Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

Are We Heading For A Recession Like In The 30s?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

I agree he knows his stuff at the dispatch box, but apart from that I think his general demeanour comes across as a bit weak and woolley. I don't think he has the strength of character to follow through in the face of the sort of criticism Corbyn got, nor do I think he represents the people enough to carry them with him. I hope I'm wrong but we shall see.

 

The working class did indeed put Johnson in charge, a move I believe they'll come to bitterly regret. 

He won’t face the criticism that Corbyn got. How could he? As far as I know, he hasn’t palled up with the IRA or Hezbollah, he’s not an anti Semite and I think he sings God Save the Queen when it’s called for. In other words he’s a patriot. Very important when you run for PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim Hardie said:

He won’t face the criticism that Corbyn got. How could he? As far as I know, he hasn’t palled up with the IRA or Hezbollah, he’s not an anti Semite and I think he sings God Save the Queen when it’s called for. In other words he’s a patriot. Very important when you run for PM.

Oh please.....  You're a bit late to the party aren't you? But just for your benefit....

 

Corbyn believes that talking to the likes of the IRA and Hezbollah is more productive than bombing and shooting them.

He is not an anti-semite and never has been.

He is happily respectful to the Queen.

He's as patriotic as most people, just not a rabid jingoistic zealot.

 

Please don't just believe what you read/see in the media...

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Not a battler? What’s he supposed to do, launch across the House and grab Johnson by the throat? Not tough enough? Good heavens Anna.

 

He is systematically taking Johnson apart every PMQs and taking him to task where possible. I suspect he’ll make changes when he gets the job in four years.

 

However, the working class put Johnson exactly were he is. They voted for him to get brexit done and send the foreigners home. Don’t forget that.

which is why there is not as much sympathy for their plight as there might otherwise have been. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Pettytom said:

The working class put Johnson in charge, rather than putting Corbyn in charge. I’d just let that sink in properly, if I were you.

 

Starmer is just fine. He’s intelligent. He’s principled. He’s also quite strategic. At the moment we are almost four years from a GE. By the end of that time, Johnson will be a gibbering wreck if he has to face Starmer once a week.

 

There really is no rush, and we are in exceptional times.

Starmer is using the exact same approach as Corbyn, of letting the Tories own everything that's happening as a result of their internal warfare and cack-handed governance.

 

It's not doing opposition work, neither is it principled.

 

It's completely political, and as cynically opportunistic as the other side is.

 

He's very polished in a Blairite/Cameronesque way, that said. That works well for him in the current landscape of strident extremes.

 

Neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to do well  by anyone, if there is an economical crisis to rival 2008's. They're too ideologically wedded to the current flavour of nationalistic excesses, chasing  that critical mass of working class vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, L00b said:

Starmer is using the exact same approach as Corbyn, of letting the Tories own everything that's happening as a result of their internal warfare and cack-handed governance.

 

It's not doing opposition work, neither is it principled.

 

It's completely political, and as cynically opportunistic as the other side is.

 

He's very polished in a Blairite/Cameronesque way, that said. That works well for him in the current landscape of strident extremes.

 

Neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to do well  by anyone, if there is an economical crisis to rival 2008's. They're too ideologically wedded to the current flavour of nationalistic excesses, chasing  that critical mass of working class vote.

After 10 continuous years of Tory cack-handed governance who else should own it?

 

What sort of opposition do you expect?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Anna B said:

After 10 continuous years of Tory cack-handed governance who else should own it?

 

What sort of opposition do you expect?

 

One that actually holds the government to account, and manages to rein in its excesses?

 

I mean, after 10 years like you say, isn't time that opposition lifted its ar5e from its thumb, do you think?

 

What did Labour peers do about the second vote this week, on the amendment to the immigration bill for granting Settled EU27 a physical proof of their status?

 

A completely non-political ask by people who were promised that nothing would change for them in 2016, getting lined up by Patel & chums for Windrush 2.0, and ever more ostracised by banks, landlords, NHS workers (etc.) all clueless from lack of government information and asking them for just such a physical proof?

 

They abstained. Reportedly because there was "nothing to be gained" from voting, since the Tory-heavy Commons were not going to move about it afterwards...only, these "principles" of theirs are showing a bit, there.

 

****** dead to me, as dead as the current BNP-grade Tory lot, that's for sure. 

 

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, L00b said:

One that actually holds the government to account, and manages to rein in its excesses?

 

I mean, after 10 years like you say, isn't time that opposition lifted its ar5e from its thumb, do you think?

 

What did Labour peers do about the second vote this week, on the amendment to the immigration bill for granting Settled EU27 a physical proof of their status?

 

A completely non-political ask by people who were promised that nothing would change for them in 2016, getting lined up by Patel & chums for Windrush 2.0, and ever more ostracised by banks, landlords, NHS workers (etc.) all clueless from lack of government information and asking them for just such a physical proof?

 

They abstained. Reportedly because there was "nothing to be gained" from voting, since the Tory-heavy Commons were not going to move about it afterwards...only, these "principles" of theirs are showing a bit, there.

 

****** dead to me, as dead as the current BNP-grade Tory lot, that's for sure. 

 

Holding the government to account like the Jeremy Corbyn opposition did do you mean? Though you wouldn't know it from the biased media coverage - or should I say lack of coverage. Then, it wasn't about excesses, but rampant, gut wrenching austerity.

 

As for your second point Corbyn was vociferous in his condemnation of the handling of the Windrush scandal and tried to change it but the Tory government wouldn't listen. Why should it, when it had all the backing of the media and big business etc?

The House of Lords is an unelected body responsible to no one but themselves and their sponsors. It should be scrapped and replaced with an elected second house of competant people without political affilliations. 

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, L00b said:

One that actually holds the government to account, and manages to rein in its excesses?

How would you propose that an opposition could rein in a government with an 80-seat majority?

 

How could an opposition possibly hold to account a government that has rejected the rule of law?

 

Presumably the answer to the first question is "by winning the next election".  But, right now, there's no way they're going to do that by being seen to act in the interests of EU27 nationals in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anna B said:

Holding the government to account like the Jeremy Corbyn opposition did do you mean? Though you wouldn't know it from the biased media coverage - or should I say lack of coverage. Then, it wasn't about excesses, but rampant, gut wrenching austerity.

 

As for your second point Corbyn was vociferous in his condemnation of the handling of the Windrush scandal and tried to change it but the Tory government wouldn't listen. Why should it, when it had all the backing of the media and big business etc?

The House of Lords is an unelected body responsible to no one but themselves and their sponsors. It should be scrapped and replaced with an elected second house of competant people without political affilliations. 

I don't need you to confirm how useless Corbyn was as a leader and/or how useless Labour have proven to be as an opposition, and I'm wholly uninterested in excuses: Labour had 10 years, and their result after a decade of 'work' as an opposition, is an 80-seat Tory majority in the HoC. After 3 years of the most abject uselesness under May, never mind the preceding years. 

 

By that metric alone, they're beyond useless.

 

Lord help me I'm no fan of Labour or left-thinking oriented. And by now I'm thoroughly recovered of any past Tory leanings. This is simply objective, matter-of-factly observation.

54 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

How would you propose that an opposition could rein in a government with an 80-seat majority?

 

How could an opposition possibly hold to account a government that has rejected the rule of law?

 

Presumably the answer to the first question is "by winning the next election".  But, right now, there's no way they're going to do that by being seen to act in the interests of EU27 nationals in the UK.

Refer the above. That government is rejecting the rule of law now, after 10 years of ruling.

 

The answer is (was) not "by winning the next election". Because, clearly, Labour is after getting hold of the same levers in 4 years' time, by keeping that very same electioneering system in place.

 

The answer is (was) "by doing anything and whatever necessary to change the electioneering system", proven to be irremediably broken by this rule of law rejection. But Labour will absolutely not do that. Because the above.

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, L00b said:

The answer is "by doing anything and whatever necessary to change the electioneering system", proven to be irremediably broken by this rule of law rejection.

 

But Labour will absolutely not do that. They're after getting hold of the same levers in 4 years' time.

 

In response to a question on his support for constitutional reform Starmer said:

“We do need a constitutional convention. One of the most powerful things coming out of the referendum was the sense that people want decisions to be made closer to them and by them. It was a very, very powerful thing… I think that’s a very powerful message, it’s a socialist message and it’s a Labour message about power coming from bottom up, not top down.

“I also think on electoral reform, we’ve got to address the fact that millions of people vote in safe seats and they feel their voice doesn’t count. That’s got to be addressed. We will never get full participation in our electoral system until we do that at every level.”

 

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/media-centre/press-releases/keir-starmer-announces-support-for-constitutional-convention-and-proportional-representation/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, L00b said:

I don't need you to confirm how useless Corbyn was as a leader and/or how useless Labour have proven to be as an opposition, and I'm wholly uninterested in excuses: Labour had 10 years, and their result after a decade of 'work' as an opposition, is an 80-seat Tory majority in the HoC. After 3 years of the most abject uselesness under May, never mind the preceding years. 

 

By that metric alone, they're beyond useless.

 

Lord help me I'm no fan of Labour or left-thinking oriented. And by now I'm thoroughly recovered of any past Tory leanings. This is simply objective, matter-of-factly observation.

Refer the above. That government is rejecting the rule of law now, after 10 years of ruling.

 

The answer is not "by winning the next election".

 

The answer is "by doing anything and whatever necessary to change the electioneering system", proven to be irremediably broken by this rule of law rejection.

 

But Labour will absolutely not do that. They're after getting hold of the same levers in 4 years' time.

 

Wake the **** up already.

Exactly so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, horribleblob said:

Exactly so.

Pleas see El Cid's quote above.

At least Labour has given it some recognition.

But let's face it, it doesn't matter which party is in power. Democracy is a myth when the Establishment and super-rich are now influential, rich and powerful enough to decide elections. All the electorate is for, is to pay them their taxes, and keep them rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.