The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

39 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

The Greens are reported as saying that the windfall tax should not be used to subsidise consumers but should be used to invest in renewable solutions.

It does seem like the public have been maneuvered into accepting high energy prices, which has added moral justification to the price hike.

The same is true of the sanctions placed on Russia, which have not only been applauded but demands have been made to make them more severe.

Some sources are predicting famine in poorer nations.

It sounds very much like what Chomsky describes as "manufacturing consent".

At the moment, fossil fuels are eye wateringly expensive. Now the guvmint could subsidise prices of fossil fuels to heat people's homes, as Labour is proposing be done from a windfall tax. There's an argument (a strong one) to say that because the price of everything (and taxes) is rising, in the short term that would be a wise thing to do.

A wiser thing would be to use fewer fossil fuels, both via energy efficiency measures (insulation etc.) and also to generate power from renewables (which are already cheaper than fossil fuels, but don't make up enough of the energy mix, yet). So cutting consumption of energy , while increasing availability of replacement (for fossil fuels) renewable energy absolutely needs to happen, regardless of wars, price fluctuations and so on.

Given that is absolutely assuredly the case, investing in renewable energy generation is so clearly what should be happening for the betterment of everyone and the planet and the environment that I'm amazed other parties aren't also on exactly the same page for the longer term.

That's not "manufacturing consent", it's acting in the interests of everyone (apart from the oil companies and their owners and controllers).

[chrisp65]

7 hours ago, blandy said:

“I don’t like flag shaggers, so I’m gonna vote for the nationalists” 

That’s really poor. 

Labour won’t blink until they get a fax from Westminster saying its ok to blink and Tories currently have ‘unionist’ leaflets in Wales campaigning to restrict the divisive Welsh language. The **** state of the pair of them, subservient little people afraid of their own shadow. Labour were offered increased policing and taxation powers for Wales and declined it because Labour, essentially is a centrally run party.

I’m no flag shagging nationalist, those two parties can do one.

[mjmooney]

17 hours ago, bickster said:

Once you go past that point where the collective conciousness has decided Johnson (and the Tories) are wrong 'uns all they hear is the bad stuff and all that the papers can throw at Labour doesn't matter, Labour are no longer the baddies

I wish I shared your optimism. 

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Labour won’t blink until they get a fax from Westminster saying its ok to blink and Tories currently have ‘unionist’ leaflets in Wales campaigning to restrict the divisive Welsh language. The **** state of the pair of them, subservient little people afraid of their own shadow. Labour were offered increased policing and taxation powers for Wales and declined it because Labour, essentially is a centrally run party.

I’m no flag shagging nationalist, those two parties can do one.

Sure, I've no problem with people choosing who to vote or not vote for, based on their perspectives, and I respect your and @Jareth's choices.

It was the stated reason of "flag shagging" and then saying "Plaid is the one for me" that I found curious, because (and I quite like their general stance on things) Plaid Cymru is a nationalist party for Wales. The message they have is that Wales is better/can do better than being part of the UK and is done down by Westminster...etc. (which is an arguable stance and has at least some justification, but is definitely a bit what is called by others "flag shaggy" to my eyes). FWIW I don't like the term - I don't have a problem with people having pride in their nation so long as its not against other nations or peoples. Being proud to be in/from Wales (or England) is not wrong. Wanting to do better isn't wrong. The part where it goes wrong is kind of overt bellowing about how you're better than others simply because you're from [wherever]. There's an element of that within parts of all nationalist parties and definitely the Tories. I've not detected it from Labour, but I don't live in Wales and have no idea what they're like, other than what you and others post.

[chrisp65]

Without subverting the thread, I have three good friends standing as Plaid councillors this time around. I wouldn’t describe one of them as a nationalist, quite the opposite, they are the most outward looking people, internationalists. They just happen to think being 5% of Westminster’s thoughts is probably not the best we can aspire to be. 

 

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

good friends standing as Plaid councillors this time around. I wouldn’t describe one of them as a nationalist

Plaid is a nationalist party. I mean that's surely unarguable? I mean Welsh independence - the aim of gaining sovereignty and Welsh government control over its Wales as a nation. Nationalism is where a nation governs itself and has self-determination...etc. I mean that's the core selling point of Plaid (and the SNP in Scotland) isn't it? It's the one permanent thing they're after. They may have better or worse or different policies on health or education of whatever than Labour does at any particular time, and may be a better choice because of those things, even without the nationalism, but if you're the opposite of a nationalist, then there's going to be something of a discrepancy between that and a nationalist party's core mantra. It's be like an EU enthusiast joining the Brexit party.

Labour ( I think) is a "UK good, independence bad" type of party as far as I can tell. Which may not hold water for much longer, perhaps and it sounds from what you say like Labour in Wales is a bit half arsed and amateur and complacent and that may be why some people see PC as a good choice (aside from the Independence thing). A centre lefty party promising to do centre lefty things for the voters. Fine. I'd vote for that and maybe not be bothered about the too hard to work out benefit v cost analysis of actual independence which might never happen (just like Brexit).

[chrisp65]

Well, I’d say no more ‘nationalist’ than the tories or labour, just a shift on where the border is. I think Brexit has proven the tories are resolutely nationalist and labour are reluctantly nationalist in that they wouldn’t dare talk about rejoining.

There is an undercurrent of us above others with ‘nationalism’. I see that in tory thinking, I don’t see it elsewhere.

But its all down to opinion.

Anyway, that Labour Party, eh!

[markavfc40]

It is going to be interesting to see how Labour do in these local elections. It is almost certainly going to be a really low turnout which would suggest a can't be asked to vote for anyone electorate. I also think that whilst people will now be very much anti Tory that won't equate to pro Labour.

You'd have to wonder with what has gone on over the last couple of years if Labour aren't storming ahead now then there is a real danger they won't be the biggest party come the next election.

I can't help but think if they had a leader more capable of connecting with people and who came across with more conviction then they'd be pissing all over the Tories. A Blair (I know it is a dirty word for some) or John Smith would be nailed on to be next Prime Minister. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by markavfc40

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

It is going to be interesting to see how Labour do in these local elections. It is almost certainly going to be a really low turnout which would suggest a can't be asked to vote for anyone electorate. I also think that whilst people will now be very much anti Tory that won't equate to pro Labour.

You'd have to wonder with what has gone on over the last couple of years if Labour aren't storming ahead now then there is a real danger they won't be the biggest party come the next election.

I can't help but think if they had a leader more capable of connecting with people and who came across with more conviction then they'd be pissing all over the Tories. A Blair (I know it is a dirty word for some) or John Smith would be nailed on to be next Prime Minister. 

There isn't actually that much Labour can gain from the 2018 wards up for grabs. 2018 was the year that UKIP dissappeared up their own rectum and Labour picked up 79 seats and the Libdems 76 with the Tories losing 35 and UKIP lost 123. The Greens made a modest 8 gains

[markavfc40]

26 minutes ago, bickster said:

There isn't actually that much Labour can gain from the 2018 wards up for grabs. 2018 was the year that UKIP dissappeared up their own rectum and Labour picked up 79 seats and the Libdems 76 with the Tories losing 35 and UKIP lost 123. The Greens made a modest 8 gains

I realise that so am not expecting huge gains but you'd like to think they'll be really noticeable signs that they are really on the ascendancy not just that the traditional Tory vote hasn't come out.

It is not just these results though. I think the last most recent poll I saw had Labour ahead of the Tories by 6% ( 40% to 34%) I'd expect given the Tories have presided over one of the biggest shit shows in history and have now been in power for 12 years, twelve years in which everything they have touched is worse (NHS, social care, housing, policing etc, etc) and many people are just starting to go through what will be hell in terms of financial struggles then Labour would be really forging ahead but they aren't. My worry is that if they aren't now, after all that has happened/is happening, then will they be able to garner enough votes in two years to be the biggest party. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by markavfc40

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I realise that so am not expecting huge gains but you'd like to think they'll be really noticeable signs that they are really on the ascendancy not just that the traditional Tory vote hasn't come out.

It is not just these results though. I think the last most recent poll I saw had Labour ahead of the Tories by 6% ( 40% to 34%) I'd expect given the Tories have presided over one of the biggest shit shows in history and have now been in power for 12 years, twelve years in which everything they have touched is worse (NHS, social care, housing, policing etc, etc) and many people are just starting to go through what will be hell in terms of financial struggles then Labour would be really forging ahead but they aren't. My worry is if that they aren't now, after all that has happened/is happening, then will they be able to garner enough votes in two years to be the biggest party. 

On the Poll trackers the Tories did get a bump from Johnson over Ukraine but that seems to be over again and the gap is diverging in Labours favour again

EDIT: This time last year they were 9% behind, thats a swing of 15% in a year

[sparrow1988]

On 04/05/2022 at 17:30, bickster said:

There is nothing manufactured there unless you think some shady group of people put Russia up to this

[Jareth]

Starmer this morning - 

"We've changed Labour and now we're seeing the results of that."

he can "hardly believe" the wins

Slightly over-egged - it's currently looking similar to 2018, when the unchanged version of Labour was in. 

[Seat68]

5 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Starmer this morning - 

"We've changed Labour and now we're seeing the results of that."

he can "hardly believe" the wins

Slightly over-egged - it's currently looking similar to 2018, when the unchanged version of Labour was in. 

He was referring to the London wins, he can hardly believe the London wins. 

[ml1dch]

14 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

He was referring to the London wins, he can hardly believe the London wins. 

@Jareth is right on the first part though. "Seeing the results" of "having changed Labour" is probably too bold a claim for a set of perfectly satisfactory results, which had some bits go (a bit) better than expected and some bits go (a bit) worse than expected. 

Although making wild claims to make things look a bit better than they actually are is obviously how politics works. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by ml1dch

[Jareth]

13 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

He was referring to the London wins, he can hardly believe the London wins. 

London is already a Labour stronghold - be interested to hear his opinion on the gains elsewhere 

[Seat68]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

@Jareth is right on the first part though. "Seeing the results" of "having changed Labour" is probably too bold a claim for a set of perfectly satisfactory results, which had some bits go (a bit) better than expected and some bits go (a bit) worse than expected. 

True but I felt the quote was misleading without the London part. 

[Demitri_C]

34 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

He was referring to the London wins, he can hardly believe the London wins. 

Then he is abit of a fool as labour is genrally a london city. Some towns have bene tory but majority is labour.  This doesnt come as a shock to me or many other londoners

[Seat68]

14 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Then he is abit of a fool as labour is genrally a london city. Some towns have bene tory but majority is labour.  This doesnt come as a shock to me or many other londoners

Westminster had been controlled by the Tories since 1964; Wandsworth since 1978; and Labour have won Barnet for the first time. But not a shock? 1964 isnt 10 years ago. 

[ml1dch]

13 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Then he is abit of a fool as labour is genrally a london city. Some towns have bene tory but majority is labour.  This doesnt come as a shock to me or many other londoners

It not in the least bit newsworthy that councils that have been Tory-led since The Beatles were just getting going, switched to Labour yesterday?