On Sat 23 Sep at 6:17pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Yes, it could sound like Tom Pain, but unlike him, I never said they (Starmer/Labour) were absolutely identical, just broadly the same and not offering voters anything of any substantial in way of change (out of fear of being labelled as hard left!). Policies, spend/tax pledges similar, just minor differences in presentation and delivery.....that may be sufficient for folks like you who don't really want change or only seeing what is on the surface, but for people that care and want radical change, its basically the same but "lite". You can't change the fortunes of a country by continuing down the same path. You can be in power, but what is the point when you do sod all about it?
Starmer and Sunak are way too similar, far more similar than Sunak or Johnson, or even Starmer and Corbyn. If that is what you want, lightweight politics with no change, then just carry on voting the same Tory/Labour Parties in election after election. Just make sure you pay attention to what the Sun tells you who is the good guy (even if not directly, it filters down to public discourse what the rags say)
Most people don't even know what they want or filled with inconsistencies. They aren't afraid of socialism per se, as you put any socialist/progressive policies on paper most people will lap them up, hence the 2017 manifesto. In some ways its useful to have Corbynites around, as they do bring out good policies that ultimately end up eventually being adopted after being initially ridiculed as "communism" and "the politics of mao" - thats the thing, people are so dumb and ignorant, that they are just voting for their favourite colour or one who speaks the best. There is often nothing more to it than that. Your lazy "boomer" attitude to politics is commonplace unfortunately, and undoubtedly far more damaging to UK democracy than Jeremy Corbyn and lefties ever could be. Political commentators often say "you can only win from the centre" and while that may be true, that is rather a damaging indictment and to democracy being stuck in perpetual limbo!
On Sat 23 Sep at 9:03pm Nevillman wrote:
Socialism is a hard word to define but I certainly don't want what I think it means and I don't think most people do. It really comes down to how much and how you tax and then what the government wants to spend it on. I hope labour will increase tax on many people and spend it wisely.
We are all influenced by many things. I really didn't think I was influenced by the sun but maybe you know best.
Well done on suddenly realising that the presentation of a prime minister masters.
On Sat 23 Sep at 9:52pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I didn't suddenly realise it, I was fully aware that Britain is a country that desires snake oil salesmen as their leaders who say what they think they want them to hear (a la Sir Kier). We are dumb like that, its a human weakness that I think is rather primitive and shallow. The only hope is education, and perhaps the older generation being phased out and instead of future older generations slowly leaning more to the right as they get overwhelmed by media and society brainwashing, they will realise that its previously screwed them over by having successive centre-right governments destroy the country. There has been some research to suggest that is starting to occur, as economically speaking, younger generations have not benefited in the same way as boomers did from cheap housing etc. Probably why most of the working age population in the country voted for Corbyn.
The country needs more socialism to fix the problems that successive governments (including Labour) have caused. A tweak of tax and spend policies as you put it will basically solve very little. "Things Can Only Get Better" all over again, Lord Tony Blair who is the REAL Labour god, has already crowned Sir Kier and has his full endorsement and have been on stage together grinning like a successful vote winning war criminal.
On Sat 23 Sep at 10:06pm Nevillman wrote:
I don't know why you bring up snake oil salesmen. They've just got to be credible. I shall be as happy as you when I realise the voters are actually able to listen to ideas and genuinely believe that social justice is better than dog eat dog get rich. Let me know when it's happened and in the meantime I'll want a labour party that can get elected.
How do you think the country has been destroyed?
I'm afraid that capitalism is the best system for distributing good and services and for innovation. Not so good for the environment and fairness but that is what the government should be controlling. Another downside of capitalism is that we are encouraged to be consumers.
Please describe your version of socialism.
On Sat 23 Sep at 11:50pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Credible? LOL like Boris Johnson? Tony Blair? Credible? really? Come on, i know you're just arguing for the sake of it at this point. Jeremy Corbyn and Ed Miliband won't have been Prime Ministers like those two, but at least they won't go down in history are two lousy snake oil salesman (as its a totally appropriate label for them both) who sold Britain a lie, the people bought it, and paid the price. Look at the Iraq War, the continuing privatization of public services, de-regulating of the banks, and enriching the wealthiest in society only, as well as putting Britain in vastly huge debt and running eyewatering budget deficits. That rot started during the Blair years in particular, and while their only opposition were Labour backbenchers like Jeremy Corbyn, while the tories were happily voting in support of these policies. I wonder why.
Given the advancements of AI and automation and the climate disaster, the only policies that really make sense are things like Universal Basic Income, green policies and massive wealth re-distribution. 21st and 22nd century are likely to be far more beneficial with the basics of "communism" over "capitalism" than it ever was in the 20th, not that actual democratic communism was ever truly tested - i don't think any system can possibly work well under authoritarianism but meh! We definitely can learn things from more advanced social democracies within the EU and Scandinavia as they start to roll out UBI and other progressive social programmes. Remember when Labour were criticised for pledging to provide free broadband by 2030? Crazy socialist unworkable policy, until it gets adopted in other countries like Finland. D'oh. You can't have aspirational or even realistic leaders in this country as they get labelled as communists.
On Sun 24 Sep at 9:23am Tom Pain wrote:
That sounds like a cut and paste job, sleevie, and the last sentence has me baffled, yay I can't make sense of it! Unfortunately, all your invectives against the average voter describe yourself....in spades.
On Sun 24 Sep at 10:44am Green Sleeves wrote:
It might sound like a cut and paste job, but they are my own words, re-used and re-scrambled au-naturel! I am a force of nature....
The last sentence makes perfect sense to me "You can't have aspirational or even realistic leaders in this country as they get labelled as communists" - yup, even in the light of day that makes perfect sense to me. Potential leaders who put forward positive, progressive policies that are not only aspirational, but fully workable and even in many cases, fully costed, are often labelled as hard left/commies. These policies then become mainstream in due course anyway, because that tends to be the nature of progressives.....they come up with all the best ideas, get mocked for it at the time, only for others to nick their ideas later on and claim them for their own!!.
On Sun 24 Sep at 6:27pm Nevillman wrote:
You are being too harsh on Blair government. The war was a miscalculation. The middle East was in turmoil. Just about every possible means of solving each country has been tried and near enough each country is not sorted out think about each of them Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya etc.
They should have let the banks go bankrupt and use the money directly to prop up people dependent on them. In my opinion that was their biggest avoidable mistake. I know many died and suffered in Iraq but they were and would have anyway. Saddam was a very bad man. It was wrong to go in but I understand why he did it.
We need a government that is able to deal with all the challenges you list. I have a bit more faith in starmer than you. Give him a chance.
Socialism and communism can only work in an authoritarian state. How many more examples of countries becoming "socialist" do you need to see. Man is actually too selfish to do it properly.
I couldn't agree more about observing and adopting social policies from abroad.
Corbyn would have been a disaster as prime minister despite his sound fully hosted policies. I accept you disagree.
On Sun 24 Sep at 8:07pm Green Sleeves wrote:
How would he or his policies have been disastrous to the UK? We ended up with Boris Johnson and his policies and decorum were more sound? and Liz Truss? What exactly would Corbyn have done to the UK to have been labelled as "disastrous"? (it really sounds like just another lazy anti-corbyn smear) I mean we had disastrous anyway, so what more or worse could he have been to the UK? I'm genuinely curious, but sure its just another baseless opinion from a position of political ignorance echoed by tabloid papers at the time.
Blair screwed Britain up massively, and we can only be labelled as hypocrites as a nation if we ever challenge other nations invading smaller countries and breaking international law. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, this was a lie and a massive cover-up, and it cost the lives of millions over the following decades as the region became VASTLY more unstable as a result of Bush and Blairs illegal war and occupation in the middle east (fully endorsed by the Murdoch Empire, it must be added). You really don't know what you're talking about and it shows. You can't defend the war in Iraq, its beyond indefensible and the cost and harm would go WAAAAYYYYY beyond any kind of progressive social programme that Corbynistas could ever have proposed. Blair was a total disaster, and it took years for people to wake up and realise the impact of his legacy. So yeah, its pretty disgusting seeing people lionise or defend Blairs track record, particularly that aspect of it. I suppose his middle-east grifting and "peace envoy" roles post his premiership is also something you highly regard....
On Sun 24 Sep at 9:03pm Nevillman wrote:
I agree that the alternative to Corbyn has been disastrous. Who knows how Corbyn would have been. I was as pessimistic about him as you are of starmer. The point is he never had a chance of getting there and not just because of the press.
I've got nothing to add to what I've already said on Blair and the middle East Saddam was a mass murderer. Blair miscalculated what would happen after he went.
On Sun 24 Sep at 10:27pm Green Sleeves wrote:
No, your pessimism about Corbyn is profoundly different to mine about Starmer. Starmer is only really there because of Corbyn, he gave Starmer a role in his cabinet, and he repeatedly stabbed him in the back in the end, and you aren't pessimisstic about Starmer? The fact that the guy has ripped off the taxpayer through his expenses (please do look it up), and u-turned on numerous Labour Party pledges he was formerly fully behind. You need to assess your values (or at least do your due diligence) of what makes a good character and leader....backstabbing is certainly not one of them, even if it does mean briefly winning power. We know how that tends to end though. Maybe Corbyn never stood a chance, but it wasn't because he wasn't good enough or his policies weren't popular, its because he actually was not a ruthless, deceitful greedy corporate shill. Something that seems to be the only trait of a British Prime Minister.
Then again, it kind of makes sense now why you don't feel too much negativity towards one of the biggest war criminals of the 21st century in Blair. "Blair miscalculated". Oh boy, that sounds like Donald Rumsfelds "mistakes were made".
On Sun 24 Sep at 10:58pm Tom Pain wrote:
9. 52 on the 23rd is what I was referring to!! Perhaps never got further or my internet is slow, very odd. Anyway, it's not about Corbyn, Starmer, the Tories or the Raving Loonies. It's international now, do you recall the Rio eath summit, where they decided that the west had to be de-industrialised? Well there you have it; voila. Without industry, what can we produce . Services supplied by corporations who's accounts are off-shore? You pooh pooh any mention of the WEF but production is controlled by it's members. As Maurice Strong said after Rio - You're gona wish you had the rights of a f#cking tree. Our politicians are irrelevant.
On Mon 25 Sep at 6:07pm Nevillman wrote:
"starmer is really only there because of Corbyn." I think too many years of reading Tom has had a disastrous effect on your perception green. Corbyn has voted against the leaders whip more than anyone so don't go telling me about loyalty. Corbyn wasn't anything except a bit of an 80s throwback who stupidly listened to the people who told him he could win when the decent thing for the country would have been to get a "credible" candidate.
Didn't know about the expenses. A bit worrying I'll look into it. Maybe it's a shame labour hasn't got anyone better but I'm not going to prejudge him.
Didn't know rumsfeld said that. Perceptive. I'm sure you've got me down as a big fan of his too. I don't think Blair is a war criminal. He did a lot wrong but his intentions weren't bad. You may still say he is but I don't agree.
On Mon 25 Sep at 9:03pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Why don't you see the kind of votes that Corbyn voted against for yourself? They are there to see all MPs voting records. Whatever your shallow, ill-informed view of him is, he has been on the right side of most issues, and certainly the life or death ones. So yea, voting against de-regulating the banks and voting against Britain becoming the lapdog of GW Bush's America was most certainly against the whip and he was spot on.
Your idea of "credible" candidate is a proven liar and war criminal like Blair, or some weak flip-flopper like Starmer who also lies. Corbyn inspired a massive surge in party membership and interest nationally, and won the leaders vote twice, and had support from trade unions. Labour were just a few thousand votes short of winning power in 2017.....and that was on the backdrop of the most hostile media campaign, including the BBC, against him. And lets face it, the country would have been a better place as a result....no Boris Johson, no Liz Truss, and no Kier Starmer as the weak continuity candidate for Rishi Sunak.
What were Blairs "intentions"? Its crazy that you're still defending Tony Blair, one of the most loathed figures in British politics and almost universally labelled as a war criminal. "New Labour" was pretty toxic by the end of his run, and it was predominantly down to him. Corbyn almost saved Labour from "New Labour", and now we're back to square one. The notion this will be 1997 all over again is absurd though, people remember what happened and they're only likely to be afforded 5 years in government as a result of such a massive tory implosion. You don't find anyone particularly excited about the prospect of Labour or a Starmer government. This is just "anyone else" (but with the caveat of having the same policies).
On Mon 25 Sep at 10:04pm Tom Pain wrote:
Am I the only one to remember sleevie's embarrassingly gushing hero worship of Sir Kier some time ago; safe pair of hands and the rest of it?
On Mon 25 Sep at 11:28pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Yeah, when he got elected as Labour leader, he made several pledges and promises, which he has since completely torched, and decided to throw several lefties under the bus in the process. This is why I speak out about him now, he's not to be trusted - and buddying up with Tony Blair should be the straw that breaks the camels back for many (with any luck). Its a massive kick in the teeth for progressives who have to once again accept the inevitability of the status quo and the damage it has on our society. It is a pity, as at least Kier Starmer showed some class and decorum when holding Johnson to account during the pandemic.....but reality bites and the pandering to the establishment procedures creak on. The guys a coward.
On Tue 26 Sep at 2:37pm Nevillman wrote:
It all sounds pretty standard 'left wing' stuff green. Blair bad, starmer bad, Corbyn good. Anyone who doesn't get it has been brainwashed by the Tory dominated media. False consciousness I believe was the Marxist term. Corbyn would have been the Messiah who united the party and country behind a socialist agenda.
Despite probably finding myself agreeing with the daily mail on this green, I don't think it could happen. If he couldn't win in 2017 he could never win. If he had won then I don't believe he could have achieved anything. Certainly nothing like Blair did.
That is my belief and I accept you think differently. Your line may make you think starmer is just a pragmatic chancer. I say let's see.
Grown ups can change their minds Tom.
On Tue 26 Sep at 3:18pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I hardly think the criticisms of Blair or Starmer are restricted to the left-wing! I know plenty of bland, apolitical "centrist" voters like you that while broadly forgive Labour for Iraq and essentially bankrupting the UK with tory policies....Blair himself is far more toxic as an individual.
Corbyn was never expected to win in 2017, so the fact he got within a few thousand votes of it swinging Labours way, was significantly more worthy of note than the dismal electoral performances of both far more centre-left candidates like Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown and matched the New Labour messiah Blair did in 2005 with 40% of the entire electorate. While Miliband did get pretty toxic media against him (especially somehow it memorably being an issue how he ate a bacon sandwich), it didn't even compare to the hit job levelled on Corbyn.....and Blair had Murdochs empire fully behind him from day 1!
Defending Blairs legacy, is a bit like when someone tries to defend the positives of Churchill or Chairman Maos, without mentioning the Bengal Famine or famines from the Great Leap Forward. The guy was an establishment monster, that achieved very little other than staying in power for far longer than was welcomed. Can you not remember by the 10th year people of all political persuasions going "jeez, when is this guy gonna just go". You seem to have a very rose-tinted view of the guy, and yet seem disproportionately contemptuous of Jeremy Corbyn and people who support him (which will be far more than any Blair fanclub, or Starmer for that matter!) This guy wants to serve his constituents and the country and has done so for decades.....Blair left office in disgrace meanwhile, the middle east well beyond repair, massive public and national debt, further privatisation including within the NHS, further weakening of the trade unions, a deeper more corrupt police state and headed a party that had plenty of its own corruption and scandals...and now is just someone who shills for corporate media when they need to attack the left. His recent public coronation of Kier Starmer should be a red flag....but frankly even Jeremy Corbyns brother Piers Corbyn could lead the red party to victory next year due to the end of the blue party era cycle. Not sure why he feels he needs to pander to an unpopular war criminal, but i guess it must be more prudent to do that and ban his predecessor from the party he has been part of for decades.
On Tue 26 Sep at 4:39pm Tom Pain wrote:
And Blair had the sleevie vote of confidence, he was another safe pair of hands. That's right nev, grown ups can change their mind as well as children and the unstable.
On Tue 26 Sep at 5:51pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I was too young to vote for Blair when he first came on to the scene, and by the time I could vote, Blair was toxic. So i guess I don't have to deal with the baggage of voting him into power.
On Tue 26 Sep at 9:55pm Nevillman wrote:
That is awful I lived through an establishment monster and all I remember is the economy doing well, well funded NHS, low waiting lists, easy GP appointments, well funded education. In retrospect should have regulated market more and Iraq was mistake.
It sounds like you became politically aware towards the end of Blair and I think you were listening to people who were seriously angry about Iraq. I really am carrying no baggage over voting for him except I would have voted for Norman
On Tue 26 Sep at 10:58pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I think many people can't stand the sight of Tony Blair, regardless of age or political affiliation. Perhaps you have selective memory and only focus on some partial realities that weren't awful, to avoid having to deal with supporting a war criminal. New Labours other numerous failures did result them getting unceremoniously tainted and dumped out of office after Blair sloped out the side entrance and went to seek enriching himself with those petro-dollars, leaving the rest of the country to pick up the pieces.
I would have to say even Theresa May, John Major and David Cameron are perhaps more popular than Blair at this point as far as ex-PMs (living) go. Cameron takes a big "L" for essentially creating Brexit with the referendum and his own arrogance for thinking he'd win it.....but Blair is justifiably demonised for making Britain break international law and create a fake reason to go into a catastrophic war in the middle east that has consequences to this day. I suspect Boris Johnson may take the prize just for his overall conduct in office, and his life as a vile, dishonest human being with trashy ethics.
On Tue 26 Sep at 11:26pm Tom Pain wrote:
Plenty of cheap immigrant labour to pay for those services and keep wages down,yes and securing cheap oil, t he Iraq war was worth it. Then Gordon sold our gold at a knock down price, a mere detail. Halcyon days indeed.
On Wed 27 Sep at 8:51am Nevillman wrote:
I think your views on the impression "people" have of former prime ministers says more about which people you are in contact with than how they are actually remembered.
I speak as I find.
Labour lost in 2010 because they were tainted by the financial crisis and brown wasn't good enough at his presentation as prime minister. They had also been in power for 13 years.
On Wed 27 Sep at 9:41am Green Sleeves wrote:
Labour lost in 2010 because of Blairs policies of the previous 13 years. Trashing the economy, and being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the middle east tends to have a deleterious effect. By that time, the media had moved on to its new Blair replacement in David Cameron. After all, Blair had managed to lose over 4m voters between just 97 and 2005 so was inevitably toxic, so they needed their next bland, clean-shaven, posh boy stooge.
Instead of relying on poor sources such as our own narrow perspectives, we could always just use polling and scientific sources. Oh look, yougov! "Most Popular Politicians and Political figures" (2023), Tony Blair down in 15th, below John Major, and some bloke called Jeremy Corbyn is at #1. Exhibit A is a bit trivial and flimsy to be fair, so how about an article in the Independent from January 2022, where the article heavily criticises Tony Blairs knighthood. Apparently polling had just 14% support for being knighted, and a massive 63% against. Yeah, i don't think people have forgotten that Tony Blair is a war criminal and a massive stain on UK and Labour politics.
But you know best, and you "speak as i find". I'm sure your bubble is far bigger and more informed than mine.
On Wed 27 Sep at 7:59pm Nevillman wrote:
Brown took over in 2007. I remember thinking at the time I was tired of Blair and wanted brown's no nonsense approach. I guess he didn't really have it. Blair would probably have won if he'd still been PM in 2010. Blair did not trash the economy. The crash of 2008 was handled by brown. I have reservations about his handling but by no measure was the economy trashed. We don't know what would have happened in Iraq. Like I've said the whole middle East had been in conflict with a variety of methods used. Would Iraq be better if we'd left it. We know Saddam was a murdering pig. He'd invaded Kuwait and left it on fire. Should they have left it like Assad in Syria. Yes Blair was wrong but I find it more justifiable than you and millions of others.
My experience of left wing student politics and the life of Brian tell me that the biggest enemy of the far left will be the nearest group. The far left had their chance and they blew it. Form a new party or accept that you are no longer dominant in the labour party.
Your scientific sources are as reliable as Tom's.
On Wed 27 Sep at 8:55pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Your predictions are about as reliable as Toms! You seriously think Tony Blair would have won in 2010?!? That is hilarious and probably the dumbest thing you have ever said. The guy is toxic, its like you have totally lost large segments of your memory and there are enormous gaps between the years of 2003 and 2010 (were you in the country at the time, or were you incarcerated in Guatanamo Bay?). Or perhaps its just mightily selective, as you don't consider being a corporate shill war criminal responsible for totally de-stabilising the middle east is so bad. Blair might have been an election winner, but he left as a loser, lowered the standing of the UK on the world stage as international law breakers and his reputation is absolutely tarnished. I'd rather be in opposition and try to achieve good and pressure a bad government to adopting/chaging policy, than just be in power for the sake of it and be that lousy bad government that does nothing but act as continuity tory-lites (Thatcherism, essentially). That is why Corbyn won't be anywhere near as unpopular figure as Blair is.
The economic financial crash occurred under Brown, but they hardly changed policies in that time (as you surely well know even with your short term memory), and it was both poor leadership by Labour for years running up to that and lack of opposition from tories (as they were highly keen on keeping the banks de-regulated!). I guess if you want to blame Gordon Brown and deflect again for Tony Blair, then have at it.
I'll be voting Greens in the election, current Labour are trash as they're cynically turning their back on progressives thinking it will help them, and good luck with that. I don't think the Greens are considered "far left wing student politics", but that sounds just like a cringe, old-man word salad that you heard someone equally dumb and old down the pub say and think you know all about politics. Thats why you like Blair!! He is for the intellectually and politically incurious!
On Wed 27 Sep at 11:51pm Tom Pain wrote:
It's a pity you were singing Blair's praises then sleeves, whether you voted for him or not. Have you been reading the rules for radicals? I wish the green party would stick to local things and not get involved nebulous climate theories dreamed up by ideologues in NGOs employed by global corporations to slip in their means to introduce a worldwide system of monetising everything. I thoroughly recommend gardening as a means of gaining green awareness. Experiencing nature at first hand in all it's unpredictable vagaries is very tempering for one's character. Earthing is a very real and beneficial thing for us all and reveals the fragile brittleness of theoretical ideologies. Living things are miraculous and should always take precedence over artificial fictions.
Thanks for mentioning me regarding facts nev. I think it's a fact but it's definitely true- who pays the piper calls the tune.
On Thu 28 Sep at 3:20pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Eh? U caught me praising Blair or something in the past? I already said I never voted for the guy and only voted Labour when Corbyn and Miliband were leaders.
I think you are confusing my appreciation for legendary celebrity dancer, Lionel Blair
On Thu 28 Sep at 5:28pm Nevillman wrote:
"toxic". What does that even mean? Sounds like something someone came up with at the weekly meeting of the Lewes anarcho syndicalist Marxist Leninist chapter where you all sat around saying how much you hated Blair even more than you hated the Lewes socialist workers Trotskyist group.
Maybe pol pot had the right idea and anyone over 40 or has ever been in a shop selling the daily mail or the sun should be sent to a work camp and only young fresh minds should run the political system.
You have a somewhat lazy blinkered view of Blair. I'm not saying he was perfect and I'm not going to repeat what I have already said about him but really you could look a bit closer at what he achieved. He never even tried to make extremists like you happy.
I think you are right to withdraw your support from the labour party even if you have never voted for them. You do not fit in the party at all. Labour saw off militant tendency in the 80s and has now seen off the latest group of left wing nutters who tried to take it over for it's own revolutionary Marxist dreams. You have done incalculable damage to the labour party and the country in your ridiculous attempts but at least you are now gone.
Have fun in the green party.
On Thu 28 Sep at 6:23pm Green Sleeves wrote:
LOL you sound like you were spitting venom in that post, a lifetime spent being angry at lefties not in power and instead defending the trash records of those that are! What a miserable and shallow take on politics u have, all dripping in archaic stereotypes. Surprised you didn't start going on about Cuba or Venezuela.
I already said I voted for Corbyn and Milibands Labour, or do they not count as Labour is only Labour when they represent Blairisms thatcherite continuation in both domestic and foreign policies? Ie hawkish, tow establishment line etc. I don't think it's anything to rave about and none of his or Labour's achievements can offset the illegal invasion of Iraq and the mismanagement of the economy. Hence why they got dumped out in 2010 as they couldn't really justify continuing in power, just as the tories now can't in 2024. Both failed, but the left are always the main problem. Uh huh.
On Thu 28 Sep at 6:32pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Oh and "toxic" is someone that lies and misleads especially from a position of great authority that ultimately leads to the deaths of millions, directly and indirectly. Not even one apology or remorse either. He just doubles down on it and undermined the Labour Party when it wasn't right wing enough in his view. That is toxic. But I can see why you defend him now.
On Thu 28 Sep at 8:25pm Nevillman wrote:
I think you are just repeating what you have already said but in a more angry way. I guess that's the internet for you. I've got nothing new to say which isn't the same except maybe with personal abuse.
On Thu 28 Sep at 8:31pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Ok, fine, we're both on loop here. Perhaps just do your due diligence before it comes to praising people and deriding others, then you won't get clowned on. Nah actually, scratch that, you just be you....its fun, keep that Thatcher spirit alive!
On Thu 28 Sep at 8:44pm Nevillman wrote:
It there's any clowning going on..... An almost Tom like summing up there green.
Thatcher. She is the same to me as Blair to you but multiplied by several thousand. This actually does call for meeting on the bridge at 12.
On Thu 28 Sep at 10:03pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Blair was a big admirer of Thatcher when he joined the house of commons as an MP in 1983 (ironically the same intake as Jeremy Corbyn who he was less impressed with clearly). There's a fun term for their policies...."Blatcherism". Blair thatchered the Labour Party just to get power and continue broadly the same policies. There are far more similarities between the two than you would probably like to admit.
Good old New Labour....tuition fees, another wonderful policy that Thatcher would have loved. We have pretty much had the same Thatcherite continuation of policies since the old bat left in disgrace in 1990 with a couple of bones thrown in like minimum wage, civil partnerships and gay marriages (latter under Cameron) to demonstrate they have a soul.
On Fri 29 Sep at 11:45am Nevillman wrote:
I lived through Thatcher and Blair. No similarity whatsoever. You are very dismissive of what Blair did for health and education as well as his social policies. He couldn't renationalise due to cost. Tuition fees were a necessary but controlled tax on graduates. Why shouldn't they contribute to their education if it lead to them getting a better job? Repayment was not made onerous, only paid if you earned enough and there was a ceiling on it.