Daz, photographed earlier today on his weekly pilgrimage to Buckingham Palace…
Any other proof that we had a far-right government
I specifically said I don't think it is/was a far right government but it had tendencies in that direction and uses some of the same tactics/dehumanising language etc - so maybe give up on the particular straw man?
What I said as well Grum but apparently I called the fascist when i actually said veering towards
I'm glad labour are holding them on this, but the effort is a bit cheesey
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1466396157039546369?t=nTAp39tGrScp0ExvC0Se3Q&s=19
I’m glad labour are holding them on this, but the effort is a bit cheesey
Yikes, try 'laboured' (if you'll excuse the pun).
I think Private Eye liked to hold parties to account for their use of expensive advertising agencies, but a lot of the memes coming out of Labour HQ recently seem a bit strained, it feels like they should be able to come up with better than that ^
It's awful. Like, do you even meme bro?
Any other proof that we had a far-right government
Would you consider Steve Bannon to be far right Ernie? You know, the one Johnson has met with and kept regular contact with and who claims to have helped write some of Johnson's speeches?
Or does some whataboutery concerning 1970s Rhodesia somehow negate that also.
Rumours flying round ****ter that Laura Torysberg was there and if she was she then failed to report on it like an actual journalist should have.
so maybe give up on the particular straw man?
And yet you can't stop yourself going back to it......"I never said the Tories were far-right blah blah......how about this of evidence that they are far-right?"
Make your mind up grum, and when you have decided what you are actually saying try to stick with it.
I'm saying they flirt with the far right. Is your comprehension really that poor or are you being deliberately obtuse. I think I know.
I must get off the internet. Nuance or complexity isn't welcome here it seems.
Rumours flying round ****ter that Laura Torysberg was there and if she was she then failed to report on it like an actual journalist should have.
Careful, according to some on here you're not allowed to criticise Laura Kuensberg unless you also say something equally bad about Nick Robinson - otherwise you're a sexist pig.
If she was there and just somehow 'forgot to mention it' including in recent articles about it, she needs sacking. Plainly dishonest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59500512
for the record yes I hate the ‘country’ (or rather the state) I was born into
It is an accusation made against the left by both Trump supporters in the US and Daily Mail editorials in the UK.
The claim is of course absurd but it plays well because firstly there will always be a muppet who helps them in providing evidence. And secondly because voters make the not totally unreasonable assumption that people who hate a country aren't likely to have that country's best interests at heart.
And secondly because voters make the not totally unreasonable assumption that people who hate a country aren’t likely to have that country’s best interests at heart.
There's a big difference between country and people. I really don't have the interests of the british state at heart, because it mostly represents people who don't need the support of people like me. That Michael Foot quote about the rich looking after themselves is very relevant here. This is why the likes of Starmer and his pro-establishment agenda will never achieve much as long as he isn't proposing to change the way the state works.
It gets more cringe
https://twitter.com/AnnelieseDodds/status/1466423964947951618?t=cNpUIeGiBkTrxsTavaAsww&s=19
It gets more cringe
Credible opposition. Image what binners would be saying if this was Corbyn et al.
There’s a big difference between country and people.
Well you said, quote : "I hate the ‘country’ (or rather the state) I was born into", that is fairly clear, most people, quite reasonably, would assume you mean that you hate the UK.
If you didn't mean that then it is probably best to say what you actually mean.
If you didn’t mean that then it is probably best to say what you actually mean.
I was pretty clear in saying the state. I don’t know why you’re questioning that.
I am not questioning anything.
You challenged my comment with regards to voters making the not totally unreasonable assumption that people who hate a country aren’t likely to have that country’s best interests at heart.
Credible opposition. Image what binners would be saying if this was Corbyn et al
Labours whole communications operation has been absolutely bloody awful for a very long time now. It’s completely incoherent and *dons graphic designers hat* it looks absolutely bloody awful! It looks like it’s been put together by a student. Actually… it probably has
I’d send the whole comms team out with a bottle of scotch and a revolver
Labours whole communications operation has been absolutely bloody awful for a very long time now.
To be fair there is very little to communicate so I can't see a slick professional operation having much to offer.
Labours whole communications operation has been absolutely bloody awful for a very long time now. It’s completely incoherent and *dons graphic designers hat* it looks absolutely bloody awful! It looks like it’s been put together by a student. Actually… it probably has
Agreed.
There have been some utterly terrible slogans too as well as piss-poor layouts.
The Tories might have some of the most linear design I've ever seen but they communicate their message very well.
Labour need a complete PR overhaul, nothing was as effective as their short films in 2017 by that Simon (can't remember his surname) who unfortunately died quite young.
It gets more cringe
They are wasting their time with this line of attack for something a year old. But yes, it looks like a poster for amateur dramatics latest Holiday singalong.
No one will care.
The problem for any PR appointee is the message they have to communicate:
'soli-dar-ity with the bourg-eoi-sie' or something like that.
The british state is historically, and remains to this day, a hugely malign and evil force which does far more harm to the world than good to further the interests of a tiny number of rich and powerful people. And you want me to like it?
Well said. The justification for the British Empire was racial superiority. That Anglo Saxons were a superior race, which allowed all of the invading, killing and exploiting to be presented as 'civilising'.
That's what Winston Churchill believed - the person repeatedly voted as the greatest Briton. A white supremacist with a belief in eugenics that was very similar to one of his contemporaries and admirers.
A Churchill who's the role model of the current UK prime minister. The blatant racism of the past has been replaced by a Farage style, BBC friendly British patriotism that fetishizes the military, monarchy and freemarkets.
But that fundamental bigotry remains - the belief that British people and culture are in some way superior. It's an ideology that dominates British life and has never been challenged. It's pushed by the media and is supported by both Tories and Labour.
Labour and Starmer don't want to challenge it - they want to harness it.
This could be a game changer.
This calls for an agile ceremony from the money men. He's probably embarrassed by connections with the unions anyway.
Game changer?
They’ve been threatening to do that since they thought Neil Kinnock was too right wing
It’s like me threatening to boycott Greggs until they reinstate cheese and chorizo pasties
Never going to happen
copa
Free MemberA Churchill who’s the role model of the current UK prime minister.
Nah. Boris Johnson idolises his fanfic version of Winston Churchill, he doesn't know much at all about the real one. If he wants to be Churchillian, he doesn't think about what Churchill would have done, he does what he wants then declares that Churchill would have done the same. Much easier.
Johnson doesn't have a role model at all.
That’s what Winston Churchill believed – the person repeatedly voted as the greatest Briton.
Only to the historically illiterate, everyone knows it was Athelstan, the first king of England, overlord of all Britain (as of treaties signed in 927)
They’ve been threatening to do that since they thought Neil Kinnock was too right wing
Never going to happen
Eh? How can you not know that Unite has done precisely that?
Only last year Unite cut its affiliation fees to the Labour Party by 10%, back in 2016 they cut their affiliation fees by £1.5 million, according to the newspaper you claim to read :
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/05/unite-cuts-labour-funding
On top of that Unite makes regular one-off donations to Labour Party to help in campaigns, elections, etc. If it wants to, or not if it doesn't want to.
And it's not something which the Labour Party in its current dire financial crisis due to falling membership numbers and promised private donations not materialising can easily dismiss as unimportant, although I don't doubt that they will try to.
Starmer will have do even more to convince the rich and powerful of all the great things he will do for them, if they are to bless him with their generosity. Although his recent promise to fight any possible business tax rises from this current Tory government should go some way in achieving that.
The transformation away from the 'Labour' party to the Laminated Tory party is all but complete.
That will reverse the right-wing tirade of the last 40 years for sure.
But yeah they will be competent at it you know.
A functioning opposame is now here. A party for the retail park generation.
Game changer?
Absolutely. A bankrupt labour party is a very good thing. Hopefully they'll disappear and leave space for another party who might actually try to do something.
Absolutely. A bankrupt labour party is a very good thing. Hopefully they’ll disappear and leave space for another party who might actually try to do something.
Right, so what will actually happen is that the Labour party will struggle on (possibly for years) without Unites' money or the ability to effectively campaign for anything and will probably splinter into factional smaller parties that have no hope of winning anything in a 2 party system. And even if it creates a space for a different popular left wing party, it'll take decades to become effective, The UK independence party for instance, perhaps the most successful political party in recent history was founded n 1993. and to be anything like electable will still largely resemble the Labour party as it currently stands. so all you achieve is re-inventing the wheel. Meantime, without any opposition the Tories are in power for decades...
Yey...
Yes, I’m sure that the end of the Union funding for the Labour Party will definitely trigger a sequence of events that would finally deliver to the eager UK populace the socialist utopia they all crave
Any comment to make about the 10% swing to Labour from the Tory’s in yesterday’s by-election?
No?
Yay Tories retain seat. Labour got 6.7K - (In 2019 Labour got 10.8K votes.) Pmsl. Very low turnout tells you no one was lapping up Labour.
Lol at citing a lost byelection when you run your previous logic on the fact that the only thing that matters is a win in a general election.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1466705686369378305?s=20
Nice reshuffle!
The Tory’s were always going to retain the seat. True Blue Heartlands that it is
But if you can replicate 10% swings elsewhere, or even half that, then you can win lots of marginal seats and certainly take back those red wall seats
It certainly looks like a step in the right direction to me
I am aware that under no circumstances must Starmer, or anyone else who isn’t Jeremy Corbyn, be given any credit for anything though
Hey ho…
Tories threw everything at the seat too
Virtually all the cabinet visited & Johnson twice
Still would've been much better t0 see a 20pt swing
Any comment to make about the 10% swing to Labour from the Tory’s in yesterday’s by-election?
No?
Yeah shit wasn't it? You would expect a governing party with a huge majority midterm to do a lot worse in one of their safe seats.
Generally speaking voters like to give a good kicking to the government when they know it won't make a difference to the political balance.
Not it would appear in Old Bexley and Sidcup. Labour got about the same size share of the vote yesterday as they got under Corbyn in 2017.
And turnout was 34%..... that's how inspired to go out and vote voters felt.
If it was replicated in a general election, which of course it wouldn't be, Labour would fail to win.
Have you got any comment to make binners? Since you asked the question.
Edit : I see that you have decided to comment now. Apparently a swing to Labour which isn't enough to win a general election is great news.
So it's not like a football match after all?
What would you be saying if Corbyn was still leader?
I am aware that under no circumstances must Starmer, or anyone else who isn’t Jeremy Corbyn, be given any credit for anything though
Hey ho…
Where's the credit due? No one turned out to vote for Labour. Much less than under your mate's leadership from 2019. Are you going explaing why the voting for Labour went from 10.8 to 6.7k? How is that a success!
On what level is that good?
Here have 10% extra of my fun size mars bar.
Generally speaking voters like to give a good kicking to the government when they know it won’t make a difference to the political balance.
One voter was asked what she thought of Johnson replied that she thought him a clown, and then told the reporter that despite this she'd still vote Tory, "Better the devil you know" were her words.
Labour would never win this seat. Who'd bother to go to the polls in December in for a bye-election in such a safe seat? And then there is the effect of the previous holder of the seat dying, that tends to neuter a bye election somewhat.
But, ultimately, nothing can be read into this vote at all. Especially foolish trying to extrapolate it to a UK wide election in a few years time.
Labour should be doing better though, more generally, and Starmer is part of the reason why they are not. But his approval ratings are rising (who'd make the best PM), when those for the party (who would you vote for at a general election) are not. So the problem is deeper than who the leader currently is. Labour aren't trusted. Even in the face of a government loosing trust hand over fist.
what she thought of Johnson replied that she thought him a clown, and then told the reporter that despite this she’d still vote Tory,
Yup. Speaks volumes about Starmer.
Labour would never win this seat.
Just like the LibDems were never going to win Chesham and Amersham.
And yet they did with a 30% swing.
The LibDems had the humiliation of losing their deposit yesterday.
I don't think that despite all his cock-ups Johnson will be losing any sleep. The total ineptitude of the two main opposition parties will guarantee that.
And the 0.7% of the vote for Rejoin EU is unlikely to worry him that he is paying a political price for brexit.
Yes agreed, I don't think Starmer or the Labour party as a whole should be overly pleased by the result. But I don't know the area well, it could be that they'd vote Tory regardless.
Just like the LibDems were never going to win Chesham and Amersham.
Labour aren't the LibDems. And this seat isn't Chesham and Amersham.
You can't extrapolate either result out to UK wide election.
But despite that, I agree that Labour should be doing much better nationally at this point, and that Starmer is key to that failure.
Labour aren’t the LibDems. And this seat isn’t Chesham and Amersham.
Well spotted.
Have you also spotted the flaw in the argument "the Tories were never going to lose this seat because it is a safe Tory seat"?
The Tories were never going to lose this seat because the opposition is shite.
Otherwise I would expect front-page headlines of stunning by-election defeats for the Tories.
I was wondering what Sir Ed Davey was up to recently, that's the name of the LibDem leader btw, so I did a search. Apparently he has recently referred himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, apart from that he doesn't appear to be doing much.
“the Tories were never going to lose this seat because it is a safe Tory seat”
I never said that. I said that Labour were never going to win this seat.
Otherwise I would expect front-page headlines of stunning by-election defeats for the Tories.
If you honestly expected that could happen in this seat, I'd be surprised.
The Tories were never going to lose this seat because the opposition is shite.
You know well enough that there's seats that would never return anything but a Tory, and this seat never has since it's creation, so it could be that, couldn't it?
