like the queen this thread will never die: in which we ALL resign (ourselves to disgusting miseries to post-boris politics 2022)

1993, surely?

no deffo not '93 - erm possibly '91 then? lol can't remember

He was killed in ‘93 - I remember being in Rough Trade talking to one of the staff, who lived in South East London and had flyers for the march.

there was a 2nd march this was the first one. I remember ringing my step-dad on the way back and asking if it had made the news and he was giving me all this "lefty-fucking rent-a-mob" aggro. Yeah it was '93. I struggle with getting years right these days.

oh to be 20 years old again

yeah but not in 2022 cheers

When I look back at periods of unemployment when you'd turn up 2 hours late with a hangover to sign on and be very rude and flippant when they'd suggest you apply for some £3.86 ph packing job. Didn't realise I was living in a golden era for welfare state protection!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeaEdpkWAAklFzS?format=jpg&name=900x900

the man in the high castle

Again, 'greener' is a strange word for this image.

So pretty much everyone in this thread hates Starmer as far as I can tell. But surely you lot would rather see him as PM than any of the current crop of senior Tories?

Think again. I don't give a fuck.

they've tried the 'fairer' thing before too and the Tories just co-opted it with the exact opposite meaning ("rich people contribute more, is it fair to penalize them with higher taxes?")

everything just feels so pointless and pathetic these days. Starmer, Truss, Johnson, whoever - it's the same shower of cunts who couldn't give a fuck about improving the lives of the vulnerable and needy in society. We all deserve better but we're not going to get it.

labour seems to be leaning harder than ever into NF imagery and sloganeering in lieu of any positive programme - is literally anyone ever convinced by this shit? even your hardcore flag waving types must be able smell the desperation here

Any political party that wants hardcore flag wavers to vote for them can gtf.

it's not the lesser of two evils and I really hope people resist falling into that trap out of desperation or naivety - it's the same evil and they're not even being shy about it this time

the rachel reeves comment the other day was a classic example of boneheaded new labourism starmer-style - trying to outflank the tories from the right about immigration - an “issue” that every recent poll says nobody gaf about

The last leadership ended up having compromised opinions on migration too but I feel that Corbyn would've stopped flights to Rwanda or any such schemes. They would've communicated a different message/outlook. It wouldn't have been perfect but things have gone so far I would've been happy with any kind of reversal.

there are plenty of ways in which a Starmer government with a comfortable majority could be worse than the current gov. there's a ton of reasons to not vote for this Labour Party: the unaddressed institutional racism and islamophobia is enough of a reason for me

i might grudgingly admit that the poorest people in the country might be fractionally better off under a non-Tory government, but not in any way that will make their lives less precarious and fraught. so a vote for Labour is a vote for racism, transphobia, neoliberal economics and authoritarian policing. anybody who bangs on about getting the Tories out is voting for that stuff, no excuses.

funniest possible outcome would be the Lib Dems holding a balance of seats then going into coalition with the Tories again, but i don't think "centrists" learn anything no matter how hard you kick them and inspect their wallets

Funniest possible outcome would be the Lib Dems in the kingmaker role but they can't agree to jump in with either side due to real or perceived extremism, resulting in an endless hung parliament with the only real option being some combination of clowns forming a coalition with a referendum-demanding SNP.

<q>there are plenty of ways in which a Starmer government with a comfortable majority could be worse than the current gov. </q>

I think this is nonsense tbh. Have you looked at the current government lately? I have no illusions about Kieth and his gang, but I would prefer absolutely anyone else in the UK as Home Secretary rather than Suella B.

this week Rachel Reeves criticized the government for being inefficient at deportations

the Blair government introduced ASBOs and the Yarl's Wood detention centre

https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/cjm/article/toxic-legacy-new-labour

I know all this and I think Reeves is awful and I won't vote Labour at the next election - my vote is meaningless in my constituency which will always vote Tory. But I think the lesser of two evils cliche is exactly right! Nothing but love for the UKpol radge cru, but the idea that Starmer would be even worse than Truss is ILX doomerism at its worse imo.

tbf i said "in some ways" and that includes the idea of them having a majority that allows them to indulge their worst instincts. i did also say that not having a Tory government would be marginally less worse for the poorest, so yeah maybe a tiny bit of hyperbole but in general i think nu Lab are very good at stealth cruelty when they're empowered

it could only ever be better through a hell of a lot of pressure from the kind of mass movement which has yet to cohere in a sustainable form - even then no credit should go to the party (ever, for anything, 1945 included)

Lesser of two evils is a refusal to look at what's in front of you.

'surely you would rather...' type questions just sum up the shitness of the system and the prospects. no offence paolo but no-one should have to stoop to that here.

Starmer would nod along to this one:

It was reported last night that ministers plan to set up temporary, Nightingale-style courts that would be used to prosecute migrants crossing the Channel and entering Britain illegally

— Times Politics (@timespolitics) October 5, 2022

don't care at all who wins the general election no

do care about Diane Abbott remaining a MP so I'll be voting lab but if I lived somewhere with a less sound representative I don't think I would

I’ll definitely NOT be tactically giving Peter Kyle any more of my votes.

I won't vote Labour for reasons well documented (cf poster Calzino, passim).

However I also note the possibility that a hypothetical Labour government could do specific things, in specific sectors, that could be beneficial.

It is conceivable, say, that if you are a nurse or schoolteacher you would be better off under Labour - even while many other things might be bad.

That is hypothetical. I don't have evidence for it. My general point is that a government will make specific policies that will affect particular sectors (and people) in particular ways which may be distinct from their overall character.

The argument could be made that a compromised Labour government (like Blair's) just prepares the ground for the Tories to come roaring back in and finish the job of ruination they started. I could hardly see Starmer pivoting to the left if he became PM - more likely the opposite.

This is my official apology to every person in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Come on by and I'll you all a scone. https://t.co/mq9lpoiCpS

— Rick Perlstein (@rickperlstein) October 6, 2022

Perlstein is embarrassed because Truss has declared herself a fan of his work (I doubt she has read any). One of her team was quoting the "invisible bridge" Khrushchev line he used for the title of his Reagan book, but obv thinking the book is saying Reaganomics are good!

Perlstein drowining his sorrows with M People.

I think telling people to GTTO by any means or they are enabling them is bullshit. It's all down to personal choice or how good your MP is if you are going to reluctantly drag yourself into the polling station. I won't be doing it ... ever again most likely. Wouldn't think less of someone for voting for Kieth as they are honest enough to say he's an evil racist small c conservative wanker!

as unless

there could be people in certain sectors who might be better off under a Labour govt, but you'd have to see what kind of a Tory party is going to grow from the ruins after the Truss bomb to be certain. I think Reeves could be just equally as dangerous as Kwarteng is for anyone dependant on benefits.

I could imagine Reeves being worse than any Tory in a bid to appear tough.

gonna need confirmation on how rick perlstein pronounces 'scone' before lending him my support

I'm wondering if Truss did actually read Nixonland and took his prose style accounts of racist cops going out in mobs to murder black people during riots as an endorsement of fascist state violence. It would be better if she was bullshitting and hadn't read a word of it!

Did we do Conor Burns already? Been busy today...

At this point you have to wonder if they are for some reason deliberately pissing off their base

Exclusive: Govt has scrapped offer of free train travel for military to attend remembrance services this November.

It was seen as “too great a loss to the taxpayer”

But ministers said not to have signed off on decision and are urgently reviewing ithttps://t.co/k7Gsd1gsEe

— Aubrey Allegretti (@breeallegretti) October 7, 2022

probably need some tier system here, only those that can prove they've committed the most serious war crimes get free travel, the rest get discount.

What has seemed strange to me about the UK is that its immigration policy seems so tolerant but that its socio-economic class structure seems so strongly defined. I had thought this might have to do with being an island nation. I think one strain of the left in the US favors race blind class sensitive policies as most effective.

Why is Labour so out of touch (if that is the implication)? Why should the working classes in the UK be slower to adapt (if that is actually true)?

(Just want to say that some of us Americans DO intend to just lurk in these threads, and not try to make it about uh "race blind class sensitive" US "leftists".)

Worth googling “windrush” and “hostile environment” for a start - the latter is exactly what it sounds like ie the opposite of a tolerant immigration policy, and the person behind the former scandal went on to be PM