Current Affairs The Labour Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're asking me to give a reason for something that hasn't happened!

I'd hold your horses on that one until the result of the GE is known. Do not rule out a major showing for Farage's party - if Brexit happens on the back of anything other than a no deal Brexit, or Johnson is humiliated and forced beyond 31st October, the Tories will struggle to be the single biggest party. IMO, the Tory inroads to Brexit Party support is at peak. It wont get better than this and it's still at 12%-14%.. and Farage in an election campaign will whip up a storm as only he can.

If Labour stopped shooting themselves in the foot, they'd have a great chance. For example, drumming this bit of news down the throat of the electorate would be a great start.


But for every chance at an advantage they get, they do something stupid, like pledge to abolish private schools. That's why they're knackered in an election.
 
You say it like Blair, Campbell and Mandelson one day decided to just go to war all by themselves. Dismissing that it would have had to go through cabinet as plainly it went to vote in the HoC (which was not required by the way) and anyone who disagreed would have had to have walked, like Robin Cook did. So something that went through the cabinet and through the house is sofa government? Nah, not having it.

Yes there were mistakes but you are painting it from a very anti-Blair bias. Which almost all of old labour supporters do. It was a difficult choice and hindsight proved it was wrong but we don't live by hindsight and if we did nothing and a nuclear or chemical device found its way onto the streets of London that originated from Iraq, people would have a very different opinion to the pacifist ones now seen.

As for newspapers, the best way to respond to bad press is by trying to control what gets out there in the first place. Nothing wrong with that, very sensible. But you can't control all the press and things do get out there and you have to be on top of that as a government. But it wasn't just newspapers it was 24 hour news TV, things that people may not have seen for days afterwards suddenly are being beamed live in minutes. People want a reaction from them immediately afterwards.

It absolutely wasn’t a difficult choice - a first year undergraduate could have told him that Saddam wouldn’t work with al-Qaeda, and as for the alternate reasons that were given people at the time told him Saddam would not use whatever chemical weapons he had except in the direst of circumstances, and the idea he wanted to get nukes was disproved even before the story came out.

It also would not have required Bond at his peak to discover that the US administration wanted to get rid of Saddam irrespective of any actual need to do so.

As for this “yes, but what if a nuke / chemical weapon got onto the streets of London” rubbish, that was never a sensible argument even then. Chemical weapons especially were in loads of objectionable people’s hands, and they do not require a regime thousands of miles away to give the green light to be used. The Tokyo attacks proved that even nerve gas was within the reach of a committed group, never mind less sophisticated stuff - all that was needed was luck, a bit of skill and the commitment.

His decision was made solely because he wanted to stick close to the Yanks. He would have been better off telling Bush to sack the people who were driving them and us into what was the defining disaster of our times (hopefully).
 
It tels me that in 1979 the Tories got on the wave of neo-liberalism and rode it for all it was worth, recasting British politics from a social democracy to one intent on upholding the interests of "entrepreneurialism" ("entrepreneurs" who built up their wealth from state cash handouts and contracts, btw) and who deregulated the economy to do so. Blair carried that work on. But now the global conditions are very different and that neo-liberal wave became a tsunami that wiped out their political economy...and now we look for new answers: some go for the Populist route that you do - *strong* centralised leadership that appeals to base emotions around nationalism; others like the LP leadership and membership see a chance to use the state to undo the tangled mess and give order and security to people's lives again. THAT is the struggle here in Britain.

But it wasn’t those entrepreneurs who voted the Tories or Blair into power, it was the millions of ordinary voters. I understand your beliefs and what you wish for, but I just do not believe that a majority of U.K. voters think the same as yourself....
 
But it wasn’t those entrepreneurs who voted the Tories or Blair into power, it was the millions of ordinary voters. I understand your beliefs and what you wish for, but I just do not believe that a majority of U.K. voters think the same as yourself....

They actually do. For example, support for nationalisation has huge support.Water, electricity, gas, trains. Most people want higher taxation to use on public services.
 
Because they're such a mess that even they know they couldn't oust this shoddy excuse for a government?

Doesn't that say enough?

That's not the reason. It's because if they accepted it we'd get no deal by the back door, especially now as the earliest a GE can be held is 5 November.

I think you know this though and are weirdly pretending you don't.
 
It's divided by catering to the extremes, namely the extreme right Tories/UKIP for Brexit. The narrative ever since has been the Tories going extreme right overall and Labour marching to the extreme left in response.

There isn't a shred of evidence the country wants the extreme left in power. Bizarrely there's more evidence they even want the extreme right instead.

The last election was very painful wake up call for the amoral centre ground of British politics, as Corbyns Labour began to take hold. No shred of evidence, hyperbolic nonsense. Hard left policies, just Scandinavian Liberal policy. Hard left to right wingers, most certainly.
 
The manifesto in 2017 promised they would uphold the referendum result.

Every soundbite from his frontbenchers lately has ignored that.
Their position hasn't changed that much, they're just backing a confirmatory vote now because that is what their members now want. However, a party isn't really tied to their manifesto unless they gain power. If it didn't get them enough votes to win then they are free to change their positions in order to get enough votes to win next time.
 
Just wanted to say I understand some things I said earlier in this thread were a mistake re. the exact tax calculations etc.

I still am of the opinion no government should be able to demand more than half of what anyone earns in whatever bracket, though.
 
That's not the reason. It's because if they accepted it we'd get no deal by the back door, especially now as the earliest a GE can be held is 5 November.

I think you know this though and are weirdly pretending you don't.

I understand that Tubes. Even though I'm not convinced no deal would be the disaster people say it would (purely as the ridiculous sums of money which the government have allocated - which people love to point out - are there so if a no deal (which I don't want) happens then we wouldn't have the disaster scenario).

I stated in my earlier post that I understand the reasons. So I wasn't pretending I didn't know that?

But I will be surprised if Labour take on the Tories in a GE any time soon (even the 5th Nov) tbh. For all their bluster, there is no way they can think the drivel they have peddled recently will wash with enough voters to get them a majority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top