Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


mattiloy last won the day on October 30

mattiloy had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,485 profile views

mattiloy's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Whats none of what I described? You want the tories out and new new labour in because you believe that the tories are corrupt. I say that I don’t see much difference between tories and new new labour. The only reference point that we have for new new labour is new labour, who were also pretty corrupt. You cry ’whataboutery’ presumably because you can’t really argue with it. At least tell me that you think Starmer is not like new labour, he’ll be better! But then I’ll point out that he’s already a bit of a pro at lying and breaking promises, so my trust in his character is pretty low. I think he’s a snake. To coin a phrase- ’they’re all the bloody same’. Anyway I don’t know why i bother looking for an actual debate on here. Its like trying to extract a nuanced viewpoint from a cow. I’m out.
  2. Because in the UK its a binary choice… so it has to be the accursed ’whataboutery’. You are just comparing two options. You go, x did this, but what about when y did that. X promises this, but what about what y promises. Thats how you do it no? So here we’re comparing conservative governments since 2010 to the Blair/Brown era (their record a proxy for how a Starmer government would presumably behave, given its the same bunch of toerags). Tell me how to compare two alternatives without ’whataboutery’… You can’t because thats what ’whataboutery’ is. And its been invented as a game that liberals play to excuse things like how shite they have also been in power (under Blair). These things are obviously valid in a debate about the relative performance of government, but its not convenient for liberals to drag up the past. Like when Baddiel or Trudeau blacked up. It makes liberals froth at the gash when you mention Boris’ comments about watermelon smiles, but when liberal icons black up, they cry whataboutery. Its hypocrisy. It just doesn’t suit their argument. It must be one big headache to be a liberal. Just a big tangled up ball of overcooked spaghetti where a brain should be.
  3. I’ve asked before and I’ll ask again, how would new new labour be better? Corruption is it? Just a gentle reminder that Mandelson is in Starmer’s team. You might wanna take a scroll through his wiki. Or bernie ecclestones, or Keith vaz’, or jack dromey’s (still an MP and husband of centrist pinup harriet harman). Its different shades of shite. But its still shite.
  4. I don't remember Neil Kinnock in Star Wars. But yes, you're probably right. The right have stitched up a lot of the party democracy/machinery so its likely that they wouldn't learn from their failure and it would be just another nasally voiced tory drip of a leader who took the reins post Starmer and then they would presumably also lose and be replaced by yet another nasally voiced.. and so in and so forth into perpetuity.. Ah well.
  5. Maybe Starmer really is playing 4D chess. Maybe Labour can’t move on and get with the 2020s until New Labour is dead and buried and maybe thats he’s the executioner. The forthcoming catastrophic election loss will rest squarely on the shoulders of New Labour/Labour to win. When it happens, maybe it finally closes that chapter. The ultimate anti hero. Labours Darth Vader. Darth Starmer.
  6. I just read Wilson’s manifesto: http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1966/1966-labour-manifesto.shtml Interestingly, I think in parts it could almost be the manifesto for 2024. Not in specifics but in themes (talks of investing in technology for the new world of work for instance - but in the 60s thats him talking about machines and early computers). Also stuff in there about regional inequality, investing in amongst other things ’the Manchester monorail’, some comments about warming relations with europe, building houses. Still I think on the whole its somewhere between atlee and blair on the spectrum. In any case the one thing Labour can learn from today from all successful election campaigns, is not learned from one specific campaign like Blairs, but that all successes are responding to the public’s appetite for change in whichever direction that points. I think its a total misread of public sentiment to revive New Labour. But, we wait for the manifesto. A winning manifesto to me is bold on the NHS, housing, education, care, mental health services, local government/devolution and regional infrastructure projects. + probably tightens the borders, tough on crime rhetoric and a better deal with Europe.
  7. Until of course they didn’t win an election 🙄 And if you look over the last 70 years, or 100 years, arent there other election winning strategies? But to take a leaf out of labour of 70 or 100 years ago would be ridiculous right? Because politics changes, demographics change, views change, peoples priorities change. One cohort of labour politicians who grew up in the 80s remember labour doing bad in the 80s and then moving right and winning, and thats all they know, they lost in 2010, worked against Miliband and Corbyn and regained power by deceit and they’re now setting out trying to convince the public that the year is 1995. The public clearly isn’t buying it.
  8. I think they picked up where New Labour left off in 2010. I am interested to see the eventual manifesto. But I’m expecting it to be better than the tories by marginal differences (point in case the nurses wage rise, 3% vs 2.1%). At which point I’m completely disinterested. Meanwhile I think they’re ruining Labour and the Labour brand for another generation, as New Labour did before them. So its not really worth it. Corbyn should have been the start of a rebuilding job, a la brendan rogers at liverpool. Maybe it still needed a klopp to come in afterwards and finish the job, but the groundwork had been laid. Instead we’ve ended up with Solksjaer at united. Someone with their roots in the old regime but who isn’t capable of taking on that rebuilding project and is just clutches at straws, to the point of bringing back big names (yvette cooper is ronaldo in this weird football analogy), but its just not enough. Football/politics has moved on. Its so weird that starmer had it exactly right in his leadership campaign but just decided to scupper himself and the party. Progressive and a clear inheritance of values from corbynism/actual proper labour values, uniting the party, squeeky clean (so impossible to smear) and appearing to be competent (lol). To consider where he’s ended up is as perplexing as it is frustrating. Whether it was always part of his plan and he is just a lying swine or whether he was this empty chalice politically as many have said, and Mandelson has lead him a merry dance, I guess we’ll never know.
  9. Do you know what an acolyte is? Its just a follower, its not bad language, or I don’t really understand what you mean when you say ’respond with that type of language’? So lets say instead are a Starmer fan, whats bad or untrue about that? I’m not saying you’re my enemy. Or that starmer supporters are my enemy. Nobody here is saying that. Most of this thread is you trying to paint in a positive light the latest shambolic internal politicking Starmer has done, or some minor shift in polls to being slightly less behind in the middle of an election cycle with a pretty poor performing government. And then other people, myself included pointing out that this isn’t good. Its interesting that you think my writing is angry, or presume I think you are my enemy. Maybe you feel personally attacked in this threaf? But it isn’t really you I (or others) have attacked, but Starmer. And then I’d say maybe you’re a little too personally invested in Starmer, if a barb towards him makes you feel hurt or attacked. But tell me, why its so vitally important to get the tories out and replace them with Starmer’s Labour? How would they be better? I am here to be persuaded
  10. I disagree. Even if it were a good strategy to sacrifice all else on the altar of election winning - I think Starmer is detrimental to that end. It looks like you do tend to have an opinion about other countries politics a fair bit, actually. And thats fine. You’re allowed to be. As am I. I would probably say that you’re even more allowed in respect of a country you are a citizen of, lived in for the first 25 years of your life, and still have the majority of your family and friends living there. And it seems like most people agree- since people like me are still allowed to vote in UK general elections despite no longer living there. If you have an issue with that, perhaps you should write to your MP and ask them to rescind the right to suffrage for uk citizens abroad… By the same principle I guess you also expect afghans living in England to have no opinion on the taliban? Starting to sound a bit daft isnt it. But thats a classic tactic of a starmer acolyte i suppose - when you don’t like what somebody is saying, just try to silence them - then continue on, safe in the echo chamber without the bad men and their silly annoying facts
  11. I had to read back my own post then because I don’t remember it being angry. I guess its hard to convey tone in text, but having read it again I cant see any indication of anger. Maybe you read what you wanna read. Then if you ask why it is I want to believe this person is angry- you probably arrive at something along the lines of that picturing me as some furious irrational frothing at the mouth corbynista, means you can presumably discount my reasonable points- generally around the fact that Starmer is a liar, a poor leader, and a completely unappealing character without any redeeming personal attributes. As for why I care about UK politics- most of my family live there, I wouldn’t mind going back someday but as it is my life is too good here. I also have a baby here now and I think his life would be better if he grew up here sadly. Wouldn’t it be nice if that wasn’t the case? Anyway, you lot don’t live in europe anymore, doesn’t stop you bleating on about it. on the reshuffle for real: Demotions all round for the ’soft left’. Promotions for tories and ardent remainers. Whats the strategy here then? Go for the lib dem vote? Abandon the red wall?
  12. Corbyn/Watson wasn’t exactly the standard setting leader/deputy relationship was it. About as dysfunctional as it gets. Old fatboy slim watson tried his level best to undermine the leadership at every turn. Just Keir Starmer afraid of assertive northern women who might undermine his authority if given a stage.
  13. Just sidelining any potential threats and surrounding himself with familiar (in his case London lawyer) yes men. As all paranoid authoritarians before him. Or maybe he’s giving the red wall what they want - Starmer, Reeves, Cooper and Lammy… 😂
  14. Yes. Way to make the leader of the opposition being completely shit all about the leader of the opposition being completely shit. Why don’t you just focus on Boris having silly hair or something instead? Bloody cranks
  • Create New...