On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-led†, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

† Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,” said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-led†, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

† Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

Â…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,” said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.


I assume he and McDonnell will have to go soon after the election.

On 23/11/2019 22:41, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-led†, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

† Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

Â…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,” said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.


I assume he and McDonnell will have to go soon after the election.


Why McDonnell? He is going to be the one who removes Corbyn from the
leadership, regardless of which way the election goes.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/11/2019 22:41, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-led†, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

† Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

Â…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,” said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.


I assume he and McDonnell will have to go soon after the election.


Why McDonnell? He is going to be the one who removes Corbyn from the
leadership, regardless of which way the election goes.


He's already said they'd both go if they lose. He wants a young,
inexperienced front-woman to be the new leader, with him pulling the
strings. He prefers to operate in the shadows.

For example, this is what Kate Hoey says of him:

The Shadow Chancellor, she says, “has become quite a nasty, devious figure
behind the scenes�; McDonnell is the one pulling the strings now. “After a
while, Jeremy realised that he was losing and he just seems to have given
in.�

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/23/john-mcdonnell-nasty-devious-figure-behind-scenes-kate-hoey/

On 24/11/2019 08:39, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/11/2019 22:41, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-led†, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

† Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

Â…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,” said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.


I assume he and McDonnell will have to go soon after the election.


Why McDonnell? He is going to be the one who removes Corbyn from the
leadership, regardless of which way the election goes.


He's already said they'd both go if they lose. He wants a young,
inexperienced front-woman to be the new leader, with him pulling the
strings. He prefers to operate in the shadows.

For example, this is what Kate Hoey says of him:

The Shadow Chancellor, she says, “has become quite a nasty, devious figure
behind the scenes�; McDonnell is the one pulling the strings now. “After a
while, Jeremy realised that he was losing and he just seems to have given
in.�


He was always the one pulling the strings. He might not remain shadow
chancellor, though I wouldn't bet on it. He can always reluctantly agree
to remain in post just to oversea the leadership changes and then allow
the new leader to keep him on.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 24/11/2019 08:39, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/11/2019 22:41, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-led†, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

† Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

Â…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,” said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.


I assume he and McDonnell will have to go soon after the election.


Why McDonnell? He is going to be the one who removes Corbyn from the
leadership, regardless of which way the election goes.


He's already said they'd both go if they lose. He wants a young,
inexperienced front-woman to be the new leader, with him pulling the
strings. He prefers to operate in the shadows.

For example, this is what Kate Hoey says of him:

The Shadow Chancellor, she says, “has become quite a nasty, devious figure
behind the scenes�; McDonnell is the one pulling the strings now. “After a
while, Jeremy realised that he was losing and he just seems to have given
in.�


He was always the one pulling the strings. He might not remain shadow
chancellor, though I wouldn't bet on it. He can always reluctantly agree
to remain in post just to oversea the leadership changes and then allow
the new leader to keep him on.


Could be, but I think he might prefer not to have a formal shadow cabinet
role.

If the polls are even half-right, Labour is set for another miserably long
stint in opposition, and may only have around 200 seats in the Commons, so
being in the Shadow Cabinet won't count for much.

It could be that the long-forecast split between the centre-left moderates
and Momentum finally happens after the meltdown. McDonnell might be more
interested in fighting that war with the hated Blairites than with coming
up with economic policies that no-one cares about.

Corbyn is 70, and looks much older. He looks like he belongs in a
retirement home, not No 10. Mcdonnell is 68, and probably won't be fighting
the next election.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/11/election-2019-a-guide-to-what-the-polls-mean-and-what-they-dont

On 24/11/2019 09:26, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 24/11/2019 08:39, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/11/2019 22:41, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-led†, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

† Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

Â…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,” said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.


I assume he and McDonnell will have to go soon after the election.


Why McDonnell? He is going to be the one who removes Corbyn from the
leadership, regardless of which way the election goes.


He's already said they'd both go if they lose. He wants a young,
inexperienced front-woman to be the new leader, with him pulling the
strings. He prefers to operate in the shadows.

For example, this is what Kate Hoey says of him:

The Shadow Chancellor, she says, “has become quite a nasty, devious figure
behind the scenes�; McDonnell is the one pulling the strings now. “After a
while, Jeremy realised that he was losing and he just seems to have given
in.�


He was always the one pulling the strings. He might not remain shadow
chancellor, though I wouldn't bet on it. He can always reluctantly agree
to remain in post just to oversea the leadership changes and then allow
the new leader to keep him on.


Could be, but I think he might prefer not to have a formal shadow cabinet
role.

It has financial advantages and better access to policy documents.


If the polls are even half-right, Labour is set for another miserably long
stint in opposition, and may only have around 200 seats in the Commons, so
being in the Shadow Cabinet won't count for much.

It could be that the long-forecast split between the centre-left moderates
and Momentum finally happens after the meltdown. McDonnell might be more
interested in fighting that war with the hated Blairites than with coming
up with economic policies that no-one cares about.

True but he would want to do that from a position of at least notional
power in the party.


Corbyn is 70, and looks much older. He looks like he belongs in a
retirement home, not No 10. Mcdonnell is 68, and probably won't be fighting
the next election.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/11/election-2019-a-guide-to-what-the-polls-mean-and-what-they-dont



Depends when it is, if there is a hung parliament the next election
might not be that far away.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-ledâ€*, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc,
the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly
for
Tory ministers.

â€* Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For
a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour
it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed
since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in
office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is
usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,� said nobody,
ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely
to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.


I assume he and McDonnell will have to go soon after the election.

god help us if we get the "nodding dog" Long-Bailey instead

tim

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-ledâ€*, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc,
the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly
for
Tory ministers.

â€* Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For
a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour
it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed
since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in
office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is
usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,� said nobody,
ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely
to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.


I assume he and McDonnell will have to go soon after the election.

god help us if we get the "nodding dog" Long-Bailey instead

She is, indeed, their preferred front woman, with McDonnell pulling her
strings from behind the scenes. But apparently she auditions badly, being
beaten by Angela Rayner, who I find even more annoying.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:01:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-ledâ€*, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity,
etc,
the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly
for
Tory ministers.

â€* Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them.
For
a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised
labour
it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed
since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in
office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is
usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,� said nobody,
ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10
of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years,
19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks
likely
to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

Unfortunately for many people he also made them unelectable and they
decided to vote for real Tories. Labour are currently shackled by
Corbyn, at least until the time he stops collecting an arse full of
splinters from the fences that he sits on or they find someone else.


I assume he and McDonnell will have to go soon after the election.

god help us if we get the "nodding dog" Long-Bailey instead

She is, indeed, their preferred front woman,

I know

Apart from the fact that she's a woman and is prepared to parrot whatever
line they want spinning this week, her qualifications for the job appear to
be zero

with McDonnell pulling her
strings from behind the scenes.

That I didn't know. I just assumed it was her subscribing to group-think in
order to progress up the slippery pole

But apparently she auditions badly,

IMHO she performs badly on TV in any debate, so that's no surprise

being
beaten by Angela Rayner, who I find even more annoying.

There don't seem to be any quality female candidates on the hard left

Perhaps there's something missing from the female psyche (not that that's a
bad thing generally)