|
Post by see2 on Feb 27, 2023 12:01:54 GMT
You have an intelligent brain but you appear to be unable to see any further than your committed political position. You are wholly lacking in insight because exactly the same is even more true of you. You are utterly unable to find fault or error in your own political persuasion as most of the rest of us can in ours, and thus utterly fail the impartiality test. Because it remains an inevitable fact that no one is perfect and all political persuasions make mistakes. I could if asked easily list many mistakes and failings by Corbyn and his then Labour party and of the left in general. I suspect most people here could if asked cite errors made by their own preferred political faction. Only you thus far seem incapable of doing so. Just to prove that I am better at impartiality than you, here are some of the errors and flaws from my own political side. Corbyn himself, although idealistic, was too inflexible and lacked political pragmatism. He was also weak in challenging those attacking him, preferring to ignore it with contempt rather than challenging and fighting it, which as a strategy was wholly ineffective and gave his critics and their smears free rein to become the accepted narrative. On areas where he did not hold strong opinions - disastrously the EU when Brexit was the top issue - he too easily allowed himself to be swayed by the last person he spoke to all the time. He eventually got bored enough with the issue to allow Starmer and others to dictate Labour's Brexit strategy with electorally disastrous consequences rather than showing strong leadership himself. In policy terms many mistakes were made, particularly in regards to the 2019 manifesto. Most of the 2017 manifesto policies were popular and Labour should have simply doubled down on them but costed them better. The promise of free broad band in 2019 lacked credibility and sufficient costings and was clearly a promise too far. Few people believed this was deliverable. And the promise to compensate the WASPI women re pensions would have cost a large sum which was entirely uncosted. This was a mistake. They'd have been better off putting this forward as an aspiration but only if it could be made affordable. More emphasis should also have been placed on the economic aspects of their policies to reassure the markets and the public, by stressing the moderately social democratic tenor of their policies and comparing them to other western nations where such policies had been in place for decades. This would have helped lay the lie that they were in any way extremists. The day I see you able to cite a similar balanced criticism of New Labour and/or Starmer and Blair, is the day I will see you walking the walk rather than simply talking the talk when it comes to impartiality. I have a far more objective approach and a far wider approach to politics than you, so you are not comparing like with like. Which is why you find yourself trying so hard to justify your position. The records show that you and your ilk have backed the loser far too often to be taken seriously. The day you wake up to that fact is the day you will be seen to be 'walking the walk'.
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 27, 2023 12:02:54 GMT
Rayner is a loyal follower of Corbyn, she's also a crusader for the Unions, in my books that makes her hard-left. Then you are engaged in the same politically motivated mislabelling beloved of New Labour and Tories alike as well as the Tory media. Because even Corbyn is not hard left. Labour's 2017 manifesto was a very moderate social democratic document, most of whose policies have already been in place for decades in most other western nations. Mislabelling the democratic left as extremists, which Tories, and New Labour, and their supporters in the media constantly do is merely an attempt to establish a narrative that automatically makes any challenge to the economic status quo be considered as extremist by default. Lesser beings like yourself and see 2 merely parrot the same language because you harbour the same agenda of protecting the economic status quo and desiring to see any challenge to it to be seen as unacceptable. Yep Corbyn/Rayner fit the bill...
In certain instances—especially in the news media—far left has been associated with some forms of authoritarianism, anarchism, communism, and Marxism, or are characterized as groups that advocate for revolutionary socialism and related communist ideologies, or anti-capitalism and anti-globalization.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 27, 2023 12:16:03 GMT
There is no point in Labour looking back to the late 1800s or early 1900s, The world has moved on, and IMO the Labour party should also move on, as they did with New Labour. New Labour was hardly an example of a party moving on, more an example of a party surrendering it's soul to the tenets of the opposition. A belief in social democracy would hardly be a move back to the 1800s as you laughably claim. And you talking of a party moving on when you constantly hark back to 1997 and the years that immediately followed is surely an example of yourself living in the past, unaware of how much in society has changed since then, much of it for the worse. Barely a post of your goes by without you referencing New Labour in terms of excessive reverence. You yourself need to move on. The day Corbynites govern will be the day that is more applicable to the needs of people that existed before WWII. And that apparently reflects your emotional needs. Today's need is for a social minded government that wants to deal with the whole of the electorate, to get elected, and that means the likes of you and Corby style followers are a waste of time at the expense of the living standards of those in most need of help. In other words you can't accomplish anything from the opposition benches, and the real losers are those at the lower end of income and opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 27, 2023 12:55:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 27, 2023 15:57:13 GMT
The same sort of thing happened after the Black Death and the Fire of London. Reduced manpower was the catalyst, but the changes didn't stay, and neither will todays changes stay. I guess Maily crap wouldn't explain that to you.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 27, 2023 16:13:25 GMT
In my experience many east Europeans sent a lot of their wages back to Eastern Europe for a few years . The Labour shortage has given the ones who stayed here a bit more money. Good old Brexit 👍
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2023 21:51:13 GMT
You are wholly lacking in insight because exactly the same is even more true of you. You are utterly unable to find fault or error in your own political persuasion as most of the rest of us can in ours, and thus utterly fail the impartiality test. Because it remains an inevitable fact that no one is perfect and all political persuasions make mistakes. I could if asked easily list many mistakes and failings by Corbyn and his then Labour party and of the left in general. I suspect most people here could if asked cite errors made by their own preferred political faction. Only you thus far seem incapable of doing so. Just to prove that I am better at impartiality than you, here are some of the errors and flaws from my own political side. Corbyn himself, although idealistic, was too inflexible and lacked political pragmatism. He was also weak in challenging those attacking him, preferring to ignore it with contempt rather than challenging and fighting it, which as a strategy was wholly ineffective and gave his critics and their smears free rein to become the accepted narrative. On areas where he did not hold strong opinions - disastrously the EU when Brexit was the top issue - he too easily allowed himself to be swayed by the last person he spoke to all the time. He eventually got bored enough with the issue to allow Starmer and others to dictate Labour's Brexit strategy with electorally disastrous consequences rather than showing strong leadership himself. In policy terms many mistakes were made, particularly in regards to the 2019 manifesto. Most of the 2017 manifesto policies were popular and Labour should have simply doubled down on them but costed them better. The promise of free broad band in 2019 lacked credibility and sufficient costings and was clearly a promise too far. Few people believed this was deliverable. And the promise to compensate the WASPI women re pensions would have cost a large sum which was entirely uncosted. This was a mistake. They'd have been better off putting this forward as an aspiration but only if it could be made affordable. More emphasis should also have been placed on the economic aspects of their policies to reassure the markets and the public, by stressing the moderately social democratic tenor of their policies and comparing them to other western nations where such policies had been in place for decades. This would have helped lay the lie that they were in any way extremists. The day I see you able to cite a similar balanced criticism of New Labour and/or Starmer and Blair, is the day I will see you walking the walk rather than simply talking the talk when it comes to impartiality. I have a far more objective approach and a far wider approach to politics than you, so you are not comparing like with like. Which is why you find yourself trying so hard to justify your position. The records show that you and your ilk have backed the loser far too often to be taken seriously. The day you wake up to that fact is the day you will be seen to be 'walking the walk'. Still unable to find any flaws at all with your beloved New Labour. And you have the gall to regard yourself as impartial and the rest of us biased. Insight has never been one of your stronger suits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2023 21:53:19 GMT
Then you are engaged in the same politically motivated mislabelling beloved of New Labour and Tories alike as well as the Tory media. Because even Corbyn is not hard left. Labour's 2017 manifesto was a very moderate social democratic document, most of whose policies have already been in place for decades in most other western nations. Mislabelling the democratic left as extremists, which Tories, and New Labour, and their supporters in the media constantly do is merely an attempt to establish a narrative that automatically makes any challenge to the economic status quo be considered as extremist by default. Lesser beings like yourself and see 2 merely parrot the same language because you harbour the same agenda of protecting the economic status quo and desiring to see any challenge to it to be seen as unacceptable. Yep Corbyn/Rayner fit the bill...
In certain instances—especially in the news media—far left has been associated with some forms of authoritarianism, anarchism, communism, and Marxism, or are characterized as groups that advocate for revolutionary socialism and related communist ideologies, or anti-capitalism and anti-globalization.
And you laughably think that Labour's 2017 policy agenda was any of that? Lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2023 21:56:07 GMT
New Labour was hardly an example of a party moving on, more an example of a party surrendering it's soul to the tenets of the opposition. A belief in social democracy would hardly be a move back to the 1800s as you laughably claim. And you talking of a party moving on when you constantly hark back to 1997 and the years that immediately followed is surely an example of yourself living in the past, unaware of how much in society has changed since then, much of it for the worse. Barely a post of your goes by without you referencing New Labour in terms of excessive reverence. You yourself need to move on. The day Corbynites govern will be the day that is more applicable to the needs of people that existed before WWII. And that apparently reflects your emotional needs. Today's need is for a social minded government that wants to deal with the whole of the electorate, to get elected, and that means the likes of you and Corby style followers are a waste of time at the expense of the living standards of those in most need of help. In other words you can't accomplish anything from the opposition benches, and the real losers are those at the lower end of income and opportunity. That you seem incapable of seeing me in terms other than a Corbynite merely exposes your own paucity of understanding and resultant need to pidgeonhole
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 27, 2023 23:01:24 GMT
I have a far more objective approach and a far wider approach to politics than you, so you are not comparing like with like. Which is why you find yourself trying so hard to justify your position. The records show that you and your ilk have backed the loser far too often to be taken seriously. The day you wake up to that fact is the day you will be seen to be 'walking the walk'. Still unable to find any flaws at all with your beloved New Labour. And you have the gall to regard yourself as impartial and the rest of us biased. Insight has never been one of your stronger suits. I have already pointed out that there are too many fools and liars attacking New Labour, such mistaken fools and liars do not earn any help from me. I'd sooner point out the stupidity of theirs and your, false attacks on NL. That you seem unable to grasp that your question is nothing more than an attempted escape route out of the mess you have created for yourself, only lessens your credibility. As you failed to address my post, I'll take it that you agreed with it.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 27, 2023 23:06:29 GMT
The day Corbynites govern will be the day that is more applicable to the needs of people that existed before WWII. And that apparently reflects your emotional needs. Today's need is for a social minded government that wants to deal with the whole of the electorate, to get elected, and that means the likes of you and Corby style followers are a waste of time at the expense of the living standards of those in most need of help. In other words you can't accomplish anything from the opposition benches, and the real losers are those at the lower end of income and opportunity. That you seem incapable of seeing me in terms other than a Corbynite merely exposes your own paucity of understanding and resultant need to pidgeonhole You did vote for him, so you would have put him in office if you could.
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Feb 28, 2023 2:29:13 GMT
People want a Social Democrat in charge of Labour. What is the fucking point of Labour if that isn't the case? Listen to every union leader, they are having to strike to maintain terms and conditions and the Labour front bench are sat on their hands!! Starmer is going to win by default... Labour could literally replace him with Dianne Abbott right now and they would still win!! There is no point in Labour looking back to the late 1800s or early 1900s, The world has moved on, and IMO the Labour party should also move on, as they did with New Labour. What are you talking about? Are you saying the Nordic countries are not progressive? lol You seem to be confused between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. Starmer has no convictions, he backed a bat shit crazy Democratic Socialist manifesto under Corbyn and now is pretending he is "soft left". He was one of remoaners in chief that cost Labour the last election with his anti-Brexit antics and now he has accepted the result lol. Also, anybody not in a union right now is a fucking idiot, because everything that was fought for is now being lost again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2023 6:40:35 GMT
Still unable to find any flaws at all with your beloved New Labour. And you have the gall to regard yourself as impartial and the rest of us biased. Insight has never been one of your stronger suits. I have already pointed out that there are too many fools and liars attacking New Labour, such mistaken fools and liars do not earn any help from me. I'd sooner point out the stupidity of theirs and your, false attacks on NL. That you seem unable to grasp that your question is nothing more than an attempted escape route out of the mess you have created for yourself, only lessens your credibility. As you failed to address my post, I'll take it that you agreed with it. In other words you are incapable of recognising any flaws or faults whatsoever. So much for your impartiality and supposedly broader perspective. Who are you trying to kid? And if you want to imagine I agreed with you, fill your boots. I will say that if I agree with someone I tend to say so. If I do not respond to something it is generally because either I don't see it as worthy of a response or I am choosing to respond to another point instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2023 6:44:16 GMT
That you seem incapable of seeing me in terms other than a Corbynite merely exposes your own paucity of understanding and resultant need to pidgeonhole You did vote for him, so you would have put him in office if you could. I did not vote for him. I do not live in Islington. I voted for the Labour candidate in my constituency, who as it happens was not a so called Corbynista. Besides, you voted for someone whose leader was Boris Johnson, so who is the bigger twat here, eh?
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 28, 2023 10:44:54 GMT
There is no point in Labour looking back to the late 1800s or early 1900s, The world has moved on, and IMO the Labour party should also move on, as they did with New Labour. What are you talking about? Are you saying the Nordic countries are not progressive? lol You seem to be confused between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. Starmer has no convictions, he backed a bat shit crazy Democratic Socialist manifesto under Corbyn and now is pretending he is "soft left". He was one of remoaners in chief that cost Labour the last election with his anti-Brexit antics and now he has accepted the result lol. Also, anybody not in a union right now is a fucking idiot, because everything that was fought for is now being lost again. The Nordic countries do not have to deal with the UK electorate or the UK media. Under Corbyn, Starmer's interest was to beat the Tories, he would still have been working to encourage the Labour MPs towards a more moderate position, and maybe even hoping to be in control of the party at some stage. 'Moderate Left' is how I see Starmer, able to look at the much wider needs of the country than being controlled by any firm left or right of politics. My political interests lay with a social minded capitalist government. A gradual improvement to society not a political revolution. It is not up to Starmer to fight Union battles.
|
|