terms.
2) Things are nowhere near as good now as they should be.
Economic development occurs because of two things. Developments in science and technology that make jobs easier and sensible government management.
Only an idiot would want us to return to the actual level of the economy in 1945-60. Things improve through developments in science and technology. I wouldn't want us to go back to most men earning wages through back breaking manual labour, living in houses without baths or central heating or inside toilets and the air being so full of shit you could cut it.
But the Attlee Govt understood how to set the economy moving in a better direction. They set us off on an unprecedented 30 year program of economic and societal improvements.
Of course generally the standard of life is better today than it was after those 30 years. Because generally things improve over time. But the last 15 years of Tory rule in particular has been a catastrophe. Little if any improvement in living standards. Reduction in life expectancy. An almost total stop in productivity growth.
It's not hard to see. One of the reasons there's so much anger around today is that, for the first time since the War, people's lives aren't getting better. Attlee would have known what to do.
Developments in science and technology are driven by free market capitalism. Socialism doesn’t create any incentives.
Companies compete for profit which drives the search for that cutting edge - innovation. Of which in turn makes our lives easier.
Entrepreneurs are incentivised to take risks to create new products and services.
All those things have made our lives better.
SS your post nearly gets to this point in asking how things have got better since then despite no “true” Labour leaders.
-
BST, Sydney, NC Rover. You don't like the Tories, you don't like Galloway, you don't like Corbyn, you don't like the right, you don't like the left.
Just what the f*ck do you lot and Starmer stand for? What do you all want?
Please list it all out, because we're all baffled by it.
My preference would be for a combination of Keynesian economics, with Government being prepared to use fiscal stimulus aggressively when needed, investment in state education, the NHS and green power generation, together with a hard headed approach to the threat that Russia is now posing.
All in all, not a million miles from Attlee's Government approach.
Funny eh? There's loads of space between the extremes that you list.
So I think a Labour Government under Starmer will deliver all those? Frankly, no. But I think they'll get closer than any of the alternatives. And, as a grown up, I choose the least flawed alternative when I vote.
What do YOU do, SS?
Whoa, hold on a minute. Someone came on here the other day and stressed how much better things were for the working class in the 1940s(Atlee's Labour Government) and the 1960s(Wilson's Labour Government), and you and others dissed it, saying things were better now, despite the fact that you've been saying for years how shit everything is under the Tories.
All this going round in circles has got me dizzy. Also, you asked what I would like to see done. That's simple; all the socialist pledges that Starmer deceitfully made just to get the Labour leadership, including the public ownership of the railways and utilities, and the cap on bankers' bonuses, amongst others.
I think the bloke's a fraud and not to be trusted.
SS.
It's not hard really.
1) Things are WAY better now than they were in absolute terms.
2) Things are nowhere near as good now as they should be.
Economic development occurs because of two things. Developments in science and technology that make jobs easier and sensible government management.
Only an idiot would want us to return to the actual level of the economy in 1945-60. Things improve through developments in science and technology. I wouldn't want us to go back to most men earning wages through back breaking manual labour, living in houses without baths or central heating or inside toilets and the air being so full of shit you could cut it.
But the Attlee Govt understood how to set the economy moving in a better direction. They set us off on an unprecedented 30 year program of economic and societal improvements.
Of course generally the standard of life is better today than it was after those 30 years. Because generally things improve over time. But the last 15 years of Tory rule in particular has been a catastrophe. Little if any improvement in living standards. Reduction in life expectancy. An almost total stop in productivity growth.
It's not hard to see. One of the reasons there's so much anger around today is that, for the first time since the War, people's lives aren't getting better. Attlee would have known what to do.
Amazing that you say that when the majority of that time was under a Conservative government.
I even ticked a like on your post which is nice.
-
Go on DD. I'll bite.
What were Smith's qualities that put him above every Labour leader since?
"What were Smith's qualities that put him above every Labour leader since?"
The fact that he was the Labour leader in a time very much like now with Labour about to take over from a frayed and dysfunctional Tory party, had he lived we would have never had the conundrum that was Blair.
He would have never considered the disaster for this country and the whole world that was Iraq and the WMD farce. The fact we suffer to this day from that disaster is something that still reverberates in our society. Can you imagine a Labour party coming to power in 97 without Blair? im thinking the whole last twenty years would of been massively different for this country.
We will never know for sure but everything was in place for a successful centre left government that would have taken the thinking in this country away from a Cameron led government and all the ramifications that have become of it.
-
BST, Sydney, NC Rover. You don't like the Tories, you don't like Galloway, you don't like Corbyn, you don't like the right, you don't like the left.
Just what the f*ck do you lot and Starmer stand for? What do you all want?
Please list it all out, because we're all baffled by it.
My preference would be for a combination of Keynesian economics, with Government being prepared to use fiscal stimulus aggressively when needed, investment in state education, the NHS and green power generation, together with a hard headed approach to the threat that Russia is now posing.
All in all, not a million miles from Attlee's Government approach.
Funny eh? There's loads of space between the extremes that you list.
So I think a Labour Government under Starmer will deliver all those? Frankly, no. But I think they'll get closer than any of the alternatives. And, as a grown up, I choose the least flawed alternative when I vote.
What do YOU do, SS?
Whoa, hold on a minute. Someone came on here the other day and stressed how much better things were for the working class in the 1940s(Atlee's Labour Government) and the 1960s(Wilson's Labour Government), and you and others dissed it, saying things were better now, despite the fact that you've been saying for years how shit everything is under the Tories.
All this going round in circles has got me dizzy. Also, you asked what I would like to see done. That's simple; all the socialist pledges that Starmer deceitfully made just to get the Labour leadership, including the public ownership of the railways and utilities, and the cap on bankers' bonuses, amongst others.
I think the bloke's a fraud and not to be trusted.
SS.
It's not hard really.
1) Things are WAY better now than they were in absolute terms.
2) Things are nowhere near as good now as they should be.
Economic development occurs because of two things. Developments in science and technology that make jobs easier and sensible government management.
Only an idiot would want us to return to the actual level of the economy in 1945-60. Things improve through developments in science and technology. I wouldn't want us to go back to most men earning wages through back breaking manual labour, living in houses without baths or central heating or inside toilets and the air being so full of shit you could cut it.
But the Attlee Govt understood how to set the economy moving in a better direction. They set us off on an unprecedented 30 year program of economic and societal improvements.
Of course generally the standard of life is better today than it was after those 30 years. Because generally things improve over time. But the last 15 years of Tory rule in particular has been a catastrophe. Little if any improvement in living standards. Reduction in life expectancy. An almost total stop in productivity growth.
It's not hard to see. One of the reasons there's so much anger around today is that, for the first time since the War, people's lives aren't getting better. Attlee would have known what to do.
Developments in science and technology are driven by free market capitalism. Socialism doesn’t create any incentives.
Companies compete for profit which drives the search for that cutting edge - innovation. Of which in turn makes our lives easier.
Entrepreneurs are incentivised to take risks to create new products and services.
All those things have made our lives better.
SS your post nearly gets to this point in asking how things have got better since then despite no “true” Labour leaders.
That's a brilliant advert for the Tory Party, NC.
-
BST, Sydney, NC Rover. You don't like the Tories, you don't like Galloway, you don't like Corbyn, you don't like the right, you don't like the left.
Just what the f*ck do you lot and Starmer stand for? What do you all want?
Please list it all out, because we're all baffled by it.
C'mon Steve you change your mind who you want for leader of labour at the drop of a hat and spend most of yous forum life criticising the same, what the hell!,you haven't even addressed the mick lynch comments telling you to grow up (naive) swallow your pride and vote the tories out.
Utter gobbledegook as usual.
-
Tyke.
I'll have whatever sized bet you want that a) The Tories won't be back in in 5 years, and
b) The Tories will never win an election under Braverman.
You're a strange one. Total and utter insistence that Labour will not do any good. Total refusal to even look at all the positive things that Labour did last time. I really don't get it.
But it isn't 1997 Billy , it's not even 2010 , at least your a bit nearer to 2024 I'll give you that , the Tories still think it's 1988 .
Unless the two major parties dump this market led economic model and replace it with something better then no bugga can fix it .
I wouldn't underestimate Braverman if I was you Billy , that's not an endorsement either for her .
Yep, that's just what the UK needs to branch out with a new version of economics ........... different to everywhere else in the world.
Any ideas what this new model looks like tyke?
It's main focus has to be solving inequality , inequality is the root cause of the majority of our problems .
You solve that and all the tentacles that inequality provides such as , addiction , mental health , crime , the far right , family breakdown , family debt will lower considerably .
Nobody in politics is talking about inequality , in fact they are doing the opposite .
Even Labour won't cap bankers bonuses for instance .
That says to me neither party know what the real issue is .
So therefore how on earth can they solve it .
-
Tyke.
I'll have whatever sized bet you want that a) The Tories won't be back in in 5 years, and
b) The Tories will never win an election under Braverman.
You're a strange one. Total and utter insistence that Labour will not do any good. Total refusal to even look at all the positive things that Labour did last time. I really don't get it.
But it isn't 1997 Billy , it's not even 2010 , at least your a bit nearer to 2024 I'll give you that , the Tories still think it's 1988 .
Unless the two major parties dump this market led economic model and replace it with something better then no bugga can fix it .
I wouldn't underestimate Braverman if I was you Billy , that's not an endorsement either for her .
Yep, that's just what the UK needs to branch out with a new version of economics ........... different to everywhere else in the world.
Any ideas what this new model looks like tyke?
It's main focus has to be solving inequality , inequality is the root cause of the majority of our problems .
You solve that and all the tentacles that inequality provides such as , addiction , mental health , crime , the far right , family breakdown , family debt will lower considerably .
Nobody in politics is talking about inequality , in fact they are doing the opposite .
Even Labour won't cap bankers bonuses for instance .
That says to me neither party know what the real issue is .
So therefore how on earth can they solve it .
bloody typical
Add a gazillion more points into the topic without answering the very question your comment poses, what will replace a market economy?
-
Tyke.
I'll have whatever sized bet you want that a) The Tories won't be back in in 5 years, and
b) The Tories will never win an election under Braverman.
You're a strange one. Total and utter insistence that Labour will not do any good. Total refusal to even look at all the positive things that Labour did last time. I really don't get it.
But it isn't 1997 Billy , it's not even 2010 , at least your a bit nearer to 2024 I'll give you that , the Tories still think it's 1988 .
Unless the two major parties dump this market led economic model and replace it with something better then no bugga can fix it .
I wouldn't underestimate Braverman if I was you Billy , that's not an endorsement either for her .
Yep, that's just what the UK needs to branch out with a new version of economics ........... different to everywhere else in the world.
Any ideas what this new model looks like tyke?
It's main focus has to be solving inequality , inequality is the root cause of the majority of our problems .
You solve that and all the tentacles that inequality provides such as , addiction , mental health , crime , the far right , family breakdown , family debt will lower considerably .
Nobody in politics is talking about inequality , in fact they are doing the opposite .
Even Labour won't cap bankers bonuses for instance .
That says to me neither party know what the real issue is .
So therefore how on earth can they solve it .
bloody typical
Add a gazillion more points into the topic without answering the very question your comment poses, what will replace a market economy?
Can you answer my question on the Putin thread Syd?
-
Tyke.
I'll have whatever sized bet you want that a) The Tories won't be back in in 5 years, and
b) The Tories will never win an election under Braverman.
You're a strange one. Total and utter insistence that Labour will not do any good. Total refusal to even look at all the positive things that Labour did last time. I really don't get it.
But it isn't 1997 Billy , it's not even 2010 , at least your a bit nearer to 2024 I'll give you that , the Tories still think it's 1988 .
Unless the two major parties dump this market led economic model and replace it with something better then no bugga can fix it .
I wouldn't underestimate Braverman if I was you Billy , that's not an endorsement either for her .
Yep, that's just what the UK needs to branch out with a new version of economics ........... different to everywhere else in the world.
Any ideas what this new model looks like tyke?
It's main focus has to be solving inequality , inequality is the root cause of the majority of our problems .
You solve that and all the tentacles that inequality provides such as , addiction , mental health , crime , the far right , family breakdown , family debt will lower considerably .
Nobody in politics is talking about inequality , in fact they are doing the opposite .
Even Labour won't cap bankers bonuses for instance .
That says to me neither party know what the real issue is .
So therefore how on earth can they solve it .
bloody typical
Add a gazillion more points into the topic without answering the very question your comment poses, what will replace a market economy?
Can you answer my question on the Putin thread Syd?
Don’t feed the troll Sprot
-
That AI, eh?
https://twitter.com/PostLeft**tch/status/1763757000012554545
Galloway's face with a Farage rant coming out of his mouth.
But yeah, the horseshoe theory is b*llocks.
If you're having to use the words of Galloway to back up anything, then yeah, it probably is b*llocks. He's a populist, and as many in this country are politically muddled, so too is he. He'll say what he needs to to get elected.
His party is anti-trans rights and anti-Net Zero, for example. Two positions that are anathema to the left and hard left. His party slogan is "for the workers, not the wokers." Almost as if he's pitching himself to voters in an economically left wing, socially conservative seat!
-
New Ipsos poll for the Evening Standard post-Rochdale:
Lab 47%
Con 20%
LD 9%
Green 8%
Reform 8%
It seems this forum is the only place where Starmer is in trouble!
-
BST, Sydney, NC Rover. You don't like the Tories, you don't like Galloway, you don't like Corbyn, you don't like the right, you don't like the left.
Just what the f*ck do you lot and Starmer stand for? What do you all want?
Please list it all out, because we're all baffled by it.
My preference would be for a combination of Keynesian economics, with Government being prepared to use fiscal stimulus aggressively when needed, investment in state education, the NHS and green power generation, together with a hard headed approach to the threat that Russia is now posing.
All in all, not a million miles from Attlee's Government approach.
Funny eh? There's loads of space between the extremes that you list.
So I think a Labour Government under Starmer will deliver all those? Frankly, no. But I think they'll get closer than any of the alternatives. And, as a grown up, I choose the least flawed alternative when I vote.
What do YOU do, SS?
Whoa, hold on a minute. Someone came on here the other day and stressed how much better things were for the working class in the 1940s(Atlee's Labour Government) and the 1960s(Wilson's Labour Government), and you and others dissed it, saying things were better now, despite the fact that you've been saying for years how shit everything is under the Tories.
All this going round in circles has got me dizzy. Also, you asked what I would like to see done. That's simple; all the socialist pledges that Starmer deceitfully made just to get the Labour leadership, including the public ownership of the railways and utilities, and the cap on bankers' bonuses, amongst others.
I think the bloke's a fraud and not to be trusted.
SS.
It's not hard really.
1) Things are WAY better now than they were in absolute terms.
2) Things are nowhere near as good now as they should be.
Economic development occurs because of two things. Developments in science and technology that make jobs easier and sensible government management.
Only an idiot would want us to return to the actual level of the economy in 1945-60. Things improve through developments in science and technology. I wouldn't want us to go back to most men earning wages through back breaking manual labour, living in houses without baths or central heating or inside toilets and the air being so full of shit you could cut it.
But the Attlee Govt understood how to set the economy moving in a better direction. They set us off on an unprecedented 30 year program of economic and societal improvements.
Of course generally the standard of life is better today than it was after those 30 years. Because generally things improve over time. But the last 15 years of Tory rule in particular has been a catastrophe. Little if any improvement in living standards. Reduction in life expectancy. An almost total stop in productivity growth.
It's not hard to see. One of the reasons there's so much anger around today is that, for the first time since the War, people's lives aren't getting better. Attlee would have known what to do.
I properly began my working life in the professional services sector in 2008 after Uni and post grad stuff. The general feeling amongst those of a similar age to me is that our generation havent really experienced any economic good times. We joined our profession slap bang at the start of the banking crisis and recession and it feels like the global economic picture has been gloomy throughout our working lives. Banking crisis and recession dominated the early 2010s and it seems like we still hadnt got over that by the time COVID came along. I do struggle therefore to accept there was a great deal any Government could have done to isolate us from what were essentially global problems, not domestic. Yes there were/are certain levers than could be pulled domesticaly that could have affected it to a realtively minor degree but ultimately we were in the same boat as everyone else. IMF data comparing UK growth with that of Germany and the US for the period 2010 to 2020 was 1.5% for the UK compared with 2.1% for the US and 1.6% for Germany. So yes, we did perform slightly worse but ultimately that needs to be looked at in the context of the entire world struggling as well. The Tories may very well have made a mess of certain things and austerity may very well not have been the correct way, however it seems something of an exaggeration to lay it all at the door of the Tories. I dont really believe it would have made a huge difference either way if we'd had a Labour government or a Tory government for the last 15 years, it would still have been a rough 15 years with a stagnant economy. Saying the Tories are primarily responsible for the last 15 years of economic malaise is just as inaccurate as saying that New Labour were the primary reason for the economic boom years that preceeded it. Yes they were/are in a position to make adjustments that can make a difference to economic performance, but I the global economic picture plays a far bigger part surely?
-
TC, try reading this, I guess you may disagree and it is from the guardian but the information is there.
If you disagree with what is in the article and as like me you're not an economist, find a reputable economist that support another pov.
The Conservatives’ economic record since 2010 in 10 charts
Richard Partington
Economics correspondent
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/02/conservatives-economic-record-budget-deficit-gdp-tax-tory-budget
-
I'm not really disagreeing with you or the article though Syd. Economic performance for the last 15 years has been terrible. How could anyone argue otherwise?!
What I'm saying is that the extent to which it can be blamed on the party that has been in Government for the last 15 years is being somewhat overstated, including by that Article. Do you really think things would be massively different if we'd had a Labour government for the last 15 years? I mean the stuff you see and experience in every day life, the cost of living, how much money you get in your pay packet, NHS waiting lists etc. A different Government may indeed have been better at tinkering around the edges and we may indeed be in a better position now had Labour been in power. I'm absolutely happy to acknoweldge that. However, the effect of hat positive impact they may have had, is still a drop in the ocean when placed in the context of a global economic picture that has been terrible for everyone.
-
TC, you make some excellent observations in your two above posts which many people will see and understand to be correct.
Others will try to dissuade you and lecture you on why you are wrong, which is their right of course.
It will be interesting to read what will inevitably follow.
I’m just wondering though why you are talking about 15 years of Tory government when it is actually coming up to 14 years.
I spotted that another poster had said 15 years a day or two ago but I thought it was just to back up his dislike of the Tory’s.
-
TC, you make some excellent observations in your two above posts which many people will see and understand to be correct.
Others will try to dissuade you and lecture you on why you are wrong, which is their right of course.
It will be interesting to read what will inevitably follow.
I’m just wondering though why you are talking about 15 years of Tory government when it is actually coming up to 14 years.
I spotted that another poster had said 15 years a day or two ago but I thought it was just to back up his dislike of the Tory’s.
Good point regarding the 15/14 years. I hadnt actually counted but just took it from what another poster said.
Yes I think it will be very interesting to see what happens over the next few years of Labour rule. I look forward to seing whether they do indeed have the magic wand required to fix our broken economy.
I'm reminded of the rather tasteless letter left by Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne when the Tories got in back in 2010. He left a note on his desk for his Conservative successor that simply said "I'm afraid there is no money left....signed Liam Byrne."
-
New Ipsos poll for the Evening Standard post-Rochdale:
Lab 47%
Con 20%
LD 9%
Green 8%
Reform 8%
It seems this forum is the only place where Starmer is in trouble!
A bit disingenuous to say he's in trouble with a 4th division football teams off topic forum!
What will happen in the future though is s different matter, if some on here are to be believed, if Starmer has the dubious task of becoming the Prim Minister then he is inheriting the back streets to hell, when you analyse the state of the economy he's going to have to be either a magician, genius or just Mr Lucky, take your pick.
I'm thinking along the lines that his real grief starts if he does succeed to power then his road will be very long, very hard and with more than the odd pitfall or twenty to negotiate .
But then again we can spend the next 5 years blaming the previous administrations, that always helps.
-
Galloway is a cynical exploiter of the main chance, who happens to be in the right place at the right time on Gaza.
The Blue/Red Uniparty has gifted him the seat by supporting Israel throughout the conflict, and trying to water down any action to prevent their land grab.
The big takeaway is how far from public opinion the main parties are on this.
Labour are heavily compromised with Israeli funding, and the Starmer declaration that he is a "Zionist without qualification".
Basically that means that they have disowned Muslim voters, for whom this is a red line issue.
There is also the issue of trustworthyness.
Keith is a fraudster, who won the Labour leadership on a raft of pledges he has then cynically set aside.
So not only does he have no valid democratic mandate to lead Labour, but his word is known to be worthless beyond the short term expedient.
Into this void will come any savvy operator pushing the "not Rishi or Keith" sales pitch.
-
Let’s we how bad things are on Wednesday, sounds like there will be no major Tax giveaway and if that’s the case the next Government won’t have much leeway for any spending increases either!
-
This may help some know where they sit
https://www.britainschoice.uk/the-quiz/
Wow!! That survey got me bang on. Progressive Activist. 'Well Educated, urban and more likely to be in work'. (1 out of 3 ain't bad).
I must admit I've always been sceptical about surveys since I did one in the mid 70's which said that Woody was my favourite Bay City Roller when everyone knows it was Alan!
-
Inflation is a major factor in the current stagnation.
That inflation was driven by the energy price increases linked to Russia's invasion. Unless Labour had a plan in the 2010s to produce more of our own energy, they would not have had an effect on that.
But Labour have argued that their "Windfall Tax" would have eased the cost of living crisis for consumers. Would that have sorted the problem or just kicked the can down the road? People forget that those record energy profits will still have had lots of tax paid on them. BP argues that those profits are reinvested in to supporting green initiatives. Perhaps those profits are needed to cover the impending energy transition and to protect themselves? That green energy transition won't be possible without the private sector.
That green transition is also taking a step back to potentially take 2 forwards (I hope). Labour want to speed that up.
Record tax burden and government spending
The current conservative government has overseen both the UK's largest peacetime tax burden and rates of government borrowing. 36.9% of GDP and 14.5% of GDP respectively.
This drives inflationary pressure.
But in the last few years from Labour quarters we have seen calls to have increased government support in terms of:
- Covid support (wider furlough scheme, stricter and longer restrictions)
- Increased mortgage support
- A more extensive energy support scheme.
And then of course calls for increased spending on infrastructure and education. I'm not necessarily knocking those but they cost money and feeds back in to the main driver here - Inflation.
These things would help in the long term and benefits would take time to see, but the calls for increased spending and support over the last few years would have surely increased inflationary pressure over the short term of the last 5 years?
Poor productivity is another aspect which needs a deep dive. My worry is that when things take time for Labour to turn around that that just leads to calls for further gov regulation, intereference and spending until we spiral further left and in to poorer productivity and bankruptcy.
Open for debate and correction here, I've rushed this a bit.
-
NC
We have never ever spiralled into poorer productivity and bankruptcy under any previous Labour govt. Why do you see that as a problem this time?
-
Fossil Fuel companies investing in green, but the Tory colour is blue. Someones a bit colour blind
-
No Billy your right they just took peoples pension money to cover it.
-
NC
We have never ever spiralled into poorer productivity and bankruptcy under any previous Labour govt. Why do you see that as a problem this time?
The world is a more volatile place now and as Tommy C has said the global economy is stagnating and there are supply chain issues. 90s were the good times, big technological boom then that will have driven progress. Maybe AI will speed things up again now.
Ageing population and further declining birth rates below replacement rate will cause more problems too.
Energy market drives everything and the gov is guiding it now less so natural choice.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the points in my post though mate
-
Tommy.
I entirely agree that few countries dealt with the aftermath of the GFC well, but that absolutely doesn't let off the Tories for the disastrous mistakes they made.
There was nothing written in stone insisting that the global performance should have been below par. Each actor made their own errors, and the fact that others did so does not absolve the Tories.
The EZ ran very tight monetary policy, and stupidly insisted on not underwriting national debt for too long, making the Euro crisis worse than it should have been. In more recent years, Germany has allowed it's phobia of Govt debt to militate against fiscal stimulus after COVID (their Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, which is the economic equivalent of making a swimmer compete while using only one arm).
In America, Obama knew that fiscal stimulus was required after the 2008 crash and they did borrow and spend, although most economists think they didn't go hard enough. But they had by far the best response of any G7 nation as a result, until the Republicans took over Congress in 2010 and blocked further stimulus spending for party political reasons. Biden's victory in 2020 was followed by very big fiscal stimulus spending, since when their economic growth has streaked away from that of the UK and EZ.
We chose the madness of Austerity because deficit and debt were what the Tories alighted on as their way to beat Brown. The economics was idiotic. It was all driven by political opportunism. And worse, we did Austerity in THE most damaging way, by cutting capital investment.
Like I say, there was nothing inevitable about a decade and more of suppressed growth. Countries chose it. The fact that several did does not diminish the individual responsibility of each one.
-
I was born in ‘95 so I’d like to ask:
Why did Blair’s majority decrease with every election?
Was it solely over Iraq and losing votes to the Lib Dem’s over that or were there other criticisms?
-
TC, you make some excellent observations in your two above posts which many people will see and understand to be correct.
Others will try to dissuade you and lecture you on why you are wrong, which is their right of course.
It will be interesting to read what will inevitably follow.
I’m just wondering though why you are talking about 15 years of Tory government when it is actually coming up to 14 years.
I spotted that another poster had said 15 years a day or two ago but I thought it was just to back up his dislike of the Tory’s.
Good point regarding the 15/14 years. I hadnt actually counted but just took it from what another poster said.
Yes I think it will be very interesting to see what happens over the next few years of Labour rule. I look forward to seing whether they do indeed have the magic wand required to fix our broken economy.
I'm reminded of the rather tasteless letter left by Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne when the Tories got in back in 2010. He left a note on his desk for his Conservative successor that simply said "I'm afraid there is no money left....signed Liam Byrne."
It was meant as a joke. All outgoing chancellors since Churchill in the 1930's had done it - but in only one case had it been weaponised by the incoming party.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election
The National Debt is now two and a half times what is was when he wrote that note - so we now have two and a half times more less money than 2010. If you want to pick-up on that.
-
I'm not really disagreeing with you or the article though Syd. Economic performance for the last 15 years has been terrible. How could anyone argue otherwise?!
What I'm saying is that the extent to which it can be blamed on the party that has been in Government for the last 15 years is being somewhat overstated, including by that Article. Do you really think things would be massively different if we'd had a Labour government for the last 15 years? I mean the stuff you see and experience in every day life, the cost of living, how much money you get in your pay packet, NHS waiting lists etc. A different Government may indeed have been better at tinkering around the edges and we may indeed be in a better position now had Labour been in power. I'm absolutely happy to acknoweldge that. However, the effect of hat positive impact they may have had, is still a drop in the ocean when placed in the context of a global economic picture that has been terrible for everyone.
Of course the economy would be in a totally different place now o what it was in 2010 if Labour had been in power.
We would not have followed an Austerity policy that hollowed out our public services and left the NHS in no fit state to manage people's health never mind fight a pandemic (which the Tories own report said). It's gone from one of the best in the world to one of the worst.
We also would not have had a Brexit referendum and the subsequent economic fall off. Or the economic crash under Truss & Kwarteng.
I dont have a cyrstal ball so I cant say what would have happened. But it would certainly have been different to what the Tories brought.
-
TC, you make some excellent observations in your two above posts which many people will see and understand to be correct.
Others will try to dissuade you and lecture you on why you are wrong, which is their right of course.
It will be interesting to read what will inevitably follow.
I’m just wondering though why you are talking about 15 years of Tory government when it is actually coming up to 14 years.
I spotted that another poster had said 15 years a day or two ago but I thought it was just to back up his dislike of the Tory’s.
Good point regarding the 15/14 years. I hadnt actually counted but just took it from what another poster said.
Yes I think it will be very interesting to see what happens over the next few years of Labour rule. I look forward to seing whether they do indeed have the magic wand required to fix our broken economy.
I'm reminded of the rather tasteless letter left by Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne when the Tories got in back in 2010. He left a note on his desk for his Conservative successor that simply said "I'm afraid there is no money left....signed Liam Byrne."
It was meant as a joke. All outgoing chancellors since Churchill in the 1930's had done it - but in only one case had it been weaponised by the incoming party.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election
The National Debt is now two and a half times what is was when he wrote that note - so we now have two and a half times more less money than 2010. If you want to pick-up on that.
I suppose that if we hadn’t heaped all that financial support to the Ukraine over the last two years, or employed the furlough scheme during covid to preserve many UK businesses, that our ND would have been a bit lower.
Shame on the government for doing those things.
-
I was born in ‘95 so I’d like to ask:
Why did Blair’s majority decrease with every election?
Was it solely over Iraq and losing votes to the Lib Dem’s over that or were there other criticisms?
Not the whole answer but this is a good starting point. A graph of how the media sets the agenda depending on which party is in power:
-
They didn't lose many between 97 and 01. 418 to 412.
That is an astonishingly high level of seats for any one election, never mind 2 in a row.
My recollection though is that popularity was already slipping because things didn't change much. The first Blair Govt stuck remorselessly to the tax and spending plans they'd inherited from Major. It wasn't until 2001 that Brown released the reins a bit and we started to see sustained investment in schools, rail and the NHS.
I've never been convinced that Iraq was a defining issue as regards the popularity of Blair's Government. Yes a few stopped supporting Labour on principle, but it was only a few according to polls.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Opinion_polling_for_the_2005_United_Kingdom_general_election.png)
The big drop in support had already happened between 01 and early 03.
My recollection is that there wasn't any huge event that it could be put down to. More a wearing off of the gloss that Blair came in with, and perhaps the first inklings that something had changed. The pie was getting bigger but wages weren't. Brown tried dealing with that by a large set of tax credits, and the result of that WAS more money in more people's pockets. But getting what people see as a handout is not the same as seeing it in your top line wage. Perhaps, I dunno.
But whatever the reason, Blair was a spent force after 05. He was deeply unpopular by then. If you're going to put yourself forward as the Messiah, you'd better deliver, and overall he didn't. There was a big boost in Labour support after Brown took over, but he was torpedoed by the GFC and was never going to win in those economic circumstances.
-
TC, you make some excellent observations in your two above posts which many people will see and understand to be correct.
Others will try to dissuade you and lecture you on why you are wrong, which is their right of course.
It will be interesting to read what will inevitably follow.
I’m just wondering though why you are talking about 15 years of Tory government when it is actually coming up to 14 years.
I spotted that another poster had said 15 years a day or two ago but I thought it was just to back up his dislike of the Tory’s.
Good point regarding the 15/14 years. I hadnt actually counted but just took it from what another poster said.
Yes I think it will be very interesting to see what happens over the next few years of Labour rule. I look forward to seing whether they do indeed have the magic wand required to fix our broken economy.
I'm reminded of the rather tasteless letter left by Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne when the Tories got in back in 2010. He left a note on his desk for his Conservative successor that simply said "I'm afraid there is no money left....signed Liam Byrne."
It was meant as a joke. All outgoing chancellors since Churchill in the 1930's had done it - but in only one case had it been weaponised by the incoming party.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election
The National Debt is now two and a half times what is was when he wrote that note - so we now have two and a half times more less money than 2010. If you want to pick-up on that.
I suppose that if we hadn’t heaped all that financial support to the Ukraine over the last two years, or employed the furlough scheme during covid to preserve many UK businesses, that our ND would have been a bit lower.
Shame on the government for doing those things.
I posted this the other week when someone else posted that (or was it you?). That has produced a very minor rise in National Debt.
And not forgetting that the scheme(s) the government (Sunak) came up with during covid are thought to have cost the taxpayer around £16 billion in fraud and overpayment (dodgy deals with Tory donors - including Sunak's wife etc).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/23/uk-lost-up-to-16bn-due-to-and-error-in-covid-loans-schemes
-
The question is not whether the country has a debt, it's who owns the assets, who is the debt oweed to? And how much money are those individuals making?
Some will say it's "investments", pension schemes etc. No, it is individuals making vast wealth on this and other asset grabbing.
And those individuals, like Sunak, not paying their taxes here, as in the correct amount for such profitting, but paying cheap tax to off shore countries. Scum they are, as are the establishment that protects them, the media that protects them. And then there's the fools that are letting them take it.
-
George Galloway vows his party will take Angela Rayner's seat...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68467359
Anyone be happy with this.......?
-
George Galloway vows his party will take Angela Rayner's seat...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68467359
Anyone be happy with this.......?
Galloway is the ‘turd’ in Between the cheeks of the Bum!
-
George Galloway vows his party will take Angela Rayner's seat...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68467359
Anyone be happy with this.......?
I suppose Gaza is just about big enough to warrant a couple more MPs to represent them !!!
-
They didn't lose many between 97 and 01. 418 to 412.
That is an astonishingly high level of seats for any one election, never mind 2 in a row.
My recollection though is that popularity was already slipping because things didn't change much. The first Blair Govt stuck remorselessly to the tax and spending plans they'd inherited from Major. It wasn't until 2001 that Brown released the reins a bit and we started to see sustained investment in schools, rail and the NHS.
I've never been convinced that Iraq was a defining issue as regards the popularity of Blair's Government. Yes a few stopped supporting Labour on principle, but it was only a few according to polls.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Opinion_polling_for_the_2005_United_Kingdom_general_election.png)
The big drop in support had already happened between 01 and early 03.
My recollection is that there wasn't any huge event that it could be put down to. More a wearing off of the gloss that Blair came in with, and perhaps the first inklings that something had changed. The pie was getting bigger but wages weren't. Brown tried dealing with that by a large set of tax credits, and the result of that WAS more money in more people's pockets. But getting what people see as a handout is not the same as seeing it in your top line wage. Perhaps, I dunno.
But whatever the reason, Blair was a spent force after 05. He was deeply unpopular by then. If you're going to put yourself forward as the Messiah, you'd better deliver, and overall he didn't. There was a big boost in Labour support after Brown took over, but he was torpedoed by the GFC and was never going to win in those economic circumstances.
So Brown by releasing the reigns abit by investing in schools, rail and NHS by creating what will become one of the biggest scandals with the PFI farce.
A great many of these schemes have cost local government a ridiculous amount of money to service.
The buy now and pay massively at a later date will come back to haunt every local council that became subsumed by these "contracts"
-
TC, you make some excellent observations in your two above posts which many people will see and understand to be correct.
Others will try to dissuade you and lecture you on why you are wrong, which is their right of course.
It will be interesting to read what will inevitably follow.
I’m just wondering though why you are talking about 15 years of Tory government when it is actually coming up to 14 years.
I spotted that another poster had said 15 years a day or two ago but I thought it was just to back up his dislike of the Tory’s.
Good point regarding the 15/14 years. I hadnt actually counted but just took it from what another poster said.
Yes I think it will be very interesting to see what happens over the next few years of Labour rule. I look forward to seing whether they do indeed have the magic wand required to fix our broken economy.
I'm reminded of the rather tasteless letter left by Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne when the Tories got in back in 2010. He left a note on his desk for his Conservative successor that simply said "I'm afraid there is no money left....signed Liam Byrne."
It was meant as a joke. All outgoing chancellors since Churchill in the 1930's had done it - but in only one case had it been weaponised by the incoming party.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election
The National Debt is now two and a half times what is was when he wrote that note - so we now have two and a half times more less money than 2010. If you want to pick-up on that.
I suppose that if we hadn’t heaped all that financial support to the Ukraine over the last two years, or employed the furlough scheme during covid to preserve many UK businesses, that our ND would have been a bit lower.
Shame on the government for doing those things.
.
Not forgetting the billions spaffed up to their cronies during the pandemic or the billions written off, yeah but they did a good job
-
And all the money the government spent on piss during covid
-
George Galloway vows his party will take Angela Rayner's seat...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68467359
Anyone be happy with this.......?
Not a chance. The local labour party there spout plenty of rubbish but its staunch labour territory.
-
And all the money the government spent on piss during covid
link to evidence you’re post please?
-
And all the money the government spent on piss during covid
link to evidence you’re post please?
Shouldn't you be getting ready to go out on your rounds?
-
And all the money the government spent on piss during covid
link to evidence you’re post please?
Just something else he has made up sproty.
-
And all the money the government spent on piss during covid
link to evidence you’re post please?
Just something else he has made up sproty.
I'm amazed you can keep all these petty feuds and spats going all over both boards hilda
This is a compliment before you start off again, it takes a lot of skill
-
TC, you make some excellent observations in your two above posts which many people will see and understand to be correct.
Others will try to dissuade you and lecture you on why you are wrong, which is their right of course.
It will be interesting to read what will inevitably follow.
I’m just wondering though why you are talking about 15 years of Tory government when it is actually coming up to 14 years.
I spotted that another poster had said 15 years a day or two ago but I thought it was just to back up his dislike of the Tory’s.
Good point regarding the 15/14 years. I hadnt actually counted but just took it from what another poster said.
Yes I think it will be very interesting to see what happens over the next few years of Labour rule. I look forward to seing whether they do indeed have the magic wand required to fix our broken economy.
I'm reminded of the rather tasteless letter left by Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne when the Tories got in back in 2010. He left a note on his desk for his Conservative successor that simply said "I'm afraid there is no money left....signed Liam Byrne."
It was meant as a joke. All outgoing chancellors since Churchill in the 1930's had done it - but in only one case had it been weaponised by the incoming party.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election
The National Debt is now two and a half times what is was when he wrote that note - so we now have two and a half times more less money than 2010. If you want to pick-up on that.
Yes I know it was meant as a joke. But do you not think it could be taken as tacit acknowledgement that the incoming Government was inheriting a bit of a sh*tshow?
On the national debt point, yes its true. As I said to Syd in my earlier post, nobody can argue against the hard stats as to how terrible our economic performance has been over the last 14/15 years. My point however is that the financial crash and subsequent recession, a pandemic that shut down the world and latterly a war in Ukraine, have contributed massively to that. It doesn't take much in the way of critical thought to conclude that economic conditions globally (and therefore largely outside of our control) have contributed massively to it. Do you think National Debt wouldn't have doubled if we'd had a Labour Government for the last 14 years? Do you have some stats for what has happened to the National Debt for other countries in the West during that same period? The stats only make sense when looked at in a global context.
Look, I'm not naive enough to think that this isn't how the game is played. Of course the oppositon/incoming Government will use those stats as a massive stick to beat the Tories with. The Tories would do exactly the same. I'm just suggesting that the actual extent to which a national Government could have mitigated these global issues is being over exaggerated by Labour and its supporters.
Personally speaking, the Tories deserve everything they get. I hope they get wiped out. Not because I think they could have done much to address our distrous economic performance, but because they've totally abandoned Conservative policies. They're the other side of the same coin as Labour. Labour will win by a landslide because people like me have abandoned them and won't be bothering to vote for them ever again. Bizarrely (and I await the heckling for this), Liz Truss did actually ask the correct questions regarding the economy, where she went wrong was that she came up with spectacularly wrong answers/solutions.
-
And all the money the government spent on piss during covid
link to evidence you’re post please?
Just something else he has made up sproty.
I'm amazed you can keep all these petty feuds and spats going all over both boards hilda
This is a compliment before you start off again, it takes a lot of skill
How have you got the nerve to say that after what you had just posted to sproty about doing his rounds.
Did you have the evidence that he asked for by the way, or was it something you had made up.
-
And all the money the government spent on piss during covid
link to evidence you’re post please?
iJust something else he has made up sproty.
I'm amazed you can keep all these petty feuds and spats going all over both boards hilda
This is a compliment before you start off again, it takes a lot of skill
How have you got the nerve to say that after what you had just posted to sproty.
It's banter hilda, it's funny. apparently, don't you remember?
-
Some idiot who ran away from this country many years ago keeps making disparaging comments about a government that he has no right to criticise , when he or one of his wet lettuce chums paints themselves into a corner he makes multiple irrelevant posts ,how do you counter such childish Trolling from a person who clearly has mental health issues?
-
Some idiot who ran away from this country many years ago keeps making disparaging comments about a government that he has no right to criticise , when he or one of his wet lettuce chums paints themselves into a corner he makes multiple irrelevant posts ,how do you counter such childish Trolling from a person who clearly has mental health issues?
C'mon sprot lighten up a bit, don't be a shadow mod all your life.
-
Tommy C, I think your theory fails in many places, the main areas being Austerity and Brexit. The amount of data and expert opinion is there. If you find some credible economists to support your view I think you'll be doing well.
-
I forgot to mention market uncertainty surrounding brexit as a stagnation factor. I doubt Ed Miliband would have entertained that vote.
BST, thanks for the Blair breakdown. The euro-sceptic anti-immigration right gained strength while the Conservatives had a big majority. So it’s not unreasonable to suggest that the progressive / socialist left could while Labour has a large majority. Particularly when there aren’t many (any?) Labour MPs to the right of Starmer economically.
Like you said with Blair, the criticism was that things didn’t change fast enough or that potentially he was too moderate. While that was up for debate, I think economic forecasts definitely aren’t expecting anything quick this time. Blair won because he was a positive force, yes? Starmer is only ahead because of the negative momentum the tories have.
People won’t go back to them (Tories) in a hurry, so I perceive that more pressure will come to Starmer from the left and populism *could* shift that way. I can’t find any substantial narrative the Tories had against Blair in the late 90s as a potential future comparison.
-
George is in Hatfield on Sunday if anyone fancies popping to see him.
-
Tommy C, I think your theory fails in many places, the main areas being Austerity and Brexit. The amount of data and expert opinion is there. If you find some credible economists to support your view I think you'll be doing well.
Some idiot who ran away from this country many years ago keeps making disparaging comments about a government that he has no right to criticise , when he or one of his wet lettuce chums paints themselves into a corner he makes multiple irrelevant posts ,how do you counter such childish Trolling from a person who clearly has mental health issues?
You need a check up from the neck up!
-
You're a couple of yards offside sprot, I left when gimp suits became popular
-
Tommy C, I think your theory fails in many places, the main areas being Austerity and Brexit. The amount of data and expert opinion is there. If you find some credible economists to support your view I think you'll be doing well.
Some idiot who ran away from this country many years ago keeps making disparaging comments about a government that he has no right to criticise , when he or one of his wet lettuce chums paints themselves into a corner he makes multiple irrelevant posts ,how do you counter such childish Trolling from a person who clearly has mental health issues?
You need a check up from the neck up!
Is this where you worked sprot?
''Fifteen government departments have been monitoring the social media activity of potential critics and compiling “secret files” in order to block them from speaking at public events, the Observer can reveal.
Under the guidelines issued in each department, including the departments of health, culture, media and sport, and environment, food and rural affairs, officials are advised to check experts’ Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn accounts. They are also told to conduct Google searches on those individuals, using specific terms such as “criticism of government or prime minister”''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/18/shocking-scale-of-uk-governments-secret-files-on-critics-revealed
-
If the government spent a penny researching any of us nomarks on here I would be bitterly disappointed as a tax payer.
-
Not enough research done here?
''Michelle Donelan, the science minister, has apologised and paid damages after accusing two academics of “sharing extremist views” and one of them of supporting Hamas.
In a statement posted on X, the secretary of state for science, innovation and technology said she had deleted a tweet and letter published last year, and accepted what she termed a “clarification” from one of the academics, Prof Kate Sang at Heriot-Watt university in Edinburgh''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/05/uk-science-minister-michelle-donelan-apologises-and-pays-damages-after-academics-libel-action
-
She hasn't paid a penny in damages
-
You have more information rr?
-
Don’t have the link to hand but on the BBC website says the public purse has paid
-
Don’t have the link to hand but on the BBC website says the public purse has paid
They never asked me before dipping into ‘my/our purse’!
-
Not enough research done here?
''Michelle Donelan, the science minister, has apologised and paid damages after accusing two academics of “sharing extremist views” and one of them of supporting Hamas.
In a statement posted on X, the secretary of state for science, innovation and technology said she had deleted a tweet and letter published last year, and accepted what she termed a “clarification” from one of the academics, Prof Kate Sang at Heriot-Watt university in Edinburgh''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/05/uk-science-minister-michelle-donelan-apologises-and-pays-damages-after-academics-libel-action
How is this not a sacking/resiging offence? A government minister libels an academic and gets the taxpayer to cover the damages. That's clear cut isn't it?
-
Not enough research done here?
''Michelle Donelan, the science minister, has apologised and paid damages after accusing two academics of “sharing extremist views” and one of them of supporting Hamas.
In a statement posted on X, the secretary of state for science, innovation and technology said she had deleted a tweet and letter published last year, and accepted what she termed a “clarification” from one of the academics, Prof Kate Sang at Heriot-Watt university in Edinburgh''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/05/uk-science-minister-michelle-donelan-apologises-and-pays-damages-after-academics-libel-action
How is this not a sacking/resiging offence? A government minister libels an academic and gets the taxpayer to cover the damages. That's clear cut isn't it?
Going on past form, Sunak will hide under his bed saying nowt while the storm over this builds up, then she'll resign next Monday.
But seriously, there is absolutely no way on earth she can stay in post after this.
-
Also, while we are on about standards. What is the point of Hunt presenting the Budget to Parliament? His office has spent the past 24 hours telling the media what is in it.
In a previous era, a Chancellor who inadvertently let slip what was in the Budget would resign on the spot.
-
didn't read the article properly
''Donelan’s department said that it had paid the damages and legal costs when asked who had done so, adding: “This was subject to all the usual cross-government processes and aims to reduce the overall costs to the taxpayer that could result from protracted legal action.”
A No 10 source said Rishi Sunak had full confidence in Donelan, calling her “an excellent minister”.
Not sure why there would have been ''protracted legal action'' as the minister has accepted she was in the wrong.
-
didn't read the article properly
''Donelan’s department said that it had paid the damages and legal costs when asked who had done so, adding: “This was subject to all the usual cross-government processes and aims to reduce the overall costs to the taxpayer that could result from protracted legal action.”
A No 10 source said Rishi Sunak had full confidence in Donelan, calling her “an excellent minister”.
Not sure why there would have been ''protracted legal action'' as the minister has accepted she was in the wrong.
You provided the proof in the 1st place Syd, you really need to read your articles to the end
-
didn't read the article properly
''Donelan’s department said that it had paid the damages and legal costs when asked who had done so, adding: “This was subject to all the usual cross-government processes and aims to reduce the overall costs to the taxpayer that could result from protracted legal action.”
A No 10 source said Rishi Sunak had full confidence in Donelan, calling her “an excellent minister”.
Not sure why there would have been ''protracted legal action'' as the minister has accepted she was in the wrong.
You provided the proof in the 1st place Syd, you really need to read your articles to the end
You didn't read my my comment correctly, that's what I wrote. What a forum aye?
-
Syd I was replying to your post 190 to me for more information. You implied that she had paid damages, your link said otherwise as I pointed out. Forums eh, who'd have them
-
Syd I was replying to your post 190 to me for more information. You implied that she had paid damages, your link said otherwise as I pointed out. Forums eh, who'd have them
then you should have read all the comments and you'd have noticed the excerpt was from my original link, aye, what a forum?
-
No if someone asks a question I reply to it before carrying on as you would expect, forums eh!