Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

UK Politics


kalifire

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, lazyred said:

I'm not a flag waver myself and its tricky. I don't want to wave my national flags but eqully I don't want them to be symbols of the far right. If the union and george flags can be reclaimed from the far right they can't be used to intimidate people as they heve been in the past.

The article says it is some labour activists who don't want to deliver the leaflets. That is a problem because it highlights the difference between the party and the voters they need to attract. This messaging is required to show Labour have changed after Corbyn.

Well when I stop getting the c-slur shouted at me virtually every month I'll wonder if some reclaiming of the flags can be done. As it is, I'll continue to cross to the other side of the road when I see a load of white men waving flags.

I want to emphasise, that the link between flag-waving and racism has grown massively in the last 10 years. Post-Brexit post-covid the racists have felt empowered, and have done flag-waving with it. In 2015 Miliband often stood in front of union jacks and I and others were happy campaigning with it. It's just the country's flag, it's going to be on some material saying you want to serve the country. That's fine.

I completely agree that Labour need to shown to voters they've changed since Corbyn. But I also think Labour has gone way too far the other way, and I don't trust the former human rights lawyer to stand up for human rights. It's not just the anti-migrant stuff and backing Coyle. It's that I also think Starmer has an incredibly low opinion of what traditional Labour voters in "the red wall" are like. I know people who live up there, they aren't anywhere near as racist as the portrayal of "Wokingham man". Starmer has sold the Labour party out to chase voters who aren't as racist as he believes they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Some people like this patriotic flag waving shite, some people don't. That is the issue. 

means different things to different people. when we're voting for a leader of the tribe, a few tribal icons to rally around means what you choose it to mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lazyred said:

They have to be closer to the tories (but I still think there are big differences) to win. The left are all or nothing but public attitudes take time to change. If a centrist labour party can change the electoral pattern to win 3 out of every 4 elections then over time we will become a more left wing society. 


Why did public attitudes change? In the post war era people were happy to invest in public infrastructure and pay more taxes. Can it be that the intellectual capitulation of the nominally left wing party to the neoliberal thatcher/reaganite consensus of the 80s has directly contributed to the erosion of the credibility of left wing economics? If so, is the route back to double down and undermine your own economic philosophy? Seems farfetched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, mattiloy said:


Why did public attitudes change? In the post war era people were happy to invest in public infrastructure and pay more taxes. Can it be that the intellectual capitulation of the nominally left wing party to the neoliberal thatcher/reaganite consensus of the 80s has directly contributed to the erosion of the credibility of left wing economics? If so, is the route back to double down and undermine your own economic philosophy? Seems farfetched.

it was things like huge losses at nationalised industries that destroyed the credibility of left wing economics, along with the "thatcherite  economic miracle", which got the uk out of deep sh*t, and got itself some credibility via that  which helped undermine left wing alternatives

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Why did public attitudes change?

if you don't know then the last 40 years of uk politics has passed you by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:


Why did public attitudes change? In the post war era people were happy to invest in public infrastructure and pay more taxes. Can it be that the intellectual capitulation of the nominally left wing party to the neoliberal thatcher/reaganite consensus of the 80s has directly contributed to the erosion of the credibility of left wing economics? If so, is the route back to double down and undermine your own economic philosophy? Seems farfetched.

The Attlee govt was effectively one term. The tories moved left to cover the new centre ground. They kept the NHS and welfare state, built houses and were in  power for 13 years. Labour now have to move right to track the current centre

The 1970s global fuel rises and high inflation gave the right the chance to challenge the post war polices. In Britain thatcher was helped into power by the trades unions actions and perceived  failures of labour policy. 

Don't forget labour went left in the 1980s,the labour right split and formed a new party. The electorate had changed and so a leftwing labour party was not popular enough to win. As we saw in 2017 and 2019 that is still the case. 

Its not what I want but not enough peopje agree with me so I accept what I can get. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Neil said:

the "thatcherite  economic miracle", which got the uk out of deep sh*t, 

Thatcher destroyed vast swathes of British industry, laying waste to dozens of communities in the process. She glorified greed and staged an assault on any notion of social responsibility.

Wouldn't be my definition of a miracle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

Thatcher destroyed vast swathes of British industry, laying waste to dozens of communities in the process. She glorified greed and staged an assault on any notion of social responsibility.

Wouldn't be my definition of a miracle.

It was written in quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LJS said:

Thatcher destroyed vast swathes of British industry, laying waste to dozens of communities in the process. She glorified greed and staged an assault on any notion of social responsibility.

Wouldn't be my definition of a miracle.

those industries were f**ked which everyone knew who was paying attention, she chose to stop throwing huge amounts of money at them. thatcher just pulled the trigger on those f**ked industries. the 'miracle' was turning thing around from no jobs and no hope into something almost booming "loads of money"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LJS said:

Thatcher destroyed vast swathes of British industry, laying waste to dozens of communities in the process. She glorified greed and staged an assault on any notion of social responsibility.

There's a lot of data here to support those conclusions...
https://academic.oup.com/cje/article/44/2/319/5550923?login=false

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clarkete said:

Let's not forget a few wealthy billionaires doing their utmost to influence many millions of voters....

lets not pretend that red robbo and scargill didn't influence at least as many voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clarkete said:

Let's not forget a few wealthy billionaires doing their utmost to influence many millions of voters....

 

 

paper-political-choices-g-002 (1).jpg

Screenshot 2024-03-30 223310.jpg

Screenshot 2024-03-30 223346.jpg

Screenshot 2024-03-30 223422.jpg

Screenshot 2024-03-30 223551.jpg

Screenshot 2024-03-30 223633.jpg

Screenshot 2024-03-30 223706.jpg

Screenshot 2024-03-30 223733.jpg

Screenshot 2024-03-30 223753.jpg

I think that's rather fanciful to be honest. If people vote for who their favourite paper tells then to, then that's their problem and they deserve what thay get.

I think it was more due to people voting in line to how their parents votes. Thankfully, that's changed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ommadawn said:

I think that's rather fanciful to be honest. If people vote for who their favourite paper tells then to, then that's their problem and they deserve what thay get.

I think it was more due to people voting in line to how their parents votes. Thankfully, that's changed

You really think that 4 million people reading something every day presenting a certain view of the world doesn't have any impact on their perspective?

Extraordinary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Labour membership falls by 23,000 the more they become just like the Tories.

and green party membership is what?????and green members are like tory members having a pop at labour.

or in Bristol this week, arrested for theft - (hands in the till like a tory.)

Edited by Neil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, clarkete said:

You really think that 4 million people reading something every day presenting a certain view of the world doesn't have any impact on their perspective?

Extraordinary.

I think people are much less gullible than you may think. Like everyone else, I have a brain and can think for myself,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, clarkete said:

You really think that 4 million people reading something every day presenting a certain view of the world doesn't have any impact on their perspective?

Extraordinary.

never underestimate the ability of labour's left to f**k thing up! i think reports each day on the news of another £50M to failing striking industries also had an impact, but people like to forget about that, vote corbyn!!!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, clarkete said:

You really think that 4 million people reading something every day presenting a certain view of the world doesn't have any impact on their perspective?

Extraordinary.

your guy has gone to help prop-up the new Murdoch, no one agrees with nick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

I think people are much less gullible than you may think. Like everyone else, I have a brain and can think for myself,

wish the labour left had a brain and could think - the UK  would be quite different if it could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Neil said:

those industries were f**ked which everyone knew who was paying attention, she chose to stop throwing huge amounts of money at them. thatcher just pulled the trigger on those f**ked industries. the 'miracle' was turning thing around from no jobs and no hope into something almost booming "loads of money"

She created the "no jobs and no hope"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LJS said:

She created the "no jobs and no hope"

she inherited a country f**ked by the unions, and changes in the world around it, the uk was trying to adapt to changed trading terms due to the end of empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Neil said:

she inherited a country f**ked by the unions, and changes in the world around it, the uk was trying to adapt to changed trading terms due to the end of empire.

Just out of curiosity, Neil, was that your view at the time? Or have you revised it with the "benefit" of hindsight?

Edited by LJS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...