The Labour Party - Part 2

[harvey19 541]

It is no good just changing conservative for labour if labour have no realistic plan how to change things.

[Anna B 1,401]

2 hours ago, harvey19 said:

It is no good just changing conservative for labour if labour have no realistic plan how to change things.

True.

Why do you think there was such strong support for Corbyn who would have changed things.

[Dromedary 166]

5 hours ago, Anna B said:

After the war there was a mood for something different. It had been building since well before the war with the grinding down of the working class, the depressions etc. The scene was set for change.

Labour brought in the NHS, free higher education and the welfare state. 

.....

Yes after the war it all had to change because of the circumstances that going to war had left us in. But do you realise that although Labour are credited with the birth of the NHS and the welfare state the NHS that took form was actually based on a conservative white paper published in 1944. That's why I said it all had to change and they knew it in 1944 before labour took over in 1945. The NHS or similar would probably have happened even if the conservatives had taken power as it was a necessary thing to do at the time.

 

Despite Labours achievement at the time they only lasted in power for 6 years.

 

Re higher education being free...

 

I think it was a conservative government that bought in free higher education in the 1960s which was then changed into a fee paying scheme in 2004 by a Labour government under Tony Blair.

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Dromedary

[ECCOnoob 1,020]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

True.

Why do you think there was such strong support for Corbyn who would have changed things.

There wasn't. That's why he spectacularly lost the election. That's why he took Labour to their worst defeat for decades.

 

[harvey19 541]

11 hours ago, Anna B said:

True.

Why do you think there was such strong support for Corbyn who would have changed things.

I have been thinking about this and have come to the conclusion that the majority of his support was probably from those with unrealistic expectations.

I may be completely wrong.

[Anna B 1,401]

53 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

I have been thinking about this and have come to the conclusion that the majority of his support was probably from those with unrealistic expectations.

I may be completely wrong.

Why? He was simply trying to redress the balance. And you could hear people saying the very things he was advocating.

 

The problem is political candidates are preselected by the party (we think this is awful when Russia do it.) And have to tow the party line to get past the committee. Jeremy Corbyn was the first candidate to be selected by the people thanks to a change in the rules. He gathered tremendous support with his policies amongst those taking an interest and galvanised the   Labour party (and politics in general) increasing the Labour party membership by millions to become leader.

 

When the elite realised the threat to their cosy existance, the campaign to smear and discredit him got underway. And those that don't take much interest in politics were gulled by the 'fake news.' (It wasn't even news, they could get very little bad on him that held water, so they resorted to character assassination and ridicule.) And the internal war between the old Blairites and the rest of Labour was also exploited to the hilt.

 

The loophole that allowed the members of the Labour party to vote for the leader was closed, and stooge Starmer put in place, who, in spite of 'supporting Jeremy and his policies' subsequently betrayed him with a U turn and expelled Corbyn and all the socialists from the party. 

 

Starmer is now arguably the most unpopular leader in Labour history. If he should win, simply on the strength of the public's distaste for Johnson and the Conservatives, he will crow that it's his purging of the Socialists from Labour that did it, and he will continue with Tory policies.

 

All sewn up, back to business as usual....

 

[sheffbag 227]

3 hours ago, Anna B said:

Why? He was simply trying to redress the balance. And you could hear people saying the very things he was advocating.

 

The problem is political candidates are preselected by the party (we think this is awful when Russia do it.) And have to tow the party line to get past the committee. Jeremy Corbyn was the first candidate to be selected by the people thanks to a change in the rules. He gathered tremendous support with his policies amongst those taking an interest and galvanised the   Labour party (and politics in general) increasing the Labour party membership by millions to become leader.

 

When the elite realised the threat to their cosy existance, the campaign to smear and discredit him got underway. And those that don't take much interest in politics were gulled by the 'fake news.' (It wasn't even news, they could get very little bad on him that held water, so they resorted to character assassination and ridicule.) And the internal war between the old Blairites and the rest of Labour was also exploited to the hilt.

 

The loophole that allowed the members of the Labour party to vote for the leader was closed, and stooge Starmer put in place, who, in spite of 'supporting Jeremy and his policies' subsequently betrayed him with a U turn and expelled Corbyn and all the socialists from the party. 

 

Starmer is now arguably the most unpopular leader in Labour history. If he should win, simply on the strength of the public's distaste for Johnson and the Conservatives, he will crow that it's his purging of the Socialists from Labour that did it, and he will continue with Tory policies.

 

All sewn up, back to business as usual....

 

Labour party (and politics in general) increasing the Labour party membership by millions to become leader. - False. Party membership has never got near a million, ever. Even taking the research findings here https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05125/SN05125.pdf Labour membership peaked in the 1950's and they claimed a million then but this is thought to be over estimated as, when official figures were calculated then the membership was shown to be under 750,000. The tories at the time of peak labour membership had also twice as many members as labour.

 

And the internal war between the old Blairites and the rest of Labour was also exploited to the hilt. - Much the same as the Old socialists did when Blair took over. Thats politics for you. 

 

Starmer is now arguably the most unpopular leader in Labour history - You might want to fact check that

Starmers popularity rating going back up to over 50% with Labour supporters since becoming leader

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating?crossBreak=labour

Compare that with JCs approval rating amongst labour supporters in his final year

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/jeremy-corbyn-approval-rating?crossBreak=labour

 

If you cant be bothered to look then its

Labour supporters only 

Kier (% voted doing well)- Highest - 74%, lowest 24% , Current - 52%

Jeremy (% doing Very well and Fairly well combined) - Highest - 43%, Lowest - 20%, Final - 25%

 

All voters

Keir - Highest - 48%, Lowest - 17%, Current - 32%

Jeremy - Highest - 15%, Lowest - 8%, Final - 11% (as an aside his final year score for "Very badly" only went below 50% once and that was to 49%)

 

so, in his final year Jeremy Corbyn's highest approval rating amongst the voting public was below Kier Starmers lowest rating. And his highest approval within his own party support is below Starmers current approval rating as leader. 

 

In terms of Election results since the first Labour majority in 1945, there has been 21 elections (including the 2 in 1974. Out of those, the following are Corbyns results

source: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7529/

 

Votes - 2019 - 10.27 Million - 15th out of 21 

Share of votes - 2019 - 32.1% - 18th out of 21

Seats won - 2019 - 202 - 21st out of 21 - lowest ever since Labour came to power in 1945

 

 

Don't let the facts spoil your rant please

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by sheffbag

[Slinny 278]

1 hour ago, sheffbag said:

Labour party (and politics in general) increasing the Labour party membership by millions to become leader. - False. Party membership has never got near a million, ever. Even taking the research findings here https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05125/SN05125.pdf Labour membership peaked in the 1950's and they claimed a million then but this is thought to be over estimated as, when official figures were calculated then the membership was shown to be under 750,000. The tories at the time of peak labour membership had also twice as many members as labour.

 

And the internal war between the old Blairites and the rest of Labour was also exploited to the hilt. - Much the same as the Old socialists did when Blair took over. Thats politics for you. 

 

Starmer is now arguably the most unpopular leader in Labour history - You might want to fact check that

Starmers popularity rating going back up to over 50% with Labour supporters since becoming leader

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating?crossBreak=labour

Compare that with JCs approval rating amongst labour supporters in his final year

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/jeremy-corbyn-approval-rating?crossBreak=labour

 

If you cant be bothered to look then its

Labour supporters only 

Kier (% voted doing well)- Highest - 74%, lowest 24% , Current - 52%

Jeremy (% doing Very well and Fairly well combined) - Highest - 43%, Lowest - 20%, Current - 25%

 

All voters

Keir - Highest - 48%, Lowest - 17%, Current - 32%

Jeremy - Highest - 15%, Lowest - 8%, Final - 11% (as an aside his final year score for "Very badly" only went below 50% once and that was to 49%)

 

so, in his final year Jeremy Corbyn's highest approval rating amongst the voting public was below Kier Starmers lowest rating. 

 

Don't let the facts spoil your rant please

 

Just looking at how many doctors we need since mr hunt was in charge .  Army  cut police cut  nurses cut  councils budgets cut  . Did,nt mr Osborn do a great job,  please will someone tell me it was all for the good off the country ,  and. Explain why . As only a secondary modern lad I cannot work it out. 

[ECCOnoob 1,020]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

Why? He was simply trying to redress the balance. And you could hear people saying the very things he was advocating.

 

The problem is political candidates are preselected by the party (we think this is awful when Russia do it.) And have to tow the party line to get past the committee. Jeremy Corbyn was the first candidate to be selected by the people thanks to a change in the rules. He gathered tremendous support with his policies amongst those taking an interest and galvanised the   Labour party (and politics in general) increasing the Labour party membership by millions to become leader.

 

When the elite realised the threat to their cosy existance, the campaign to smear and discredit him got underway. And those that don't take much interest in politics were gulled by the 'fake news.' (It wasn't even news, they could get very little bad on him that held water, so they resorted to character assassination and ridicule.) And the internal war between the old Blairites and the rest of Labour was also exploited to the hilt.

 

The loophole that allowed the members of the Labour party to vote for the leader was closed, and stooge Starmer put in place, who, in spite of 'supporting Jeremy and his policies' subsequently betrayed him with a U turn and expelled Corbyn and all the socialists from the party. 

 

Starmer is now arguably the most unpopular leader in Labour history. If he should win, simply on the strength of the public's distaste for Johnson and the Conservatives, he will crow that it's his purging of the Socialists from Labour that did it, and he will continue with Tory policies.

 

All sewn up, back to business as usual....

 

You really are burying your head well into that sand arnt you.  Good grief there were Jonestown residents less deluded than you are.

 

Look at the facts and stop with your ridiculous self-pity and conspiracy theories.

 

He failed. He was a loser. He was an incompetent stubborn, old dinosaur who was a complete failure when it came to judging the public mood, delivering policies that would appeal to the electorate and handling the press.

 

A total and utter disaster that people like yourself can't seem to get over.  The cult is over.  The Momentum sponsored power trip has come crashing down.  The lunatics are no longer running the asylum and have been firmly subdued back down to where they belong.

 

I don't believe for one second that you are so unintelligent to not see the clear facts as to what the electorate really want. To plainly see the type of political leaning and government that they have consistently been voting for time and time again throughout history.

 

It was not Corbyns brand.  Wake up. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by ECCOnoob

[sheffbag 227]

18 minutes ago, Slinny said:

Just looking at how many doctors we need since mr hunt was in charge .  Army  cut police cut  nurses cut  councils budgets cut  . Did,nt mr Osborn do a great job,  please will someone tell me it was all for the good off the country ,  and. Explain why . As only a secondary modern lad I cannot work it out. 

errrr what does that have to do with my post?

[Dromedary 166]

8 minutes ago, Slinny said:

Just looking at how many doctors we need since mr hunt was in charge .  Army  cut police cut  nurses cut  councils budgets cut  . Did,nt mr Osborn do a great job,  please will someone tell me it was all for the good off the country ,  and. Explain why . As only a secondary modern lad I cannot work it out. 

Ok I will try and explain even though I am also a secondary modern pupil that left school at 15 with no qualifications.

 

 

Doctors are not owned by the NHS and are still private as they have always been. There is a shortage and a number of reasons are causing that, early retirement, not enough people wanting to become doctors and better conditions and wages elsewhere so many tend to migrate to other countries once qualified.

 

The army have now been modernised so the actual number of "squaddies" on the ground are not needed so numbers have been cut back.

 

The police numbers may have fallen but that is not down to cuts but again most of it is down to early retirement and lack of replacements for a number of reasons.

 

Since 2000 the annual amount of nurses including health visitors, ambulance staff and midwives have steadily increased over time. Brexit had some effect in reducing numbers and so has covid.

 

Councils have seen their budgets cut but that has spurred them on to streamline waste and create savings and now most are operating to their new budgets without much problem.

 

But... feel free to blame the government if you want to.

[melthebell 862]

41 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

You really are burying your head well into that sand arnt you.  Good grief there were Jonestown residents less deluded than you are.

 

Look at the facts and stop with your ridiculous self-pity and conspiracy theories.

 

He failed. He was a loser. He was an incompetent stubborn, old dinosaur who was a complete failure when it came to judging the public mood, delivering policies that would appeal to the electorate and handling the press.

 

A total and utter disaster that people like yourself can't seem to get over.  The cult is over.  The Momentum sponsored power trip has come crashing down.  The lunatics are no longer running the asylum and have been firmly subdued back down to where they belong.

 

I don't believe for one second that you are so unintelligent to not see the clear facts as to what the electorate really want. To plainly see the type of political leaning and government that they have consistently been voting for time and time again throughout history.

 

It was not Corbyns brand.  Wake up. 

Can I just say, some lunatics are definitely in charge of the asylum currently