denislawsbackheel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 26,310
- Team supported
- We went to Rotherham…
Stuck in your foreign bubble you are not picking up the zeitgeist
Post Match Thread: Election 2017
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
- Status
Another load of cobblers you mean. There are hundreds of planning consents not taken up or lapsed because they're not viable for profit making companies (especially on brownfield sites). And that's with EU workers supposedly depressing wages. Young people can't afford to buy a house and builders can't build them if they can't sell them.
Now here's a plan:
Labour will establish a new Department for Housing to focus on tackling the crisis and to ensure housing is about homes for the many, not investment opportunities for the few. Labour’s new housing ministry will be tasked with improving the number, standards and affordability of homes. We will overhaul the Homes and Communities Agency to be Labour’s housing delivery body, and give councils new powers to build the homes local communities need.
We will prioritise brownfield sites and protect the green belt. We will start work on a new generation of New Towns to build the homes we need and avoid urban sprawl.
We will make the building of new homes, including council homes, a priority through our National Transformation Fund, as part of a joined-up industrial and skills strategy that ensures a vibrant construction sector with a skilled workforce and rights at work.
Last edited:
1.618034
Well-Known Member
Yep.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Vic said:
Brilliant. Apart from one small detail. The government couldn't run a piss up in a brewery and it would be yet another department stuffed full of idle loafers who start at 10:00, fuck off at 4:00, have half days on wednesday, their full allowance of 67 sick days per year and who make idiotic decisions for a living.
But apart from that, it would be great.
Last edited:
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 37,118
not sure how i got quoted in this!
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,084
Yeah I got confused by that as well.
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 24,602
More ideological purity tests from our Chief Inquisitor. Maybe I could put some sort of gold star on so that you and your lot will feel more at home?
And no, I don't want something "vaguely progressive to vote for". Yet again you've failed to understand the very simplistic thrust of the argument.
To help you understand, I've put together a picture for you.
The one on the left is what I want to achieve again because unlike you I want to help people rather than toss myself off about how great all my policies that nobody cares about are. The one on the right is your "revolutionary victory" against the weakest Tory leader since, in fact I'm not sure if there's ever been a weaker Tory leader on the campaign trail.
Oh, and for the record, when YOUR side of the Party talks about "curing social inequality" what you actually mean is "taxing the middle and upper classes". Ensuring social justice in the same way that beheading all the nobles in France was "social justice". You don't give a shit about equality and you never have done, you're just jealous of rich people and have constructed an entire political position around it.
I'd quite like to enact policies that help people in my town and others like it. You're happy with just being what you think is "right" in opposition to literally the entire country.
And considering I'm having to read through your shit anyway - you're "starting to find policies with real teeth"? Far left socialists haven't been in power in 40 years, have you only just discovered that people might actually read the crap you produce and will judge you on it? Like the electorate did on Thursday night by the way where you lost an election by 60 seats.
Here's another difference between us - we live in a time of austerity and all of those social problems that you mentioned. And I'm the only actually fucking annoyed that we've lost an election. Which continuously begs the question; what exactly are you here for because you don't seem to care about those people? You're a brigade of pointless extremists who lost by a massive margin before and will now punish the very people that you claim to be wanting to help and sentence them to another decade or more of Tory rule, because not taxing the middle classes is so fucking unpalatable to you that you're willing to let working class people suffer and potentially die in order to not have to compromise it; so burning with hatred at their comparatively minuscule level of success in comparison to you.
Class warriors? With friends like you the disadvantaged in society don't need enemies.
The far left have been a joke in British politics for at least 40 years and remain so today. A few Remainers swinging your way in order to try and stop a potential economic disaster and a higher than expected young vote due to the growth of social media marketing nicked from Bernie Sanders has got your head right back in the clouds. You're political Scousers where your year will always be next year, your election always the next one or possibly the one after that, and a complete delusion to how much the country ridicules all of your pie in the sky policies.
New Labour won every general election it ever stood in. The moment Brown stepped away from it towards the left of the party, it all came crashing down. Then we went further left with Ed who also lost his election and have gone even further left with Corbyn who also lost his election. Outside of literally letting Big Len run or maybe having some sort of channeling session for Joseph Stalin, you're running out of left to go and you still haven't managed to win an election. The country does not buy what you are selling; it hasn't done in decades and it never will.
Calm down.
Floating voter advocates like you, forget to mention one thing, if floating voters decide elections, then we have a dictatorship of the floating voter, they are, in effect, the electorate.
If a party has a set of policies that do not appeal to the floating voter, they must do one of three things.
1. Confine themselves to being in permanent opposition, a campaigning group. That's the ideological purity bullshit you accuse me of, depriving the working class of an authentic champion by clinging like a crazed zealot to outmoded Marxist principle.
2. Change tack, triangulate policies, steal the goodies the opposition has and wrap them in your own party colours as Bill Clinton did with the Democrats, or go a stage further and create a completely new party as Blair did with New Labour, with policies cobbled together by focus groups to appeal to floating voters in the certainty that "old Labour" voters will fall in line, desperate to get in to power and do at least some good....I think it's fair to say that's your position.
3. Stick with the founding principles of your party, in fact re-discover them for a new generation, be confident and bold in advocating them and convince people they are the right set of principles, the right policies for themselves, their families, for their fellow citizens and for future generations and in so doing move the debate in your direction, move the middle ground, don't follow what you think floating voters are thinking, tell them what you think and if your are sincere a sufficient number will float to you.
It's what Thatcher did, she shunted the middle ground to the right and since the 80's guys like you and SWP have screamed that no party can succeed unless they tack to the right. New Labour bought in to this. Effectively New Labour set its camp in the fields of the right and tried to see what it could do there, but in the end, despite squeezing the odd concession here and there, all it ended up doing was to become the very thing it replaced, the Tories.
This is Tony Blair...
"I wouldn’t want to win on an old fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it."
What he is saying is that even if the electorate would vote for such a platform, he, Tony Blair, would not take it! Who's the ideological zealot here?
Last edited:
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Er, no, neither have I??
Sorry about that. I think I was going to reply to something else you said, and a remnant of your quote remained at the top of the edit. Vic ballsed up his quote, and hey presto, you are Vic.
Again, sorry.
If I had to listen to your drivel, I'd need my full 67 sick days.
- Status