the Party is over

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

It is becoming clear that accountability and representation of voters does not play any part of the Westminster gangs agenda's. A PM's pension for the rest of her life, chauffeur driven car, protection officers, an office allowance for Mary who does not know what to do in an office are the benefits she has scooped with in less than 50 days.

The three largest parties all failed to live up to the promises they made to their members and voters, catnip for the uninitiated. Here is a summary of voters predicament at the hand of unaccountable power hungry ecocide mongers.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/10/the-party-is-over/

Those who hoped for Starmer to have any other policies to pursue than the Tories, wake up, there aren't any. Up to now he has lost half of the membership Corbyn gathered and has supported Conservative right wing inhumane policies outflanking them on immigration and benefit support in line with inflation.

[benchwarmer 624]

I agree with you.  But we knew all that anyway.

If we think things can't get any worse, this could be only the start.  Civil unrest bordering on civil war lies ahead if they go on like this.

[Naturalcynic 629]

4 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

It is becoming clear that accountability and representation of voters does not play any part of the Westminster gangs agenda's. A PM's pension for the rest of her life, chauffeur driven car, protection officers, an office allowance for Mary who does not know what to do in an office are the benefits she has scooped with in less than 50 days.

The three largest parties all failed to live up to the promises they made to their members and voters, catnip for the uninitiated. Here is a summary of voters predicament at the hand of unaccountable power hungry ecocide mongers.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/10/the-party-is-over/

Those who hoped for Starmer to have any other policies to pursue than the Tories, wake up, there aren't any. Up to now he has lost half of the membership Corbyn gathered and has supported Conservative right wing inhumane policies outflanking them on immigration and benefit support in line with inflation.

He might have lost a lot of members, presumably of the Momentum variety, but he appears to have gained a very large number of potential voters which surely is what an opposition leader aspiring to govern is supposed to do.

[Big Vince 318]

7 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

He might have lost a lot of members, presumably of the Momentum variety, but he appears to have gained a very large number of potential voters which surely is what an opposition leader aspiring to govern is supposed to do.

Starmer is a classic case of governments losing elections rather than oppositions winning them.

[A Load of Squit 5,136]

10 hours ago, Big Vince said:

Starmer is a classic case of governments losing elections rather than oppositions winning them.

That's what always happens when people vote for a new government it's because they don't like the current one.

 

[Badger 2,405]

11 hours ago, Big Vince said:

Starmer is a classic case of governments losing elections rather than oppositions winning them.

He hasn't won it yet! Everyone was predicting a Tory landslide in 2009 + that ended up as a hung Parliament, and Starmer won't have all the press on his side as Cameron (largely) did.

A couple of years of sensible govt and the situation could change - the question is whether the Tories are capable of two years of sensible govt.

[Herman 9,717]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

He hasn't won it yet! Everyone was predicting a Tory landslide in 2009 + that ended up as a hung Parliament, and Starmer won't have all the press on his side as Cameron (largely) did.

A couple of years of sensible govt and the situation could change - the question is whether the Tories are capable of two years of sensible govt.

I read that Starmer is stopping his MPs from re-posting these polling numbers to stop any complacency setting in.

[Naturalcynic 629]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

He hasn't won it yet! Everyone was predicting a Tory landslide in 2009 + that ended up as a hung Parliament, and Starmer won't have all the press on his side as Cameron (largely) did.

A couple of years of sensible govt and the situation could change - the question is whether the Tories are capable of two years of sensible govt.

I think a couple of years of sensible government are beyond the Conservatives.  There’s too much factional infighting (leave/remain, pro/anti Johnson, lower/higher taxes, net zero or not etc) and no sign of a candidate with the potential to unite the party.  There are also too many external factors at play which are likely to make it an impossible task for any PM (fall out from Brexit, the pandemic, Ukraine, rising energy prices, increasingly militant unions and so on).  A return of Johnson would almost certainly end in disaster, not least because of the still unknown outcome of the investigation into misleading parliament, but equally Sunak is considered by many of the pro-Boris camp as being the one who plotted his downfall.  For unity and sensible government, someone who’s seen as having integrity, is a safe pair of hands and with real leadership qualities would be needed, and of the current crop Ben Wallace would seem the obvious choice, but clearly he’s ruled himself out (presumably keeping his powder dry).

[dylanisabaddog 4,877]

27 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

I think a couple of years of sensible government are beyond the Conservatives.  There’s too much factional infighting (leave/remain, pro/anti Johnson, lower/higher taxes, net zero or not etc) and no sign of a candidate with the potential to unite the party.  There are also too many external factors at play which are likely to make it an impossible task for any PM (fall out from Brexit, the pandemic, Ukraine, rising energy prices, increasingly militant unions and so on).  A return of Johnson would almost certainly end in disaster, not least because of the still unknown outcome of the investigation into misleading parliament, but equally Sunak is considered by many of the pro-Boris camp as being the one who plotted his downfall.  For unity and sensible government, someone who’s seen as having integrity, is a safe pair of hands and with real leadership qualities would be needed, and of the current crop Ben Wallace would seem the obvious choice, but clearly he’s ruled himself out (presumably keeping his powder dry).

I read recently that Wallace wants to be Secretary General of the United Nations so is staying out of it. The fact that it's a poisoned chalice may also have crossed his mind. 

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 22/10/2022 at 12:52, dylanisabaddog said:

I read recently that Wallace wants to be Secretary General of the United Nations so is staying out of it. The fact that it's a poisoned chalice may also have crossed his mind. 

Sp does Mrs. Sturgeon, she has had UN ambitions for a time now, but her habits are getting in the way. Still no answer as to the reasons why the judge and two deputies put in charge of the covid response inquiry in Scotland threw in the towel some days ago.

Does Rishi want to get the ill gotten gains from fraudsters and pep equipment hysters back? will these individuals and their companies be barred from doing business until they repaid the loot?

What will the pandemic budget look like in his administration, after he borrowed 300 billion for us to repay forever? ARE WE PREPARED FOR MORE OF THE SAME? with less and less of other species to infect, humanity is very likely to be the target for more dangerous viruses to emerge.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/10/covid-inquiry-mystery/comment-page-1/#comments

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

On 21/10/2022 at 12:06, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

It is becoming clear that accountability and representation of voters does not play any part of the Westminster gangs agenda's. A PM's pension for the rest of her life, chauffeur driven car, protection officers, an office allowance for Mary who does not know what to do in an office are the benefits she has scooped with in less than 50 days.

The three largest parties all failed to live up to the promises they made to their members and voters, catnip for the uninitiated. Here is a summary of voters predicament at the hand of unaccountable power hungry ecocide mongers.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/10/the-party-is-over/

Those who hoped for Starmer to have any other policies to pursue than the Tories, wake up, there aren't any. Up to now he has lost half of the membership Corbyn gathered and has supported Conservative right wing inhumane policies outflanking them on immigration and benefit support in line with inflation.

It's not the Westminster gang; it's the Conservative party who have done this. It's not even a majority of the Conservative party. Hell, it's not even a majority of Conservative MPs who have installed Sunak. 

The manner of Sunak's appointment as PM of the UK is a new low in British politics. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

On 22/10/2022 at 12:39, Herman said:

I read that Starmer is stopping his MPs from re-posting these polling numbers to stop any complacency setting in.

Sensible. Complacency, assuming a win, and being seen to assume a win was what undid Kinnock. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[benchwarmer 624]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not the Westminster gang; it's the Conservative party who have done this. It's not even a majority of the Conservative party. Hell, it's not even a majority of Conservative MPs who have installed Sunak. 

The manner of Sunak's appointment as PM of the UK is a new low in British politics. 

Not as low as appointing Liz Truss because she wasn't Rishi Sunak.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

12 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

Not as low as appointing Liz Truss because she wasn't Rishi Sunak.

In democratic terms, it absolutely is far lower. Doubtless you're making a veiled accusation of racism there, but I can think of many many reasons to dislike Sunak without bringing race into it.

This was a guy who was proud of being one of the biggest opponents of responding to Covid with lockdowns; the first strong advocate of pulling the rug out from under people in terms of financial aid in response to the pandemic; he's a faker who borrowed an employee's downmarket car for a photo opportunity at a petrol station to disguise his personal wealth. 

His coronation by a minority of Conservative MPs amounts to nothing less than a coup. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

On 21/10/2022 at 11:06, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Up to now he has lost half of the membership Corbyn gathered

As much as I share your despair at the state of UK politics...

... Corbyn's membership numbers were so high because they'd let a load of them in paying just £3 a year. It led to pro-Corbyn entryism which helped him get elected last time.

Only, contrary to them being members that "Corbyn gathered", they jumped on that £3 offer whilst he was in the first leadership contest, so it was more his candidacy which attracted them all, rather than an initiative he'd undertaken once getting the job.

Now you could say that this £3 rate helps to ensure that the young and/or impoverished could participate, only 74% of those who joined as a £3 a year member were from the ABC1 category (middle to upper class) and the average age of a £3 a year member was 51.

Not many of them stuck around to pay the £25 when the price went back to normal.

What do you think would happen to Norwich City membership numbers if the price of a membership went down to £3?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

Just now, TeemuVanBasten said:

As much as I share your despair at the state of UK politics...

... Corbyn's membership numbers were so high because they'd let a load of them in paying just £3 a year. It led to pro-Corbyn entryism which helped him get elected last time.

Only, contrary to them being members that "Corbyn gathered", they jumped on that £3 offer whilst he was in the first leadership contest, so it was more his candidacy which attracted them all, rather than an initiative he'd undertaken once getting the job.

Now you could say that this £3 rate helps to ensure that the young and/or impoverished could participate, only 74% of those who joined as a £3 a year member were from the ABC1 category (middle to upper class) and the average age of a £3 a year member was 51.

Not many of them stuck around to pay the £25 when the price went back to normal.

What do you think would happen to Norwich City membership numbers if the price of a membership went down to £3?

There were also some Conservative supporters who joined on the £3 membership specifically to vote for Corbyn maliciously. 

[benchwarmer 624]

19 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

In democratic terms, it absolutely is far lower. Doubtless you're making a veiled accusation of racism there, but I can think of many many reasons to dislike Sunak without bringing race into it.

This was a guy who was proud of being one of the biggest opponents of responding to Covid with lockdowns and the first a strong advocate of pulling the rug out from under people in terms of financial aid in response to the pandemic. 

If my accusation of racism was veiled, I apologise.

Edited October 25, 2022 by benchwarmer

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

1 minute ago, benchwarmer said:

You and I both know that the only way to prevent a rerun of last time was for the party to manage it in the way that it did. 

The debate about the lockdown strategy in terms of short term gain versus long term pain is yet to be had.  It's probably pointless anyway, since we will never know what would have happened without it.  One thing is clear though: discharging covid-positive patients into care homes whilst banning loved ones from visiting those same care homes was not only cruel but entirely counter-productive. 

 

 

Exactly. They're totally disunited, not fit to govern, with a leader even the party's own supporters rejected. There should be a general election immediately. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

21 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Doubtless you're making a veiled accusation of racism there, but I can think of many many reasons to dislike Sunak without bringing race into it.

His race would probably have played a part in the votes of a proportion of Tory members though, none of us know how many, and whether it would have been enough to have swung the vote the other way if Rishi Sunak was identical in every way apart from being white and being called Robert Smith. The thought has crossed my mind.

I do think however that his perceived lack of loyalty and back stabbing when he tried to rock the boat with his resignation to force Boris out was probably a bigger factor. One thing that the Tory party has always done well until recent years is to avoid airing their dirty laundry in public and to keep their former leaders etc within the party, they always look to have a strong cabinet as a result with the likes of Hague and Duncan-Smith filling ministerial positions (and now with Theresa May being a vocal backbencher).

Labour seem to drive their former heavyweights out of the party and end up with a lack of experience in the front bench positions, Ed Milliband a recent exception. If they had the likes of Burnham, David Milliband, Dugher, Watson still in Westminister and united behind Starmer they'd have taken power back years ago.

So Javid and Sunak etc coming out publicly against Boris and timing their resignations to inflict maximum damage, only to then to try and take his job, that wouldn't have sat massively well with old school Conservatives. Suppose it started with Gove backstabbing Boris when he ran a few years back though really, Gove was seen as the betrayer then as well and failed (despite being one of the more competent and skilled Tory politicians).

[canarydan23 4,060]

6 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

As much as I share your despair at the state of UK politics...

... Corbyn's membership numbers were so high because they'd let a load of them in paying just £3 a year. It led to pro-Corbyn entryism which helped him get elected last time.

Only, contrary to them being members that "Corbyn gathered", they jumped on that £3 offer whilst he was in the first leadership contest, so it was more his candidacy which attracted them all, rather than an initiative he'd undertaken once getting the job.

Now you could say that this £3 rate helps to ensure that the young and/or impoverished could participate, only 74% of those who joined as a £3 a year member were from the ABC1 category (middle to upper class) and the average age of a £3 a year member was 51.

Not many of them stuck around to pay the £25 when the price went back to normal.

What do you think would happen to Norwich City membership numbers if the price of a membership went down to £3?

I think he's referring to membership. According to Wiki, the total membership is at 430,000, of which about half are full members. The accounts have shown a 90,000 drop, and this must only be from the full members as my understanding is registered supporters only pay on joining (though I could be wrong). So the accounts would only show a drop in the regular paying members. So whilst half was an exaggeration, it looks like the number of members dropped from around 300,000-320,000 to 210,000-230,000.

This, along with a growing reluctance among Trade Unions to dip their hands in their pockets to fund a man who punishes people for joining picket lines, means they'll be courting more corporate-funding, which as history has shown us, leads us to a choice between the Tory Party or a faintly watered-down version.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

6 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

His race would probably have played a part in the votes of a proportion of Tory members though, none of us know how many, and whether it would have been enough to have swung the vote the other way if Rishi Sunak was identical in every way apart from being white and being called Robert Smith. The thought has crossed my mind.

I do think however that his perceived lack of loyalty and back stabbing when he tried to rock the boat with his resignation to force Boris out was probably a bigger factor. One thing that the Tory party has always done well until recent years is to avoid airing their dirty laundry in public and to keep their former leaders etc within the party, they always look to have a strong cabinet as a result with the likes of Hague and Duncan-Smith filling ministerial positions (and now with Theresa May being a vocal backbencher).

Labour seem to drive their former heavyweights out of the party and end up with a lack of experience in the front bench positions, Ed Milliband a recent exception. If they had the likes of Burnham, David Milliband, Dugher, Watson still in Westminister and united behind Starmer they'd have taken power back years ago.

So Javid and Sunak etc coming out publicly against Boris and timing their resignations to inflict maximum damage, only to then to try and take his job, that wouldn't have sat massively well with old school Conservatives. Suppose it started with Gove backstabbing Boris when he ran a few years back though really, Gove was seen as the betrayer then as well and failed (despite being one of the more competent and skilled Tory politicians).

Possibly, but ultimately it's an irrelevant accusation aimed at the party membership that can't actually be substantiated, while the reasons for disliking Sunak as a politician that I have cited  are verifiable.

Put it this way, you openly supported Truss over Sunak; Did you do it because you're racist?

Edit: Sorry, that sounded abrasive. You're obviously not racist, which is my point. Should have stated the rest of your post totally makes sense in my view. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

58 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Put it this way, you openly supported Truss over Sunak; Did you do it because you're racist?

My biggest gripe was that he resigned not entirely out of principle and what was best for the country but because he was scheming because he personally wanted to become Prime Minister. It was transparent and ugly.

I openly supported Truss initially, then changed my mind when it became clear she was just trying to mimic Margaret Thatcher. Its not 1980 anymore and Thatcher's politics are no longer relevant, we're now completely post-industrial, and everything that is being subsidised has already been moved from public ownership to private ownership, there's not much housing stock left to flog off, and no easy way to increase the proportion of people who own their home.

Thatcher wouldn't have any big ideas left in 2022.

Sunak's race was of course not a factor, although his various citizenships and nationalities did raise questions about vested interests and his tax affairs. 

And there is that little bit of my brain which just has a bit of a thing for petite blondes in Norwich City shirts 🤣

The concern I have now is that Trusses planned spending spree has exasperated our economic problems to the extent that Sunak now gets a free pass for his austerity agenda. There is now an economic case for austerity and cloth cutting of some degree being necessary in the UK, and Sunak will take that as a mandate and run with it to push through a shrinking of the state that he'd have wanted to have done whether it was financially necessary or not, he'll probably cut harder and faster than necessary to try and appeal to the small state brigade, probably in the knowledge that he's basically got 2 years to make a name for himself before he's out of politics and back at Goldman Sachs as an 'advisor' on seven figures.

Truss has essentially made Sunak relevant. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

31 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

There were also some Conservative supporters who joined on the £3 membership specifically to vote for Corbyn maliciously. 

Did people ever work out how many there were? 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Did people ever work out how many there were? 

I don't think so, but when Corbyn was elected I still had some Conservative associates left from when I was more positive about the party, and they proudly told me about what they had done. I was genuinely disgusted. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 25/10/2022 at 09:41, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not the Westminster gang; it's the Conservative party who have done this. It's not even a majority of the Conservative party. Hell, it's not even a majority of Conservative MPs who have installed Sunak. 

The manner of Sunak's appointment as PM of the UK is a new low in British politics. 

Labour has helped the Conservatives, and the media has deflected a years long inquiry report on child abuse, by totally smothering us with this icodnsequential Westminster rah rah, resignation etc.

this report must be debated in all its details and considerate policies to alleviate this, another black mark on the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/iicsa-report-of-the-independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-abuse

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 25/10/2022 at 10:03, TeemuVanBasten said:

As much as I share your despair at the state of UK politics...

... Corbyn's membership numbers were so high because they'd let a load of them in paying just £3 a year. It led to pro-Corbyn entryism which helped him get elected last time.

Only, contrary to them being members that "Corbyn gathered", they jumped on that £3 offer whilst he was in the first leadership contest, so it was more his candidacy which attracted them all, rather than an initiative he'd undertaken once getting the job.

Now you could say that this £3 rate helps to ensure that the young and/or impoverished could participate, only 74% of those who joined as a £3 a year member were from the ABC1 category (middle to upper class) and the average age of a £3 a year member was 51.

Not many of them stuck around to pay the £25 when the price went back to normal.

What do you think would happen to Norwich City membership numbers if the price of a membership went down to £3?

Party membership is not financing political parties anymore, its the 'donations' from rich donors who get gongs and other perks for it. Opening ears of politicians is achieved with large donations and policies are bent the same way.

I have sympathy with a £ 3 cheap party membership, it should be affordable to everyone, if that is what they desire. Whilst I oce was in that party I had no objections to this measure, young people do not have much money.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

13 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Labour has helped the Conservatives, and the media has deflected a years long inquiry report on child abuse, by totally smothering us with this icodnsequential Westminster rah rah, resignation etc.

this report must be debated in all its details and considerate policies to alleviate this, another black mark on the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/iicsa-report-of-the-independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-abuse

You've just given us the link to the publicly available conclusions of the report, available for anybody interested to read. It has also been discussed in the House of Commons, which is on record in Hansard from the 23rd Feburary, 2022. Doubtless all parties professionally involved in the welfare of children continue to consider it. 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-02-23

Edited October 27, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

19 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Party membership is not financing political parties anymore, its the 'donations' from rich donors who get gongs and other perks for it. Opening ears of politicians is achieved with large donations and policies are bent the same way.

I have sympathy with a £ 3 cheap party membership, it should be affordable to everyone, if that is what they desire. Whilst I oce was in that party I had no objections to this measure, young people do not have much money.

No idea what the relevance of all that is.

You said:

On 21/10/2022 at 11:06, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Those who hoped for Starmer to have any other policies to pursue than the Tories, wake up, there aren't any. Up to now he has lost half of the membership Corbyn gathered

But actually Labour membership stood at 485,000 in August 2019, when Corbyn was still leader, down from a peak of just over 500,000. Of those August 2019 members, 35,000 of them were actually in 'arrears' which I take to mean hadn't paid to renew but hadn't quite yet been struck off the list, so it was 450,000 who were paid up. 

Latest figures has it at around 450,000, as of this month. Up from 420,000 which is where they bottomed out post-Corbyn.

So your entire narrative is false. Membership now is around where Corbyn left it. 

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

So why are ClP's being ignored by the great knight? why has he changed every one of his ten point plan he lied about when taking over? why does he want to put non violent protesters in jail when he has no plan at all for the reform of the judicial service? My narrative was not false, there was always a percentage of members who had forgotten to renew.

But if you are so eager, I got a spare Labour poster on a stick you can have, for a donation to the RMT, which harbors a lot of paying NUlabs among their members, paying their dues to that lying party politician of injustice and his followers.

Go on, get your Labour party sign....'Don't get cold feet now'.....

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 27/10/2022 at 14:31, littleyellowbirdie said:

You've just given us the link to the publicly available conclusions of the report, available for anybody interested to read. It has also been discussed in the House of Commons, which is on record in Hansard from the 23rd Feburary, 2022. Doubtless all parties professionally involved in the welfare of children continue to consider it. 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-02-23

a p..s poor debate with no actual conclusions and I can't see the cover up merchants in the BBC, still suffering from Savillelitis maximus, asking questions on the institutional implications and or remediation of these criminal ingrained habits in public schools, hospitals, childrens homes, the all smothering/knowing media, and in the public.

Yesterdays report into the mindset of some criminals and bullies in the force that should uphold law and order, makes it absolutely clear, that this report demands a core root and branch reform, starting at the top with those who turned around and pretended not to see or hear, when crimes were committed, who forgot to make notes of crimes, liberating arch criminals because they knew them and had a 'bond' with them.

btw. such a report is not something you just file away and carry on whistling Dixie.