Is there anything in politics more shit than the Labour Party?

[BlueRiver]

I used the EU as an example to show how much politics has changed in the years since the period a lot of folk hearken back to (pre-Thatcher), ffs I'm no arguing the Tories intentions. The EU was once massively divisive on the left which was why we had a referendum confirming our entry into the then EEC in the 70s. The Tories were fully in favour. 

 

Starmer giving some vague praise for certain Thatcherite reforms isn't some kind of shotgun to the face moment unless you're stuck fighting the political battles of yesteryear. 

 

A large number of us under 35 couldn't give a toss about Thatcher. And a number of the ones that do couldn't tell you much about what she did beyond shutting the mines because our parents are stuck in some groundhog day wanting a rebattle of the 80s.

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

1 minute ago, BlueRiver said:

 

They're on this thread. Totally blind to some of the reasons why Corbyn got annihilated whilst no even voting for him. 

I haven't read the whole thread but I think that the prevalent view is that Starmer praising Thatcher is an astonishing misjudgement.  I can't imagine Anas Sarwar would be best pleased.  I think that bringing national assets and infrastructure back under public control is worth exploring.  Water, steel and transport, for example.  That isn't looking to ignite a class war, it's about running services and industries in the national interest rather than letting spivs run them into the ground. 

[periodictabledancer]

22 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

They're on this thread. Totally blind to some of the reasons why Corbyn got annihilated whilst no even voting for him. 

who ? 

[BlueRiver]

14 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I haven't read the whole thread but I think that the prevalent view is that Starmer praising Thatcher is an astonishing misjudgement.  I can't imagine Anas Sarwar would be best pleased.  I think that bringing national assets and infrastructure back under public control is worth exploring.  Water, steel and transport, for example.  That isn't looking to ignite a class war, it's about running services and industries in the national interest rather than letting spivs run them into the ground. 

 

We'll see but Salmond's shrug about her economic policies didn't seem to particularly hurt the SNP vote in recent years. 

 

A couple of vague lines about helping shake us out of 70s stagnation isn't the end of the world imo. 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, periodictabledancer said:

Your first para makes zero sense : if it's changed since the 70s why do "many" want to rerun their old political battles ?

The only reason the regulatory changes (eg supplyside changes , which I alluded to just) haven't happened is because the (far) right doesn't have enough clout in the Tory party these days and what rump is left will be booted at the next general election. 

The idea that the tories wanted us out from under the yoke of the EU to then NOT implement changes (ie reductions - or are you seriously goona argue they wanted to INCREASE them ?) to workers rights, employment rights, consumer rights is just laughable. 

They wanted it . Big time. 

 

Exactly, I was only talking about what they want, not suggesting that we have a competent government capable of pulling it's shit together long enough to actually do it.

[i wish jj was my dad]

5 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

We'll see but Salmond's shrug about her economic policies didn't seem to particularly hurt the SNP vote in recent years. 

 

A couple of vague lines about helping shake us out of 70s stagnation isn't the end of the world imo. 

I don't know what Salmond said about Thatcher. I can't remember him ever being complimentary tbh. 

I can't remember much about tge 70s but I do remember the 80s and things weren't exactly beer and skittles. Some thrived. A lot didn't and it was the start of a lot of the inequalities we see today. 

[Unknown user]

Just now, i wish jj was my dad said:

I don't know what Salmond said about Thatcher. I can't remember him ever being complimentary tbh. 

 

 

I think he once said she was a woman TBF

[i wish jj was my dad]

Just now, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

I think he once said she was a woman TBF

Did you have to pull the trigger? 🤦. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

54 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Ask them. There's some on this thread arguing for a return of "old labour" policies and greeting about Thatcher from about page one. 

 

I didn't argue the Tories didn't want to enact regulatory change. I argued they haven't yet and have essentially said the same as you regarding the far right fundamentalists in the party. 

Dearie me from what I can read it seems that “ poverty “ only began in the  1980s . Try telling that to older folks who lived in the 40s 50s and 60s and us “younge” ones  from the 70s 

[BlueRiver]

23 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I don't know what Salmond said about Thatcher. I can't remember him ever being complimentary tbh. 

I can't remember much about tge 70s but I do remember the 80s and things weren't exactly beer and skittles. Some thrived. A lot didn't and it was the start of a lot of the inequalities we see today. 

 

It wasn't but no decade ever was. 

 

Salmond said Scots didn't mind Thatcher's economic policies. Not quite praising her but a nonchalance that must shock a lot on here. Think it round about the time he was openly working with the Tories to get his budgets through at Holyrood. 

 

Which must've been a hammerblow to the SNP vote considering her economic policies heralded the beginning of poverty as we know it according to some.

[i wish jj was my dad]

3 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

It wasn't but no decade ever was. 

 

Salmond said Scots didn't mind Thatcher's economic policies. Not quite praising her but a nonchalance that must shock a lot on here. Think it round about the time he was openly working with the Tories to get his budgets through at Holyrood. 

 

Which must've been a hammerblow to the SNP vote considering her economic policies heralded the beginning of poverty as we know it according to some.

I'll take your word for Salmond saying that. I take issue with it though because I think 'most Scots' did mind. Certainly where I grew up they did. 

I'd also take issue with the suggestion that the 80s were the beginning of poverty as we know it. Nobody said that.

What it was though was the end of the post-war consensus which did a lot to raise the standard of living and quality of life of the majority of the population with the introduction of the welfare state, NHS, better housing, etc. Moving away from the obscene levels of poverty that existed before the war. 

A more gradual transition away from heavy industry in the 80s could have avoided the mass unemployment and decimation of communities, some which have yet to recover and the increasing levels of inequality that have followed.

I don't think Starmer is stupid but if he thinks praising Thatcher is a good idea I would beg to differ. 

[Ulysses]

6 hours ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Again not really the point I'm making about the EU in general though. 

 

The EU is still a capitalist wet dream and has had no issue with jurisprudence that undermines unions and workers. 

 

The point of your post was that you could let American food in without compromising standards.  My point is that letting American imports in is not the point of a trade deal - at least, not for a government that's trying to improve the economy.

 

You can't let American food imports into the UK without compromising massively on farming, animal welfare and human health standards.  There are two main reasons why.  One is because British farmers and British industry simply could not compete with American food production without significantly cutting corners in all areas.  They'd be wiped out in a couple of years.  The other is because in order to get exports into that market, you'd have to agree to make changes to those standards.  In any trade deal negotiation between the UK and the USA, the USA would pretty much get its own way on most things.

 

That's the truth about the UK and trade deals.  The EU is a big player in world markets.  The UK is about a seventh of that size, or a little smaller.  If the UK wants to do trade deals with the US, China, India and the likes, or any trade deals that go beyond what it already got as an EU member, the UK is going to have to make serious and unwelcome concessions which it would not have to make if it were still a member state.

 

As for capitalism?  The European Union is a union of sovereign states, all of which have free markets.  What else is the EU going to do but reflect that?  The notion that the EU is an entity apart and separate from its member countries is a made-up Faragist fantasy.  

[brownkg]

4 hours ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

..................................

I don't think Starmer is stupid but if he thinks praising Thatcher is a good idea I would beg to differ. 

Except he wasn't praising her that was just the dog whistling headline the torygraph printed to catch the lazy people out.  See here

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by brownkg
video explanation

[i wish jj was my dad]

4 hours ago, brownkg said:

Except he wasn't praising her that was just the dog whistling headline the torygraph printed to catch the lazy people out.  See here

 

It did seem quite a leap. Lazy me. 

[Nucky Thompson]

8 hours ago, brownkg said:

Except he wasn't praising her that was just the dog whistling headline the torygraph printed to catch the lazy people out.  See here

 

Aye and the Nats fell for it hook, line and sinker 

[BlueRiver]

9 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

The point of your post was that you could let American food in without compromising standards.  My point is that letting American imports in is not the point of a trade deal - at least, not for a government that's trying to improve the economy.

 

You can't let American food imports into the UK without compromising massively on farming, animal welfare and human health standards.  There are two main reasons why.  One is because British farmers and British industry simply could not compete with American food production without significantly cutting corners in all areas.  They'd be wiped out in a couple of years.  The other is because in order to get exports into that market, you'd have to agree to make changes to those standards.  In any trade deal negotiation between the UK and the USA, the USA would pretty much get its own way on most things.

 

That's the truth about the UK and trade deals.  The EU is a big player in world markets.  The UK is about a seventh of that size, or a little smaller.  If the UK wants to do trade deals with the US, China, India and the likes, or any trade deals that go beyond what it already got as an EU member, the UK is going to have to make serious and unwelcome concessions which it would not have to make if it were still a member state.

 

As for capitalism?  The European Union is a union of sovereign states, all of which have free markets.  What else is the EU going to do but reflect that?  The notion that the EU is an entity apart and separate from its member countries is a made-up Faragist fantasy.  

 

The EU's jurisprudence marks out it as no great leftist protector. 

 

The initial reason I brought up the EU was to illustrate that the left parties are now the ones more enamoured with it than the right. 

 

I got caught up in the chicken chat when I should've left it be and was mainly looking to point out that chlorine washing in and of itself doesn't automatically mean that the product is bad. It was banned because of assumptions around other practices it facilitates. Not because chlorinated chicken in and of itself is unhealthy 

Edited December 4, 2023 by BlueRiver

[BlueRiver]

Also the EU is an entity separate from its member states. 

 

It has its own legal personality. The Treaty of Lisbon brought that in. 

 

A technicality of course but an important one. 

[brownkg]

4 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

The EU's jurisprudence marks out it as no great leftist protector. 

 

The initial reason I brought up the EU was to illustrate that the left parties are now the ones more enamoured with it than the right. 

 

I got caught up in the chicken chat when I should've left it be and was mainly looking to point out that chlorine washing in and of itself doesn't automatically mean that the product is bad. It was banned because of assumptions around other practices it facilitates. Not because chlorinated chicken in and of itself is unhealthy 

They chlorine wash the chicken because their animal husbandry measures are so poor. I for one wouldn't be happy with lower food standards that would come with any kind of deal imposed by America

[Unknown user]

7 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

The EU's jurisprudence marks out it as no great leftist protector. 

 

The initial reason I brought up the EU was to illustrate that the left parties are now the ones more enamoured with it than the right. 

 

I got caught up in the chicken chat when I should've left it be and was mainly looking to point out that chlorine washing in and of itself doesn't automatically mean that the product is bad. It was banned because of assumptions around other practices it facilitates. Not because chlorinated chicken in and of itself is unhealthy 

 

This is Tory island, of course the EU is more lefty than the UK, and of course the left prefer that.

[BlueRiver]

1 minute ago, brownkg said:

They chlorine wash the chicken because their animal husbandry measures are so poor. I for one wouldn't be happy with lower food standards that would come with any kind of deal imposed by America

 

Totally agree but I was just pointing out that the headline idea that "chlorinated chicken" being bad isn't the case. It's the associated underlying practices. 

 

I don't even know how conclusive the evidence is that American chicken is much worse than UK stuff. Information I found seemed to suggest similar levels of bacteria. 

 

The thing is it's an assumption that UK farmers would have to follow suit to compete with it. Consumers are capable of choice regarding product origin and like many that opt for Scottish produce over English, they could opt for UK over American for these reasons. 

 

Miles off the chat about Labour now though.

[BlueRiver]

3 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

This is Tory island, of course the EU is more lefty than the UK, and of course the left prefer that.

 

If you say so. 

[Unknown user]

Just now, BlueRiver said:

 

If you say so. 

 

I don't just say so, it's fact.

 

In the last 44 years, 13 have been under Labour, and Tory Labour at that.

[BlueRiver]

Once upon a time the "old" left wouldn't have wanted to be part of a neoliberal free market that undermines the rights of workers and unions everytime a case came up regarding EU law and tensions with the freedoms. 

 

All I was saying was that the political landscape has changed. 

[BlueRiver]

4 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

I don't just say so, it's fact.

 

In the last 44 years, 13 have been under Labour, and Tory Labour at that.

 

Which suggests my overall point of fighting battles based on political ideals that haven't had a snowballs hope in hell of winning since the 70s is correct then. 

 

Starmer is right to map the course he is even if it gets kickbackers all frothy. 

[Unknown user]

14 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Which suggests my overall point of fighting battles based on political ideals that haven't had a snowballs hope in hell of winning since the 70s is correct then. 

 

Starmer is right to map the course he is even if it gets kickbackers all frothy. 

 

Mate it's you frothing away 

[BlueRiver]

1 minute ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

Mate it's you frothing away 

 

Usual from you there. 

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Usual from you there. 

 

🤷‍♂️

[JudyJudyJudy]

19 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

Starmer is right to map the course he is even if it gets kickbackers all frothy

He is being realistic . The left is dead in any sense of the word now and certainly for forming a British Govt.  Its over. Its middle to right now. 

[Ulysses]

13 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Totally agree but I was just pointing out that the headline idea that "chlorinated chicken" being bad isn't the case. It's the associated underlying practices. 

 

I don't even know how conclusive the evidence is that American chicken is much worse than UK stuff. Information I found seemed to suggest similar levels of bacteria. 

 

The thing is it's an assumption that UK farmers would have to follow suit to compete with it. Consumers are capable of choice regarding product origin and like many that opt for Scottish produce over English, they could opt for UK over American for these reasons. 

 

Miles off the chat about Labour now though.

 

Agreed about the underlying practices.  That's why nobody notices chlorinated lettuce - the associated practices don't hurt the lettuce (not too much, at any rate).

 

I'd rather buy food in Europe than America, though that may have as much to do with food retailers as with food producers.

 

English and Scottish producers work in the same regulatory framework, and consumers need that.  British and American producers don't and without regulatory convergence there are big risks.  Time and time again industry has shown that unless you regulate it, it will put profits ahead of customers.  That's one of the reasons why the EU is a bit obsessive about food quality and safety. The well-off can buy decent food rather than plastic shite, but the poor might find it a lot harder to be capable of choice about product origin.

 

It is indeed miles off the Labour chat, but it might be well suited if the thread was called "Is there anything more shit than the corrupt kleptocratic self-serving bunch of wankers in the Conservative Party?"

 

I don't really trust or rate Starmer, but he's less likely than the Con Jobs to serve up chicken in a can deep-fried and covered with spray-on imitation cheese.

[BlueRiver]

Just now, JudyJudyJudy said:

He is being realistic . The left is dead in any sense of the word now and certainly for forming a British Govt.  Its over. Its middle to right now. 

 

In the old sense it certainly it. As Victorian pointed out in a post further back. 

 

I'd missed the post too but browning quite rightly highlighted that Starmer wasn't out there praising Thatcher to the hilt either. A recognition of reality and (God forbid) that not all of Thatcher's work was awful and should be undone isn't what people want to believe it to be.  

 

Recognising these things shouldn't be controversial. 

 

 

[Unknown user]

11 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Agreed about the underlying practices.  That's why nobody notices chlorinated lettuce - the associated practices don't hurt the lettuce (not too much, at any rate).

 

I'd rather buy food in Europe than America, though that may have as much to do with food retailers as with food producers.

 

English and Scottish producers work in the same regulatory framework, and consumers need that.  British and American producers don't and without regulatory convergence there are big risks.  Time and time again industry has shown that unless you regulate it, it will put profits ahead of customers.  That's one of the reasons why the EU is a bit obsessive about food quality and safety. The well-off can buy decent food rather than plastic shite, but the poor might find it a lot harder to be capable of choice about product origin.

 

It is indeed miles off the Labour chat, but it might be well suited if the thread was called "Is there anything more shit than the corrupt kleptocratic self-serving bunch of wankers in the Conservative Party?"

 

I don't really trust or rate Starmer, but he's less likely than the Con Jobs to serve up chicken in a can deep-fried and covered with spray-on imitation cheese.

 

Many American foods contain stuff that's straight out banned here, like brominated vegetable oil. Even before the EU we banned BVO as a food additive in the 70s. As things stand US Mountain Dew can't be sold here, they have to make a different product for Europe.

 

Here we have a culture of banning potentially dangerous food additives until it's proven that they're safe, but in the market driven US they don't do anything until it's proven unsafe.

 

Chlorinated chicken was just a headline example of shitty American food the UK public doesn't want, I wish I'd never said it!

 

I gave one YouTube link about the relative food standards but there's loads out there.

 

Have you ever seen a chicken from a can? 🤮

[Ulysses]

34 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

This is Tory island, of course the EU is more lefty than the UK, and of course the left prefer that.

 

The EU is more centrist than the UK, mainly because it reflects the member states, which almost all elect centre-right and centrist governments.

 

Some people might regard that as "left", but that probably reflects their own political biases more than anything else.

 

 

40 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

Also the EU is an entity separate from its member states. 

 

It has its own legal personality. The Treaty of Lisbon brought that in. 

 

A technicality of course but an important one. 

 

It's of no political consequence, though.  The policies of EU are a product of the politics of its member countries.  The EU institutions have to have a separate legal personality to ensure implementation of the common transnational rules and standards as agreed and put into law by the member states.

 

37 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

Once upon a time the "old" left wouldn't have wanted to be part of a neoliberal free market that undermines the rights of workers and unions everytime a case came up regarding EU law and tensions with the freedoms. 

 

All I was saying was that the political landscape has changed. 

 

The EU doesn't place workers' rights ahead of or behind business. But what it does is insist that its borders are a single area in which to do business. The EU is built on the free movement of goods, services, people and capital right across the Union.  If someone tries to block any of those free movements, the law will stop them.

 

But in any case, the hard left hates the EU for the same reason the hard right does.  They're extremists, and they see the EU as a centrist thing.  But the EU isn't a centrist thing.  If enough member states shift to the right, or to the left, the EU will follow them.

 

If anything, the EU is more like the German CDU or the pre-Thatcher Conservatives.  And here's a question that might get the thread back on track: Is that what Starmer is trying to be?

 

 

 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

The EU is more centrist than the UK, mainly because it reflects the member states, which almost all elect centre-right and centrist governments.

 

Some people might regard that as "left", but that probably reflects their own political biases more than anything else.

 

That's a better way to put it, I say lefty meaning the direction you travel from way over in the right, but as you say, it's travelling left toward the centre.

[BlueRiver]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

The EU is more centrist than the UK, mainly because it reflects the member states, which almost all elect centre-right and centrist governments.

 

Some people might regard that as "left", but that probably reflects their own political biases more than anything else.

 

 

 

It's of no political consequence, though.  The policies of EU are a product of the politics of its member countries.  The EU institutions have to have a separate legal personality to ensure implementation of the common transnational rules and standards as agreed and put into law by the member states.

 

 

The EU doesn't place workers' rights ahead of or behind business. But what it does is insist that its borders are a single area in which to do business. The EU is built on the free movement of goods, services, people and capital right across the Union.  If someone tries to block any of those free movements, the law will stop them.

 

But in any case, the hard left hates the EU for the same reason the hard right does.  They're extremists, and they see the EU as a centrist thing.  But the EU isn't a centrist thing.  If enough member states shift to the right, or to the left, the EU will follow them.

 

If anything, the EU is more like the German CDU or the pre-Thatcher Conservatives.  And here's a question that might get the thread back on track: Is that what Starmer is trying to be?

 

 

 

 

You say that but there's court cases that seem to always prioritise business over labour. 

 

I think Starmer is closer to a pre-Thatcher Tory for sure which reflects the changing political landscape. I think I said further up that I see this Labour more like a "Liberal" party of old than a left-wing socialist one. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

35 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

In the old sense it certainly it. As Victorian pointed out in a post further back. 

 

I'd missed the post too but browning quite rightly highlighted that Starmer wasn't out there praising Thatcher to the hilt either. A recognition of reality and (God forbid) that not all of Thatcher's work was awful and should be undone isn't what people want to believe it to be.  

 

Recognising these things shouldn't be controversial. 

 

 

She promoted self responsibilty and hard work. Whats actually wrong with that? 

 

Yes she did say there was  " no such thing as society" which i disagreed with though. 

 

And no matters what her critics might say she didnt want to dismantle the welfare state.  She certainly had enough time to do it. She quite rightly viewed it as a " safety net" but not a lifestyle. 

[Ulysses]

26 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

You say that but there's court cases that seem to always prioritise business over labour. 

 

I think Starmer is closer to a pre-Thatcher Tory for sure which reflects the changing political landscape. I think I said further up that I see this Labour more like a "Liberal" party of old than a left-wing socialist one. 

 

I'm familiar with cases where workers or businesses have tried to prevent the free operation of the Single Market - either deliberately or as a by-product of something else - and been stopped by the ECJ.  I've also seen that presented by Brexiteers as an example of the EU prioritising business over labour.  These cases are not unlike the Bosman ruling, or the Apple tax case.  They can be seen as the EU making law on workers' rights, or tax, or football contracts, or whatever, but in fact they're all related to the ECJ stopping people from acting in a way that interrupts the operation of an EU Single Market.

 

I'm not aware of any other examples, but if you know some let me know.

 

I think, by the way, that a lot of European leftist parties have gone the same route as Labour, though maybe it's less obvious because they were all quite soft left to begin with.  The British Labour Party has always had this conflict between the hard and soft left elements.  In other European countries that's less of a thing, because in PR systems there's more room for smaller parties which appeal to subgroups of voters.  In the UK you gotta be a big "broad church" to win power.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Ulysses

[BlueRiver]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I'm familiar with cases where workers or businesses have tried to prevent the free operation of the Single Market - either deliberately or as a by-product of something else - and been stopped by the ECJ.  I've also seen that presented by Brexiteers as an example of the EU prioritising business over labour.  These cases are not unlike the Bosman ruling, or the Apple tax case.  They can be seen as the EU making law on workers' rights, or tax, or football contracts, or whatever, but in fact they're all related to the ECJ stopping people from acting in a way that interrupts the operation of an EU Single Market.

 

I'm not aware of any other examples, but if you know some let me know.

 

I think, by the way, that a lot of European leftist parties have gone the same route as Labour, though maybe it's less obvious because they were all quite soft left to begin with.  The British Labour Party has always had this conflict between the hard and soft left elements.  In other European countries that's less of a thing, because in PR systems there's more room for smaller parties which appeal to subgroups of voters.  In the UK you gotta be a big "broad church" to win power.

 

 

 

I was thinking primarily of ones like Viking and Laval in particular. I think the others I have in mind are digging back to pre-EU days and the names escape me but they were quite landmark. If they come to me or I can find them I'll update. 

 

I think you're bang on with the voting system amplifying this. So bang on in fact that I got halfway through a paragraph there to realise I was just saying what you already had in different words 🤣

[That thing you do]

The Tories are upping the rquired salary for a skilled visa to 38k and curbing healthcare workers from bringing family to the UK - that is of course going to put healthcare workers off coming and stretch the NHS even more than it already is.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12822939/Rishi-Sunak-legal-migration-minimum-salary-election-Tory-immigration.html (yes, Mail again, but its the go to for anti immigrant stupidity)

 

I wonder waht Starmer will do with that policy other than agree with it as he does nearly everything Tory?

[Gundermann]

2 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

She promoted self responsibilty and hard work. Whats actually wrong with that? 

 

Yes she did say there was  " no such thing as society" which i disagreed with though. 

 

And no matters what her critics might say she didnt want to dismantle the welfare state.  She certainly had enough time to do it. She quite rightly viewed it as a " safety net" but not a lifestyle. 

 

Hardly. She was a close friend of Pinochet who murdered thousands in Chile. She covered up the Westminster child abuse ring. She apparently approved of her son's criminality. She took state assets which belonged to all UK citizens and allowed a precious few to benefit from their sale.

 

She was a maniac.

 

Glad to see one or two Scottish Labour members are horrified at Starmer's comments. This btw:

 

 

Quote

 

Meanwhile, Labour's Monica Lennon said the former prime minister's legacy "haunts" the country.

The Central Scotland MSP posted on X, formerly Twitter: "Thatcher's legacy still haunts us, with many problems facing the UK today rooted in political and economic decisions made in the 1980s.

"Whole communities destroyed, turbo-charged inequality and mass unemployment. Lessons still need to be learned."

 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Loving the boys dancing on the head of a pin to 'prove' to us that Keith is no more than a Tory with a different coloured rosette. 

 

As time marches on and the GE looms into view Keith will have to shit, or get off the pot on a whole lot of topics he's studiously avoiding right now. 

 

It's going to be the least surprising 'Scooby Doo villian unveil' in human history when you all find out he's just a slightly more palatable version of a 'one nation' Tory.

[Unknown user]

37 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

Hardly. She was a close friend of Pinochet who murdered thousands in Chile. She covered up the Westminster child abuse ring. She apparently approved of her son's criminality. She took state assets which belonged to all UK citizens and allowed a precious few to benefit from their sale.

 

A Thatcherite Corbynista!

[Roxy Hearts]

2 hours ago, Gundermann said:

 

Hardly. She was a close friend of Pinochet who murdered thousands in Chile. She covered up the Westminster child abuse ring. She apparently approved of her son's criminality. She took state assets which belonged to all UK citizens and allowed a precious few to benefit from their sale.

 

She was a maniac.

 

Glad to see one or two Scottish Labour members are horrified at Starmer's comments. This btw:

 

 

 

Correct! She was a horrible human being. Destroyed what my thought of the United Kingdom was. She woke up my thoughts on politics and made me think that Westminster is nothing more than bastion of criminality, thievery, selfishness and any other derogatory adjective!

 

[Costanza]

5 hours ago, Gundermann said:

 

Hardly. She was a close friend of Pinochet who murdered thousands in Chile. She covered up the Westminster child abuse ring. She apparently approved of her son's criminality. She took state assets which belonged to all UK citizens and allowed a precious few to benefit from their sale.

 

She was a maniac.

 

Glad to see one or two Scottish Labour members are horrified at Starmer's comments. This btw:

 

 

 

That particular policy has done so much harm to the country it's untrue.

Read a comment once that the biggest critics of the nanny state was often people who had nannies as a kid.

Anyway, Starmer used to believe in public ownership when running on a platform ofcompetent Corbynism for the Labour leadership. 

Maybe he'll revert back to that when in power. Ahem.

[Gundermann]

2 minutes ago, Costanza said:

That particular policy has done so much harm to the country it's untrue.

Read a comment once that the biggest critics of the nanny state was often people who had nannies as a kid.

Anyway, Starmer used to believe in public ownership when running on a platform ofcompetent Corbynism for the Labour leadership. 

Maybe he'll revert back to that when in power. Ahem.

 

 

Nanny state, when looking after the poor and vulnerable = bad.

Nanny state, when giving tax payers' dosh to foreign multinationals/ billionaires = good.

 

Yes, Starmer has held various positions on virtually everything in the past 4 or 5 years. He's a snake.

[Costanza]

Not sure how much I want to vote for a rich guy who won't buy his sister lunch in the pub.

 

 

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

8 hours ago, BlueRiver said:

 

You say that but there's court cases that seem to always prioritise business over labour. 

 

I think Starmer is closer to a pre-Thatcher Tory for sure which reflects the changing political landscape. I think I said further up that I see this Labour more like a "Liberal" party of old than a left-wing socialist one. 

Pre Thatcher Tory is back to post war consensus and a more moderate and equal society that tried not to leave people behind. I don't think there is too much wrong with that.

The idea that Thatcher was all about promoting hard work and self responsibility is laughable though. Her policies actively destroyed much of that ethos that was ingrained in the communities that formed our industrial base. Record unemployment and few alternatives for folk in the worst affected communities led to the very dependence on the state that some have never been able to recover from. 

FWIW, I think the latter end of Major's government and the first five or six year's of Blair's did the most to undo the damage. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

Decent article on BBC reporting on Anas Sarwar's comments about Thatcher. Pretty much nails it for me and draws out what Salmond reportedly said too. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

To answer the op, the SNP and Greens are way more shit

 

[Roxy Hearts]

3 hours ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

To answer the op, the SNP and Greens are way more shit

 

Labour are warmongering British Nationalists amongst other shite. Ask Blair. Westminster all the same. The SNP and Greens have a long, long, long, long, long way to go!

[jimbojambo]

My take on the current political generation is that there is a dearth of charismatic, honest and intelligent candidates in both parliaments. Listening to the Alistair Darling tributes from all parties makes you realise what a golden generation it was but from Blair, Brown. Salmond and Sturgeon they all hung around too long damaging their legacies to be replaced by the current nonentities.