bickster

You realise it was European fIlth and we aren't in Europe any more And don't get me started on that Peter Gabriel song about it but at least he had the good grace to give it an English title despite using the filthy French in the lyrics

That was called "germans" in my day. No idea why

You have rules that excluded things being used? Odd. The post was the post, and all hiding places were legit (except for going in the house obviously)

It was called Ackee 1-2-3 and anyone that disagrees is just wrong. Get with the Beat

He's agreeing with you and giving the example that when we were in the EU France coundn't stop us invading Iraq despite objecting to it.

Prior to the breakup of BR the Railways had been nationalised since 1914, with the exception of the years 1921 to 1939 where over 120 former rail companies were grouped into the Big 4 (LMS, GWR, LNER, SR),, each had their own geographic region and didn't compete (there were a few joint lines where they did but they were a rarity). Even the grouping did not work, all the Big 4 lost money despite having their own monopolies. Excluded from the 1921 act were the London Lines and they were nationalised in 1933 and have been ever since and they remain the best run, most efficient, co-ordinated railway system in the country Every time the railways were de-nationalised, it was by the Tories and every time it failed. Don't get me started on Beeching and the deliberate shift away from freight to passengers....

Funding is an entirely different issue though. The NHS has been deliberately sabotaged by the Tories to make it the mess it is, with a view to getting the population to want it privatised. COuncils (particularly Labour ones) have been chronically underfunded as a political act by the Tories and that bollocks has been going on since Thatcher introduced competitive tendering.

And the railways and Royal Mail work so well in private hands

It is still Labour / Starmer policy to re-nationalise the railways as far as I'm aware

There seems to be a common misconception that the left of the Labour Party is the Labour Party's core vote, it certainly does not represent the core of anything the party needs to get elected. The left of the Labour Party is a raggle - taggle amalgamation of little clubs battling for their own ideologies among themselves and all pointing the finger at their big common enemy in different ways. The common enemy is usually the leader of the party they claim to be members of. There will be as many non-aligned fellow travellers in tow that shout with them but in reality they are very much on the fringes of the set of people Labour needs to support them for them to get elected. Labour's core vote if anything, is bloke who goes down the pub, the mobile hairdresser... all those people that vote Labour regardless and there's far far more of them than the empty vessels on the left of the party. Labour's core vote doesn't give a shit what Starmer pledged to do 3 years ago, they give a shit about what he wants to do now

You say that like its wrong and that the message is wrong. I disagree with that

No, I left Labour because I couldn't be arsed dealing with ideological dickheads who were far too preoccupied with selling their newspapers, recruiting people to their little club , slagging off the other clubs (in a true Life of Brian style) with absolutely no pretense of actually doing any good by winning elections. And that goes for the left and the right of the party I've viewed them from afar through that lens ever since. RIght now, I won't be voting Labour because they are on the wrong side of two policies that are right at the top of my list but I actually want a lot of what Labour want and it drives me up the wall watching all the factionalism where instead of actually reading or listening to what Starmer says he gets criticised for "appealing to Tories" and using the c-word. I can only conclude that Labour supporters really don't want to win elections. What Starmer was saying in that speech, to me, appears perfectly reasonable, I want clean water in rivers and our seas and so do Tory voters but apparently appealing to them over that issue is wrong. Tory voters also, believe it or not, like the NHS and the BBC, maybe he should actively campaign to close those institutions down just so he doesn't appeal to those voters. Is it wrong of him to appeal to Tory voters by pointing out the absolute destruction of our economy? Sorry but I just don't get the criticism of what he said nor do I get that he shouldn't be trying to appeal to the part of the UK electorate that decides elections, the middle ground.

Yes, absolutely it is. It puts people off voting Labour

More than 2, the senior officers of two artillery divisions, probably more like 6 to 8, the very top of the units command structures

The base are trolling themselves, the logic of wanting this ideologically pure victory is why Labour keeps on losing. It's a massive turn off and why Labour will nearly always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Yes, of course, what is your point? That Starmer shouldn't try appealing to former Conservative voters? Madness

You'd ban the word that is the name of your main political opponent and their supposed philosophy form speeches made by the party you support. I really don't get the logic. It's a kind of willful self-destruction That isn't squeezed in, its the entire focus of the speech ALso that just says what I said above about not wanting Labour to win by getting former Conservative voters to vote for them. I find it quite mind blowing that people think like that It's also a very common theme for those on the left. This factional thought process and us vs them mentality on the left is actually why I left the Labour Party way back in the 80s. It is amazingly self-destructive

Of course he did, no one is saying he didn't. What I'm saying is it would have been very odd not to have used it.

It was a speech to the Progressive Britain Conference A conference that discusses Labour Party policy with Labour members

Seriously, quote the bits that flirt with the blue people? It also appears from that idea that you only want Labour to win if they do it with the votes of people who've never voted Tory in their lives, like a Labour victory is somehow wrong and impure if former Tory voters vote for Labour As a non-Labour voter I find it hilarious the lengths people go to to not want their "side" to win

what word should he have used to make his point instead that would have satisfied you? It was absolutely the only word he could have used to get his point across in context. How do you say the Conservative Party are no longer the party of conservatism without saying the c word

Where was the flirting with the blue folks in any of that speech?

New rumours about the downed helicopters from yesterday. One of the helicopters was a special Electronics jamming copter specially fitted with electronics warfare equipment like radar jammers etc One of the copters was carrying the officers of two artillery divisions travelling from group headquarters to the units to inspect them No verification if either is true but both rumours originate from Russian sources.

You realise the non-capitalised c makes a huge difference. I can only assume, you've stubbornly not read it. You seem to want to be against what he's saying because he used the word conservative. I'm sorry but that is idiotic

Wordle 694 3/6