Jump to content

The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’ve never not voted. i have tactically voted and that didn’t work. I think I might be stuck with taking the moral high ground and voting for the individual I know and like that will come a very distance 4th.

Little Alan? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bickster said:

Little Alan? :D

Well hopefully little Alan is a distant second this time around.

He’s recently outed himself as a Rishi supporter with one of those stock twitter support templates the Sunak team were distributing.

But I have to say, following a couple of recent tours of the Vale, there’s been a real noticeable uplift in the number of posh houses. Houses in my street in town have now topped £300,000 which is just barmy, houses in what would locally be considered the ‘posh’ streets have all become million pound properties. Anything out in the Vale proper with some land around it has just gone bonkers, just multi million pound.

Anecdotally, I’d point out that the last three house sales in my street, the new families have come from: Bristol, Bristol, Forest of Dean

My parents new neighbours on the island, are from… Bristol.

Nothing at all wrong with that. But clearly people are spotting ‘value’ here that they can’t achieve 45 miles away.

I suspect all of that, people thinking they are rich because their mid terrace could be sold for a quarter of a million, will help keep Little Alan’s hopes alive. 

Plus, the weird non campaigning Labour indulged in at the last two elections. If they do that again…

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are now more Air BnB rental properties in Cornwall, than there are families on the housing waiting list.

15,000 families versus 15,200 holiday rentals (2021 figure)

There you go Labour, now all you have to do is work out who’s most likely to vote Labour.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lawyer has written a letter to the Guardian, it was featured far down the webpage - saying that two women have been sexually abused by people in the party, but asked to sign an NDA, under Starmer's leadership. At which point do we decide that Labour are a better option than the tories?

Also where is the self appointed women's champion Jess Phillips on this? Silent. WTF

I challenge you to find this by going to the guardian homepage - they published it momentarily but it's now not easy to find - I had to Google various searches to get it - yet they can claim to have published it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/21/labour-must-come-clean-on-sexual-harassment-claims

Edited by Jareth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

A lawyer has written a letter to the Guardian, it was featured far down the webpage - saying that two women have been sexually abused by people in the party, but asked to sign an NDA, under Starmer's leadership. At which point do we decide that Labour are a better option than the tories?

Also where is the self appointed women's champion Jess Phillips on this? Silent. WTF

I challenge you to find this by going to the guardian homepage - they published it momentarily but it's now not easy to find - I had to Google various searches to get it - yet they can claim to have published it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/21/labour-must-come-clean-on-sexual-harassment-claims

You realise they wrote at least two articles based on this? One even linked on the letters page you linked to. It's rare to find a letter linked on a papers homepage, especially when its about a story they've already covered. It's not on the homepage because the story is 4 days old

The idea that The Guardian is helping Starmer is a bit silly, they've been criticising him for months. I suppose the Daily Mail is doing the same, they published the story 4 days ago too

If you type Labour Sexual Harrasment into a search engine the first AND third result I get is two different Guardian pieces on this very story, one 2 days ago, the other 4, The Mails is second

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bickster said:

You realise they wrote at least two articles based on this? One even linked on the letters page you linked to. It's rare to find a letter linked on a papers homepage, especially when its about a story they've already covered. It's not on the homepage because the story is 4 days old

The idea that The Guardian is helping Starmer is a bit silly, they've been criticising him for months. I suppose the Daily Mail is doing the same, they published the story 4 days ago too

If you type Labour Sexual Harrasment into a search engine the first AND third result I get is two different Guardian pieces on this very story, one 2 days ago, the other 4, The Mails is second

 

It will probably resurface when it can cause maximum damage , once the Tories have stopped self imploding  and an election is called.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bickster said:

You realise they wrote at least two articles based on this? One even linked on the letters page you linked to. It's rare to find a letter linked on a papers homepage, especially when its about a story they've already covered. It's not on the homepage because the story is 4 days old

The idea that The Guardian is helping Starmer is a bit silly, they've been criticising him for months. I suppose the Daily Mail is doing the same, they published the story 4 days ago too

If you type Labour Sexual Harrasment into a search engine the first AND third result I get is two different Guardian pieces on this very story, one 2 days ago, the other 4, The Mails is second

 

Cool - but entirely missing the point of what papers do when they really want to 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Cool - but entirely missing the point of what papers do when they really want to 

I wasn't missing the point, I just don't thing in this instance it was valid, nothing in your fantasy was true. The Guardian didn't do what you said they did

They printed the story, not once but twice and linking to a letter as some proof of the Guardian burying a story because you couldn't find the stories from 4 four days ago is just really odd tbh

Yes newspapers bury stories, except it didn't happen here

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bickster said:

I wasn't missing the point, I just don't thing in this instance it was valid, nothing in your fantasy was true. The Guardian didn't do what you said they did

They printed the story, not once but twice and linking to a letter as some proof of the Guardian burying a story because you couldn't find the stories from 4 four days ago is just really odd tbh

Yes newspapers bury stories, except it didn't happen here

We all know the press weight stories subject to their agenda - that’s what has happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jareth said:

We all know the press weight stories subject to their agenda - that’s what has happened. 

You are clearly being influenced by your specific biases. The best way to bury this story is to not report it at all

The Guardian not only reported on it but twice and printed a letter too

If the story develops, as it most probably will in time then they'll report it again.

But you want it to be front and centre and in the current news cycles, it just isn't worthy of it. Politics is being dominated by the Tories ripping each other new arseholes, this story just isn't going to compete with that right now

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bickster said:

You are clearly being influenced by your specific biases. The best way to bury this story is to not report it at all

The Guardian not only reported on it but twice and printed a letter too

If the story develops, as it most probably will in time then they'll report it again.

But you want it to be front and centre and in the current news cycles, it just isn't worthy of it. Politics is being dominated by the Tories ripping each other new arseholes, this story just isn't going to compete with that right now

No, I don't agree - I'm pointing out that current Labour are not scrutinised by the Guardian in the same way Corbyn's Labour was - Jezza pronounced Epstein in a manner consistent with an evil antisemite - it made the home page above the line - yet Labour under Starmer ask two sexually harrassed women to sign NDAs and their legal rep has to write in to the paper to have it given any sort of oxygen. I agree the tories are the news at the moment but equally they are not, they have their final two and we have weeks now of hustings. The guardian are of the opinion that pressure should be kept applied to the tories - no argument there, but Labour are up to some shit too, and Starmer should be held to the same standard of scrutiny. And again, where the fook is Jess Phillips on this? Nowhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jareth said:

but we have a situation now where there is not a left wing party to vote for - there just is not.

Yes there is, TUSK.

You know, the new messiah, Mick Lynch's Party

Trouble is, they'd be just as "tough" on immigration because that's all part of the nuttier Trade Union's philosophy. That's why they were for Brexit. The left have always been about control

It's the Tories that are oddly playing to the crowd over immigration not Labour, it's entirely consistent with Left thinking, its counter to Laissez-faire and Neoliberal thinking. The left are the more traditionally authoritarian ideology.

This is what you want isn't it, Labour to return to it's left roots?

Can't please some people for trying I guess

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The methods of control many left wing authorities will use are more obvious, as they are addressed directly at the public, they are no more controlling.

This right wing government has just as active a housing plan as any lefty regime. It’s just that the policy is not to build grubby soulless tower blocks for the masses, rather, to let slum landlords sub divide existing poor housing stock. Similarly so on education policy, health, labour resource etc..

They are deciding the industries we have and they are deciding whether to give Tata another £1.5 Billion. A lefty regime would be deciding whether to nationalise. A right wing regime will allow Uber to run riot, a left wing regime may decide we need integrated transport hubs to and from the places they have chosen. Look at HS2, look at who owns the buildings HMRC staff are being moved to in the north, to be seen to be levelling up by leaving London. London government owned offices being emptied, empty office blocks owned by tory donors being filled.

Same shit down a different pipe.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bickster said:

The left are the more traditionally authoritarian ideology.

I don't think that's necessarily correct, vs. the right. In the last century at least?

The left have been closely aligned with civil rights, gender equality, LGBT+ rights, worker rights movements, BLM, etc. All movements which promote/ protect individual rights (the antithesis of authoritarianism).

The right has consistently pushed back against all the above, although I suppose they balance it out by allowing people the freedom to choose between 100 razorblade brands

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ‘political compass’ goes in four directions, not two. 

Whether you are ‘left or right’ leaning in your political policy positions tells us nothing about your preferred method of implementation of those policies i.e. authoritarian or liberal. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, juanpabloangel18 said:

I don't think that's necessarily correct, vs. the right. In the last century at least?

The left have been closely aligned with civil rights, gender equality, LGBT+ rights, worker rights movements, BLM, etc. All movements which promote/ protect individual rights (the antithesis of authoritarianism).

The right has consistently pushed back against all the above, although I suppose they balance it out by allowing people the freedom to choose between 100 razorblade brands

Thats correct, laws were inacted making certain acts and behaviours illegal, this is authoritarianism, that's controlling a population (or attempting to). The fact that its controlling in a way most people want and its with the consent of the people doesn't make it less authoritarian. A left response is to control things, the intent and effect of that control isn't relevant. I'm not saying its bad, I believe in lots of elements of control.

What I'm pointing out is that it shouldn't come as any suprise that a Left leaning party wants to control immigration, it's natural behaviour for them

What is odd, is that a party that claims to be a Laissez-faire, free market party is actually seeking to exercize heavy control on the issue, it's a sign that they are abandoning that ideology and are heading towards fascism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The ‘political compass’ goes in four directions, not two. 

Whether you are ‘left or right’ leaning in your political policy positions tells us nothing about your preferred method of implementation of those policies i.e. authoritarian or liberal. 

Yes but in the UK there's never really been a tradition of liberal left leaning parties. UK Left parties are mostly from the Communist / Socialist / Trade Union tradition, which are mainly always more authoritarian in their nature

It's one of the reasons why a lot of "normal" people find it hard to vote Labour, as individuals, most of us prefer to be left alone to do what we want but that conflicts with our desire to have others behave in a way we like or approve of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â