|
|
Post by Handyman on Jul 22, 2023 12:12:15 GMT
It's a copy of a tongue in cheek post that I made months ago but it was Corbyn and Abbott that I used. đ Do keep up. If this is the best you can come up with then well done. Maybe Sid will give you a little gold star.  |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jul 22, 2023 12:26:08 GMT
Don't talk daft, why would Starmer work so hard to became the leader of the party and potentially the next PM to hand it over to Blair who was booted out of office for his 'crimes'?đ Blair stood down after he made a load of money and corrupted the institutions and left and right of politics. His final act was to give us Gordon Brown as the final insult. Your post simply highlights the total lack of principles that exists throughout the party, where even Corbyn in his new Gimp outfit is probably referring to his masters as "Sir". It's all quite sickening really, but that's the Labour party for you.
Yep warmonger Blair certainly passed the poisoned chalice to Gormless Gordon, in Rugby it would be classed as a hospital offload All Gormless did was make our complex tax system even more complicated |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 22, 2023 13:21:47 GMT
What about Corbynites? We saw the countries reaction to Corbyn running Labour. If a majority support Starmer then that's because the majority want that. Maybe stop viewing everything from a party point of view and look at what the electorate want. As for Blair cashing in on the war, this is once again not back up by any evidence. How else do you think he got so rich? He even went on to make millions from the autocratic rulers of rich arab states who wanted Saddam gone. I understand his followers love invading practically defenceless countries whilst lying about it. If the majority want his poodle in power then that will be their costly mistake.
As for Corbyn:
How does anyone get rich? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 22, 2023 13:29:38 GMT
View Attachment Image: An iconic photo of a mother holding onto her baby in the aftermath of The Halabja Masacre, when Saddam Hussain dropped a chemical weapon ( otherwise known as a Weapon Of Mass Destruction ) upon the town of Halabja. The mother and baby are both dead, thousands of others were instantly killed. The Iraq War has no bearing on my post, but I thought that I would just make the point, and I should also point out that no court anywhere in the world has ever charged Tony Blair as been a "war criminal", a term mostly used by the delusional far Left. My post was about the kind of Labour Party that Blair headed, and what was it that made the Labour Party so successful, and which gave Labour its biggest ever majority in history. The object of the post was to point out that any aspiring Labour leader would be foolish not talk to Blair, and to listen as to why Blair believes he achieved 3 consecutive wins. You can repeat this as many times as you like Sid. The thicko's will still think they meant nukes. Hans Blix admitted that Saddam was not complying with Resolution 1441 and that 20,000 litres of Sarin pre agent were still unaccounted for after 10 years of asking. Still they will say the war was illegal because the French and Germans wouldn't support action. Still they choose to forget what Saddam was and what he did. Even the BBC got slated recently for an extremely biased documentary on the Iraq war. But its a lost cause as the die has been set and history written. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 22, 2023 13:34:33 GMT
Blair's victory was a bubble that quickly burst. By the end of his first term Labour supporters where asking who they should vote for now. They were totally lost. Still, people quickly forget and there's a lot of fresh meat today, so who knows, maybe the voodoo magic will work again. However, Starmer is Blair's little boy. As mentioned on this thread Starmer cannot be his own man. He can't even choose his own cloths, so obviously cannot listen to real people. Blair's victory was a bubble that quickly burst â really?
Blair was Labour leader from 1994 to 2007, and was PM for ten of those years.
Not something that would normally be classified as a quickly burst bubble...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 22, 2023 14:16:50 GMT
Hans Blix admitted that Saddam was not complying with Resolution 1441 and that 20,000 litres of Sarin pre agent were still unaccounted for after 10 years of asking. Still they will say the war was illegal because the French and Germans wouldn't support action. Still they choose to forget what Saddam was and what he did. Even the BBC got slated recently for an extremely biased documentary on the Iraq war. But its a lost cause as the die has been set and history written. And were these alleged 20,000 litres of pre- agent ever found? Because frankly I struggle to believe anything that Hans Blix comes out with. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2023 15:03:29 GMT
Hans Blix was just one person, who actually led the United Nations Monitoring, Verification & Inspection Unit, all we do know for certain is that Saddam Hussain DID HAVE weapons of mass destruction, because he had used them on his own people.
But whether or not he had WMD immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq is to me, irrelevant.
Hussain was thoroughly evil, he murdered many thousands of people and tortured many thousands more, and those that support one of Hussain's FRIENDS ( George Galloway ) are the ones who should hang their heads in shame, not supporters of Tony Blair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 22, 2023 15:04:47 GMT
Khan getting the blame for Labour loss ... lol www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1794011/Keir-starmer-labour-sadiq-khan-ulezLabour rift explodes as Starmer pins blame of loss on Sadiq Khan and hints at ULEZ U-turnThe Labour leader said there would be "reflection" and that he had spoken
Flip-flop knows Labour can't win while Khan is clobbering the ordinary people with stealth taxes, the only mistake Khan has made is doing it before they win the next election, the idiot is just giving us a taste of things to come if Labour actually do win the next GE ... be afraid... be very afraid ... LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 22, 2023 15:06:55 GMT
Hans Blix admitted that Saddam was not complying with Resolution 1441 and that 20,000 litres of Sarin pre agent were still unaccounted for after 10 years of asking. Still they will say the war was illegal because the French and Germans wouldn't support action. Still they choose to forget what Saddam was and what he did. Even the BBC got slated recently for an extremely biased documentary on the Iraq war. But its a lost cause as the die has been set and history written. And were these alleged 20,000 litres of pre- agent ever found? Because frankly I struggle to believe anything that Hans Blix comes out with. They weren't found but then Iraq is 170,000 Sq miles and 20,000ltrs fits in a single fuel tanker. But will happily kill a million people. It wasn't just Blix, there was a whole team out there. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 22, 2023 15:06:56 GMT
Hans Blix was just one person, who actually led the United Nations Monitoring, Verification & Inspection Unit, all we do know for certain is that Saddam Hussain DID HAVE weapons of mass destruction, because he had used them on his own people. But whether or not he had WMD immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq is to me, irrelevant. Hussain was thoroughly evil, he murdered many thousands of people and tortured many thousands more, and those that support one of Hussain's FRIENDS ( George Galloway ) are the ones who should hang their heads in shame, not supporters of Tony Blair. dearie me. The labour party faithfull still trying to re write history and polish the turd of the last labour government years.
funny thing is though sid , we were told gaddafi was the same , an evil man who had to be removed, but that didnt stop us all seeing pictures of blair and brown in desert tents hugging and kissing the man.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 22, 2023 15:08:02 GMT
Blair's victory was a bubble that quickly burst. By the end of his first term Labour supporters where asking who they should vote for now. They were totally lost. Still, people quickly forget and there's a lot of fresh meat today, so who knows, maybe the voodoo magic will work again. However, Starmer is Blair's little boy. As mentioned on this thread Starmer cannot be his own man. He can't even choose his own cloths, so obviously cannot listen to real people. Blair's victory was a bubble that quickly burst â really?
Blair was Labour leader from 1994 to 2007, and was PM for ten of those years.
Not something that would normally be classified as a quickly burst bubble...
You took the word right out of my mouth. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 22, 2023 15:10:26 GMT
Hans Blix was just one person, who actually led the United Nations Monitoring, Verification & Inspection Unit, all we do know for certain is that Saddam Hussain DID HAVE weapons of mass destruction, because he had used them on his own people. But whether or not he had WMD immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq is to me, irrelevant. Hussain was thoroughly evil, he murdered many thousands of people and tortured many thousands more, and those that support one of Hussain's FRIENDS ( George Galloway ) are the ones who should hang their heads in shame, not supporters of Tony Blair. dearie me. The labour party faithfull still trying to re write history and polish the turd of the last labour government years.
funny thing is though sid , we were told gaddafi was the same , an evil man who had to be removed, but that didnt stop us all seeing pictures of blair and brown in desert tents hugging and kissing the man.
We said the same about Assad, but by then our governments were to frit to get involved. That war turned out SO much better for us not interfering. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 22, 2023 15:14:46 GMT
Blair's victory was a bubble that quickly burst â really?
Blair was Labour leader from 1994 to 2007, and was PM for ten of those years.
Not something that would normally be classified as a quickly burst bubble...
You took the word right out of my mouth. i dont often agree with b4 , but i do agree with what he is implying. Blairs victory in 1997 wasnt some massive win against all the odds , i could have won against a tory party burnt out after 18 long years of rule , scandal and infighting. He only had to turn up on the day , and win , and did.
The point b4 is making is that after his 1997 victory ( not sure why pat is mentioning pre 1997) within months the press and public were slowly turning against blairs policies , hence the bubble bursting quickly.
Blairâs victories, then, werenât some miraculous achievement against the odds, and nor were they done on a conspicuously right-wing policy programme. New Labour also enjoyed the huge advantage of competing against a Conservative party that was still a broken shambles for almost all of Blairâs reign. When David Cameron took over the leadership in December 2005, armed as he was with only the most modest sprinkling of competence and charisma, the writing was on the wall.
Itâs perhaps worth noting, though, that the New Labour honeymoon was much shorter than that. Blair managed to lose almost 3m votes even by 2001, two years BEFORE the Iraq misadventure. It seems reasonable to speculate that at least a good many of them were left-wing voters disillusioned that the Labour government they thought theyâd voted for was a little less left than advertised â they certainly didnât go to the Tories or Lib Dems, whose votes in 2001 were both even lower than 1997.
(The NME, still a politically-focused and influential paper at the time, had by March 1998 already run a famous âEVER HAD THE FEELING YOUâVE BEEN CHEATED?â front cover in protest at welfare and education policies, and the âCool Britanniaâ coterie of Britpop bands whoâd supported Blair were queueing up to castigate him.)
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 22, 2023 15:16:25 GMT
dearie me. The labour party faithfull still trying to re write history and polish the turd of the last labour government years.
funny thing is though sid , we were told gaddafi was the same , an evil man who had to be removed, but that didnt stop us all seeing pictures of blair and brown in desert tents hugging and kissing the man.
We said the same about Assad, but by then our governments were to frit to get involved. That war turned out SO much better for us not interfering. its amazing the foreign politicians and countries the uk will be friends with when it suits ,and turn a blind eye , or castigate for crimes when it doesnt . |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 22, 2023 15:20:03 GMT
You took the word right out of my mouth. i dont often agree with b4 , but i do agree with what he is implying. Blairs victory in 1997 wasnt some massive win against all the odds , i could have won against a tory party burnt out after 18 long years of rule , scandal and infighting. He only had to turn up on the day , and win , and did.
The point b4 is making is that after his 1997 victory ( not sure why pat is mentioning pre 1997) within months the press and public were slowly turning against blairs policies , hence the bubble bursting quickly.
Blairâs victories, then, werenât some miraculous achievement against the odds, and nor were they done on a conspicuously right-wing policy programme. New Labour also enjoyed the huge advantage of competing against a Conservative party that was still a broken shambles for almost all of Blairâs reign. When David Cameron took over the leadership in December 2005, armed as he was with only the most modest sprinkling of competence and charisma, the writing was on the wall.
Itâs perhaps worth noting, though, that the New Labour honeymoon was much shorter than that. Blair managed to lose almost 3m votes even by 2001, two years BEFORE the Iraq misadventure. It seems reasonable to speculate that at least a good many of them were left-wing voters disillusioned that the Labour government they thought theyâd voted for was a little less left than advertised â they certainly didnât go to the Tories or Lib Dems, whose votes in 2001 were both even lower than 1997.
(The NME, still a politically-focused and influential paper at the time, had by March 1998 already run a famous âEVER HAD THE FEELING YOUâVE BEEN CHEATED?â front cover in protest at welfare and education policies, and the âCool Britanniaâ coterie of Britpop bands whoâd supported Blair were queueing up to castigate him.)
Well I remember it differently. I remember years of stable economy and gentle growth that enabled me to develop my business without soaring interest rates and topsy turvy markets. Voting for New Labour was a given and what the Tories were doing was of no significance. |
|
