|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 28, 2022 17:33:11 GMT
Maybe if I shout you will actually read and understand the points I've made. 1. NO, I AGREED THAT A MOVE AWAY FROM THE LEFT LAID A FOUNDATION UPON WHICH TO BUILD NEW LABOUR. It certainly did not exist in the late 1980s. you arent arguing that new labour didnt exist in the late eighties. By yet again posting semantics , ie you talk about a move away fro mthe old left , you are agreeing with me as most other do the new labour project in reality began in kinnocks modernisations as they now call it between 1987 and 1992 .
The point of course being that new labour had many failures before its luck changed in 1997 , and its record is demonstrably worse than old labours.
please stop waffling. Im offering opnion oft backed up by fact.
once we all reach that greater understanding , then new labour will be toast forever. Until then , you rely on bullshit , innuendo and complete historical re writing to lie your way into power.
milliband was surrounded by the so called blairite babes like kendal and cooper , and his branch manager in scotland was jim murphy , and out and out blairite. If it walks like a duck and all that.
You are now in the realms of outright delusion. Of course it must be expected talking to a blairite supporter.
Who?
I am not going over points that have already be rebutted. Here, read this. "Unemployment is down and because our prudence is not the barrier to spending but its pre-condition, spending on services is rising by 5 per cent in real terms for the next four years. And it is because we have tackled the levels of debt and the levels of unemployment that instead of 42 pence in every extra pound spent going to unemployment and debt repayments, it is now only 17 pence – leaving 83 pence in every pound to go to health, education and the vital services. Health spending rising this year by 7 per cent in real terms, education by 10 per cent , and public investment by 30 per cent. www.ukpol.co.uk/gordon-brown-2000-speech-to-the-tuc-congress/#:~:text=Gordon%20Brown%20%E2%80%93%202000%20Speech%20to%20the%20TUC,productivity%20full%20employment%20for%20all%20in%20our%20generation. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 28, 2022 17:38:13 GMT
Is it OK again to say that the meltdown was no secret to people in the know and that they and top politicians hid the facts from the peoples of the world? Apart from some of those working in the head office of some of the Banks who might have got a whiff of what was going on, I would say it was nothing like general knowledge at the top, but even then only when it was too late to do anything about it. That is IMO, because I believe that if there was any understanding of what was happening there would have been a whistle blower about somewhere. They had more than a whiff, they had evidence, what they said after the event is they didn't know which way the wind would blow. These were bankers and lenders who had seen what was happening well before the crunch; at least some politicians would have known. I lived in France before and when it happened and speculation was which bank(s) was about to go pop, one of the candidates was my bank, BNP Paribas. Something was certainly going on and I changed banks but not before I'd had a fierce argument with one of their staff. Several months before that a new manager had been appointed, a bright young man who you might have thought had a sound banking future; I had several conversations with him for no particular reason other than he wanted to chat. Then one day I called in and the bank clerk said the manager would like to see me. When I went to his office he told me he was leaving to start up a property company and when I asked why, he told me he was concerned at what might happen in the French banking world. I pressed him but he said no more but something did happen though the French bank involvement was more in the Spanish property market. The rest is, as they say, history. Neither you nor anyone else will convince me that what was about to happen was unknown to those involved at senior level banking and governments, the writing was on the wall in 2006. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 28, 2022 17:40:23 GMT
The new labour government knew fine well bankers were taking massive risks long before the crash , and many economists like roubani keen and pettifor predicted the crash would happen.
In his latter memoirs gordon brown was accused of re writing the history of the financial crash and those who had raised concerns to the then new labour government of the vulnerabilities of the uk banking system .
Proof of your "The new labour government knew fine well bankers were taking massive risks long before the crash". New Labour were hit with a problem they did not fully understand in 2007 when Brown said, "this is a Banking problem, let them sort it out" proving that he had no knowledge of just how bad the situation was. NO ONE PREDICTED THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN. Nouriel Roubini did not forecast the crash. In his preamble to his speech he made it clear that he was not making a forecast, he was making the case for what was possible to happen. If the American's had rescued their Banks from the mess of Sub Prime mortgages in 2006 then it is likely that no one would have heard of Mr. Roubini. Haha, I had not read your post when I started typing my own with an alternative version. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 28, 2022 17:43:53 GMT
Apart from some of those working in the head office of some of the Banks who might have got a whiff of what was going on, I would say it was nothing like general knowledge at the top, but even then only when it was too late to do anything about it. That is IMO, because I believe that if there was any understanding of what was happening there would have been a whistle blower about somewhere. The new labour government knew fine well bankers were taking massive risks long before the crash , and many economists like roubani keen and pettifor predicted the crash would happen.
In his latter memoirs gordon brown was accused of re writing the history of the financial crash and those who had raised concerns to the then new labour government of the vulnerabilities of the uk banking system .
Absolutely correct and I have just responded to see2's answer to you. |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Dec 28, 2022 17:53:22 GMT
This story caught my attention on twitter this morning regarding the former darling of blairite labour , and good friend of keir starmers right hand man ed milliband....the slithering chukka umuna , advising a Czech billionaire leader of a private equity firm based in Luxembourg on the potential purchase of Royal Mail. Yet another window opening on how these blairites in the labour party think and feel , and why the working class walked away from them. In a way i do hope starmer and blairite labour mark 3 do actually win the next uk general election.
Its going to be funny watching them pull whats left of the uk down to the ground.
Sorry Tommy, but I misread that. When you mentioned Labour MPs trying to buy the Royal Mail I had an image of Peter Mandelson propositioning Prince Edward.
That said, why would anyone want to buy the Royal Mail? It is practically a basket case that is only kept afloat by popular sentiment and the fact the private firms rely on illegal immigrants to make the actual deliveries and the government is busy machine gunning them in the Channel.
That said, you don't have to be very smart to be an MP
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Dec 28, 2022 18:01:55 GMT
you arent arguing that new labour didnt exist in the late eighties. By yet again posting semantics , ie you talk about a move away fro mthe old left , you are agreeing with me as most other do the new labour project in reality began in kinnocks modernisations as they now call it between 1987 and 1992 .
The point of course being that new labour had many failures before its luck changed in 1997 , and its record is demonstrably worse than old labours.
please stop waffling. Im offering opnion oft backed up by fact.
once we all reach that greater understanding , then new labour will be toast forever. Until then , you rely on bullshit , innuendo and complete historical re writing to lie your way into power.
milliband was surrounded by the so called blairite babes like kendal and cooper , and his branch manager in scotland was jim murphy , and out and out blairite. If it walks like a duck and all that.
You are now in the realms of outright delusion. Of course it must be expected talking to a blairite supporter.
Who?
I am not going over points that have already be rebutted. lmfao. I bet you arent.
Gordon brown himself even apologised about the banking crash and his and new labours large part in it....
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Dec 28, 2022 18:03:39 GMT
This story caught my attention on twitter this morning regarding the former darling of blairite labour , and good friend of keir starmers right hand man ed milliband....the slithering chukka umuna , advising a Czech billionaire leader of a private equity firm based in Luxembourg on the potential purchase of Royal Mail. Yet another window opening on how these blairites in the labour party think and feel , and why the working class walked away from them. In a way i do hope starmer and blairite labour mark 3 do actually win the next uk general election.
Its going to be funny watching them pull whats left of the uk down to the ground.
Sorry Tommy, but I misread that. When you mentioned Labour MPs trying to buy the Royal Mail I had an image of Peter Mandelson propositioning Prince Edward.
That said, why would anyone want to buy the Royal Mail? It is practically a basket case that is only kept afloat by popular sentiment and the fact the private firms rely on illegal immigrants to make the actual deliveries and the government is busy machine gunning them in the Channel.
That said, you don't have to be very smart to be an MP
i know borkie but its always fun with blairite labour and their low watt lightbulb supporters. They really are the gift that keeps giving.
Anyway how are you? hope you and your family have had a good xmas , and a quick aw the best for the new year .  |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Dec 28, 2022 18:06:17 GMT
The new labour government knew fine well bankers were taking massive risks long before the crash , and many economists like roubani keen and pettifor predicted the crash would happen.
In his latter memoirs gordon brown was accused of re writing the history of the financial crash and those who had raised concerns to the then new labour government of the vulnerabilities of the uk banking system .
Absolutely correct and I have just responded to see2's answer to you. Yep totally agree mate , and as we always say that the trouble with labour. They rely on stupidity and short term memory of the public to fall into power.
|
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Dec 28, 2022 18:07:25 GMT
new labours highest vote share since 1951 has been 13.5 million , in 1997 , while old labour beat that in 51 with 13.9 million. point to old labour. It was even better than that - in 1997 the voting population was much larger than 1951, so effectively an even worse performance. In 1951 the Labour Party's share of the votes was higher than that of the Tories, but the latter still won. This has often been attributed to the vagaries of the first past the post system, but in reality it merely reflected the Brothers and Sisters ability to fuck up |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Dec 28, 2022 18:14:59 GMT
It was even better than that - in 1997 the voting population was much larger than 1951, so effectively an even worse performance. In 1951 the Labour Party's share of the votes was higher than that of the Tories, but the latter still won. This has often been attributed to the vagaries of the first past the post system, but in reality it merely reflected the Brothers and Sisters ability to fuck up oh dear , see 2 wont want to hear that little snippet.
Im still banking that keir starmer will have that natural affinity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory , but if he doesnt come next election , then its going to be fun watching him set the bin on fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 28, 2022 19:31:28 GMT
. . .The point of course being that new labour had many failures before its luck changed in 1997 , and its record is demonstrably worse than old labours. . . . Nah Post war: Old Labour won 1945, 1950, 1964, 1966, 1974 1974 but lost 1951, 1955, 1959, 1979, 1982, 1987, 1992, 2017, 2019 = 40% win rate New Labour (b 1994) won 1997, 2001, 2009, lost 2010, 2015 = 60% success rate |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Dec 28, 2022 20:14:50 GMT
. . .The point of course being that new labour had many failures before its luck changed in 1997 , and its record is demonstrably worse than old labours. . . . New Labour (b 1994) won 1997, 2001, 2009, lost 2010, 2015 = 60% success rate pedantic point. While the new labour term itself comes from 1994 , the ideology behind the term which is what we are concerned about is a lot older.
At least you acknowledge they lost in 2010 and 2015 , unlike our new labour supporter see 2. He cant even bring himself to accept that.
All that aside , since blair saw the writing on the wall and stood down , the cult followers have been blaming brown , milliband , corbyn , propaganda and anythng they can lay their hands on for the state the labour party has been in.
If Starmer doesnt win next election , i wonder what fantasy will be plucked from thin air and blamed this time?
There will be no excuses , starmer is new labour through and through and no amount of bleating the public has rejected them once again is going to wash.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 28, 2022 20:48:53 GMT
Old Labour has been unelectable ever since that Winter of Discontent in 1978. The British public in any numbers really do not want Cuba without the Sun
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 28, 2022 21:16:28 GMT
. . .The point of course being that new labour had many failures before its luck changed in 1997 , and its record is demonstrably worse than old labours. . . . Nah Post war: Old Labour won 1945, 1950, 1964, 1966, 1974 1974 but lost 1951, 1955, 1959, 1979, 1982, 1987, 1992, 2017, 2019 = 40% win rate New Labour (b 1994) won 1997, 2001, 2009, lost 2010, 2015 = 60% success rate 1950 Labour won with tiny majority. !951 Labour held another general election which they lost. 1964 Labour won general election with tiny majority. 1966 Labour held another election and won with a large majority. 1974 Labour lost but formed a minority government. 1974 Labour held another election and won with a tiny majority. Not quite how it's painted. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 28, 2022 21:20:17 GMT
Actually those details reinforce my point, why do you post them as if they contradict it?
|
|
