UK Politics Omnishambles: Page 92 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

UK Politics Omnishambles

Burnwinter

Kicking Ken Loach out of the Labour party … I saw this the other day and was left shaking my head. He's been smeared as an antisemitic Holocaust denier all over the Internet for his principled and moderate support for cultural boycotts of Israel as well.

Burnwinter

Qwiss! wrote:
For the crime of not disowning Starmers critics. New Labour is a cult.

They wheeled out Blair to comment on Brexit, and to comment on coronavirus … interesting he's nowhere to be found now Kabul has fallen.

Qwiss

goon wrote:
All political factions are cult like.

Most aren't quite as scientology-esque as New Labour.

JazzG

jones wrote:
Starmer kicks Ken Loach out of Labour. The party's back to being as big a joke as it's been under Miliband

Agreed, needs to go much further than just him to be credible 😉

jones

Yeah maybe go back and bomb the Taliban for another twenty years innit. Worked for Blair didn't it

JazzG

jones wrote:
Yeah maybe go back and bomb the Taliban for another twenty years innit. Worked for Blair didn't it

Blair had won two elections before he joined in bombing Afghanistan.....

I'm not offering any opinion on Blair's policies. All I'm saying is if Starmer wants to win an election he will have more luck copying Blair's than copying the policies of his predecessor who led Labour to their worst result in over 80 years. Whether you like them or not Blair's policies domestically were very popular.

I'm no fan of Tony Blair before you get the wrong idea......

Burnwinter wrote:
They wheeled out Blair to comment on Brexit, and to comment on coronavirus … interesting he's nowhere to be found now Kabul has fallen.

Probably get an out of office reply 😆 He's been in the media plenty in recent months, you won't be getting hold him now!

Coombs

Winning elections and being right are mutually exclusive these days.

Burnwinter

Half the problem with New Labour is their focus on "electability" which features such an unrepresentative model of public psychology. Focus group fuckery. They're not identical to the Australian Labor Party but the two have informed each other's methods since the 80s.

Coombs

It's typical of neoliberals. If it costs more it's worth more, if it's elected then it's right and democratic. Ends-means politics in a nutshell, no consideration of values, principles, or critical perspectives.

Burnwinter

I agree, it's the politics of control. Measure and change system parameters, eliminate and disperse resistance. The behaviour of UK Labour amounts to deliberately shrinking its social base and emptying out its politics, presenting itself as a safe custodian of the state to capital, purging and slandering all those who disagree. They aim to create an alternative government from the ribs of the current one.

JazzG

Coombs wrote:
Winning elections and being right are mutually exclusive these days.

Politicians in my experience are all liars, it is just about presenting yourself so people buy into your bullshit.

jones

JazzG wrote:
jones wrote:
Yeah maybe go back and bomb the Taliban for another twenty years innit. Worked for Blair didn't it

Blair had won two elections before he joined in bombing Afghanistan.....

I'm not offering any opinion on Blair's policies. All I'm saying is if Starmer wants to win an election he will have more luck copying Blair's than copying the policies of his predecessor who led Labour to their worst result in over 80 years. Whether you like them or not Blair's policies domestically were very popular.

I'm no fan of Tony Blair before you get the wrong idea......

Blair won his first election in 97. He sent troops to Iraq in 98 (then again in 2003), to Kosovo and Sierra Leone all before his second win shortly after which the UK waged war in Afghanistan.

You're talking about a war criminal who's directly responsible for more than a million deaths, "all" you're saying is a lot more than what you're literally saying. Otherwise why not suggest also that Starmer take a leaf out of Trump's, Bolsonaro's or even Hitler's book, they all won elections too.

FEBravo

JazzG wrote:
Coombs wrote:
Winning elections and being right are mutually exclusive these days.

Politicians in my experience are all liars, it is just about presenting yourself so people buy into your bullshit.

Fuck I came to this thread cause I was sick of the the other one, but here we go talking about Arteta again

JazzG

jones wrote:
Blair won his first election in 97. He sent troops to Iraq in 98 (then again in 2003), to Kosovo and Sierra Leone all before his second win shortly after which the UK waged war in Afghanistan.

You're talking about a war criminal who's directly responsible for more than a million deaths, "all" you're saying is a lot more than what you're literally saying. Otherwise why not suggest also that Starmer take a leaf out of Trump's, Bolsonaro's or even Hitler's book, they all won elections too.

You're changing the topic now, you said 20 years of bombing the Taliban worked for Blair but that isn't the case is it? Blair has a lot of blood on his hands, I think you'll find many world leaders do. It is the nature of beast, these guys are some of the scumiest people in the world, what do you expect from them?

Our views on him are irrelevant, he is the last UK Labour politician to win a general election in over 40 years. What relevance do those other leaders you list have to UK politics?

FEBravo wrote:
Fuck I came to this thread cause I was sick of the the other one, but here we go talking about Arteta again

😆 Arteta would make a good politician, absoulte shit policies but comes across well doesn't he? 😆

jones

JazzG wrote:
jones wrote:
Blair won his first election in 97. He sent troops to Iraq in 98 (then again in 2003), to Kosovo and Sierra Leone all before his second win shortly after which the UK waged war in Afghanistan.

You're talking about a war criminal who's directly responsible for more than a million deaths, "all" you're saying is a lot more than what you're literally saying. Otherwise why not suggest also that Starmer take a leaf out of Trump's, Bolsonaro's or even Hitler's book, they all won elections too.

You're changing the topic now, you said 20 years of bombing the Taliban worked for Blair but that isn't the case is it? Blair has a lot of blood on his hands, I think you'll find many world leaders do. It is the nature of beast, these guys are some of the scumiest people in the world, what do you expect to happen?

Our views on him are irrelevant, he is the last UK Labour politician to win a general election in over 40 years. What relevance do those other leaders you list have to UK politics?

No you're mixing up the topic, I said twenty years of bombing Afghanistan obviously because that's the duration of the NATO presence there, I know that Blair wasn't in power for the full twenty obviously. It was a flippant quip because I've seen you say a bunch of times that Blair (while you of course obviously naturally don't condone his actions or fangirl for him) is a better script to copy for Labour than the guy who got them their worst result in four thousand years. What you're missing is nobody needs a Labour party who push through the shit Blair did, we have the Tories for that.

We'll agree that politics is a scummy horseshit game that has rarely to do with policies for the people.

Mirth

Two separate things.

Blair's easily the biggest warmonger in recent British history. It's true that every major political leader at some point or another has had blood on their hands but no one (aside from every American President ever) has jumped in so enthusiastically to deploy troops overseas as Tony Blair did.

On a domestic front, however, Blair struck the right tone for the majority of the country. Which is what Starmer has to recognise too - his internal squabbles over ideology won't make a difference come the next election because voters care about the top 2-3 things that affect them daily. At present unemployment is low, wages are rising, covid restrictions are amongst the most lenient in the world and there's less friction in politics than at any point since 2016. Boris Johnson is still a man child but he's as good at winning elections as Blair was and some members of his cabinet like Sunak are genuinely more popular than Brown ever was. And that matters because elections in Britain aren't fought like US Presidential elections.

Burnwinter

JazzG wrote:
FEBravo wrote:
Fuck I came to this thread cause I was sick of the the other one, but here we go talking about Arteta again

😆 Arteta would make a good politician, absoulte shit policies but comes across well doesn't he? 😆

Lulz. Sad truth is that Arteta could do as good a job as Starmer, but I wouldn't want Starmer to replace Arteta. But even Arteta isn't sitting on a -37 approval rating after making his focus "electability" …

Captain

The cabinet got roasted by both sides of the house yesterday. Haven't seen anything like it in a very long time.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out. A more politically energized country may see resignations in the next few weeks, but I fear that nothing affects this government.

Captain

jones wrote:
JazzG wrote:
You're changing the topic now, you said 20 years of bombing the Taliban worked for Blair but that isn't the case is it? Blair has a lot of blood on his hands, I think you'll find many world leaders do. It is the nature of beast, these guys are some of the scumiest people in the world, what do you expect to happen?

Our views on him are irrelevant, he is the last UK Labour politician to win a general election in over 40 years. What relevance do those other leaders you list have to UK politics?

No you're mixing up the topic, I said twenty years of bombing Afghanistan obviously because that's the duration of the NATO presence there, I know that Blair wasn't in power for the full twenty obviously. It was a flippant quip because I've seen you say a bunch of times that Blair (while you of course obviously naturally don't condone his actions or fangirl for him) is a better script to copy for Labour than the guy who got them their worst result in four thousand years. What you're missing is nobody needs a Labour party who push through the shit Blair did, we have the Tories for that.

We'll agree that politics is a scummy horseshit game that has rarely to do with policies for the people.

Hard disagree. You just had to travel the country when Blair was PM to see the amazing amount of progress that was made in communities - education, healthcare, community outreach.

Blair's domestic policy was nothing like the conservatives. Foreign policy, however, you have a point.

goon

The country was probably as unified at that point as I can remember too. I know loads of people personally who hate his guts but not many who didn't think he was a competent leader domestically.

That's what Starmer needs to focus on being, competent. If he needs to game the system so be it, but in his case it's hard to see any substance behind it all though I suspect that's a deliberate tactic for the time being.

« Previous Page Next Page »