Starmer's vision quest
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
theclaud
Reading around the chip
I've just submitted a 15,000 world application. I'm allowed to to off the rails.
The Crofted Crest
Active Member
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
multitool
Shaman
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
31st March ?Check the date
https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all...rmer-support-for-corbyn-DDms1mbbf2nMB5uNezjlI
multitool
Shaman
It was a joke, nobby
multitool
Shaman
I've posted this in another thread, but really it is of greater relevance here.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...4?shareToken=ce701e7dcace612eaea3c4bdb191463b
People will read into this article what they wish. For Adam it will be further proof that Starmer is a Tory stooge, and he'll be spitting his usual invective as you would expect from a blind adherent to the cult of Saint Jeremy. Adam wants Labour to be a protest movement that turns up to shout protests and tells people what they want to hear, safe in the knowledge that they can promise the earth because their promises will never be put to the test. What he absolutely doesn't want is a Labour government.
For me though, this is clearly a watershed moment. Putting aside the reportage of Starmer's words, which is the minority of the piece, it is the tenor that is interesting. It is entirely uncritical of Starmer, and it is in The Sunday Times which means that the Murdoch press are not going to do a hatchet job on Labour's attempts to get elected.
Absolute game on for a Labour government now.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...4?shareToken=ce701e7dcace612eaea3c4bdb191463b
People will read into this article what they wish. For Adam it will be further proof that Starmer is a Tory stooge, and he'll be spitting his usual invective as you would expect from a blind adherent to the cult of Saint Jeremy. Adam wants Labour to be a protest movement that turns up to shout protests and tells people what they want to hear, safe in the knowledge that they can promise the earth because their promises will never be put to the test. What he absolutely doesn't want is a Labour government.
For me though, this is clearly a watershed moment. Putting aside the reportage of Starmer's words, which is the minority of the piece, it is the tenor that is interesting. It is entirely uncritical of Starmer, and it is in The Sunday Times which means that the Murdoch press are not going to do a hatchet job on Labour's attempts to get elected.
Absolute game on for a Labour government now.
Last edited:
newfhouse
pleb
Is a Murdoch-approved “Labour” government the limit of our ambition now, or even what we need?
multitool
Shaman
That is such a vast question it is hard to know where to start. Who do you mean by "we" and "our" because the electorate do not see themselves as having identical interests. I'd suggest very strongly that the most needy are not being well served by the Conservative government. Would they be served by another Momentum-driven Corbyn clone who says all the right things, but will deliver another Tory majority?
It is a loaded game. It always has been a loaded game. The Conservatives are ruthless in how they seize power, they own the mechanisms which shape public opinion, they have their people atop all the key institutions and they laugh when the Labour party plays into their hands. You can criticise "lack of ambition", you can rail against "winning", but it's like any aspect of life in that you have to be in the game to effect change.
Then we come to political and economic realities. Promising the earth is cost free. Delivering the earth is not. We operate in a market economy and we all saw what happened last autumn when the market lacked confidence in Truss's plans. Ex-prime ministers nearly always say the same thing about the realities of being in power, that the options are really limited and they are all shït. Talking up possibilities in the face of nearly 80 years of gradual decline is exactly what the Brexiters did.
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
The Trans issue I'll leave with you,I don't get involved.I get educated enough by my partner and daughter.He does seem to be saying the opposite of what you are though ?
Back to the c#nt....
He has no views or policies and whichever rightwing position there is he'll take because he thinks the majority of the electorate are on the right.Should I join in with that ?
His lies about Corbyn, his anti refugee rhetoric,it seems a complete absence of any social democratic politics ? In fact everything he was elected leader on he's fecked off !
If he'd have stuck with his pledges Corbyn would've been history,but no he chose to alienate anyone on the left and carry on with the lies and smears.
I mean I know you've got serious man love for Blair but at least he started with some vision...just to be clear I never really bought into that whole "Cool Britannia" sh1te,thought the bloke was a pr1ck and my judgement turned out right.
So as above you think that's some great achievement that Murdoch and the Telegraph are on his side...advised by Mandleson ffs.
I said before I think more than likely they'll get elected by default,my only hope is that it isn't with a big majority.
newfhouse
pleb
Some of life’s more interesting questions are difficult ones.
Murdoch’s
I understand that things might change over the next eighteen months, Tufton Street will do their best to pump more sewage into the discourse, and the electorate can be fickle. Despite that I would prefer Labour to risk a few votes and constituencies by being just a tiny bit more like a socialist party. You know, supporting workers, the less privileged, putting essential monopolies under public ownership and control ”for the many, not the few.”
The choice is not binary. There is plenty of territory between Red Tory and Castro that would still assure a comfortable and worthwhile Labour victory.
