Lets lighten things up a little , with some poetry. All this tory bashing is becoming tedious.

Some dogging spots up there.......sure someone on here said that?

Jesus.

It's like a Tory convention with a dissenting set of plebs being allowed to comment...

What a sad end.

As usual the leftwaffe get upset because despite their constant rabid attacks, they burst into tears when someone fights back.

Yes I’ve ousted some noisemakers but not before a lot of requests and warnings. Also don’t forget that they were deleted after they asked to be. Albeit in a rattle throwing manner.

Change the record, it’s got very boring.

Who bursts into tears? certainly not me. If anything its the tories or even Labour luvvies who throw a tantrum when things don't go their way. Those on the left , have always been in the minority , rarely winning despite having some of the best debaters making the best arguments , therefore they are battle hardened , so I think bursting into tears is the last thing you'll find them doing , and secretly you know that , your type know that , that's why everything but the kitchen sink gets thrown at these people , with money no object when it comes to defeating the left. The left have nearly been wiped out in this country , and if it finally is wiped out , the country will be a lot worse for it , but there is still some way to go , you are not there yet , living in a mini America in a right wing utopia

Yet those on the left are supposed to represent the working class and the working class make up a huge chunk of the electorate, so why don't the working class vote them in and, as you say, the left have been nearly wiped out in this country. But who has caused this wipe out. Who caused the demise of Labour in Scotland. Have Momentum got plans to infiltrate the SNP. Despite having some of the the best debaters, you say. Aye they talk a good game but not good enough to convince the electorate. Maybe the next bulletin from Momentum will explain.

The Court of the Queen of Hearts in "Alice in Wonderland", as re-imagined by Franz Kafka. Left is right, and right is wrong.

[quote="derwent"][

Yet those on the left are supposed to represent the working class and the working class make up a huge chunk of the electorate, so why don't the working class vote them in and, as you say, the left have been nearly wiped out in this country. But who has caused this wipe out.
the reason is that a lot of working class labour votors just hate being classed as working class. they, through snobbery, see themselves a cut above their parents and grandparents who did real manual jobs in mines and shipyards. then give em a badge and a bit of promotion and the union and labour could kiss their arse. cannot see those typical tory voters turn on their own heritage as quickly as labour voters do.

That is a very good point, Mr Accrington.
As Tory voters get older they become more entrenched, whereas a lot of people who started out as Labour voters "move up the ladder" and see Labour as a threat to what they have managed to create for themselves. I don't know what you think but it has always struck me that the word "Labour" is a bit of a millstone. As is the red flag bit. Red is politically associated with communism and to a lot of people communism is associated with suppression, especially when it's the working class who appear to be the suppressed. Communists appear to be control freaks, whereas Capitalists appear to be the ones that "pay the mortgage". A hundred years ago how many working class even knew what a mortgage was. Our fathers and grandfathers didn't want us to follow in their footsteps with comments like " my lad is not going down a pit". They sowed the seeds of contempt in our minds to a certain extent.

Its complicated and you could write a book about it , many have , and still not be sure they have got it right. Labour though were forged from industrial roots, roots that we now don't exist or the unions that existed alongside them. Therefore the old voting demographic has been smashed to pieces , with the only piece left intact , the hardcore tory 20% , the other 80% could vote anyway the wind blows at the time. You still have a working class , in theory anyone who goes to work can call themselves working class , but the wording spiritually referred to someone who used to work up a sweat at work and was a wage slave , no wage = no food. People like that working down a mine , mill , steelworks , railways or textile factory identified with the meaning of the word than someone these days eeking a living out selling cup cakes on Facebook.

If socialism actually worked I’m sure Labour would get a big majority. But it has been proven time and time again that it doesn’t. The only thing anything related to socialism that has been successful was The type practiced by Blair and the current Nordic countries.

It did work John , between 1955 and 1979 , it was more like Democratic Socialism though than hardcore Socialism , that's why during that period people generally embraced it. It also helped though that even the tories during this period seemed to want to make the world a better place , probably because of the knock on effects from the war , and because of the broken promises made after the WW1 , there was a real revolutionary fervour in the air that scared the life out of the tories and the rich at the time. That was a golden period of progress and advance in our history , a time when you could really call Britain GREAT.

You know my thoughts on Bliar, he looked great in the short term but in the long term proved to be a disaster , a lot of todays problems I attribute to him as much as Thatcher. Labour did lots of good little things under Bliar , but the few things they got wrong were spectacular in comparison , and laid the foundations for the chaos we see currently.

you could write a long book on this subject. think both party,s have had problems over the years in not having natural leaders. the tories suffered this in the blair years and labour did in the thatcher ones. we have reached a situation which for me started with thatcher and has got worse over the years. people vote for the leader and not the party or their manifesto. if someone else had led labour in the last election without the baggage corbyn had then the election result should have been much closer. whether you agree with brexit or not everyone must realize the extra seats gained by the tories in the north was caused due to the labour attitude on brexit with a fence sitting leader and the majority of its sitting MP,s going against the majority of their constituants.

That's a very good summing up there Mr Accrington.

Wouldn't disagree on Labour dithering on Brexit played a big part in them losing the election , that and the media hatchet job on Corbyn because he was a Socialist. My point above though is what led to the Brexit vote going the way it did? Answer = Thatcher destroying unions and Bliar making rich people even richer and poor people even poorer , causing a tidal wave in Northern towns in particular of resentment , disenfranchisement , and broken communities with no hope , dreams or aspirations for the future = Brexit

Don’t underestimate the effect of Corbyn’s support of terrorist group.

Just to respond on Mr Horden’s claim that socialism worked 55-79. Well the Tories were in power from 55 to 64 so we’re basically boiling it down to Wilson and Callaghan. Surely no one can claim that the second term which led up to the disastrous state of affairs in 79 was a success so that leaves us with Wilson’s first term of 64-70. To be fair this was a good period but his second with the lib-lab pact was awful.

Overall Wilson was a moderate socialist, closer to Blair than Corbyn. He did alright but not with the Marxist policies of Momentum. Wilson and Blair aside Labour have never won and election since Attlee and no one would call his term successful. You have to back to the inter war years for an election win with Baldwin.

So in essence, Labour can only win with a centrist leader. The far left have never held power and I suspect never will.

Labour between 74 and 79 was problematic, not making excuses , but they didn't have a huge majority , lot of shit going on around the world and the economy in a state of flux as the industrial revolution was coming to its final conclusion, nevertheless the advances made before that still kept coming, in terms of pay and conditions , standards of living , that was the overall point I was trying to make. 1955-79 was a good time for Britain and a good time for the working class , not without its shortcomings , in those days nothing came easy for the ordinary person on the street, and we all know most work was hard and dangerous , but it was a time of hope and advancement , no one except a greedy bastard can deny that. As I said in my post , even the tories were almost human in those days, hence I include the period 55-64 and 70-74. Maybe that's why it worked, two governments, two parties entirely different, but without one hellbent on kicking the shit out of the working class and the unions when in power. As for your last sentence, I agree, the facts bear that out, but as I said that doesn't mean what I believe in is wrong , I think Socialist solutions are needed to fix the country, the people don't want that, they want more of the same, fair enough, thats democracy , albeit British style , other countries opt for PR , which given the current circumstances would probably work better here. If people want to live in a society of winners and losers, they just need to make sure they stay on the winning side. Not how I want to live , but very soon it wont be my problem , so I'm happy to let them get on with it.

Fair enough I misunderstood your overall point. For sure it was a time of guaranteed jobs and good quality social housing. The latter with the massive house building programme was superb. Selling off the council houses without replacing the stock is the thing I believe Maggie got wrong. Nothing wrong in principle with allowing people to buy their own homes but it should have been on a one for one replacement cycle.

There is another side to the coin though. British industry was rapidly falling behind, particularly in ship and car production. The old ways and the communist infiltration of the unions with strike after strike set the tone for the battles that were to come in the 70’s and 80’s and ultimately the decline of manufacturing.

The selling off of council houses was actually a Labour idea they failed to carry out in the 70s, the benefit of hindsight eh?
I look upon the strikes as a been a result of the new found confidence of the workers after 20 years of continuous improvement, improvement that they wanted to carry on, human nature, the rich are doing the same now, at least then they could strike , now it would be legally impossible. Communist infiltration I think is a bit dramatic as is the strike after strike statement, Miners pay was appalling in 1971, they hadn't had a national strike since 1926 , so you cant accuse them of been strike happy. The world was changing , people were changing, Labour and the unions wanted the things we now take for granted , only they wanted people to eventually own their own homes and cars, not be forever in debt like our children will be, debt fuels the modern day capitalist system and cause untold misery.

I wouldn’t argue that the miners deserved the 70’s pay increases but that wasn’t the case in 84. They were pretty well off by then.

I could list the strikes in the 70’s but you know them as well as I do.

[quote="Mr Irrelevant"]Fair enough I misunderstood your overall point. For sure it was a time of guaranteed jobs and good quality social housing. The latter with the massive house building programme was superb. Selling off the council houses without replacing the stock is the thing I believe Maggie got wrong. Nothing wrong in principle with allowing people to buy their own homes but it should have been on a one for one replacement cycle.

might have been nothing wrong in principle in selling off council houses but for me it kicked off a lot of the snobbery we presently have. when i worked on the buses in coventry i think i was in a real minority regarding home ownership. i lived in a rented housing association property in rugby where the rest were home owners. being worse at DiY than kerr was to defending it was the best option for me. just one phone call and someone arrived to fix stuff free. no spending time or a big chunk of your wage on the house. used to get some stick for renting but at least i hadn,t a giant weight around my neck like some had.

There’s nothing wrong with renting other than the lack of security. The Germans have lifetime tenancies much like it was with our council houses. If you have a house that you know you have permanence then you’re more inclined to improve it. I also think that the transient nature of a lot of rented properties stops old fashioned communities forming. Hang on, let me dig out my red flag.

[quote="Mr Irrelevant"]There’s nothing wrong with renting other than the lack of security. The Germans have lifetime tenancies much like it was with our council houses.
if we had as many people championing renting over owning there could actually have seen house price rises being lower than what happened over the last 50 years. the demand would have been less therefore so would the prices.

A mix of every type would be the best scenario. I think it generally makes sense to want to own your own property , its cheaper and its something to pass onto the kids,. My dad took this option , and made sacrifices for it , others though had the live for the day attitude , preferring to have a social life rather than be stuck in on a Saturday night. These people rented council houses or lived in colliery houses , which were cheap in comparison to a mortgage by the way , or maybe they just wanted to live in a council or colliery house or couldn't afford a mortgage or the deposit to get a mortgage.of There has always been a need to rent , students , people who travelled a lot with their work etc. The difference is now renting has been forced on people , people who cant get jobs and or cant afford a mortgage. Of course for others it is now seen as a legitimate way of adding to your pension pot , through buying homes to rent. For this to work you have to create the conditions , the conditions being , cheap mortgages , stop building council houses , and build new houses that are expensive and built for families rather than single people or young couples. The presumption that these people then trash the properties is a myth , yes some do , but many more don't , its a convenient way for a landlord to rent out a shit hole that in many cases are probably fall foul of many housing laws , without carrying out essential improvements , anyone who complains getting moved on or seeing their rent increased so that they leave of their own accord.

Don't mention the fookin Germans ! how is it those bastards do everything so well ? even Covid-19 didn't fancy messing with those dudes.

Seriously though , you are right , it was the same with the closing down of the mines in those countries like Germany and France , they managed it well. I read recently that in France miners were given 70% of their wages from the time they left the pit until they retired, that's what I call an agreement. The thing is in this country the worker has to literally fight for everything. There cant be a country in the history of the world that has constantly asked its people to fight war after war, yet treat its workers so badly. The many good things we have , like the NHS, benefits system , employment laws , race discrimination , sex discrimination , equality , disability acts were fought for by workers and created by a Labour Party acting on their behalf , not handed to us on a plate

Very well said Horden. It is a lesson that needs to be learned by some people time and time again, unfortunately.