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

[bobzy]

3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Lets come back to this topic in next few years and see if anythings changed

Im not optimistic 

 

But you're not answering the question.  Why would any opposing party come out and do what you're suggesting they do?  There's literally no benefit for them.

[Demitri_C]

Just now, bobzy said:

 

But you're not answering the question.  Why would any opposing party come out and do what you're suggesting they do?  There's literally no benefit for them.

Ive explained it, so people know what you stand for. As gerrad would say "give us a identity" Alot of people dont know what this labour party stands. I can say the same about lib dems. While the tories are going out destroying themselves with the brainless corruption this is where its a good opportunity 

This is a great opportunity for labour to reconnect with voters after they completely imploded and let cameron in

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

So no blame on the water companies then? Just government should be penalising them but how can anyone not blame the water companies? Its their fault.

It is a excuse. We got 2 years or so until your next election. Give us a long term plan. Show us what kind of party you want to be. None of these parties have given us anything and that includes the lib dems.

I have no idea what the plans are for the nhs, the help for people long term just temporary solutions, 

Its not just me i know alot of hardcore labour supporters and they dont even know what the labour party stands for these days.

On the water companies, yes they are the ones discharging sewage etc. Yes it’s them who have chosen to invest less than they should have done into treatment, pipes and so on and instead take higher profits. But, and it’s a big but, they have been enabled to do this by Tory government policy and actions, deliberately. The government has slashed environment agency spending, leading to far fewer water quality checks, leading to essentially free reign for the companies to pollute as they know they will not be fined.

On the opposition parties our parliamentary system works like this: In the run up to each election all parties issue manifestos laying out what they aim to do in government. Someone wins and forms the government, whereupon ministers come cup with a top level plan, for example “reduce regulatory burdens on the water industry to drive efficiency”. The civil service then presents detailed options, with pros and cons as to how to achieve that ministerial aim and what it will end up doing. Ministers then choose a path from the options and put it to a vote in parliament in a bill. The job here of the opposition parties and parliament is to scrutinise, oppose and hold the government to account. It is NOT to come up with an alternative bill. They do not have the civil service working for them in the same way. So until the run up to the next election they will need to be focusing on their formal role as the opposition, or as opposition parties.

None of that completely prevents a party laying out their own principles or plans or aims, but they are not the government, they cannot present enactable detailed plans which will happen instead of the government’s plans. They’re basically limited to commenting from the sidelines and trying to get some airtime and coverage for what they say.

So until the run up to the next election it’s futile hoping for detailed policies from any opposition party. The best we will get is “big handful” stuff.

[Rolta]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

On the water companies, yes they are the ones discharging sewage etc. Yes it’s them who have chosen to invest less than they should have done into treatment, pipes and so on and instead take higher profits. But, and it’s a big but, they have been enabled to do this by Tory government policy and actions, deliberately. The government has slashed environment agency spending, leading to far fewer water quality checks, leading to essentially free reign for the companies to pollute as they know they will not be fined.

On the opposition parties our parliamentary system works like this: In the run up to each election all parties issue manifestos laying out what they aim to do in government. Someone wins and forms the government, whereupon ministers come cup with a top level plan, for example “reduce regulatory burdens on the water industry to drive efficiency”. The civil service then presents detailed options, with pros and cons as to how to achieve that ministerial aim and what it will end up doing. Ministers then choose a path from the options and put it to a vote in parliament in a bill. The job here of the opposition parties and parliament is to scrutinise, oppose and hold the government to account. It is NOT to come up with an alternative bill. They do not have the civil service working for them in the same way. So until the run up to the next election they will need to be focusing on their formal role as the opposition, or as opposition parties.

None of that completely prevents a party laying out their own principles or plans or aims, but they are not the government, they cannot present enactable detailed plans which will happen instead of the government’s plans. They’re basically limited to commenting from the sidelines and trying to get some airtime and coverage for what they say.

So until the run up to the next election it’s futile hoping for detailed policies from any opposition party. The best we will get is “big handful” stuff.

Just to back this up...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/13/water-companies-britain-seas-sewage-fines-environment-agency

Quote

The truth is that the governments of all four nations have lost control of the pollution crisis, and in some cases this seems to be, like Southern Water’s releases, knowing and deliberate. Since 2010, the Westminster government has cut the Environment Agency’s grant by almost two-thirds. It knew the budget was already stretched. It knew the water companies and other polluters were already getting away with murder, but it went ahead anyway. When you look into your local river and see, instead of sparkling water and leaping fish, stools and wet wipes, sanitary towels and sewage fungus, please remember that this is what “cutting red tape” looks like.

Even worse, David Cameron’s administration shifted from external regulation to relying on water companies to “self-report” pollution incidents. In other words, the government depends on these ruthless, offshored corporations to blow the whistle on themselves. The Tories claim to be “tough”, “realistic” and “businesslike”, but their wilful naivety in expecting companies to regulate themselves would astonish a six-year-old.

More in the link above ...

 

[Xann]

6 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

What has starmer said about increasing NHS staff levels?

He's so useless it's pretty surely deliberate?

A couple of reasons for playing dumb.

He has to get past our guardians of decency in the nonsense press. Threaten to tax the offshore wheeze gang and they'll make shit up and repeat it day after day, like the Corbyn Joo hater dogshit.

The other reason is countless billions from the public purse has been stuffed into the pockets of Tory chums. In some cases our assets were just given away.

We're mortgaged right up.

Quote

Each time a school becomes an academy the council must hand over the title deeds for the school if it has them (avg value £5m per school)
As over 2,000 schools have been forced to become academies that is £10 billion (min) state assets Michael Gove has demanded the title deeds be handed to him
I wrote an FOI request to Michael Gove's department and asked him where are the title deeds to England's schools
After 3 months he still refused to answer - I had to involve the information commissioner who wrote and demanded they answer within 10 days
And now we find out why Michael Gove did not want to answer
the reply I got
The department of Education has absolutely no record of any of the title deeds for the school - not in paper format or electronic format
Now as councils held title deeds for state assets safely for decades - and Michael Gove used the Academies Bill to force councils to hand them to him - the Secretary of State For Education -
Where are all the title deeds for the schools Mr Gove
At the end they told me to write to a company the Tory Party Treasurer is on the board of - and ask the private company if they know what Michael Gove has done with the title deeds for state assets
Any good magician will tell you - create a distraction - to get away with the trick
And the trick here is - Michael Gove transferring £10 billion of state assets to private companies - where no payment was received for the state assets - and taxpayers forced to pay over £50,000,000 in legal fees alone to fund the trick
Thatcher sold state assets - Michael Gove gives them away - and some of the companies he gave them away to - just happen to have very prominent Tory party members on the boards - with us even paying all legal fees.

Michael Rosen

This is what's been going for years, and these figures are chickenfeed compared to the Brexit PM's disastrous reign.

Starmer can't promise so much until he's got past Murdoch, the Brother Barclay, Viscount Rothermere and others, then looked at the books.

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

So no blame on the water companies then? Just government should be penalising them but how can anyone not blame the water companies? Its their fault.

The country's not being run for the benefit of you or I Dem. Can't be bringing the moneyed to account, it might start a trend?

Thousands died whilst the Tory filth made their VIP lane chums rich, yet...

 

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

This is a great opportunity for labour to reconnect with voters after they completely imploded and let cameron in

Look at the way Miliband ate sandwiches though. Anyone threatening the gravy train won't be connecting through media controlled by tax shy wealth.

Not telling you to vote for Starmer btw Dem, I'm not a fan either, the prick can feck off, but he surely understands threatening the status quo, particularly well in advance of an election, will just mean the bullshit machine will attack him relentlessly from that point? It's what happens.

[bickster]

25 minutes ago, Xann said:

Not telling you to vote for Starmer btw Dem

Same here Dem, I'm just trying to get across that they aren't "all the same."

My problem is that the attitude that they are all the same, so it doesn't matter, leads to people not voting because no matter who you vote for etc etc. just leads to the bastards getting elected, again and again and again

Have it in your mind to vote, make the best choice for you and just make sure that best choice isn't Tory

[Demitri_C]

Yeah guys i get it you are just backing up your point in a respectful amd informative way.  I have no issue with that 

[Wainy316]

Vote against the person best placed to beat the Tory candidate.  Simples.

I'm in a pretty safe seat myself but Labour came second in 2017 and Lib Dem in 2019 so I'm gonna have to see which way the wind is blowing nearer the time.

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Vote against the person best placed to beat the Tory candidate.  Simples.

I'm in a pretty safe seat myself but Labour came second in 2017 and Lib Dem in 2019 so I'm gonna have to see which way the wind is blowing nearer the time.

It’s not that simple. Both the LibDem by-election victories were in seats that Labour were second in 2019. There are seats out there with LibDems in third that they realistically stand more chance of winning

[KentVillan]

I know it's all a bit mawkish and largely a load of bollocks, but if you watch Truss's tribute to the Queen followed by Starmer's tribute in Parliament today... he seemed so much more Prime Ministerial than she did. It was a much better written, more thoughtful speech, well delivered, that struck the right balance and didn't make it all about him. Very impressive.

 

 

Edited September 9, 2022 by KentVillan

[birdistheword]

12 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I know it's all a bit mawkish and largely a load of bollocks, but if you watch Truss's tribute to the Queen followed by Starmer's tribute in Parliament today... he seemed so much more Prime Ministerial than she did. It was a much better written, more thoughtful speech, well delivered, that struck the right balance and didn't make it all about him. Very impressive.

 

 

And Boris Johnson’s statement is probably the best of the lot. What’s your point?

[KentVillan]

1 minute ago, birdistheword said:

And Boris Johnson’s statement is probably the best of the lot. What’s your point?

Well, I mean firstly, I disagree with the premise. But was making a comparison between the leaders of the two main parties. What's your point...?

[Demitri_C]

Do we need ti change this now to king hating

[KentVillan]

13 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Do we need ti change this now to king hating

Thought it was referring to the long-standing ban on I Want To Break Free at Labour Party conference 

[bickster]

5 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Do we need ti change this now to king hating

No, any self respecting leftie loathes Poodle Perm Rock anyway

[Jareth]

I’ll have to vote Labour now - it’s important to put a bullet in the tory cranium. I don’t want to do it but there’s no choice. On starmer well we will have to see, he has form for doing the opposite of what he promises. 

[DCJonah]

15 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I’ll have to vote Labour now - it’s important to put a bullet in the tory cranium. I don’t want to do it but there’s no choice. On starmer well we will have to see, he has form for doing the opposite of what he promises. 

Which even if he did, is still better than voting for tories. 

[Demitri_C]

At the title change

[sidcow]

I really don't see what's wrong with Starmer.  Seems decent enough and quite statesmen like compared to what we've had lately. 

I can't however abide Angela Rayner.  Just doesn't come across to me as suitable for a senior political office.  Maybe she's different in person. 

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

I really don't see what's wrong with Starmer.  Seems decent enough and quite statesmen like compared to what we've had lately. 

I can't however abide Angela Rayner.  Just doesn't come across to me as suitable for a senior political office.  Maybe she's different in person. 

See this is where politics is interesting, you’ve fallen for the professional-guy-in-sharp-suit illusion.

I’d actually be quite in favour of giving Angela Rayner a go at the top gig, at least she can claim to be more in touch with the vast majority of the population given her upbringing and background.

We have to move away from who ‘looks and sounds’ statesmanlike and focus on who will actually do the best job based on their experiences to date.