Not The Politics Thread.

[Unabomber]

5 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I had to check on Twitter to confirm that was real  

[UpTheLeagueFox]

15 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

9 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

I had to check on Twitter to confirm that was real  

That's never real.

Is this Webbe lady a Tory plant or something?

Crikey.

[urban.spaceman]

32 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

 

That's never real.

Is this Webbe lady a Tory plant or something?

Crikey.

She and her ilk (Corbynites) definitely were. It would make so much more sense than being that shit.

[Finnaldo]

56 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

It’s actually incredible how stupid of a bint she is. 
 

Leicester East is absolutely cursed with awful MPs. That said, you get the MP you vote for.

[bovril]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

the gift that keeps giving

[StanSP]

I do not believe Claudia Webbe can be real.

[urban.spaceman]

7 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I do not believe Claudia Webbe can be real.

As she'd say, 'Why? Cos she's black or looks foreign?!'

 

And that's barely even a ****ing paraphrase.

[Nalis]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58107009

 

What an absolute ****.

 

If he's serious he's absolutely deluded to think that was one of the reasons she did that.

 

If he's trying to be funny its a bit sick to joke about the livelihoods lost with zero investment to create new industries in those areas at the time.

[leicsmac]

47 minutes ago, Nalis said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58107009

 

What an absolute ****.

 

If he's serious he's absolutely deluded to think that was one of the reasons she did that.

 

If he's trying to be funny its a bit sick to joke about the livelihoods lost with zero investment to create new industries in those areas at the time.

Yeah. Factually, it's probably accurate, but it's deliberately only reading out one page of a massive tome, all of which needs to be read to really understand the situation.

[SpacedX]

3 hours ago, Nalis said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58107009

 

What an absolute ****.

 

If he's serious he's absolutely deluded to think that was one of the reasons she did that.

 

If he's trying to be funny its a bit sick to joke about the livelihoods lost with zero investment to create new industries in those areas at the time.

Post war, more pits were actually closed under labour than Thatcher. Significantly though. although Thatcher shut a similar amount of mines as say, Atlee, it was a much higher percentage at the time. The policy then continued under Major as did the shameful neglect of the communities affected. 

 

A dreadfully ill judged, tasteless and tactless attempt at light hearted humour from the PM - nothing new there. 

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

Post war, more pits were actually closed under labour than Thatcher. Significantly though. although Thatcher shut a similar amount of mines as say, Atlee, it was a much higher percentage at the time. The policy then continued under Major as did the shameful neglect of the communities affected. 

 

A dreadfully ill judged, tasteless and tactless attempt at light hearted humour from the PM - nothing new there. 

Tasteless, yes. Tactless, yes. I’ll-judged, I’m not so sure. I think it’s potentially very well-judged. The people who are turning to the Tories in the north don’t care about the mines anymore. In fact, more than that, I reckon a load of them want to move on and away from that era. So I see the quip as a two-point deliberate plan. Firstly: “Look at me, I’m in Scotland.” He says something controversial so people know he’s there and looking at green energy. Second, how do Labour react? If they get angry they potentially look out-of-touch. If they don’t, their remaining core vote gets angry with Starmer for not getting angry himself.

 

It reminds me of what Dominic Cummings said the other day about the line on the side of the Leave bus being there to wind up the opposition. This looks like the same page of the playbook.

[LiberalFox]

Is Johnson allowed to say anything without someone claiming it to be part of some sort of genius ploy? He's been like this literally his whole life and yes, the kind of people who will vote for the Conservatives aren't bothered about the mine closures in the 1980's. 

[Dunge]

19 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Is Johnson allowed to say anything without someone claiming it to be part of some sort of genius ploy? He's been like this literally his whole life and yes, the kind of people who will vote for the Conservatives aren't bothered about the mine closures in the 1980's. 

I’m quite happy to state that Johnson’s gaffes are ten-a-penny. But this looks deliberate to me.

[LiberalFox]

3 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I’m quite happy to state that Johnson’s gaffes are ten-a-penny. But this looks deliberate to me.

I don't think it's a gaffe. It's just his personality. I just wish people would ignore him more. (and yes I'm probably being part of the problem but I'm bored )

[David Guiza]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

Tasteless, yes. Tactless, yes. I’ll-judged, I’m not so sure. I think it’s potentially very well-judged. The people who are turning to the Tories in the north don’t care about the mines anymore. In fact, more than that, I reckon a load of them want to move on and away from that era. So I see the quip as a two-point deliberate plan. Firstly: “Look at me, I’m in Scotland.” He says something controversial so people know he’s there and looking at green energy. Second, how do Labour react? If they get angry they potentially look out-of-touch. If they don’t, their remaining core vote gets angry with Starmer for not getting angry himself.

 

It reminds me of what Dominic Cummings said the other day about the line on the side of the Leave bus being there to wind up the opposition. This looks like the same page of the playbook.

It's only one or two generations ago. I don't think the previous GE was a demonstration that families have 'moved on', more so that they trusted Johnson and co to force through Brexit and a rejection of what they deemed to be an extreme left-wing party. Granted there are former mining towns that aren't as staunchly anti-Tory as Liverpool are, but I would be amazed if even a small majority were happy to forget what Thatcher did to their dad/grandad's communities and livelihoods. Putting up euro loving lefties in some of the 'red wall' areas was an abysmal call, when you consider the turnout and percentages of the referendum. Though it's somewhat of a stereotype, a Prescott/Skinner/Benn Labour politician would make huge gains. 

 

I think you're giving Johnson far too much credit here. There's certainly been times in his past whereby he's intentionally played on his 'Boris character' to gain support/interest, but he's also just a dreadfully out of touch cretin. 

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

It's only one or two generations ago. I don't think the previous GE was a demonstration that families have 'moved on', more so that they trusted Johnson and co to force through Brexit and a rejection of what they deemed to be an extreme left-wing party. Granted there are former mining towns that aren't as staunchly anti-Tory as Liverpool are, but I would be amazed if even a small majority were happy to forget what Thatcher did to their dad/grandad's communities and livelihoods. Putting up euro loving lefties in some of the 'red wall' areas was an abysmal call, when you consider the turnout and percentages of the referendum. Though it's somewhat of a stereotype, a Prescott/Skinner/Benn Labour politician would make huge gains. 

 

I think you're giving Johnson far too much credit here. There's certainly been times in his past whereby he's intentionally played on his 'Boris character' to gain support/interest, but he's also just a dreadfully out of touch cretin. 

I think this is where we’d disagree the most here. I think they’re the past, and that the people in those communities want something different.

[David Guiza]

4 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I think this is where we’d disagree the most here. I think they’re the past, and that the people in those communities want something different.

It's very simplistic but when you look at some of the bigger swings it's difficult to see otherwise. I, personally, don't buy in to the 'wanting something new and fresh' line. That certainly must exist for some, but not the overwhelming majority.  

 

If you take Bassetlaw as an example, a constituency that had been Labour since the 1920s, Labour put up some bloke I've never heard of against a chap who was a vocal euro-sceptic (ironically, married to a Romanian) and holds views as follows:-

 

1. Thinks Food Banks are a political weapon.

2. Opposed extending free school means over the Easter holiday.

3. Referred to Rashford as being a virtue signaler and stated that people in desperate need to take responsibility for their own actions.

4. Vocal in opposition to England players taking the knee. 

 

I'm not quite sure that's 'something different' and, if it is, it's certainly not a positive difference, or at least it's not to me; perhaps it is to them. 

 

As to the original case in point - this article from late 2019 suggests that people are very much not 'over' what happened re the closure of the mines - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50069336 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Arthur Scargill always seems to get a bit of a free pass over the mine closures.

The unions thought they could do to Thatcher what they did aggressively in the 70s (have the Govt and the country by the balls) and she stood up against them, quite rightly IMHO. 

Did the unions try and find reasonable solutions? Of course they didn't. They had the power in the 70s, far too much power. That power was unsustainable.

They were bullies and while 70s Govts rolled over for them, Thatcher wasn't having any of that.

 

PS. More mines actually closed under Labour than under Thatcher.

PPS. If mining was that profitable, why didn't subsequent Governments (inc Labour 1997-2010) reopen some or all?

[LiberalFox]

7 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

It's very simplistic but when you look at some of the bigger swings it's difficult to see otherwise. I, personally, don't buy in to the 'wanting something new and fresh' line. That certainly must exist for some, but not the overwhelming majority.  

 

If you take Bassetlaw as an example, a constituency that had been Labour since the 1920s, Labour put up some bloke I've never heard of against a chap who was a vocal euro-sceptic (ironically, married to a Romanian) and holds views as follows:-

 

1. Thinks Food Banks are a political weapon.

2. Opposed extending free school means over the Easter holiday.

3. Referred to Rashford as being a virtue signaler and stated that people in desperate need to take responsibility for their own actions.

4. Vocal in opposition to England players taking the knee. 

 

I'm not quite sure that's 'something different' and, if it is, it's certainly not a positive difference, or at least it's not to me; perhaps it is to them. 

 

As to the original case in point - this article from late 2019 suggests that people are very much not 'over' what happened re the closure of the mines - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50069336 

I'm a Liberal so I think of the north as being full of thick racists and imagine they would vote for someone that appealed to thick racists. Seems like the Tories chose a good candidate. 

[Dunge]

18 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

It's very simplistic but when you look at some of the bigger swings it's difficult to see otherwise. I, personally, don't buy in to the 'wanting something new and fresh' line. That certainly must exist for some, but not the overwhelming majority.  

 

If you take Bassetlaw as an example, a constituency that had been Labour since the 1920s, Labour put up some bloke I've never heard of against a chap who was a vocal euro-sceptic (ironically, married to a Romanian) and holds views as follows:-

 

1. Thinks Food Banks are a political weapon.

2. Opposed extending free school means over the Easter holiday.

3. Referred to Rashford as being a virtue signaler and stated that people in desperate need to take responsibility for their own actions.

4. Vocal in opposition to England players taking the knee. 

 

I'm not quite sure that's 'something different' and, if it is, it's certainly not a positive difference, or at least it's not to me; perhaps it is to them. 

 

As to the original case in point - this article from late 2019 suggests that people are very much not 'over' what happened re the closure of the mines - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50069336 

They may decide ultimately to vote him out. And I’m not saying the change they want is ideally a Tory, but I do think more and more want something more like what the Tories are saying than what Labour have been saying. If Labour go Corbynite, they put a lot of people off. If they try to revert to “old Labour” of mine working days, they’ll rightly be seen as stuck in the past. I think there are lot of people in northern areas who want tangible new opportunities and ideally want to vote for a Labour Party who can provide them, a party of both compassion and aspiration. But in the absence of that they’ve voted for a party that at least respected their views on Brexit and are aspirational by nature.

 

Regarding the linked article, I don’t think that contradicts what I’m saying. It suggests that many of the communities there haven’t recovered from the loss of the mines, which I don’t doubt is true. For me, the worst thing the Tories did to those communities wasn’t shutting down the mines - that’s dirty, smelly, hard and dangerous work that would have to be shut down now if they weren’t already because of the pressures of climate change. I don’t believe younger people in those communities are wishing they could be going down the mines to work these days. The worst thing was that the Tories didn’t offer anything as a replacement and just let those communities drift to nothingness. But then Labour don’t seem to be able to offer any solutions either, other than a legacy of old MPs whose main policy was to retain bitterness about the situation (see Skinner, for instance). Their support has gone down and down over decades because, I believe, people want to move on. That’s why the “levelling up agenda” sounds right in principle. (In practice is another matter of course, although it’s worth noting the Tory mayor’s electoral success in Teeside as an example of what can be done.)

 

I don’t see Labour winning those areas back until they give the north proper opportunities, probably in the field of green energy production. I think that’s the kind of change people want in these places: New opportunities and the chance to forge community and identity again. But the only flagship policies I’ve seen from Labour recently, particularly in the Corbyn era, have been socially left things designed to attract young elites and promises of handouts. Those things don’t wash in these communities. To me, that’s the single biggest challenge for Starmer and Labour - to be aspirational without getting too Tory. If they can manage it, I do believe the votes are there to be won. After all, there’s no sudden love for the Tories in these places. They’re just the functional choice.

 

And all that is why I think Boris’s latest is deliberate. If Labour sound off, they look stuck in the past. If they don’t, they get their own core supporters on their back - people who would never vote Tory out of principle who the Tories won’t care about upsetting. In fact they’d probably prefer them upset.

[Sharpe's Fox]

25 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Arthur Scargill always seems to get a bit of a free pass over the mine closures.

The unions thought they could do to Thatcher what they did aggressively in the 70s (have the Govt and the country by the balls) and she stood up against them, quite rightly IMHO. 

Did the unions try and find reasonable solutions? Of course they didn't. They had the power in the 70s, far too much power. That power was unsustainable.

They were bullies and while 70s Govts rolled over for them, Thatcher wasn't having any of that.

 

PS. More mines actually closed under Labour than under Thatcher.

PPS. If mining was that profitable, why didn't subsequent Governments (inc Labour 1997-2010) reopen some or all?

it's like a bingo of reactionary falsehoods in this post. The only power the NUM or any other organised workers have is the withdrawal of their labour. Menawhile Margaret Thatcher and the rest of her coven had F-branch of MI5 and special branch harassing union leaders and infiltrating pickets as well as her press baron friends and industrialist donors backing her up all the way.

[bovril]

2 hours ago, Dunge said:

It reminds me of what Dominic Cummings said the other day about the line on the side of the Leave bus being there to wind up the opposition. This looks like the same page of the playbook.

 no it wasn't. It was to persuade people that NHS underfunding was because of the money we "send to Brussels". Cummings is a crank who makes stuff up as he goes along and is nowhere near as bright as he thinks.

 

As for Johnson's comment, if we're crediting him with political nous on the basis of him being a wind up merchant, heaven help us. 

[Dunge]

16 minutes ago, bovril said:

 no it wasn't. It was to persuade people that NHS underfunding was because of the money we "send to Brussels". Cummings is a crank who makes stuff up as he goes along and is nowhere near as bright as he thinks.

 

As for Johnson's comment, if we're crediting him with political nous on the basis of him being a wind up merchant, heaven help us. 

I don’t disagree. But that doesn’t mean the strategists in the Tory party didn’t pick up on those words and go “that could work”.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

24 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

it's like a bingo of reactionary falsehoods in this post. The only power the NUM or any other organised workers have is the withdrawal of their labour. Menawhile Margaret Thatcher and the rest of her coven had F-branch of MI5 and special branch harassing union leaders and infiltrating pickets as well as her press baron friends and industrialist donors backing her up all the way.

Are you saying that Scargill and other union leaders were the nice guys in it all then?

Are you saying that the unions didn't have the country aggressively by the balls in the 70s and thought they could carry on with that into the 80s?

Do you think the unions should have been more reasonable in their demands?

Thatcher won a bigger majority in 83 than 79 (perhaps helped by the Falklands) and of course won again in 87 which suggests the country thought she was doing a lot more right than wrong.

[Sharpe's Fox]

6 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Are you saying that Scargill and other union leaders were the nice guys in it all then?

Are you saying that the unions didn't have the country aggressively by the balls in the 70s and thought they could carry on with that into the 80s?

Do you think the unions should have been more reasonable in their demands?

Thatcher won a bigger majority in 83 than 79 (perhaps helped by the Falklands) and of course won again in 87 which suggests the country thought she was doing a lot more right than wrong.

Trade unions and their members have interests they want advancing and can withdraw their labour to do so. Scargill and Peter Heathfield were elected by NUM members to the NUM leadership to do just that. When you say "they had the country by the balls" what you of course really mean is that their sweat and toil allowed the country to keep the lights on and the kettles boiling which is of course true. If the country would then literally stop functioning if these people didn't go to work then what reasonably follows is that their labour is amongst the most important in society and they should be renumerated for their labour as such. Of course that presumption went too far for Mrs Thatcher who thought that the spivs, hucksters and yuppies who financed her were preferable so she allowed the securtiy services to infiltrate the miners and the police force to batter them on horseback.