Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hold your nose and vote Labour?

Will you vote Labour?

  • Yes

    Votes: 70 32.1%
  • No

    Votes: 148 67.9%

  • Total voters
    218
Media personality, The Right Honourable David Lammy PC FRSA MP, explains his organisation's source of inspiration:

keir-thatcher-1080p.png

Margaret Thatcher was a ‘visionary’ says Labour’s David Lammy
I think he's fucked any residual illusions in labour held by irish nationalists of all stripes resident in the uk
 
Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC MP really should note that some people are not the "gullible simpletons" that he considers them to be:


GFPjFq1XkAAmCqO.jpg


Why should Black people vote Labour?

"Sir Keir Starmer’s adviser on race relations has accused the Labour leader of failing to listen to her in a speech that highlights rising frustration over the party’s relationship with black voters, The Times can reveal ..."

23874786-7930243-image-a-22_1580002448290.jpg


(Source: as stated in image)

Keir Starmer is not listening to me, says Labour race adviser
 
I want to say thank you those who’ve engaged me on this thread, as a result of which I realise I have something to think about.

I am wondering if my stance might be not born of a rational moral and political position, but rather is an emotional response generated by my lifelong loathing of the tories, magnified as it is by the utterly despicable nature of the current and recent lot, and by my fear of what damage they will do if they’re allowed another chance, especially as coming back from where they are now might I fear embolden them to feel they can do what the fuck they like and not suffer any consequences (not an unreasonable fear I think).

Anyway, emotional responses, while undeniably powerful, can risk leading one in the wrong direction (even while those same emotions convince you you’re doing the right thing). So I am going to try to re-examine from as dispassionate a viewpoint as I can muster.

Thank you again.
 
Hitler was a visionary, its no more a term of endearment than saying someone had strength of character
 
Even Owen Jones has given up on holding his nose.


This group he's supporting seems a bit opaque -- anyone heard of them?

1711061796645.png
 
I am wondering if my stance might be not born of a rational moral and political position, but rather is an emotional response generated by my lifelong loathing of the tories, magnified as it is by the utterly despicable nature of the current and recent lot, and by my fear of what damage they will do if they’re allowed another chance, especially as coming back from where they are now might I fear embolden them to feel they can do what the fuck they like and not suffer any consequences (not an unreasonable fear I think).

Anyway, emotional responses, while undeniably powerful, can risk leading one in the wrong direction (even while those same emotions convince you you’re doing the right thing). So I am going to try to re-examine from as dispassionate a viewpoint as I can muster.
Just wanted to say that you are not alone in this by any means.

I live in a safe Labour seat and my votes for Labour in 2017 and 2019 were motivated by emotion rather than political logic.
In 2017 I was pleased by the most social democratic manifesto that has been seen during my voting life, and in 2019 just so opposed to the shits on the Labour right and what they would do (have done) that I took five minutes to cast a vote. In both cases I knew this less any sort of effective action than it was more about me.

I also don't think it is a terrible thing to put emotions into politics, so long as we try to recognise it when we do so. After all we are humans.
 
Last edited:
Have you thought of putting ‘Hitler was a visionary’ on a poster in a window in your gaff facing the street? Just to test the ‘no more a term of endearment’ theory?
Have you thought about not being a dick just for laughs?
 
Getting back to Thatcher, she was the opposite of the visionary that Reeves valorises. She was merely the second in a long line of Prime Ministers who increasingly did exactly what neoliberal financialised capital told them to do.
 
Last edited:
Getting back to Thatcher, she was the opposite of the visionary that Reeves valorises. She was merely the second in a long line of Prime Ministers who increasingly did exactly what neoliberal financialised capital told them to do.
I think there's a bit more to it than that.

No ever talks about "Callaghanism" now, do they?
 
Wasn't it Keith Joseph and a merry band of monetarists won her over to true believer status for that St Perelman Society or whatever it was called?
 
I think there's a bit more to it than that.

No ever talks about "Callaghanism" now, do they?
Exactly; his administration were told exactly what to do; they complied with the ‘structural adjustment plan’ of the IMF and, in effect, represented the UK’s first monetarist administration.
 
Not even just a mailing list. A 'give us your money' thing while telling you practically nothing about who they are etc. 🤷‍♀️

Aye, not the most impressive plan I've ever seen. Points in the right direction though I think, there are seats independents can win and focusing money on them makes a lot more sense than launching yet another new national party to add to the giant stew of forgotten names.
 

I left the Bayes Business School after Reeves’s lecture upbeat and encouraged.

He wouldn't say that if there was any likelihood he'd need to claim benefits.

[Labour] might, just might, be the government that feasibly and practically triggers the much-needed investment revolution, lowers inequality and revives the green agenda. Reeves does get it, only is careful and subtle about her response.

Dear God.
 
Reeves and Lammy could have said that Attlee was a visionary, if they were looking to name a Prime Minister under whom the economy grew. But they did not. They did not because they reject the post-war social democratic settlement. They endorse instead the neo-liberal settlelement that massively weakened the relative position of the working class.
 
Reeves and Lammy could have said that Attlee was a visionary, if they were looking to name a Prime Minister under whom the economy grew. But they did not. They did not because they reject the post-war social democratic settlement. They endorse instead the neo-liberal settlelement that massively weakened the relative position of the working class.
Yep, just more cunts
 
Not forgetting we now have a cunt as head of Welsh Labour, there seems to be a diminishing choice of non-cuntish politicians to vote for
 
Reeves and Lammy could have said that Attlee was a visionary, if they were looking to name a Prime Minister under whom the economy grew. But they did not. They did not because they reject the post-war social democratic settlement. They endorse instead the neo-liberal settlelement that massively weakened the relative position of the working class.

How many voters have detailed memories of the Attlee administration?
 
It has now been reported that shortly before the abandonment of the Labour Party's pledge to spend £28bn a year on 'green investment', the shadow chancellor’s office accepted a financial donation from The Lord Donoughue (also known as Bernard Donoughue), a former director of The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 55 Tufton Street, London, SW1P 3QL:

Rachel Reeves accepted donation from climate sceptic days before dropping £28bn pledge

The latest from Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC MP and his boss, Morgan McSweeney:

"Labour leader Keir Starmer, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves, and four other senior party figures met with a major media and financial information conglomerate weeks after it donated £150,000 to the party – sparking concerns of “cash for access” from transparency campaigners ..."

%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F10398140-6482-11ee-92b7-341e89720b32.jpg


(Source: Sunday Times)


Labour in ‘cash for access’ scandal over meetings with £150,000 donor
 
Back
Top Bottom