Alexandole Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

[blueish swede]

Is there anyone left defending Johnson any more? If not:

C*nt /EOT

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Labour is a victim of its own success!
That’s a cracker

Of course you would feel that ..... safe in your job , knowing that if your company tried to terminate your employment you had rights , knowing that if they asked you to do something dangerous outside your job description ... you would have rights ... knowing if you fell sick or became disabled you would get some level of pay (not enough but at least some level of pay) ... enjoying your annual holiday ... and Saturday and Sunday off should you wish it.

Safe when you have children on the way ... knowing you'll be able to afford them because of child tax credits and also take time off to be with them and enjoy them in their first few months

And when that child goes to work ... you'll be happy that he wont be paid a slave wage .. but will be paid something reasonable (not enough but hey ho) and if he or she cant get a job at least they'll get something.

Safe if you fall ill ... knowing that you'll be treated free of charge irrespective of the cost or your age.

Safe when you get old ... knowing that you'll get a state pension at least (not enough but at least some money possibly topped up with pension credits)_

Of course you accept all these 'handouts' that are the 'success' of the Labour movement that keep you safe .... but then you vote Conservative.


Hypocrite.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Good heavens no; there’s no beginning to my artistic talent.

Simply read too many newspapers from around the world and have a penchant for cartoons. Help us laugh and reconsider our unshakable beliefs.

They are much more powerful than the written word sometimes

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I am working class, if we're applying that now hackneyed term, raised on a council estate,
father a fitters mate, virtually, but not all, my mates are from the same background. I don't
need a lecture on how the structure of government works, and nobody is denying that the services
you describe aren't necessary, or not worth paying taxes for. My point is that Labour do not now
represent me, or folk like me. The people who have just returned the Conservatives are not interested
in identities, they don't agonise about Palestine, they don't believe that this country has 14 million
of its citizens living in poverty, they don't sneer at the flag, or patriotic principles, Labour
has been doing this for decades, and it's why, even now, with the shit that's happening,
they are still not perceived as credible for governing. The Labour party of the past
was not like this, and working folk respected them, that's now changed.
As for your last sentence, I wouldn't dream of asking how 'middle class' anyone was, because like
the other term, it's nonsense. It's Labour that has this obsession with class, and it's one of the reasons they
keep losing, instead of offering beneficial policies, they keep telling everyone how nasty their
opponents are, and it's not working is it?

All good points , I could add that some people underestimate the power of charisma. Whether you like him or not, Johnson has it, Clinton had it, Blair initially had it before he turned the electorate against him with his foreign policies , Corbyn, May and Miliband didnt have it. Voters like it, its helps parties win. Whether Starmer has is open to question a bit like Cameron ?

 

[joe123]

I'm not surprised.

No one can remember what was in Gordon Brown's manifesto, I suspect few knew in 2010! And whatever was in there wasn't the reason he lost. Red Ed had a manifesto far too left wing for the electorate to stomach, or so we were told in 2015. Yet Corbyn added seats and votes in 2017 with a far more left wing manifesto, then crashed in 2019 with very much the same message.

And what was Corbyn up against in 2019? He was up against a Johnson manifesto which was the thinnest in living memory, chock full of pictures, slogans, sound bites, Get Brexit Done, and very little else.

So in short, while policies matter, they aren't always pivotal in why governments lose, or oppositions win, and when one states, as you did, that Labour's policies were the reason Labour lost, it was not unreasonable to ask why you thought that.

I admit, I suspected that asking you why was always going to end up with fuck all, because, as you display with depressing monotony, you know fuck all.

Bit unnecessary that.

Policy was one of a few reasons Labour didn’t win, in the sense that not enough people thought they could be delivered/afforded.

 

[Tb1981]

Of course you would feel that ..... safe in your job , knowing that if your company tried to terminate your employment you had rights , knowing that if they asked you to do something dangerous outside your job description ... you would have rights ... knowing if you fell sick or became disabled you would get some level of pay (not enough but at least some level of pay) ... enjoying your annual holiday ... and Saturday and Sunday off should you wish it.

Safe when you have children on the way ... knowing you'll be able to afford them because of child tax credits and also take time off to be with them and enjoy them in their first few months

And when that child goes to work ... you'll be happy that he wont be paid a slave wage .. but will be paid something reasonable (not enough but hey ho) and if he or she cant get a job at least they'll get something.

Safe if you fall ill ... knowing that you'll be treated free of charge irrespective of the cost or your age.

Safe when you get old ... knowing that you'll get a state pension at least (not enough but at least some money possibly topped up with pension credits)_

Of course you accept all these 'handouts' that are the 'success' of the Labour movement that keep you safe .... but then you vote Conservative.


Hypocrite.

Wow
Just wow

 

[Tb1981]

Of course you would feel that ..... safe in your job , knowing that if your company tried to terminate your employment you had rights , knowing that if they asked you to do something dangerous outside your job description ... you would have rights ... knowing if you fell sick or became disabled you would get some level of pay (not enough but at least some level of pay) ... enjoying your annual holiday ... and Saturday and Sunday off should you wish it.

Safe when you have children on the way ... knowing you'll be able to afford them because of child tax credits and also take time off to be with them and enjoy them in their first few months

And when that child goes to work ... you'll be happy that he wont be paid a slave wage .. but will be paid something reasonable (not enough but hey ho) and if he or she cant get a job at least they'll get something.

Safe if you fall ill ... knowing that you'll be treated free of charge irrespective of the cost or your age.

Safe when you get old ... knowing that you'll get a state pension at least (not enough but at least some money possibly topped up with pension credits)_

Of course you accept all these 'handouts' that are the 'success' of the Labour movement that keep you safe .... but then you vote Conservative.


Hypocrite.

So the only reason labour has lost its connection with labour voters is due to the labour voters becoming complacent.
Nothing to do with people having aspirations and hopes and dreams
Wanting to be more and better than our parents had.
Maybe if labour stopped telling us how shit our lives are because of the Tory’s and actually sold us a dream of how our lives could be better we could relate
Instead of treating us all like we are useless and need their help to think for ourselves

 

[Chris in London]

I'm not surprised.

No one can remember what was in Gordon Brown's manifesto, I suspect few knew in 2010! And whatever was in there wasn't the reason he lost. Red Ed had a manifesto far too left wing for the electorate to stomach, or so we were told in 2015. Yet Corbyn added seats and votes in 2017 with a far more left wing manifesto, then crashed in 2019 with very much the same message.

And what was Corbyn up against in 2019? He was up against a Johnson manifesto which was the thinnest in living memory, chock full of pictures, slogans, sound bites, Get Brexit Done, and very little else.

So in short, while policies matter, they aren't always pivotal in why governments lose, or oppositions win, and when one states, as you did, that Labour's policies were the reason Labour lost, it was not unreasonable to ask why you thought that.

I admit, I suspected that asking you why was always going to end up with fuck all, because, as you display with depressing monotony, you know fuck all.

Lol. If you’re going to say I know fuck all based on what I’ve said, you might want to quote me correctly. Failing to do only makes you look stupid, as it has done on this occasion. (This isn’t deep political analysis, by the way, this is just reading.) Let me demonstrate.

In a reply to a poster I respect, I said

The last labour leadership did an awful lot to marginalise the people without whom it cannot win an election

You said

What did it do?

Do you follow? I was talking about what the last Labour Leadership did that harmed its chances of winning. What harm, if it is easier for you to understand it this way, was self-inflicted. And you asked “what did it do”, where the ‘it’ in your question was obviously the last labour leadership. Do you still follow?

Let me expand in case the answer is no.

linguistically the question you asked can be rewritten without changing its meaning to read ‘what did the last labour leadership do that marginalised the people without whom it cannot win an election’. You did not ask ‘why did labour lose in 2019’ or ‘would labour have won in 2019 with less of a left wing manifesto.’ I was not stating what in my opinions were the reasons for the 2019 election result, I was answering a specific question from you about what labour did that marginalised the people without whom it cannot win. (I really shouldn’t have to explain what your own question meant, but we seem to be beyond that point.)

In reply to that question, and not to any other question you may have had in mind but didn’t ask, I said

It adopted a whole load of policies that were unattractive to people who would regard themselves as closer to the centre than to the left.

You still follow? I am using the word ‘it’ again to refer to the labour leadership. I am talking about things Labour’s leadership did that marginalised the people without whom it cannot win an election because that is the question you asked me. Not what caused the defeat, which is a much wider question, and to repeat is a question you didn’t ask. Nor was I asked to identify the marginalised people I had in mind nor why it cannot win without marginalising them. You just asked what it (the last labour leadership) did to marginalise them.


The next post (10718) was one where you seemed to be saying that because labour lost narrowly in 2017 what I said didn’t hold up. Again, I remind you of what I actually said in my reply to Rascal, which is the one you asked me about: “The last labour leadership did an awful lot to marginalise the people without whom it cannot win an election.” Your reference to an election labour had lost in the context of an argument about marginalising the people without whom labour cannot win an election rather seems to support my opinion, not undermine it, but you’re entitled to your own view on that. However, when you go on to say, as you say in your last post “when one states, as you did, that Labour's policies were the reason Labour lost” what you are actually doing is misquoting me.

Do you follow now? I did not say what you attributed to me in this post, and as it happens I do not think that policy was the only reason for the defeat. What I said to you was that Labour’s leadership adopted policies that marginalised the people without whom it cannot win. If you disagree with that, that’s a different discussion but frankly not one I’m interested in having with you. But (for the fourth time) you asked what it did to marginalise those people. Nothing more, nothing less.

For you now to say “it was not unreasonable to ask why you thought that” it might not have been unreasonable, but that wasn’t what you asked. That’s why I have reconstructed the discussion, so you can see that you’ve either forgotten what you first asked me or you didn’t understand your own question in the first place. But since you go on to say “I admit, I suspected that asking you why was always going to end up with fuck all“ all you are doing is demonstrating that from the outset you failed to understand the point that I was making to Rascal. If you’d read my post properly perhaps you’d have understood that. But you didn’t and you made a dick of yourself.

Now fuck off and stop bothering me.

 

[blueinsa]

Of course you would feel that ..... safe in your job , knowing that if your company tried to terminate your employment you had rights , knowing that if they asked you to do something dangerous outside your job description ... you would have rights ... knowing if you fell sick or became disabled you would get some level of pay (not enough but at least some level of pay) ... enjoying your annual holiday ... and Saturday and Sunday off should you wish it.

Safe when you have children on the way ... knowing you'll be able to afford them because of child tax credits and also take time off to be with them and enjoy them in their first few months

And when that child goes to work ... you'll be happy that he wont be paid a slave wage .. but will be paid something reasonable (not enough but hey ho) and if he or she cant get a job at least they'll get something.

Safe if you fall ill ... knowing that you'll be treated free of charge irrespective of the cost or your age.

Safe when you get old ... knowing that you'll get a state pension at least (not enough but at least some money possibly topped up with pension credits)_

Of course you accept all these 'handouts' that are the 'success' of the Labour movement that keep you safe .... but then you vote Conservative.


Hypocrite.

You cant live in the UK.

How utterly shit must your life be to come across so fucking bitter and miserable like you do?

 

[The perfect fumble]

Bit unnecessary that.

Policy was one of a few reasons Labour didn’t win, in the sense that not enough people thought they could be delivered/afforded.

That may be true, but in order to make that "the" factor it needs to be substantiated.

Starmer has inherited a party largely unchanged from the one Corbyn left. In order to be elected he spouted a platform to the left of Miliband, which places him in a difficult situation. There is a suspicion in the party that he's dumping the left wing policies so dear to his heart during the hustings, and his shadow cabinet picks and choice for Party Secretary suggest he is.

Then he has the internal inquiry regarding the blairite saboteurs in Party HQ hanging over his head. How Starmer deals with that will be pivotal.

The issue that bedevils the party is simple to understand but complex to resolve. The right wing in the party believe as Sir Christopher of London clearly does, that in order to win they must become soft Tories, but the dilemma for them is that Labour is not a soft Tory party. In the past those that believed in Toryism with a smile upped stumps and started their own party, the SDP, or Change UK, or defected to the Liberals. But they failed outside in the cold, with no party infrastructure, small membership and no foot soldiers. So by hook or by crook they pursue their dream of soft Toryism in Labour clothing, either by destroying and building a new, hence New Labour, or by stealth, and the left in the party believe Starmer is opting for stealth.

The Labour Party is not in a healthy state at present and it's only The Adventures of Billy Bunter PM, Wormtongue's Road Trip and Covid-19 that's keeping it under wraps, that won't last forever.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Lol. If you’re going to say I know fuck all based on what I’ve said, you might want to quote me correctly. Failing to do only makes you look stupid, as it has done on this occasion. (This isn’t deep political analysis, by the way, this is just reading.) Let me demonstrate.

In a reply to a poster I respect, I said



You said



Do you follow? I was talking about what the last Labour Leadership did that harmed its chances of winning. What harm, if it is easier for you to understand it this way, was self-inflicted. And you asked “what did it do”, where the ‘it’ in your question was obviously the last labour leadership. Do you still follow?

Let me expand in case the answer is no.

linguistically the question you asked can be rewritten without changing its meaning to read ‘what did the last labour leadership do that marginalised the people without whom it cannot win an election’. You did not ask ‘why did labour lose in 2019’ or ‘would labour have won in 2019 with less of a left wing manifesto.’ I was not stating what in my opinions were the reasons for the 2019 election result, I was answering a specific question from you about what labour did that marginalised the people without whom it cannot win. (I really shouldn’t have to explain what your own question meant, but we seem to be beyond that point.)

In reply to that question, and not to any other question you may have had in mind but didn’t ask, I said



You still follow? I am using the word ‘it’ again to refer to the labour leadership. I am talking about things Labour’s leadership did that marginalised the people without whom it cannot win an election because that is the question you asked me. Not what caused the defeat, which is a much wider question, and to repeat is a question you didn’t ask. Nor was I asked to identify the marginalised people I had in mind nor why it cannot win without marginalising them. You just asked what it (the last labour leadership) did to marginalise them.


The next post (10718) was one where you seemed to be saying that because labour lost narrowly in 2017 what I said didn’t hold up. Again, I remind you of what I actually said in my reply to Rascal, which is the one you asked me about: “The last labour leadership did an awful lot to marginalise the people without whom it cannot win an election.” Your reference to an election labour had lost in the context of an argument about marginalising the people without whom labour cannot win an election rather seems to support my opinion, not undermine it, but you’re entitled to your own view on that. However, when you go on to say, as you say in your last post “when one states, as you did, that Labour's policies were the reason Labour lost” what you are actually doing is misquoting me.

Do you follow now? I did not say what you attributed to me in this post, and as it happens I do not think that policy was the only reason for the defeat. What I said to you was that Labour’s leadership adopted policies that marginalised the people without whom it cannot win. If you disagree with that, that’s a different discussion but frankly not one I’m interested in having with you. But (for the fourth time) you asked what it did to marginalise those people. Nothing more, nothing less.

For you now to say “it was not unreasonable to ask why you thought that” it might not have been unreasonable, but that wasn’t what you asked. That’s why I have reconstructed the discussion, so you can see that you’ve either forgotten what you first asked me or you didn’t understand your own question in the first place. But since you go on to say “I admit, I suspected that asking you why was always going to end up with fuck all“ all you are doing is demonstrating that from the outset you failed to understand the point that I was making to Rascal. If you’d read my post properly perhaps you’d have understood that. But you didn’t and you made a dick of yourself.

Now fuck off and stop bothering me.

Sorry, can’t be arsed with this any more.

 

[Chris in London]

.

At least you didn’t misquote me this time, but I will repeat (since once again you appeared not to read it carefully enough), fuck off and stop bothering me.

 

[robbieh]

You cant live in the UK.

How utterly shit must your life be to come across so fucking bitter and miserable like you do?

Totally unnecessary response to someone expressing their oplnion which you disagree with.

 

[blueinsa]

Totally unnecessary response to someone expressing their oplnion which you disagree with.

I was asking him not you.

 

[Tb1981]

Th

You cant live in the UK.

How utterly shit must your life be to come across so fucking bitter and miserable like you do?

The fact he even calls them ‘handouts’
As if no one can earn anything without being handed it to them by labour
Or as if anyone would want to earn it

Some of us just want a better life not a freebie

 

[robbieh]

I was asking him not you.

I know that. Just wanted to highlight your overly aggressive response.

 

[Rascal]

I agree with the thrust of this but your figures are not quite right, as the total number of 'never worked' is nearer to 3.5 million than a million. However, your ascertain that the vast majority are under 24's and the overwhelming majority of those are in full time education are completely correct, as is the propaganda constantly spewed out about the feckless idlers.
About 55% (2M) are in full time education, with rest rest not. 25% of those not in FTE are on a course. Only 2% of all 'never worked' have been out of work for over a year whilst 14% (the vast majority women) have never worked as they are staying at home looking after families (they may join the workforce at a later date, obviously). Long term sick and the disabled make up about 20%

My figures were probably a bit out of date, they referred to about 5 years or so ago and were filed by Full Fact. org.

But thanks for the correction on the figures, the point still remains though as you say. It is simply right wing bullshit

 

[Rascal]

I would say to the left of the Labour Party don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The last labour leadership did an awful lot to marginalise the people without whom it cannot win an election, and you know what happens when labour cannot win. Starmer has already gone a long way towards winning back the people that just gave Boris an 80 seat majority.

The PLP did more damage along with the traitors at HQ. Constantly scheming against a democratically elected leader who had an overwhelming mandate from a membership that made it the largest mass member party in Europe.

We were so close to winning only to be denied by Blairites at HQ, who Starmer should sack and banish from the party along with the likes of Hodge. If he did that the left might get on board, at the moment they wont, they are deserting the party in droves and as a result Labour will not win anyway. Starmers a liberal lefty, he is no Socialist in my eyes and a few scraps thrown the way of the left will not placate it as they are so angry about the way those at HQ led by Watson schemed against their own party and handed the election to Johnson. It is they who are culpable for the clusterfuck we have today, it is they who preferred Blairite neo-liberalism with a collectivist touch to Socialism and it is they who have brought the party to its knees. If Starmer wants to really unite the party he has to get rid of every single one of the traitorous fuckers and ban them from the party for life otherwise the Labour party will just become the party of the FBFE fruitcakes.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

 

[The perfect fumble]

The PLP did more damage along with the traitors at HQ. Constantly scheming against a democratically elected leader who had an overwhelming mandate from a membership that made it the largest mass member party in Europe.

We were so close to winning only to be denied by Blairites at HQ, who Starmer should sack and banish from the party along with the likes of Hodge. If he did that the left might get on board, at the moment they wont, they are deserting the party in droves and as a result Labour will not win anyway. Starmers a liberal lefty, he is no Socialist in my eyes and a few scraps thrown the way of the left will not placate it as they are so angry about the way those at HQ led by Watson schemed against their own party and handed the election to Johnson. It is they who are culpable for the clusterfuck we have today, it is they who preferred Blairite neo-liberalism with a collectivist touch to Socialism and it is they who have brought the party to its knees. If Starmer wants to really unite the party he has to get rid of every single one of the traitorous fuckers and ban them from the party for life otherwise the Labour party will just become the party of the FBFE fruitcakes.

That about nails it.

The right wing narrative, parroted by Chris, is that it was the Labour Party's policies that alienated/marginalised voters in 2019.

When the surprisingly good showing at the 2017 election are quoted to counter this, you get back the usual "you didn't win". Well the party didn't win under Brown or Miliband and they had very different policies, and given where the party was in 2015, the 2017 showing was nothing short of a miracle, even more so given what we now know about the right wing backstabbers at Party HQ.

The fact that the 2019 result reversed the 2017 gains, despite the Labour Party's policies remaining much the same, tells me that something other than the policies came in to play, but Chris won't entertain that, it was the policies and that's it.

he is entitled to his opinion, but if his solution is that the party has to turn into soft Tories to win, that's akin to asking a cat to turn in to a giraffe, it ain't happening.