Institute For Fiscal Studies

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

You've made that pretty clear. But it seems to be the "name" Tories you object to. It doesn't seem to matter to you what an alternative party would actually do, just so long as they aren't called Tories. Which is fine but a bit odd.

It's not just the name I object to

The arrogance of them in office is staggering

I hope that as much as they are able to do given the fact people want better services......without increased taxation ......we have a lot more shape about labour

Some people are saying oh no taxes will go up , the unions will take over , our kids will be having sex education at 2 years old and other such rubbish

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

It's not just the name I object to

The arrogance of them in office is staggering

I hope that as much as they are able to do given the fact people want better services......without increased taxation ......we have a lot more shape about labour

Some people are saying oh no taxes will go up , the unions will take over , our kids will be having sex education at 2 years old and other such rubbish

Again, it's their attitude rather than their policies you don't like. I don't know what a lot more shape means but it doesn't sound like any form of socialism I've come across.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Again, it's their attitude rather than their policies you don't like. I don't know what a lot more shape means but it doesn't sound like any form of socialism I've come across.

Oh it's their policies too

They deserve to be slung out for Rwanda alone

Someone with not a lot of shape on them is badly organised , performs badly , late or doesn't turn up , makes excuses etc .......that's them all over .......a bit like VG and Welsh Labour at the moment

Very badly delivered government

With regard to socialism I am not a socialist more a liberal really but in the absence of the liberals running the country the labour party is the next best thing although far from perfect

I would suggest you vote green , at least they will get your backing

It seems daft not to vote even if no one party is attractive

[JamesWales]

I guess we'll find out pretty soon whether Rwanda was working or not.

Could have a Labour government on one side of the channel and a National Rally government on the other side within weeks.

I wonder what National Rally's position will be?Obviously they will go strong on legal and illegal immigration and will likely focus on keeping people out of Europe, but what of the northern coast? Will they be strong to prevent more people gathering around Calais, or will they be happy to see people leave and become our problem?

Will Labour be happy to go into collaboration with the party many of their supporters label as Far-Right fascists etc?

[Wales-Bales]

You've made that pretty clear. But it seems to be the "name" Tories you object to. It doesn't seem to matter to you what an alternative party would actually do, just so long as they aren't called Tories. Which is fine but a bit odd.

Don't worry, we are going to find out soon enough!

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

Oh it's their policies too

They deserve to be slung out for Rwanda alone

Someone with not a lot of shape on them is badly organised , performs badly , late or doesn't turn up , makes excuses etc .......that's them all over .......a bit like VG and Welsh Labour at the moment

Very badly delivered government

With regard to socialism I am not a socialist more a liberal really but in the absence of the liberals running the country the labour party is the next best thing although far from perfect

I would suggest you vote green , at least they will get your backing

It seems daft not to vote even if no one party is attractive

If you're not a socialist you've definitely got a better chance of avoiding disappointment with Starmer in charge.

[Wales-Bales]

If you're not a socialist you've definitely got a better chance of avoiding disappointment with Starmer in charge.

He's a technocratic authoritarian who believes the Davos elites should rule by fiat.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

If you're not a socialist you've definitely got a better chance of avoiding disappointment with Starmer in charge.

Socialism is daft

The best to hope for is a modern government which tries to take care of the vulnerable and keep the country reasonably stable

[pipster]

Socialism is daft

The best to hope for is a modern government which tries to take care of the vulnerable and keep the country reasonably stable

Surely all Govts are 'modern' by their very nature , even a Govt that wants to ban cars and go back to a horse and cart could be classed as modern thinkers as they would caring for the environment etc.

All UK Govts that I have ever known want to take care of the vulnerable and keep the country stable. All countries were affected by covid, which removed about 10-15% of our economy almost over night. Taking care of the vulnerable is obvious , but making sure we dont bust the bank in the process is also important

[Wales-Bales]

even a Govt that wants to ban cars and go back to a horse and cart could be classed as modern thinkers as they would caring for the environment etc.

Who knew The Flintstones was actually an instruction manual

All countries were affected by covid, which removed about 10-15% of our economy almost over night.

Weren't they talking about a great reset shortly before it happened?

[pipster]

Who knew The Flintstones was actually an instruction manual

Weren't they talking about a great reset shortly before it happened?

I believe David Icke was and a painter and decorator from Cowbridge. They will probably claim this as a prediction

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Surely all Govts are 'modern' by their very nature , even a Govt that wants to ban cars and go back to a horse and cart could be classed as modern thinkers as they would caring for the environment etc.

All UK Govts that I have ever known want to take care of the vulnerable and keep the country stable. All countries were affected by covid, which removed about 10-15% of our economy almost over night. Taking care of the vulnerable is obvious , but making sure we dont bust the bank in the process is also important

All governments you have ever known have wanted to take care of the vulnerable ?

You are having a laugh

[JamesWales]

All governments you have ever known have wanted to take care of the vulnerable ?

You are having a laugh

I would say for at least 100 years, yes. Obviously there is a range within that in terms of the extent of support and how it is done, but yes.

Who do you think didn't?

Let me guess..

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

Socialism is daft

The best to hope for is a modern government which tries to take care of the vulnerable and keep the country reasonably stable

That's all very laudable. What I find unacceptable is that people who want the same as you have hijacked a socialist party to achieve it. I think you would accept that is very far away from what the party was established to achieve? Obviously parties and their policies have to evolve. But the Labour Party was changed out of all recognition by Blair and his ilk. That's not on.

It's a cliche I know but Keir Hardie, Michael Foot, Nye Bevan, Dennis Skinner, Eric Heffer, etc would all be appalled by what it's become. Jesus even Harold Winston, Barbara Castle and Jim Callaghan would.

[jon1959]

That's all very laudable. What I find unacceptable is that people who want the same as you have hijacked a socialist party to achieve it. I think you would accept that is very far away from what the party was established to achieve? Obviously parties and their policies have to evolve. But the Labour Party was changed out of all recognition by Blair and his ilk. That's not on.

It's a cliche I know but Keir Hardie, Michael Foot, Nye Bevan, Dennis Skinner, Eric Heffer, etc would all be appalled by what it's become. Jesus even Harold Winston, Barbara Castle and Jim Callaghan would.

[jeepster]

That's all very laudable. What I find unacceptable is that people who want the same as you have hijacked a socialist party to achieve it. I think you would accept that is very far away from what the party was established to achieve? Obviously parties and their policies have to evolve. But the Labour Party was changed out of all recognition by Blair and his ilk. That's not on.

It's a cliche I know but Keir Hardie, Michael Foot, Nye Bevan, Dennis Skinner, Eric Heffer, etc would all be appalled by what it's become. Jesus even Harold Winston, Barbara Castle and Jim Callaghan would.

But it is much better than the crap we have in charge at the moment.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

That's all very laudable. What I find unacceptable is that people who want the same as you have hijacked a socialist party to achieve it. I think you would accept that is very far away from what the party was established to achieve? Obviously parties and their policies have to evolve. But the Labour Party was changed out of all recognition by Blair and his ilk. That's not on.

It's a cliche I know but Keir Hardie, Michael Foot, Nye Bevan, Dennis Skinner, Eric Heffer, etc would all be appalled by what it's become. Jesus even Harold Winston, Barbara Castle and Jim Callaghan would.

It's 2024 , I don't care about The Labour Party I just want a left of centre alternative to the Tories , merging Labour and the liberals would be the best option in my opinion

Heffer , Livingstone , Skinner were always part of the problem and gave the tories and press so much ammunition

You don't have to sing keep the red flag flying to want decent care for the vulnerable

In fact the Liberal Democrats have proposed far better investment in that area than The Labour Party

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

But it is much better than the crap we have in charge at the moment.

Yes it's going to be far from perfect

But if we all live in the past and don't let go of some ideals then the Tories will just continue to rule most of the time

Student Sixth Form Socialism

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

That's all very laudable. What I find unacceptable is that people who want the same as you have hijacked a socialist party to achieve it. I think you would accept that is very far away from what the party was established to achieve? Obviously parties and their policies have to evolve. But the Labour Party was changed out of all recognition by Blair and his ilk. That's not on.

It's a cliche I know but Keir Hardie, Michael Foot, Nye Bevan, Dennis Skinner, Eric Heffer, etc would all be appalled by what it's become. Jesus even Harold Winston, Barbara Castle and Jim Callaghan would.

Skinner , Heffer , Benn , Abbott , Corbyn .......did a lot of talking at fringe meetings , at labour party conferences and in some cases on programmes like question time

Now wether the media stitched them up is another debate but the British people saw these representatives of the labour party as too extreme

So the labour party for much of my lifetime has achieved very little because we havnt been in power

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

Skinner , Heffer , Benn , Abbott , Corbyn .......did a lot of talking at fringe meetings , at labour party conferences and in some cases on programmes like question time

Now wether the media stitched them up is another debate but the British people saw these representatives of the labour party as too extreme

So the labour party for much of my lifetime has achieved very little because we havnt been in power

Skinner was an MP for 49 years. Tony Benn was an MP for 47 years. Diane Abbott has been an MP for 37 years. Jeremy Corbyn was a MP for 41 years. But yeah their constituents saw them as too extreme.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Skinner was an MP for 49 years. Tony Benn was an MP for 47 years. Diane Abbott has been an MP for 37 years. Jeremy Corbyn was a MP for 41 years. But yeah their constituents saw them as too extreme.

The British people I said , not their constituents

Tony Benn , Skinner , Corbyn were all seen rightly or wrongly as too extreme to run the country

I mean corbyn ruled Islington but the thought of him in charge handed us a complete hammering nationally

You remember that ?

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

The British people I said , not their constituents

Tony Benn , Skinner , Corbyn were all seen rightly or wrongly as too extreme to run the country

I mean corbyn ruled Islington but the thought of him in charge handed us a complete hammering nationally

You remember that ?

The British people in electoral terms are just a collection of 600 odd constituents. When constituencies have been presented with left candidates they've elected them including Corbyn. Llew Smith, who I knew very well, was very left wing and is in the Guinness Book of Records for having the biggest majority in parliamentary history.

All this is by the by though. The point is that the Labour Party was a socialist party. It was hijacked by pink Tories. So now Britain does not have a socialist party for those who want that form of government.

[Keyser Soze]

Skinner was an MP for 49 years. Tony Benn was an MP for 47 years. Diane Abbott has been an MP for 37 years. Jeremy Corbyn was a MP for 41 years. But yeah their constituents saw them as too extreme.

To be fair they were. Lenin was in power for a good old run. So was Che Guevara. So was
Putin. So has Xi.

Time in power doesn’t mean they weren’ extreme. It just meant their voters were also extreme, as is now the centre is foldin, or there were happy to have “one of us” running their local seat. Local peer pressure, or beer pressure, can make people think and vote like sheep.

One thing I will say to Skinner is that he lived by his values, as did Benn and Foot. On the one hand it was Maggie, and these guys on the other side. Very opposite, but at least lived their values and practiced what they preached. Even Blair never pretended he was Socialist - he was honest that he was a Thatcherite with an improved view on social justice.

You can’t say that for Abbott. Nor Kinnock. These were champagne socialiats. Preached Socialism higher taxation and power of the state, but Abbott loaded up on private education, while both the slippery weasely Kinnocks dodged tax working for the EU and filled their pockets for £15m in a tax have. Weasels.

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

To be fair they were. Lenin was in power for a good old run. So was Che Guevara. So was
Putin. So has Xi.

Time in power doesn’t mean they weren’ extreme. It just meant their voters were also extreme, as is now the centre is foldin, or there were happy to have “one of us” running their local seat. Local peer pressure, or beer pressure, can make people think and vote like sheep.

One thing I will say to Skinner is that he lived by his values, as did Benn and Foot. On the one hand it was Maggie, and these guys on the other side. Very opposite, but at least lived their values and practiced what they preached. Even Blair never pretended he was Socialist - he was honest that he was a Thatcherite with an improved view on social justice.

You can’t say that for Abbott. Nor Kinnock. These were champagne socialiats. Preached Socialism higher taxation and power of the state, but Abbott loaded up on private education, while both the slippery weasely Kinnocks dodged tax working for the EU and filled their pockets for £15m in a tax have. Weasels.

Lenin did not have to stand for re election. Guevara was in power for just over a year. The MPs I mentioned weren't imo extreme but, if they were, that just supports my point. Which is that you don't have to ape the Tories to get elected.

Actually that wasn't my main point either. It was that the ever-increasing lurch of Labour to the right has robbed electors of a choice. They can now vote Tory or Tory Lite. Parties obviously have to compromise to some extent or else they'll die political virgins, never getting their hands dirty and achieving nothing. But they should have certain principles that are non negotiable. For Labour that was socialism. It was embedded in its constitution.

Kinnock was and us a ****.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Lenin did not have to stand for re election. Guevara was in power for just over a year. The MPs I mentioned weren't imo extreme but, if they were, that just supports my point. Which is that you don't have to ape the Tories to get elected. Actually that wasn't my main point either. It was that the ever-increasing lurch of Labour to the right has robbed electors of a choice. They can now vote Tory or Tory Lite.

Kinnock was and us a ****.

I would rather a left of centre party in government than the tories

It's all very romantic pining for socialism but corbyn put socialism to the people in 2019

The result was the biggest defeat for 100 years

Some socialists , most maybe come from the heart but it's completely unrealistic

Galloway says he's a socialist , I can't see many people getting behind him

Maybe a new left party will emerge but it will never succeed , people just ain't interested these days

I would rather vote left wing than tory but the old Labour Party had to lose some of its principles or never get voted in

You can't change people's lives in Labour party left wing focus groups or fringe meetings at Blackpool conferences

Those days are long gone