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

[Chindie]

17 minutes ago, blandy said:

How does that view tally with

Just a sardonic comment that I seem to remember much rending of garments and clutching of pearls when the last leadership did anything like this, and now the opposing current leadership is doing its all very acceptable and sensible we've perfectly fine and only the hated enemy would have any issues with it.

Not really directed at the commentariat here, just a general observation. I don't really have a dog in the fight, I don't vote Labour and I've never been a member, but it would seem if it's bad its bad whoever is doing it. Unless the issue is just a proxy for partisan concerns, in which case the pretending its anything other than that is silly.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

Just a sardonic comment that I seem to remember much rending of garments and clutching of pearls when the last leadership did anything like this, and now the opposing current leadership is doing its all very acceptable and sensible we've perfectly fine and only the hated enemy would have any issues with it.

Not really directed at the commentariat here, just a general observation. I don't really have a dog in the fight, I don't vote Labour and I've never been a member, but it would seem if it's bad its bad whoever is doing it. Unless the issue is just a proxy for partisan concerns, in which case the pretending its anything other than that is silly.

That makes sense. I wondered if you were implying "when Corbyn did it, people moaned it was a purge (it was) and now Starmer's doing it, no one's talking of purges (they are)". As I posted previously - factionalism. Both sides do it. Their rules allow for it and the local parties don't like it. I don't have a dog in the fight either.

[Chindie]

It's not hard to see why people don't like this Labour party very much.

The **** pathetic nose rammed so far up the Heil's arse it can smell the printing presses thing, the complete empty principle-less ambulance chasing, the distinct feeling that nobody believes in anything and nothing will massively change outside of being marginally less cynically evil.

It's not exactly a resounding endorsement of putting an x on Labour.

[MakemineVanilla]

52 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Of course there should be a place for voices of dissent, I just think we rightly (In STWC and NO2NATO's case at least) need to question why these politicians and contrarians act the way they do. For many of the STWC and especially No2NATO people it's because they're Putin\Iran\Hezbollah or whatever-shills. The line up for the No2NATO gig is essentially a list of foreign agents at this point, and Twitter has comically tagged several of the idiots as such even with conspiracy theorist Elon in charge. Sure there should be space for them, but they also need to handle being questioned and fact checked, they often don't. George Galloway and Chris Williamson are two examples of people who not long ago held top spots within Labour who are now essentially so crooked that even the conspiracy theorists laugh at them.

When it comes to such global issues there will be a huge amount of chaff amongst the information available, which I would find impossible to clarify.

 

[Davkaus]

That speech seemed like one very much aimed at winning over Tories. He is counting on the left holding their collective noses and voting for his bastardised Labour party no matter what.

Shunning the left while welcoming Tories with open arms. It's not for me.

[Chindie]

14 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

That speech seemed like one very much aimed at winning over Tories. He is counting on the left holding their collective noses and voting for his bastardised Labour party no matter what.

Shunning the left while welcoming Tories with open arms. It's not for me.

Yeah, that's it really.

No we've nothing to do with those dirty commies, they wanted to eradicate the Jews, no no we'll stamp on their faces. Too obsessed with the browns and the trans, no nothing to do with them, we've gotten rid of them all.

...

Brown people coming over here, taking our women, sleeping with our jobs, no no no, we don't agree with the Tories but we do in some respects if that's what you want. Shoot the boats with rubber bullets we would. A sensible approach to immigration. Brexit? Oh of course we'll make it work for us.

...

plsvotelabour

[chrisp65]

He’ll be better than the worst bunch of sheisters since the 80’s but with broadly similar policies.

I’ve got £5 on that being the strap line at the next party conference.

 

[blandy]

32 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

He’ll be better than the worst bunch of sheisters since the 80’s but with broadly similar policies.

I’ve got £5 on that being the strap line at the next party conference.

That makes me think. I mean the other lot, they’ve got rid of the previous mad ones and now they’ve got their own boring but competent one. The Brexity throbbers are marginalised and the main plan seems to be to do whatever they can to minimise seats lost. So here’s the thought: nick these broadly similar, but not quite as nasty policies and neutralise Labour’s advantage there. Then, the choice is between two identical parties. No big defeat. Maybe even hung parliament.

Now, if I can hark back 6 months or a year or 18 months, people were posting similar to what you’ve just posted then, too. But some other posters were saying that Labour shouldn’t be revealing all their plans then…because the Tories will just nick them, or get their media mates to go hard (Kenny) on them if they were not really nickable. We’re probably 16 months away from a GE. Labour is now more trusted by Business than the tories are. Labour is more trusted on a lot of stuff than the tories are. People currently say they will vote Labour by a margin of somewhere between 10 and 27% in the polls compared to Tory. Leadership-wise, it’s a lot smaller gap, maybe 5% or so, now the mad ones are gone.

So I think Labour will be (and is) grafting away at policies to announce in the run up to an election, but knowing that the uk is in a mess and there are going to be limitations on what they can credibly promise to fix in the short term. Not many of those things are going to be exciting to lefties. They’re going to be dull, but essential things. One or two may be eye catchers, but mostly not.

So far, tactically, Starmer has been spot on, most of the time, in turning Labour round. The weak area is policies that grab people’s attention and offer more hope than “well at least they’re not venal Tories”.

[LondonLax]

5 hours ago, Davkaus said:

That speech seemed like one very much aimed at winning over Tories. He is counting on the left holding their collective noses and voting for his bastardised Labour party no matter what.

Shunning the left while welcoming Tories with open arms. It's not for me.

It’s because the Labour Party have lost the working class vote to the Tories. Their ‘base’ is now intellectual inner city liberals (like many of us on here perhaps?) and that is not enough of a constituency to win an election unfortunately.

They need to win back ‘red wall’ Tories and that means appealing to the white van drivers etc who in days gone by would have been union member labour voters but now are Brexit voting UKIP/Tories. They are hoping their liberal base would still rather see them get up than whatever abomination the actual Tories have become but need to tack right in general to win an actual working majority. 

[chrisp65]

The last Labour leader that chased votes by quoting Thatcher turned out to be a bit of a wrong ‘un.

[bickster]

The Thatcher quote Starmer mentioned

Quote

The first duty of government is to uphold the law, and if it tries to bob, weave and duck round that duty when it is inconvenient, the governed will do exactly the same thing, and then nothing will be safe, not home, not liberty, not life itself.

British Political Speeches

She was attacking Labour in her first Speech as Party Leader, Tory Party conference in 1975

What she was attacking (Clay Cross Council and the Shrewsbury Six amongst others), she was very wrong in what she was saying but Starmer was quoting the emboldened bit above out of context, to throw Thatchers words back at the Tories. In isolation, it's hard not to agree with that selective quote. It's easy to disagree with the overall content of that speech but that bit that Starmer used should be a universal truth.

The headlines about Starmer's speech are a bit wonky, "Starmer Praises Thatcher", he was doing nothing of the sort, he just said one thing she said was right

We've got a Tory Government who ignore the rule of law. Thatcher wasn't wrong with the quoted line and so to use Thatchers words against the Tories seems rather apposite and also hard for them to disagree

It's easy to see the headines "Starmer quotes Thatcher" and see why he did it. It will resonate with Tories, it will also upset the Left but the headlines will do their job as most people won't actually listen to the actual quote, just read the headlines

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that line from her speech though (The rest of the speech was utter bollex)

[Jon]

16 hours ago, Davkaus said:

 

Shunning the left while welcoming Tories with open arms. It's not for me.

Nor me. I'm far too left for his centre right spiel anyway, but all I see following a Labour win under 'Sir' (no labour leader should ever accept this title btw) is more of the same, slightly less bad, but done in a nicer way.  

There will be no seismic shift to the left.  There needs to be.  

[chrisp65]

9 hours ago, bickster said:

The Thatcher quote Starmer mentioned

British Political Speeches

She was attacking Labour in her first Speech as Party Leader, Tory Party conference in 1975

What she was attacking (Clay Cross Council and the Shrewsbury Six amongst others), she was very wrong in what she was saying but Starmer was quoting the emboldened bit above out of context, to throw Thatchers words back at the Tories. In isolation, it's hard not to agree with that selective quote. It's easy to disagree with the overall content of that speech but that bit that Starmer used should be a universal truth.

The headlines about Starmer's speech are a bit wonky, "Starmer Praises Thatcher", he was doing nothing of the sort, he just said one thing she said was right

We've got a Tory Government who ignore the rule of law. Thatcher wasn't wrong with the quoted line and so to use Thatchers words against the Tories seems rather apposite and also hard for them to disagree

It's easy to see the headines "Starmer quotes Thatcher" and see why he did it. It will resonate with Tories, it will also upset the Left but the headlines will do their job as most people won't actually listen to the actual quote, just read the headlines

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that line from her speech though (The rest of the speech was utter bollex)

It’s designed for some people to delve in to the context and political history.

If in the meantime it hoovers up some doubters that were worried Labour might still be a bit Laboury, be reassured, the leader quotes Thatcher. 

 

[HKP90]

19 hours ago, Chindie said:

It's not hard to see why people don't like this Labour party very much.

The **** pathetic nose rammed so far up the Heil's arse it can smell the printing presses thing, the complete empty principle-less ambulance chasing, the distinct feeling that nobody believes in anything and nothing will massively change outside of being marginally less cynically evil.

It's not exactly a resounding endorsement of putting an x on Labour.

Given that under the Tories, almost every aspect of the country has been utterly trashed (the economy, the environment, immigration, the NHS, transport (millions wasted on a section of HS2 that they ordered, and have now cancelled), the Union (in place for 230 years, now on the verge of collapse), Brexit, etc, etc, etc), anyone voting for the them would need to be a raving buffoon.

It almost doesn't matter who else there is to vote for. In the last 7 years the Country has undergone it's biggest decline certainly in my lifetime, but probably for hundreds of years. 

I'm not a natural Labour voter, but honestly Starmer could be talking about the weather and they would get my vote.

[villaajax]

Swapping Tory Blue for Tory Red won't make any real difference.

[Milfner]

20 minutes ago, villaajax said:

Swapping Tory Blue for Tory Red won't make any real difference.

 

 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, HKP90 said:

Given that under the Tories, almost every aspect of the country has been utterly trashed (the economy, the environment, immigration, the NHS, transport (millions wasted on a section of HS2 that they ordered, and have now cancelled), the Union (in place for 230 years, now on the verge of collapse), Brexit, etc, etc, etc), anyone voting for the them would need to be a raving buffoon.

It almost doesn't matter who else there is to vote for. In the last 7 years the Country has undergone it's biggest decline certainly in my lifetime, but probably for hundreds of years. 

I'm not a natural Labour voter, but honestly Starmer could be talking about the weather and they would get my vote.

Labor supported brexut has well so we would have had the same shit as the tories on that side. They porbably would have **** the economy up like they did before cameron won the election.

They probably would have made mistakes withbpandemic as near enough every country has.

HS2 and nhs points though i agree.  The country has gone backwards i agree but i think its absolute myth that its going to get much better under labour.  The countries **** im afraid to say

[Seat68]

I am not a Labour supporter Dem but with all the probably in your post I say let’s give them a go. It might be the same, it might be marginally better or worse, but it’s time to try another lot. The corruption, the amateurishness, the missteps and the contempt for voters. It would take some fairly big efforts for Labour to replicate that. 

[HKP90]

37 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Labor supported brexut has well so we would have had the same shit as the tories on that side. They porbably would have **** the economy up like they did before cameron won the election.

They probably would have made mistakes withbpandemic as near enough every country has.

HS2 and nhs points though i agree.  The country has gone backwards i agree but i think its absolute myth that its going to get much better under labour.  The countries **** im afraid to say

Well you got two sides. One may have f***ed the country into oblivion, one actually f***ed the country into oblivion. 

Of the two, why would anyone trust a party that actually did the deed?

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, HKP90 said:

Well you got two sides. One may have f***ed the country into oblivion, one actually f***ed the country into oblivion. 

Of the two, why would anyone trust a party that actually did the deed?

I actually dont trust any of the main two parties to be honest.both have **** the country up in different ways.

We just sit there and take it like mugs