Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

[Fox Ulike]

14 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Ok so now you're calling the Tory party racist and I suspect you might be right that some top ranking Tories hold racist views, but that's purely based on circumstantial evidence much like the claims of Labour antisemitism that you take issue with.  I've not seen Tory policies that discriminate against people by race (merely by income) and I've not seen any Labour policies that discriminate against Jews.

 

Edit:  Also I notice that you have nothing to say about the harassment campaigns that stem from leftists.

 

No this isn't about me. To recap, we came into this when you said “the left wing press is equally guilty of publishing polarised and heavily exaggerated opinion pieces.”

 

“Equally guilty”. Your words. I asked you to find even a single piece of evidence to support this against the Conservative Party. And you have absolutely failed to do so.

 

What’s alarming about this though is that you seem now to be even more entrenched in your belief that you were before – even though you don’t have a single shred of evidence to support it. In fact, on a day when we’re talking about a news headline of the “poisoned heart of the Labour Party”, I am genuinely interested to know how  you can arrive at the conclusion that the main problem is actually with “leftist harassment campaigns”!! Can you talk about how that happens??

 

And genuinely, I don’t have any political agenda on this. The day that the Guardian publishes a headline saying that “Once in the shadows, Racism is now entrenched in the poisioned heart of the Conservative Party” – believe me I will react to it in a similar fashion!

 

I did ignore your claims of harassment campaigns that stem from the Left. True. But, seriously, are you claiming that the Daily Mail’s propoganda is balanced out by a few leftie political blogs read by a couple of old hippies, and all the nutters on Twitter?? Really?  You believe that this problem exists only on the left??

 

You give me Laura K’s harassment, I give you the death threats to Gina Miller. The abuse given out to Gary Lineker for speaking out on behalf of refugees. The Twitter abuse given out to Lily Allen when she tried to speak out on behalf of people who’d been burnt to death in a Government accommodation. The racist and sexist abuse given out to Dianne Abbot for no reason other than she’s black and female and Labour.  She's abused for doing her job, same as Laura K. Why mention Laura K but not Diane Abbot?

 

You referred to yourself as ‘open-minded’. But anyone who speaks of "online leftist harassment", rather than just "online harassment" has no open-mindedness that I can see.

 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

No this isn't about me. To recap, we came into this when you said “the left wing press is equally guilty of publishing polarised and heavily exaggerated opinion pieces.”

 

“Equally guilty”. Your words. I asked you to find even a single piece of evidence to support this against the Conservative Party. And you have absolutely failed to do so.

 

What’s alarming about this though is that you seem now to be even more entrenched in your belief that you were before – even though you don’t have a single shred of evidence to support it. In fact, on a day when we’re talking about a news headline of the “poisoned heart of the Labour Party”, I am genuinely interested to know how  you can arrive at the conclusion that the main problem is actually with “leftist harassment campaigns”!! Can you talk about how that happens??

 

And genuinely, I don’t have any political agenda on this. The day that the Guardian publishes a headline saying that “Once in the shadows, Racism is now entrenched in the poisioned heart of the Conservative Party” – believe me I will react to it in a similar fashion!

 

I did ignore your claims of harassment campaigns that stem from the Left. True. But, seriously, are you claiming that the Daily Mail’s propoganda is balanced out by a few leftie political blogs read by a couple of old hippies, and all the nutters on Twitter?? Really?  You believe that this problem exists only on the left??

 

You give me Laura K’s harassment, I give you the death threats to Gina Miller. The abuse given out to Gary Lineker for speaking out on behalf of refugees. The Twitter abuse given out to Lily Allen when she tried to speak out on behalf of people who’d been burnt to death in a Government accommodation. The racist and sexist abuse given out to Dianne Abbot for no reason other than she’s black and female and Labour.  She's abused for doing her job, same as Laura K. Why mention Laura K but not Diane Abbot?

 

You referred to yourself as ‘open-minded’. But anyone who speaks of "online leftist harassment", rather than just "online harassment" has no open-mindedness that I can see.

 

You can barely get through a post without mentioning the Daily Mail, it's a bit weird.

 

People aren't accusing the Conservative party of racism because they aren't, your own evidence for this was a single comment from a supposed satirical article from Boris Johnson from well over a decade ago, how in anyone's mind this can be comparable to what we have seen over the last couple of years in the Labour party is beyond me when barely a week has gone by without someone connected or affiliated to the party making comments that have upset Jewish people.

 

You've also looked at everything you have mentioned through your own eyes rather the the people who are doing the criticising as well, it's a rookie error. Gary Lineker wasn't abused for speaking out on behalf of refugees, he was criticised by many for trying to imply that anyone who had a genuine concern the system was being abused by men (something I have a feeling we haven't heard the last of when the tube bomber court case comes to court) rather than children were in some way racist, Lily Allen wasn't abused for speaking out for refugees, she was abused for making an apology on behalf of the nation, something she had absolutely no right to do.

 

If you seriously think playing the race card is going to work defending Diane Abbott I'd go and "debate" politics in a safe space, she gets criticism because she's argubly the most stupid politician on the opposition front bench (which is some achievement itself) and I'd imagine a lot of it is because she's made what many would percieve to be racist comments in the past.

 

The abuse towards Laura Kuenssberg is incomparable to this, she's a woman doing her job that now needs a bodyguard because she refuses to join the cult of Corbyn.

 

[Guest MattP]

9 hours ago, toddybad said:

Labour now have a leadin  most polls yet Theresa May still comfortably leads Corbyn in any poll asking who would make the best Prime Minister.

 

 

The more evidence I see the more I think the Labour vote is an anti-Tory vote rather than a pro-Jeremy one.

 

I understand people wanting rid of the Tories but I have no idea how Liberal Democrats can seriously back this economic plan from Labour, burning your house down because you don't like the kitchen is a bit strange to me.

Edited 29 September 2017 by MattP

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Labour now have a leadin  most polls yet Theresa May still comfortably leads Corbyn in any poll asking who would make the best Prime Minister.

 

 

The more evidence I see the more I think the Labour vote is an anti-Tory vote rather than a pro-Jeremy one.

 

I understand people wanting rid of the Tories but I have no idea how Liberal Democrats can seriously back this economic plan from Labour, burning your house down because you don't like the kitchen is a bit strange to me.

 

There is nothing strange about this, Matt.

 

We elect governments, not Prime Ministers.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

There is nothing strange about this, Matt.

 

We elect governments, not Prime Ministers.

It's very strange, abnormal even, according to John Curtice since polling began no party has ever led in the polls whilst also losing in the "best PM" category, let alone be +4 in one but -10 in the other. It's a totally different era and that's what makes me think it's more of an anti-Tory thing, I think people know Corbyn and his front bench would be an absolutely horrific government but they hate the Tories so much they might go for it anyway.

 

In a way it's probably a similar thing to the EU referendum, I'm almost certain 17million+ plus people don't genuinely believe we'll be better off out, but they were prepared to still take the jump as the European Union is a hated horrid organisation.

[Guest MattP]

Going further I think it's actually an effect of wider society, look at how football fans are now prepared to lose towards the end of the season if it hurts their rivals (Liverpool losing to Chelsea on purpose about 8 years to stop Man U an example) - I'm sure there are many examples, I've seen a friend of mine take a big financial hit just to give a bigger financial hit to another friend who he cant' stand, did this sort of stuff always happen? Probably.

 

 

[Fox Ulike]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

You can barely get through a post without mentioning the Daily Mail, it's a bit weird.

 

People aren't accusing the Conservative party of racism because they aren't, your own evidence for this was a single comment from a supposed satirical article from Boris Johnson from well over a decade ago, how in anyone's mind this can be comparable to what we have seen over the last couple of years in the Labour party is beyond me when barely a week has gone by without someone connected or affiliated to the party making comments that have upset Jewish people.

 

You've also looked at everything you have mentioned through your own eyes rather the the people who are doing the criticising as well, it's a rookie error. Gary Lineker wasn't abused for speaking out on behalf of refugees, he was criticised by many for trying to imply that anyone who had a genuine concern the system was being abused by men (something I have a feeling we haven't heard the last of when the tube bomber court case comes to court) rather than children were in some way racist, Lily Allen wasn't abused for speaking out for refugees, she was abused for making an apology on behalf of the nation, something she had absolutely no right to do.

 

If you seriously think playing the race card is going to work defending Diane Abbott I'd go and "debate" politics in a safe space, she gets criticism because she's argubly the most stupid politician on the opposition front bench (which is some achievement itself) and I'd imagine a lot of it is because she's made what many would percieve to be racist comments in the past.

 

The abuse towards Laura Kuenssberg is incomparable to this, she's a woman doing her job that now needs a bodyguard because she refuses to join the cult of Corbyn.

 

It's hard to debate with you because you present very few facts and zero sources to support your opinions..

 

I've gone to the trouble of doing some of your research for you: Lineker's tweet was "The treatment by some towards these young refugees is hideously racist and utterly heartless. What's happening to our country?"

 

You've decided that he was actually having a go at people expressing concerns over the system?? Do you believe that there are zero racist people on Twitter?  Either way, I don't accept that the abuse was justified. He's expressing a heartfelt sympathy towards child refugees, he does it clumsily, but what's interesting is the way you twist this into an argument that you know you can defend, rather than accepting it at face value. My obsession (conceded) with the Daily Mail is that this is exactly what they do on a daily basis. Regardless of your political beliefs, this should trouble you.

 

Anyway, you've caught me in the trap of defending a position I've not taken. Lineker etc were examples to support my point that online harassment isn't only a 'leftist' problem. Again, you present zero evidence to contradict my point. You've merely tried to dismiss my examples, whilst providing none of your own.

 

I know very little about the upset that the Jewish people experienced from the Labour Party. Genuinely interested to know what this is all about.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

Going further I think it's actually an effect of wider society, look at how football fans are now prepared to lose towards the end of the season if it hurts their rivals (Liverpool losing to Chelsea on purpose about 8 years to stop Man U an example) - I'm sure there are many examples, I've seen a friend of mine take a big financial hit just to give a bigger financial hit to another friend who he cant' stand, did this sort of stuff always happen? Probably.

 

 

Matt. I think the issue here is not so much anti-tory as that the current system has failed and change is needed. The tories themselves could benefit if they recognised this. 

 

Ultimately the gains of the 80s, 90s and 00s in personal wealth and standard of living have stalled. The financial crisis was caused by deregulation and an economic system built on personal debt. Once it fell if the system worked we'd have recovered. Whilst i recognise figures for record enployment, the fact is we have a record number of people living in poverty because of employment. There needs to be real surgery done to the model of government and society.

 

I actually think if the tories opted for a less fundamentalist vision of capatalism - so keep the free market economics but accept that regulation is required to ensure innovation is used to society's benefit (given that innovation within deregulated markets has been tested to death and shown simply to lead to greed at the expense of society - the causr of all manner of ills from poverty to war to the environmental and crisis). 

 

The Tories could win if they could see that as i think what people want is to see the system is BUILT to work for them - not simply hoping that goodness trickles down.

 

As it is the tories are too wedded to thatcherism to have moved on to a more socially aware politics and so labour are the only party offering to put people first. You can argue about likely outcomes etc but its irrelevant  - people want hope. As it stands, the tory party offer none.

 

I don't think its about the leaders per se.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

It's hard to debate with you because you present very few facts and zero sources to support your opinions..

 

I've gone to the trouble of doing some of your research for you: Lineker's tweet was

 

You've decided that he was actually having a go at people expressing concerns over the system?? Do you believe that there are zero racist people on Twitter?  Either way, I don't accept that the abuse was justified. He's expressing a heartfelt sympathy towards child refugees, he does it clumsily, but what's interesting is the way you twist this into an argument that you know you can defend, rather than accepting it at face value. My obsession (conceded) with the Daily Mail is that this is exactly what they do on a daily basis. Regardless of your political beliefs, this should trouble you.

 

Anyway, you've caught me in the trap of defending a position I've not taken. Lineker etc were examples to support my point that online harassment isn't only a 'leftist' problem. Again, you present zero evidence to contradict my point. You've merely tried to dismiss my examples, whilst providing none of your own.

 

I know very little about the upset that the Jewish people experienced from the Labour Party. Genuinely interested to know what this is all about.

Opinions are opinions, they aren't facts.

 

Lineker was talking bollocks and for that reason he got criticised, it isn't racist (let alone hideously) one bit to question whether a group of men (always men isnt it?) who look between the ages of 35 and 45 might actually not be children, didn't he also peddle the lie spread by a refugee charity that one of them was an intepreter?

 

No one has actually said online harassment is only a 'leftist' problem, no one at all.

 

Glad we both agree abuse is unacceptable. If the Daily Mail peddles myths every day why do you still read it? I don't understand that. I'm actually just off to the shop now so I'll pick up a copy and see if your theory is true.

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

As it is the tories are too wedded to thatcherism to have moved on to a more socially aware politics and so labour are the only party offering to put people first. You can argue about likely outcomes etc but its irrelevant  - people want hope. As it stands, the tory party offer none.

 

I don't think its about the leaders per se.

Don't get carried away Toddy, for all the talk of what "the people want" Corbyn and Labour still lost the last election and they were up against the worst Tory leader, campaign and manifesto in living memory. It was easy to vote for Corbyn on polling day as he couldn't be PM, whether those people with jobs, pensions still make the effort next time is another question- they haven't in the past at times.

 

A lot can happen in five years as well and McDonnell's comments about Labour preparing for it's own economic problems could really come back to haunt him.

[theessexfox]

50 minutes ago, MattP said:

If you seriously think playing the race card is going to work defending Diane Abbott I'd go and "debate" politics in a safe space, she gets criticism because she's argubly the most stupid politician on the opposition front bench (which is some achievement itself) and I'd imagine a lot of it is because she's made what many would percieve to be racist comments in the past.

 

The abuse towards Laura Kuenssberg is incomparable to this, she's a woman doing her job that now needs a bodyguard because she refuses to join the cult of Corbyn.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40586335/labour-s-diane-abbott-tells-of-racist-and-sexist-abuse

 

There were many valid criticisms of Diane Abbott's politics but I think it's a bit naive to think she doesn't get tonnes of racist abuse on social media, a lot of the recorded abuse goes so far beyond the pale it's untrue. 

20 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I actually think if the tories opted for a less fundamentalist vision of capatalism - so keep the free market economics but accept that regulation is required to ensure innovation is used to society's benefit (given that innovation within deregulated markets has been tested to death and shown simply to lead to greed at the expense of society - the causr of all manner of ills from poverty to war to the environmental and crisis). 

 

The Tories could win if they could see that as i think what people want is to see the system is BUILT to work for them - not simply hoping that goodness trickles down.

 

As it is the tories are too wedded to thatcherism to have moved on to a more socially aware politics and so labour are the only party offering to put people first. You can argue about likely outcomes etc but its irrelevant  - people want hope. As it stands, the tory party offer none.

I don't think anyone can really read the 2017 Tory manifesto and conclude that the party is wedded to Thatcherism - May was labelled a 'Red Tory' and there is certainly a shift towards an emphasis on social justice and regulating markets than under Cameron and Osborne.

[Fox Ulike]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Opinions are opinions, they aren't facts.

 

Lineker was talking bollocks and for that reason he got criticised, it isn't racist (let alone hideously) one bit to question whether a group of men (always men isnt it?) who look between the ages of 35 and 45 might actually not be children, didn't he also peddle the lie spread by a refugee charity that one of them was an intepreter?

 

No one has actually said online harassment is only a 'leftist' problem, no one at all.

 

Glad we both agree abuse is unacceptable. If the Daily Mail peddles myths every day why do you still read it? I don't understand that. I'm actually just off to the shop now so I'll pick up a copy and see if your theory is true.

Yes but you can’t have an opinion without a fact or evidence. Well, you can it seems… ;). But for everybody else, it's impossible. You need facts and evidence in order to arrive at an opinion. Admittedly, the fashion these days is simply to arrive at an opinion with little idea as to how one has arrived at that opinion, with absolutely no fact/evidence to back it up.

 

And yes, admittedly, no-one has actually said that online abuse is only a leftist problem. But what has happened is that all the ‘rightist’ examples of abuse are being heralded as completely reasonable and justifiable responses to ‘lefty loonies’; whilst the ONE example of ‘leftist’ abuse is shocking and horrible and absolutely incomparable to the racist abuse thrown at a left-wing politician. Diane Abbot is racially abused because she’s an idiot, you say. Laura K is abused because of horrible leftists, you say.

 

“Off to the shop” my eye! Surely the Mail is delivered to your door each day? I bet you've already done the crossword... ;p

 

I read it because my politics are fairly open and undefined. I read the Guardian too. It’s the lack of balance in the media that I find fascinating, and people’s willingness to accept propaganda as fact that worries me.

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

Don't get carried away Toddy, for all the talk of what "the people want" Corbyn and Labour still lost the last election and they were up against the worst Tory leader, campaign and manifesto in living memory. It was easy to vote for Corbyn on polling day as he couldn't be PM, whether those people with jobs, pensions still make the effort next time is another question- they haven't in the past at times.

 

A lot can happen in five years as well and McDonnell's comments about Labour preparing for it's own economic problems could really come back to haunt him.

No i realise this but my point is that the tories need to recognise the failings in the system they built back in the 80s and make people feel like they're on the side of ordinary people. The trouble is i don't think they are. You need a new philosophy and cohort of mps/leaders.

[David Guiza]

28 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's very strange, abnormal even, according to John Curtice since polling began no party has ever led in the polls whilst also losing in the "best PM" category, let alone be +4 in one but -10 in the other. It's a totally different era and that's what makes me think it's more of an anti-Tory thing, I think people know Corbyn and his front bench would be an absolutely horrific government but they hate the Tories so much they might go for it anyway.

 

In a way it's probably a similar thing to the EU referendum, I'm almost certain 17million+ plus people don't genuinely believe we'll be better off out, but they were prepared to still take the jump as the European Union is a hated horrid organisation.

I think part of the reason is that some people are so unwilling to change their opinion on a person, party or attribute. Corbyn could be the Lord and saviour (he's already walking on water), but people still will refuse to vote for him for reasons varying from the party he represents, even if they agreed with everything he/the party put forward, to the fact that he's a vegetarian. The same goes for the Tories too - people still refuse to vote Tory because of the posh/privileged connotations, or even because they don't feel comfortable voting for a woman. It's insane.

 

To many personal appearance, skin colour, dietary requirements, whether or not that have children and a vagina etc are still fundamental reasons as to whether or not they vote for a particular party. The same can undoubtedly be said for America too; many out there would vote for Hitler if he was standing for Republicans, simply because they always have and always will vote that way - regardless of policy, belief, personnel etc. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40586335/labour-s-diane-abbott-tells-of-racist-and-sexist-abuse

 

There were many valid criticisms of Diane Abbott's politics but I think it's a bit naive to think she doesn't get tonnes of racist abuse on social media, a lot of the recorded abuse goes so far beyond the pale it's untrue. 

I don't think anyone can really read the 2017 Tory manifesto and conclude that the party is wedded to Thatcherism - May was labelled a 'Red Tory' and there is certainly a shift towards an emphasis on social justice and regulating markets than under Cameron and Osborne.

 Which would be great but it was a message given by a woman who believed that fox hunting needed asn't discussion at a time when everyday people see their living standards falling. 

 

You also have something coming in that could decimate tory voting amongst the working poor:

 

Universal credit rollout should be paused, say Tory MPs

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/29/universal-credit-rollout-should-be-paused-tory-mps?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

No i realise this but my point is that the tories need to recognise the failings in the system they built back in the 80s and make people feel like they're on the side of ordinary people. The trouble is i don't think they are. You need a new philosophy and cohort of mps/leaders.

They don't need a new philosophy, they are the biggest party on their current philosophy. 

 

Just need to offer a couple of inconsequential carrots to the unicorn plebs to get the majority back. 

[Guest]

Just now, Innovindil said:

They don't need a new philosophy, they are the biggest party on their current philosophy. 

 

Just need to offer a couple of inconsequential carrots to the unicorn plebs to get the majority back. 

If you believe that then you've lost the plot. 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

No i realise this but my point is that the tories need to recognise the failings in the system they built back in the 80s and make people feel like they're on the side of ordinary people. The trouble is i don't think they are. You need a new philosophy and cohort of mps/leaders.

I think the last manifesto did try and do things like that, which part of it was Thatcherite? Not much. Let's not forget there was a swing to the Tories among the working class at this election, the huge swing to Labour was amongst the middle classes. Although if the Tories do lose the next election they only have themselves to blame after what has happened this week, they should be able to take apart McDonnell questioning him on his comments properly.

 

How do you even plan for a run on the pound? There are only two ways you can really do it and both look impossible given what they have committed to, you can either introduce more capital controls (extremely unlikely in an first World country and virtually impossible inside the single market which the position is now to stay in) or you can raise interest rates (controlled by the BoE not the government) which would be absolutely absurd given they have spent the last few years talking about a squeeze on people's incomes.

 

It's become farcical and surely any half decent Tory leader will be able to see this off over the long term.

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

If you believe that then you've lost the plot. 

You've really bought into the Ooooooh Jeremy corbyn chant ain't ya? 

 

For all the bleating, tories are still the biggest party. On the back of the worst campaign ever seen. 

 

Either people think Labour suck balls or the tories philosophy is the right way. A couple of public sector payrises here, couple of benefit adjustments there, I think you'll be surprised at the results. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

You've really bought into the Ooooooh Jeremy corbyn chant ain't ya? 

 

For all the bleating, tories are still the biggest party. On the back of the worst campaign ever seen. 

 

Either people think Labour suck balls or the tories philosophy is the right way. A couple of public sector payrises here, couple of benefit adjustments there, I think you'll be surprised at the results. 

You won't win the public sector back round. Its not just pay but also what we see happening to the services themselves. There no chance of you turning that around. 

 

I think you underestimate people. I found it funny when the right wing papers got themselves into a foaming tiz claiming that corbyn had lied about writing off everybody's student debt. Tory MPs are still pushing the idea. I didn't vote labour for my debt to be cancelled. I voted labour so the students of tomorrow wouldn't have huge debts. 

 

Tory voters seem to find it difficult to understand that people don't simply vote for themselves.

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think the last manifesto did try and do things like that, which part of it was Thatcherite? Not much. Let's not forget there was a swing to the Tories among the working class at this election, the huge swing to Labour was amongst the middle classes. Although if the Tories do lose the next election they only have themselves to blame after what has happened this week, they should be able to take apart McDonnell questioning him on his comments properly.

 

How do you even plan for a run on the pound? There are only two ways you can really do it and both look impossible given what they have committed to, you can either introduce more capital controls (extremely unlikely in an first World country and virtually impossible inside the single market which the position is now to stay in) or you can raise interest rates (controlled by the BoE not the government) which would be absolutely absurd given they have spent the last few years talking about a squeeze on people's incomes.

 

It's become farcical and surely any half decent Tory leader will be able to see this off over the long term.

Stop changing the subject. We can talk about issues with labour afterwards. At the moment we're talking about what it would take for the tories to reconnect with voters. Government or not, they haven't won a decent majority since 1987.

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Stop changing the subject. We can talk about issues with labour afterwards. At the moment we're talking about what it would take for the tories to reconnect with voters. Government or not, they haven't won a decent majority since 1987.

It's a political thread, the subject can change at any point.

 

That reply reads to me - "I haven't got a clue what McDonnell is going to do to plan for a run on the pound, deep down I realise it's economic insanity as well but I can't bring myself to admit it as I've hung my hat on Labour and now the twat has let the cat out of the bag"

 

This isn't Brexit at the Labour conference, on here we can ask any quesitons we like about the Labour leadership (as you can about the Tories).

 

P.S - And without "neo-liberal Tory" Tony Blair at the helm the last Labour won a decent majority was 1966.

Edited 29 September 2017 by MattP

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's a political thread, the subject can change at any point.

 

That reply reads to me - "I haven't got a clue what McDonnell is going to do to plan for a run on the pound, deep down I realise it's economic insanity as well but I can't bring myself to admit it as I've hung my hat on Labour and now the twat has let the cat out of the bag"

 

This isn't Brexit at the Labour conference, on here we can ask any quesitons we like about the Labour leadership (as you can about the Tories).

 

P.S - And without "neo-liberal Tory" Tony Blair at the helm the last Labour won a decent majority was 1966.

As i said, happy to discuss it but I'd like to born out what the tories need to do as I've asked the question numerous times but everybody seems to think just a few inducements will sort it out for the tories. 

 

Would you vote for blair if he was leading labour right now?

[Guest MattP]

Just now, toddybad said:

As i said, happy to discuss it but I'd like to born out what the tories need to do as I've asked the question numerous times but everybody seems to think just a few inducements will sort it out for the tories. 

 

Would you vote for blair if he was leading labour right now?

No, because if Blair was leading Labour now they would be committed to overturning the referendum result. What the Tories need to do is quite simple, find a front bench that can expose the insanity of the economics Labour are proposing, if they can't do that when even the shadow chancellor is deciding to help by exposing it himself then they don't deserve to be in government anyway.

 

It's 2017 and instead of flying cars we are still having to explain why socialism doesn't work and never has, that can only be put down to complacency.