The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
How do you define Charles K as a 'socialist'. I don't, for example, recall him advocating nationalisation.
On topic - I agree with TSE, it's an amusing sequence of events, but isn't going to happen. He won't be selected, if he's selected he won't win, if he wins he still won't be next leader. A bit more plausible than Ian Blackford, I concede.
If Johnson were to resign, e.g. because of Partygate, the Tories would have to decide if they wanted calm moderation (the overwhelmingly obvious candidate for that being Hunt, not Tugendhat or Javid) or a defender of the faith (presumably Truss). If Johnson had resigned due to embarrassing circusmtances, they might feel that prudence suggested the former. But I'm not sure that the current membership is that level-headed.
I'm a constituent of Hunt's and like him, though not to the point of voting for him or the Tories. But I do know lots of ex-Tories who would return to the fold if he were leader.
A problem Hunt increasingly has is that he's effectively 'gone missing' while the country has had three turbulent years.
Has anyone become PM while sulking on the backbenches for so long when their party was in government ?
Not W. Churchill. He did sulk for years, but he was FL of the Admiralty for the first 8 months of the war, so doesn't count.
I’m not sure sulking is the right word. Churchill would have been very happy to have been in the Cabinet. It was down to the various Conservative leaders not wanting him.
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
FA Cup Final It's a Knockout!!
Singer with new single out with tenuous connection to club interviews on Swap Shop? Local business free advertising bunting contests Goober family with supporters of both teams interviews were a scream.
On topic - I agree with TSE, it's an amusing sequence of events, but isn't going to happen. He won't be selected, if he's selected he won't win, if he wins he still won't be next leader. A bit more plausible than Ian Blackford, I concede.
If Johnson were to resign, e.g. because of Partygate, the Tories would have to decide if they wanted calm moderation (the overwhelmingly obvious candidate for that being Hunt, not Tugendhat or Javid) or a defender of the faith (presumably Truss). If Johnson had resigned due to embarrassing circusmtances, they might feel that prudence suggested the former. But I'm not sure that the current membership is that level-headed.
I'm a constituent of Hunt's and like him, though not to the point of voting for him or the Tories. But I do know lots of ex-Tories who would return to the fold if he were leader.
A problem Hunt increasingly has is that he's effectively 'gone missing' while the country has had three turbulent years.
Has anyone become PM while sulking on the backbenches for so long when their party was in government ?
Not W. Churchill. He did sulk for years, but he was FL of the Admiralty for the first 8 months of the war, so doesn't count.
I’m not sure sulking is the right word. Churchill would have been very happy to have been in the Cabinet. It was down to the various Conservative leaders not wanting him.
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
Why on earth would you want abolish “deference in all its forms”?
It’s just an extension of courtesy - nothing to do with the royals. It’s just respect due to someone, for example because of their age.
Servility is something totally different but barely exists any more
Interesting. I respect those who have achieved stuff. So academics, doctors, actors, writers etc etc. I don’t automatically respect royalty, as they were literally born to it. But I can respect how they have taken the hand given to them. I quite like Edward as I met him fairly frequently (he is our Chancellor) and I officiate at graduation. He’s genial, friendly, but also needs to be managed by his team at all times. He’s not achieved a lot in life, but never really had the choice either. On Camilla, I think generally the public have warmed to her. Diana has receded into history - anyone under 30 will have no real memory of her. She seems down to earth. I suspect she has been good for Charles, who has been less divisive in recent years. Instinctively I am a republican, and would shed no tears if the queen was the last monarch.
Agree with that, although you can treat someone with courtesy even if you don’t respect them! I do so frequently…
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
Why on earth would you want abolish “deference in all its forms”?
It’s just an extension of courtesy - nothing to do with the royals. It’s just respect due to someone, for example because of their age.
Servility is something totally different but barely exists any more
I do not want to abolish respect and civility, but why anyone should have to bow to someone else, or walk backwards, or generally act as an inferior to anyone else is beyond me and should be abolished wherever it takes place
Which one is the writing of a white supremacist and which one is Tucker Carlson?
So you believe that certain political beliefs shouldn’t be contested?
I think that's exactly what Alistair is doing there. It seems to be you who is uncomfortable with his calling out racist propaganda.
He is implying that Tucker is a racist and white supremacist (he may well be - I’ve never found him interesting enough to listen to at length).
However the two excerpts are simply saying that certain claims are never backed up with argument but simply stated as a truism (“diversity is strength”). That’s a reasonable criticism to make.
As far as I know, Carlson doesn’t then go down the dark path that the racist nut job in Buffalo did - I’m assuming the comparable text is from him but it may be someone else - of attacking and killing innocent individuals on the grounds of their colour.
My fundamental point is that shouting at someone asking a reasonable question/criticism and claiming they are racist because a known racist asked the same question is designed to stop people asking questions.
I agree with you that making extreme statements should not be conflated with murder. I think you may be straining the point by implying that Carlson is noted for "reasonable questions/criticism" - see the link to his thoughts elsewhere on this thread. There's reasonable criticism. There's unreasonable criticism. And there's murder. They are three different things.
In a nut shell he hasn't murdered anyone but constantly talks inflammatory bollocks (and I have watched him) in a rather nasty sneering tone.
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Certainly the amount games on TV has made the cup final less of a big event. But it’s also a function of the dominance of the Big 6 (well, Big 5, one of the Big 6 hasn’t been in an FA Cup Final since 1991...).
Liverpool v Chelsea is a bit “meh”. If there’s a Hull or a Palace or even a Leicester, it adds to the event as it’s a very big deal for that club and the supporters. I honestly couldn’t care who won yesterday. I dislike both clubs, so I had no one to support.
This is true too. Folk remember Wigan, Wimbledon, Southampton and Sunderland winning it. I was struck that Liverpool hadn't won it since 2006. I just assumed they did every 3 or 4 years or so.
It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, but David Frost could be it. A man of no achievement with a sub-mediocre mind with no political experience and no support base of any kind beyond the comment pages of the Telegraph would be an absolute disaster. Not even the Taliban Tories would be so stupid, would they?
"It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson"
It is far, far from impossible. Labour's candidate for the 2019 GE is an example: particularly given the two crises that have faced the country since then. Corbyn would have been disastrous with both the Covid crisis and the Ukrainian War. The former we did not do too badly at, nor well; but on the latter we've done very well indeed IMO.
And we came very near having PM Corbyn during both of these.
I'd hope both parties consider this and try to get leaders who are more competent than Johnson or Corbyn.
I always thought that Johnson was the better choice than Corbyn, but now I am not so sure. Labour MPs at least sought to remove Corbyn and would have had a lot of control over him if he had got into office. I am not sure they would have played along with him undoing the UK's democracy in the way that Tory MPs have allowed Johnson to do.
I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. And Ukraine would have seen him toppled.
"I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. "
Why do you suspect that? He has refused to say if he has been vaccinated. It was vital for politicians to encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated, which was why we saw politicians publicising getting vaccinated once it was their turn. Corbyn sadly has quite a following in a demographic where (AIUI) vaccination rates are lower, and his unequivocally saying that he had been vaccinated would have helped.
I'm also unsure how well he would have tackled vaccine procurement, given the inclusion of big pharma (boo, hiss).
"And Ukraine would have seen him toppled."
Which would have been too late to help Ukraine.
The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn and a lot more would have been spent on ensuring people on low incomes did not have to go to work while the pandemic raged. Care homes would also have been better looked after. Vaccine procurement would certainly have been an issue, but the roll-out would have happened against a backdrop of fewer initial deaths.
Corbyn would have had to have stopped sending help to Ukraine as he would have inherited a situation where it was happening, so it would have been an issue from Day One of his premiership.
Of course, he would have been a desperately poor PM and he should never have been offered as a choice. Having seen Johnson's performance over the last two and a half years - and in particular his attacks on our democracy and the rule of law - I just don't think Corbyn would have been worse.
You have zero evidence any of that would have happened. As an example: "The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn". We locked down on the 23rd March. How much earlier do you think 'far' earlier was?
What got us out of the mess was vaccine development, purchase and roll-out. Lockdowns gave us time; vaccines have given us freedom. I see *zero* reason to believe that Corbyn would have done as well as this government did in any of those areas, and plenty of indications that he would have done worse.
Your point about vaccine development. Once the government commissioned the vaccine programme they were in the hands of the scientists working in academia and the private sector. How quickly they got to a working and safe vaccine wouldn't have been influenced by whom the PM was.
1) Would Corbyn have commissioned the vaccine program in the same manner? Do you think there's a chance that he would have either tried to be a partner in the European program, or even gone with (say) the Chinese vaccines, or even the Russian Sputnik one?
2) It all had to be paid for. No funding, no program.
This is a man who will not even say whether he has been vaccinated - something I think is vital for *all* politicians in this crisis. It isn't particularly personal information, and it is sure as heck not as if they're telling the public if they've ever had an STD. I see zero reason that he would not let his own personal ideology creep - or lead - the vaccine program. And that would have been a disaster.
I wasn't so much talking about Corbyn as poking at the Johnson Sainthood that gets projected onto him. He didn't develop the vaccine - the scientists did. It wasn't down to him that the scientists developed it when they did, its down to the scientists.
Similarly there seems to be this "oh no, the EU vaccine scheme!!!" line. As if the Europeans didn';t get the vaccine. They did. And were ahead of us in some stages of the roll-out. Even America, with Trump advocating injecting bleach - got the vaccine quickly.
So Corbyn would have had to be deliberately obstructionist to make much of a difference.
The EU vaccine scheme was a bad idea because, the offer to the U.K. was
1) give us the money 2) have no say on what vaccines are procured. 3) no say on timing, regulation etc 4) no say on who gets what vaccine
Only someone who had serious sanity issues would have signed up to that.
The most critical thing with speeding up the vaccine development was large orders placed before testing was complete - on a basis of we-pay-for-it-if-it-works-or-not.
While agreeing with the last statement, if we hadn't left the EMA, and therefore still had a very significant role, maybe overall approval would have been quicker.
If the EMA hadn’t evacuated its operation (if only some of its staff) from London in great haste before BREXIT perhaps the EU could have approved vaccines faster.
IIRC the EMA was about the first EU group we left.
Because they bolted from their London HQ and tried to renege on their lease?
We’re you one of those dafties who thought the EMA would stay outside the EU once we left?
Perhaps you think HMRC should consider setting up an office in, I don’t know, Bremen or Bratislava?
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
How do you define Charles K as a 'socialist'. I don't, for example, recall him advocating nationalisation.
Easy. Not a Tory.
Not a proper, unionist, CofE, royalist Tory.
Suddenly realised I didn't know what CK's affiliation was ( 150 years ago it would probably have been Free Kirk or one of its fellow free churches, strong correlation with Liberalism esp for crofters). Checked. I had no idea he was [edit] frtom a RC background.
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Certainly the amount games on TV has made the cup final less of a big event. But it’s also a function of the dominance of the Big 6 (well, Big 5, one of the Big 6 hasn’t been in an FA Cup Final since 1991...).
Liverpool v Chelsea is a bit “meh”. If there’s a Hull or a Palace or even a Leicester, it adds to the event as it’s a very big deal for that club and the supporters. I honestly couldn’t care who won yesterday. I dislike both clubs, so I had no one to support.
This is true too. Folk remember Wigan, Wimbledon, Southampton and Sunderland winning it. I was struck that Liverpool hadn't won it since 2006. I just assumed they did every 3 or 4 years or so.
Yes, agree. I've just looked back through the list of finals - while I've not watched it for years, I certainly, prompted remember the finals which featured Hull City, Stoke, Wigan etc. (Though there was a final in the naughties featuring Portsmouth against Cardiff - I have no memory of that.) But finals featuring any two of Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal are entirely fungible and I have no memory of any of them. Though like you, I also assumed Liverpool won it every few years.
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My most divisive cup final was West Ham - Arsenal in 1980 was it? We got a new cat that day. Play with the kitten or watch the football?!
Many of the people who were concerned about immigration were immigrants themselves.
Mind, as someone who is reasonable certain that most, if not all, his direct ancestors have been here since at least the Vikings, there are lot of people I could regard as immigrants!
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
Ok, where is the most socialist city in the UK, if not Liverpool? Manchester? Stuart Maconie is quite interesting in contrasting the socialism of Manchester and Liverpool in Pies and Prejudice. He paints Liverpool's leftiness as more showy, leftier, but less sincerely felt, Manchester's as dourer and worthier but less noticeable to the outside world. Manchester has been solidly Labour for decades, but it is - at least since 1987 - a pragmatic, unnewsworthy brand of Labour. You could reasonably consider it either less or more socialist than Liverpool depending on how you were measuring it.
Somewhere controlled by the SNP. Dundee, perhaps, for instance. They're more leftwing than Labour.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
How do you define Charles K as a 'socialist'. I don't, for example, recall him advocating nationalisation.
Easy. Not a Tory.
Not a proper, unionist, CofE, royalist Tory.
Suddenly realised I didn't know what CK's affiliation was ( 150 years ago it would probably have been Free Kirk or one of its fellow free churches, strong correlation with Liberalism esp for crofters). Checked. I had no idea he was [edit] frtom a RC background.
At one point all 3 Party leaders were Catholics. Kennedy, IDS and Blair (though he couldn't admit it).
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Certainly the amount games on TV has made the cup final less of a big event. But it’s also a function of the dominance of the Big 6 (well, Big 5, one of the Big 6 hasn’t been in an FA Cup Final since 1991...).
Liverpool v Chelsea is a bit “meh”. If there’s a Hull or a Palace or even a Leicester, it adds to the event as it’s a very big deal for that club and the supporters. I honestly couldn’t care who won yesterday. I dislike both clubs, so I had no one to support.
This is true too. Folk remember Wigan, Wimbledon, Southampton and Sunderland winning it. I was struck that Liverpool hadn't won it since 2006. I just assumed they did every 3 or 4 years or so.
Yes, agree. I've just looked back through the list of finals - while I've not watched it for years, I certainly, prompted remember the finals which featured Hull City, Stoke, Wigan etc. (Though there was a final in the naughties featuring Portsmouth against Cardiff - I have no memory of that.) But finals featuring any two of Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal are entirely fungible and I have no memory of any of them. Though like you, I also assumed Liverpool won it every few years.
It's like the league title, you think they win it all the time but the other year was the first time actually in the post Civil War era.
It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, but David Frost could be it. A man of no achievement with a sub-mediocre mind with no political experience and no support base of any kind beyond the comment pages of the Telegraph would be an absolute disaster. Not even the Taliban Tories would be so stupid, would they?
"It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson"
It is far, far from impossible. Labour's candidate for the 2019 GE is an example: particularly given the two crises that have faced the country since then. Corbyn would have been disastrous with both the Covid crisis and the Ukrainian War. The former we did not do too badly at, nor well; but on the latter we've done very well indeed IMO.
And we came very near having PM Corbyn during both of these.
I'd hope both parties consider this and try to get leaders who are more competent than Johnson or Corbyn.
I always thought that Johnson was the better choice than Corbyn, but now I am not so sure. Labour MPs at least sought to remove Corbyn and would have had a lot of control over him if he had got into office. I am not sure they would have played along with him undoing the UK's democracy in the way that Tory MPs have allowed Johnson to do.
I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. And Ukraine would have seen him toppled.
"I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. "
Why do you suspect that? He has refused to say if he has been vaccinated. It was vital for politicians to encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated, which was why we saw politicians publicising getting vaccinated once it was their turn. Corbyn sadly has quite a following in a demographic where (AIUI) vaccination rates are lower, and his unequivocally saying that he had been vaccinated would have helped.
I'm also unsure how well he would have tackled vaccine procurement, given the inclusion of big pharma (boo, hiss).
"And Ukraine would have seen him toppled."
Which would have been too late to help Ukraine.
The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn and a lot more would have been spent on ensuring people on low incomes did not have to go to work while the pandemic raged. Care homes would also have been better looked after. Vaccine procurement would certainly have been an issue, but the roll-out would have happened against a backdrop of fewer initial deaths.
Corbyn would have had to have stopped sending help to Ukraine as he would have inherited a situation where it was happening, so it would have been an issue from Day One of his premiership.
Of course, he would have been a desperately poor PM and he should never have been offered as a choice. Having seen Johnson's performance over the last two and a half years - and in particular his attacks on our democracy and the rule of law - I just don't think Corbyn would have been worse.
You have zero evidence any of that would have happened. As an example: "The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn". We locked down on the 23rd March. How much earlier do you think 'far' earlier was?
What got us out of the mess was vaccine development, purchase and roll-out. Lockdowns gave us time; vaccines have given us freedom. I see *zero* reason to believe that Corbyn would have done as well as this government did in any of those areas, and plenty of indications that he would have done worse.
Your point about vaccine development. Once the government commissioned the vaccine programme they were in the hands of the scientists working in academia and the private sector. How quickly they got to a working and safe vaccine wouldn't have been influenced by whom the PM was.
1) Would Corbyn have commissioned the vaccine program in the same manner? Do you think there's a chance that he would have either tried to be a partner in the European program, or even gone with (say) the Chinese vaccines, or even the Russian Sputnik one?
2) It all had to be paid for. No funding, no program.
This is a man who will not even say whether he has been vaccinated - something I think is vital for *all* politicians in this crisis. It isn't particularly personal information, and it is sure as heck not as if they're telling the public if they've ever had an STD. I see zero reason that he would not let his own personal ideology creep - or lead - the vaccine program. And that would have been a disaster.
I wasn't so much talking about Corbyn as poking at the Johnson Sainthood that gets projected onto him. He didn't develop the vaccine - the scientists did. It wasn't down to him that the scientists developed it when they did, its down to the scientists.
Similarly there seems to be this "oh no, the EU vaccine scheme!!!" line. As if the Europeans didn';t get the vaccine. They did. And were ahead of us in some stages of the roll-out. Even America, with Trump advocating injecting bleach - got the vaccine quickly.
So Corbyn would have had to be deliberately obstructionist to make much of a difference.
The EU vaccine scheme was a bad idea because, the offer to the U.K. was
1) give us the money 2) have no say on what vaccines are procured. 3) no say on timing, regulation etc 4) no say on who gets what vaccine
Only someone who had serious sanity issues would have signed up to that.
The most critical thing with speeding up the vaccine development was large orders placed before testing was complete - on a basis of we-pay-for-it-if-it-works-or-not.
While agreeing with the last statement, if we hadn't left the EMA, and therefore still had a very significant role, maybe overall approval would have been quicker.
If the EMA hadn’t evacuated its operation (if only some of its staff) from London in great haste before BREXIT perhaps the EU could have approved vaccines faster.
IIRC the EMA was about the first EU group we left.
Because they bolted from their London HQ and tried to renege on their lease?
We’re you one of those dafties who thought the EMA would stay outside the EU once we left?
Perhaps you think HMRC should consider setting up an office in, I don’t know, Bremen or Bratislava?
Not at all. Just that they wouldn’t organise their departure In a rush losing staff and expertise in the process?
Are you one of those dafties that thinks the U.K. government will leave any Services or ship building in SINDY?
The idea that people are pregnant from the day of conception is actually very very modern because it simply wasn't possible to know until the late 20th century.
@HYUFD this isn't posted to generate a debate - I found it just too interesting not to highlight.
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My brother was christened on World Cup Final day 1970. His Godfather was Italian and not happy.
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My most divisive cup final was West Ham - Arsenal in 1980 was it? We got a new cat that day. Play with the kitten or watch the football?!
Back then the FA cup final was a much bigger event as it was the only live game you saw on television apart from World Cup and Euro Cup. Now with about 2,000 live games a year it's just another game!
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Don't you differentiate between socialist, left-wing and radical?
Charles K, (and Paddy Ashdown and to some degree David Steel) could reasonably be described as radical but I wouldn't define them as 'socialist'
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My most divisive cup final was West Ham - Arsenal in 1980 was it? We got a new cat that day. Play with the kitten or watch the football?!
Back then the FA cup final was a much bigger event as it was the only live game you saw on television apart from World Cup and Euro Cup. Now with about 2,000 live games a year it's just another game!
Many of the people who were concerned about immigration were immigrants themselves.
Mind, as someone who is reasonable certain that most, if not all, his direct ancestors have been here since at least the Vikings, there are lot of people I could regard as immigrants!
Indeed - most of them came across the various sea routes in small boats without permission
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My brother was christened on World Cup Final day 1970. His Godfather was Italian and not happy.
He was disrespected on this, the day of his teams final?!
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My most divisive cup final was West Ham - Arsenal in 1980 was it? We got a new cat that day. Play with the kitten or watch the football?!
Sad to think its 42 years since the Hammers won any silverware.
Many of the people who were concerned about immigration were immigrants themselves.
Mind, as someone who is reasonable certain that most, if not all, his direct ancestors have been here since at least the Vikings, there are lot of people I could regard as immigrants!
Indeed - most of them came across the various sea routes in small boats without permission
eg William the Conqueror.
Or William the Bastard, as I prefer to describe him!
It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, but David Frost could be it. A man of no achievement with a sub-mediocre mind with no political experience and no support base of any kind beyond the comment pages of the Telegraph would be an absolute disaster. Not even the Taliban Tories would be so stupid, would they?
"It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson"
It is far, far from impossible. Labour's candidate for the 2019 GE is an example: particularly given the two crises that have faced the country since then. Corbyn would have been disastrous with both the Covid crisis and the Ukrainian War. The former we did not do too badly at, nor well; but on the latter we've done very well indeed IMO.
And we came very near having PM Corbyn during both of these.
I'd hope both parties consider this and try to get leaders who are more competent than Johnson or Corbyn.
I always thought that Johnson was the better choice than Corbyn, but now I am not so sure. Labour MPs at least sought to remove Corbyn and would have had a lot of control over him if he had got into office. I am not sure they would have played along with him undoing the UK's democracy in the way that Tory MPs have allowed Johnson to do.
I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. And Ukraine would have seen him toppled.
"I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. "
Why do you suspect that? He has refused to say if he has been vaccinated. It was vital for politicians to encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated, which was why we saw politicians publicising getting vaccinated once it was their turn. Corbyn sadly has quite a following in a demographic where (AIUI) vaccination rates are lower, and his unequivocally saying that he had been vaccinated would have helped.
I'm also unsure how well he would have tackled vaccine procurement, given the inclusion of big pharma (boo, hiss).
"And Ukraine would have seen him toppled."
Which would have been too late to help Ukraine.
The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn and a lot more would have been spent on ensuring people on low incomes did not have to go to work while the pandemic raged. Care homes would also have been better looked after. Vaccine procurement would certainly have been an issue, but the roll-out would have happened against a backdrop of fewer initial deaths.
Corbyn would have had to have stopped sending help to Ukraine as he would have inherited a situation where it was happening, so it would have been an issue from Day One of his premiership.
Of course, he would have been a desperately poor PM and he should never have been offered as a choice. Having seen Johnson's performance over the last two and a half years - and in particular his attacks on our democracy and the rule of law - I just don't think Corbyn would have been worse.
You have zero evidence any of that would have happened. As an example: "The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn". We locked down on the 23rd March. How much earlier do you think 'far' earlier was?
What got us out of the mess was vaccine development, purchase and roll-out. Lockdowns gave us time; vaccines have given us freedom. I see *zero* reason to believe that Corbyn would have done as well as this government did in any of those areas, and plenty of indications that he would have done worse.
Your point about vaccine development. Once the government commissioned the vaccine programme they were in the hands of the scientists working in academia and the private sector. How quickly they got to a working and safe vaccine wouldn't have been influenced by whom the PM was.
1) Would Corbyn have commissioned the vaccine program in the same manner? Do you think there's a chance that he would have either tried to be a partner in the European program, or even gone with (say) the Chinese vaccines, or even the Russian Sputnik one?
2) It all had to be paid for. No funding, no program.
This is a man who will not even say whether he has been vaccinated - something I think is vital for *all* politicians in this crisis. It isn't particularly personal information, and it is sure as heck not as if they're telling the public if they've ever had an STD. I see zero reason that he would not let his own personal ideology creep - or lead - the vaccine program. And that would have been a disaster.
I wasn't so much talking about Corbyn as poking at the Johnson Sainthood that gets projected onto him. He didn't develop the vaccine - the scientists did. It wasn't down to him that the scientists developed it when they did, its down to the scientists.
Similarly there seems to be this "oh no, the EU vaccine scheme!!!" line. As if the Europeans didn';t get the vaccine. They did. And were ahead of us in some stages of the roll-out. Even America, with Trump advocating injecting bleach - got the vaccine quickly.
So Corbyn would have had to be deliberately obstructionist to make much of a difference.
The EU vaccine scheme was a bad idea because, the offer to the U.K. was
1) give us the money 2) have no say on what vaccines are procured. 3) no say on timing, regulation etc 4) no say on who gets what vaccine
Only someone who had serious sanity issues would have signed up to that.
The most critical thing with speeding up the vaccine development was large orders placed before testing was complete - on a basis of we-pay-for-it-if-it-works-or-not.
While agreeing with the last statement, if we hadn't left the EMA, and therefore still had a very significant role, maybe overall approval would have been quicker.
If the EMA hadn’t evacuated its operation (if only some of its staff) from London in great haste before BREXIT perhaps the EU could have approved vaccines faster.
IIRC the EMA was about the first EU group we left.
Because they bolted from their London HQ and tried to renege on their lease?
We’re you one of those dafties who thought the EMA would stay outside the EU once we left?
Perhaps you think HMRC should consider setting up an office in, I don’t know, Bremen or Bratislava?
Giving their staff an ultimatum to move countries or lose their jobs, in a very short timescale, was an interesting plan.
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Certainly the amount games on TV has made the cup final less of a big event. But it’s also a function of the dominance of the Big 6 (well, Big 5, one of the Big 6 hasn’t been in an FA Cup Final since 1991...).
Liverpool v Chelsea is a bit “meh”. If there’s a Hull or a Palace or even a Leicester, it adds to the event as it’s a very big deal for that club and the supporters. I honestly couldn’t care who won yesterday. I dislike both clubs, so I had no one to support.
This is true too. Folk remember Wigan, Wimbledon, Southampton and Sunderland winning it. I was struck that Liverpool hadn't won it since 2006. I just assumed they did every 3 or 4 years or so.
Yes, agree. I've just looked back through the list of finals - while I've not watched it for years, I certainly, prompted remember the finals which featured Hull City, Stoke, Wigan etc. (Though there was a final in the naughties featuring Portsmouth against Cardiff - I have no memory of that.) But finals featuring any two of Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal are entirely fungible and I have no memory of any of them. Though like you, I also assumed Liverpool won it every few years.
I remember 2008. People moaned that Portsmouth v Barnsley and Cardiff v WBA as semis was devaluing the FA Cup!
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My most divisive cup final was West Ham - Arsenal in 1980 was it? We got a new cat that day. Play with the kitten or watch the football?!
Back then the FA cup final was a much bigger event as it was the only live game you saw on television apart from World Cup and Euro Cup. Now with about 2,000 live games a year it's just another game!
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My most divisive cup final was West Ham - Arsenal in 1980 was it? We got a new cat that day. Play with the kitten or watch the football?!
Sad to think its 42 years since the Hammers won any silverware.
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My most divisive cup final was West Ham - Arsenal in 1980 was it? We got a new cat that day. Play with the kitten or watch the football?!
Sad to think its 42 years since the Hammers won any silverware.
The last notable FA Cup final was in 1959, as far as I'm concerned!
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My brother was christened on World Cup Final day 1970. His Godfather was Italian and not happy.
My son was christened on the same day having been born at half-time in the England-Brazil match. His godfather mistakenly gave Carlos* as his middle name having been told it should be Kalle (Finnish for Charles).
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
Ok, where is the most socialist city in the UK, if not Liverpool? Manchester? Stuart Maconie is quite interesting in contrasting the socialism of Manchester and Liverpool in Pies and Prejudice. He paints Liverpool's leftiness as more showy, leftier, but less sincerely felt, Manchester's as dourer and worthier but less noticeable to the outside world. Manchester has been solidly Labour for decades, but it is - at least since 1987 - a pragmatic, unnewsworthy brand of Labour. You could reasonably consider it either less or more socialist than Liverpool depending on how you were measuring it.
Somewhere controlled by the SNP. Dundee, perhaps, for instance. They're more leftwing than Labour.
1 Glasgow 2 Liverpool 3 Dundee 4 Manchester 5 Bristol
Depends whether you are referring to the people or the Govt. The LD success in Liverpool was to a large extent due to the left wing labour council in Liverpool. So the council was but the people weren't.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
Incidentally, have you ever come across a one-term Essex Tory MP called Tim Janman?
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My brother was christened on World Cup Final day 1970. His Godfather was Italian and not happy.
He was disrespected on this, the day of his teams final?!
Yes. Until he heard the score. Then his ardour for revenge cooled.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were more left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
I can assure you it was much more Byzantine than that.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
Ok, where is the most socialist city in the UK, if not Liverpool? Manchester? Stuart Maconie is quite interesting in contrasting the socialism of Manchester and Liverpool in Pies and Prejudice. He paints Liverpool's leftiness as more showy, leftier, but less sincerely felt, Manchester's as dourer and worthier but less noticeable to the outside world. Manchester has been solidly Labour for decades, but it is - at least since 1987 - a pragmatic, unnewsworthy brand of Labour. You could reasonably consider it either less or more socialist than Liverpool depending on how you were measuring it.
Somewhere controlled by the SNP. Dundee, perhaps, for instance. They're more leftwing than Labour.
1 Glasgow 2 Liverpool 3 Dundee 4 Manchester 5 Bristol
Depends whether you are referring to the people or the Govt. The LD success in Liverpool was to a large extent due to the left wing labour council in Liverpool. So the council was but the people weren't.
Every constituency in all 5 of those cities voted Corbyn Labour or SNP in both 2017 and 2019. They are all socialist cities filled with socialist voters
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, but David Frost could be it. A man of no achievement with a sub-mediocre mind with no political experience and no support base of any kind beyond the comment pages of the Telegraph would be an absolute disaster. Not even the Taliban Tories would be so stupid, would they?
"It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson"
It is far, far from impossible. Labour's candidate for the 2019 GE is an example: particularly given the two crises that have faced the country since then. Corbyn would have been disastrous with both the Covid crisis and the Ukrainian War. The former we did not do too badly at, nor well; but on the latter we've done very well indeed IMO.
And we came very near having PM Corbyn during both of these.
I'd hope both parties consider this and try to get leaders who are more competent than Johnson or Corbyn.
I always thought that Johnson was the better choice than Corbyn, but now I am not so sure. Labour MPs at least sought to remove Corbyn and would have had a lot of control over him if he had got into office. I am not sure they would have played along with him undoing the UK's democracy in the way that Tory MPs have allowed Johnson to do.
I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. And Ukraine would have seen him toppled.
"I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. "
Why do you suspect that? He has refused to say if he has been vaccinated. It was vital for politicians to encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated, which was why we saw politicians publicising getting vaccinated once it was their turn. Corbyn sadly has quite a following in a demographic where (AIUI) vaccination rates are lower, and his unequivocally saying that he had been vaccinated would have helped.
I'm also unsure how well he would have tackled vaccine procurement, given the inclusion of big pharma (boo, hiss).
"And Ukraine would have seen him toppled."
Which would have been too late to help Ukraine.
The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn and a lot more would have been spent on ensuring people on low incomes did not have to go to work while the pandemic raged. Care homes would also have been better looked after. Vaccine procurement would certainly have been an issue, but the roll-out would have happened against a backdrop of fewer initial deaths.
Corbyn would have had to have stopped sending help to Ukraine as he would have inherited a situation where it was happening, so it would have been an issue from Day One of his premiership.
Of course, he would have been a desperately poor PM and he should never have been offered as a choice. Having seen Johnson's performance over the last two and a half years - and in particular his attacks on our democracy and the rule of law - I just don't think Corbyn would have been worse.
You have zero evidence any of that would have happened. As an example: "The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn". We locked down on the 23rd March. How much earlier do you think 'far' earlier was?
What got us out of the mess was vaccine development, purchase and roll-out. Lockdowns gave us time; vaccines have given us freedom. I see *zero* reason to believe that Corbyn would have done as well as this government did in any of those areas, and plenty of indications that he would have done worse.
Your point about vaccine development. Once the government commissioned the vaccine programme they were in the hands of the scientists working in academia and the private sector. How quickly they got to a working and safe vaccine wouldn't have been influenced by whom the PM was.
1) Would Corbyn have commissioned the vaccine program in the same manner? Do you think there's a chance that he would have either tried to be a partner in the European program, or even gone with (say) the Chinese vaccines, or even the Russian Sputnik one?
2) It all had to be paid for. No funding, no program.
This is a man who will not even say whether he has been vaccinated - something I think is vital for *all* politicians in this crisis. It isn't particularly personal information, and it is sure as heck not as if they're telling the public if they've ever had an STD. I see zero reason that he would not let his own personal ideology creep - or lead - the vaccine program. And that would have been a disaster.
I wasn't so much talking about Corbyn as poking at the Johnson Sainthood that gets projected onto him. He didn't develop the vaccine - the scientists did. It wasn't down to him that the scientists developed it when they did, its down to the scientists.
Similarly there seems to be this "oh no, the EU vaccine scheme!!!" line. As if the Europeans didn';t get the vaccine. They did. And were ahead of us in some stages of the roll-out. Even America, with Trump advocating injecting bleach - got the vaccine quickly.
So Corbyn would have had to be deliberately obstructionist to make much of a difference.
The EU vaccine scheme was a bad idea because, the offer to the U.K. was
1) give us the money 2) have no say on what vaccines are procured. 3) no say on timing, regulation etc 4) no say on who gets what vaccine
Only someone who had serious sanity issues would have signed up to that.
The most critical thing with speeding up the vaccine development was large orders placed before testing was complete - on a basis of we-pay-for-it-if-it-works-or-not.
While agreeing with the last statement, if we hadn't left the EMA, and therefore still had a very significant role, maybe overall approval would have been quicker.
If the EMA hadn’t evacuated its operation (if only some of its staff) from London in great haste before BREXIT perhaps the EU could have approved vaccines faster.
IIRC the EMA was about the first EU group we left.
Because they bolted from their London HQ and tried to renege on their lease?
We’re you one of those dafties who thought the EMA would stay outside the EU once we left?
Perhaps you think HMRC should consider setting up an office in, I don’t know, Bremen or Bratislava?
Not at all. Just that they wouldn’t organise their departure In a rush losing staff and expertise in the process?
Are you one of those dafties that thinks the U.K. government will leave any Services or ship building in SINDY?
I expect they'll be removed to undefinded areas XYZ at roughtly the same rate as Trident submarines and their warhead storage facilities.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
Now, of course the choice is between two high tax-and-spend statist social democratic parties, one led by Boris Johnson and one by Keir Starmer.
It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, but David Frost could be it. A man of no achievement with a sub-mediocre mind with no political experience and no support base of any kind beyond the comment pages of the Telegraph would be an absolute disaster. Not even the Taliban Tories would be so stupid, would they?
"It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson"
It is far, far from impossible. Labour's candidate for the 2019 GE is an example: particularly given the two crises that have faced the country since then. Corbyn would have been disastrous with both the Covid crisis and the Ukrainian War. The former we did not do too badly at, nor well; but on the latter we've done very well indeed IMO.
And we came very near having PM Corbyn during both of these.
I'd hope both parties consider this and try to get leaders who are more competent than Johnson or Corbyn.
I always thought that Johnson was the better choice than Corbyn, but now I am not so sure. Labour MPs at least sought to remove Corbyn and would have had a lot of control over him if he had got into office. I am not sure they would have played along with him undoing the UK's democracy in the way that Tory MPs have allowed Johnson to do.
I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. And Ukraine would have seen him toppled.
"I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. "
Why do you suspect that? He has refused to say if he has been vaccinated. It was vital for politicians to encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated, which was why we saw politicians publicising getting vaccinated once it was their turn. Corbyn sadly has quite a following in a demographic where (AIUI) vaccination rates are lower, and his unequivocally saying that he had been vaccinated would have helped.
I'm also unsure how well he would have tackled vaccine procurement, given the inclusion of big pharma (boo, hiss).
"And Ukraine would have seen him toppled."
Which would have been too late to help Ukraine.
The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn and a lot more would have been spent on ensuring people on low incomes did not have to go to work while the pandemic raged. Care homes would also have been better looked after. Vaccine procurement would certainly have been an issue, but the roll-out would have happened against a backdrop of fewer initial deaths.
Corbyn would have had to have stopped sending help to Ukraine as he would have inherited a situation where it was happening, so it would have been an issue from Day One of his premiership.
Of course, he would have been a desperately poor PM and he should never have been offered as a choice. Having seen Johnson's performance over the last two and a half years - and in particular his attacks on our democracy and the rule of law - I just don't think Corbyn would have been worse.
You have zero evidence any of that would have happened. As an example: "The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn". We locked down on the 23rd March. How much earlier do you think 'far' earlier was?
What got us out of the mess was vaccine development, purchase and roll-out. Lockdowns gave us time; vaccines have given us freedom. I see *zero* reason to believe that Corbyn would have done as well as this government did in any of those areas, and plenty of indications that he would have done worse.
Your point about vaccine development. Once the government commissioned the vaccine programme they were in the hands of the scientists working in academia and the private sector. How quickly they got to a working and safe vaccine wouldn't have been influenced by whom the PM was.
1) Would Corbyn have commissioned the vaccine program in the same manner? Do you think there's a chance that he would have either tried to be a partner in the European program, or even gone with (say) the Chinese vaccines, or even the Russian Sputnik one?
2) It all had to be paid for. No funding, no program.
This is a man who will not even say whether he has been vaccinated - something I think is vital for *all* politicians in this crisis. It isn't particularly personal information, and it is sure as heck not as if they're telling the public if they've ever had an STD. I see zero reason that he would not let his own personal ideology creep - or lead - the vaccine program. And that would have been a disaster.
I wasn't so much talking about Corbyn as poking at the Johnson Sainthood that gets projected onto him. He didn't develop the vaccine - the scientists did. It wasn't down to him that the scientists developed it when they did, its down to the scientists.
Similarly there seems to be this "oh no, the EU vaccine scheme!!!" line. As if the Europeans didn';t get the vaccine. They did. And were ahead of us in some stages of the roll-out. Even America, with Trump advocating injecting bleach - got the vaccine quickly.
So Corbyn would have had to be deliberately obstructionist to make much of a difference.
The EU vaccine scheme was a bad idea because, the offer to the U.K. was
1) give us the money 2) have no say on what vaccines are procured. 3) no say on timing, regulation etc 4) no say on who gets what vaccine
Only someone who had serious sanity issues would have signed up to that.
The most critical thing with speeding up the vaccine development was large orders placed before testing was complete - on a basis of we-pay-for-it-if-it-works-or-not.
While agreeing with the last statement, if we hadn't left the EMA, and therefore still had a very significant role, maybe overall approval would have been quicker.
If the EMA hadn’t evacuated its operation (if only some of its staff) from London in great haste before BREXIT perhaps the EU could have approved vaccines faster.
IIRC the EMA was about the first EU group we left.
Because they bolted from their London HQ and tried to renege on their lease?
We’re you one of those dafties who thought the EMA would stay outside the EU once we left?
Perhaps you think HMRC should consider setting up an office in, I don’t know, Bremen or Bratislava?
Not at all. Just that they wouldn’t organise their departure In a rush losing staff and expertise in the process?
Are you one of those dafties that thinks the U.K. government will leave any Services or ship building in SINDY?
I expect they'll be removed to undefinded areas XYZ at roughtly the same rate as Trident submarines and their warhead storage facilities.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
Now, of course the choice is between two high tax-and-spend statist social democratic parties, one led by Boris Johnson and one by Keir Starmer.
The top rate of income tax is still only 45%, not the 50% Kennedy wanted and Brown introduced.
We also still have university tuition fees which Kennedy and Corbyn wanted to scrap
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
Now, of course the choice is between two high tax-and-spend statist social democratic parties, one led by Boris Johnson and one by Keir Starmer.
That is most unfair. Bluekip are not particularly democratic.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.
Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
Nicola Sturgeon is facing criticism from inside the SNP and political opponents for seeking common cause with Sinn Fein.
Senior Scottish nationalists and opponents were surprised when the Scottish first minister extended “many congratulations” to the former political wing of the IRA for its success in the local elections.
She wished its first minister designate Michelle O’Neill “the very best for what comes next”, saying the result demonstrated that there are “big questions” around the UK’s future “as a political entity”.
Riley's the letter and number wrangler on a C4 version of Countdown for after the lagershed (8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown if you're interested). She's what would have been called a minor tv personality in the olden days.
Edit: and the afternoon pensioner's version as well, I'd forgotten it existed to be honest! I'm more a Flog It man.
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My most divisive cup final was West Ham - Arsenal in 1980 was it? We got a new cat that day. Play with the kitten or watch the football?!
Back then the FA cup final was a much bigger event as it was the only live game you saw on television apart from World Cup and Euro Cup. Now with about 2,000 live games a year it's just another game!
Interesting that the first live match in 1960 resulted in a half empty stadium and then teams refused their matches from being shown
One thing that about Hillsborough that is barely comprehensible to the modern fan is was that it was not televised. And played at 3pm on a Saturday. An FA Cup semi-final.
Like no doubt many people, the first I knew something was amiss was from watching on Ceefax.
Dom’s right on this, and doom prone liberal commentators are wrong: since Brexit we have seen the largest, broadest abs most sustained liberal shift in immigration attitudes since polling began
Dominic Cummings@Dominic2306 2016 FT/Economist/Guardian etc: Leave = turbocharging Farage + anti-immigrant opinion Vote Leave: No, take back control = end of Farage, immigration stops being top tier issue, extremism declines UK but still big EU problem. Facts now clear who was right #VoteLeave twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/s…
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
Hm. I'm with kjh here. Militant were never *that* popular among Liverpool's electorate - but with a Tory government, Labour always got the vote out. With a Labour government, Labour was less able to get its vote out and a (non-Tory - but Liverpool had a long tradition of liberalism anyway) opposition could take advantage. Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
Hm. I'm with kjh here. Militant were never *that* popular among Liverpool's electorate - but with a Tory government, Labour always got the vote out. With a Labour government, Labour was less able to get its vote out and a (non-Tory - but Liverpool had a long tradition of liberalism anyway) opposition could take advantage. Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
Right, not rug. Bloody autocorrect. It tried to correct the 'meritable' to 'marmite' earlier.
The majority of people in Liverpool would probably be proud to be described as socialists.
On the subject of Liverpool, do you know why they finally chose John Lennon as the name for the airport? First place he went when he earned a bit of money
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
Now, of course the choice is between two high tax-and-spend statist social democratic parties, one led by Boris Johnson and one by Keir Starmer.
That is most unfair. Bluekip are not particularly democratic.
One of these parties s led by a man who attempted to implement the result of a referendum, the other by a man who attempted to overturn it.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
Hm. I'm with kjh here. Militant were never *that* popular among Liverpool's electorate - but with a Tory government, Labour always got the vote out. With a Labour government, Labour was less able to get its vote out and a (non-Tory - but Liverpool had a long tradition of liberalism anyway) opposition could take advantage. Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
Liverpool kept on electing a far left Labour Council with Derek Hatton as deputy leader in the 1980s even when it was too leftwing for Kinnock. It only went LD when Labour were in government and note the midterm protest vote did not go to the Tories but to a LDs which were increasingly leftwing in the Blair years
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
Now, of course the choice is between two high tax-and-spend statist social democratic parties, one led by Boris Johnson and one by Keir Starmer.
That is most unfair. Bluekip are not particularly democratic.
One of these parties s led by a man who attempted to implement the result of a referendum, the other by a man who attempted to overturn it.
Why did the one who attempted to implement it keep voting against the implementation?
He attempted to make himself PM, didn't care less about Brexit or respecting a vote either way beyond manipulating a divided country at every stage for his personal ambition.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
So you think the LDs were to the left of Militant in Liverpool. It's a view I suppose.
Nicola Sturgeon is facing criticism from inside the SNP and political opponents for seeking common cause with Sinn Fein.
Senior Scottish nationalists and opponents were surprised when the Scottish first minister extended “many congratulations” to the former political wing of the IRA for its success in the local elections.
She wished its first minister designate Michelle O’Neill “the very best for what comes next”, saying the result demonstrated that there are “big questions” around the UK’s future “as a political entity”.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
Hm. I'm with kjh here. Militant were never *that* popular among Liverpool's electorate - but with a Tory government, Labour always got the vote out. With a Labour government, Labour was less able to get its vote out and a (non-Tory - but Liverpool had a long tradition of liberalism anyway) opposition could take advantage. Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
Liverpool kept on electing a far left Labour Council with Derek Hatton as deputy leader in the 1980s even when it was too leftwing for Kinnock. It only went LD when Labour were in government and note the midterm protest vote did not go to the Tories but to a LDs which were increasingly leftwing in the Blair years
In the 70's I knew a chap who was the full-time Tory agent in Liverpool.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
So you think the LDs were to the left of Militant in Liverpool. It's a view I suppose.
No Militant were even further left, hence socialist Liverpool voted for a Labour Council when Militant ran it and Thatcher was in government and only went LD when New Labour were in government
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
So you think the LDs were to the left of Militant in Liverpool. It's a view I suppose.
That's right, Derek Hatton was a parlour pinko who wouldn't be noticed if you signed him as a guest into Epping Conservative Club on karaoke night.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
So you think the LDs were to the left of Militant in Liverpool. It's a view I suppose.
There are, or were until recently, Liberal councillors in Liverpool as well as LD's. I don't think David Alton (Lord Alton) describes himself as a LD, does he.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
Hm. I'm with kjh here. Militant were never *that* popular among Liverpool's electorate - but with a Tory government, Labour always got the vote out. With a Labour government, Labour was less able to get its vote out and a (non-Tory - but Liverpool had a long tradition of liberalism anyway) opposition could take advantage. Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
Liverpool kept on electing a far left Labour Council with Derek Hatton as deputy leader in the 1980s even when it was too leftwing for Kinnock. It only went LD when Labour were in government and note the midterm protest vote did not go to the Tories but to a LDs which were increasingly leftwing in the Blair years
In the 70's I knew a chap who was the full-time Tory agent in Liverpool.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
Hm. I'm with kjh here. Militant were never *that* popular among Liverpool's electorate - but with a Tory government, Labour always got the vote out. With a Labour government, Labour was less able to get its vote out and a (non-Tory - but Liverpool had a long tradition of liberalism anyway) opposition could take advantage. Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
Liverpool kept on electing a far left Labour Council with Derek Hatton as deputy leader in the 1980s even when it was too leftwing for Kinnock. It only went LD when Labour were in government and note the midterm protest vote did not go to the Tories but to a LDs which were increasingly leftwing in the Blair years
In the 70's I knew a chap who was the full-time Tory agent in Liverpool.
Not something you'd want on your CV now.
Short hours and limited workload though
Quite. Wasn't there a Cabinet proposal to abandon Liverpool at one time and pretty much let it rot? After that though I think.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
So you think the LDs were to the left of Militant in Liverpool. It's a view I suppose.
There are, or were until recently, Liberal councillors in Liverpool as well as LD's. I don't think David Alton (Lord Alton) describes himself as a LD, does he.
They apparently have 5 on Liverpool council, led by Steve Radford and an LD defected to them in April. There are 3 others nationally
On topic isn’t the one thing we know about Frosty that he threw in the towel at the point at which Brexit fantasy met Brexit reality. Don’t think that would endear him to the true believers, never mind anyone else.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.
Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).
His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
Hm. I'm with kjh here. Militant were never *that* popular among Liverpool's electorate - but with a Tory government, Labour always got the vote out. With a Labour government, Labour was less able to get its vote out and a (non-Tory - but Liverpool had a long tradition of liberalism anyway) opposition could take advantage. Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
Liverpool kept on electing a far left Labour Council with Derek Hatton as deputy leader in the 1980s even when it was too leftwing for Kinnock. It only went LD when Labour were in government and note the midterm protest vote did not go to the Tories but to a LDs which were increasingly leftwing in the Blair years
In the 70's I knew a chap who was the full-time Tory agent in Liverpool.
Not something you'd want on your CV now.
Short hours and limited workload though
Quite. Wasn't there a Cabinet proposal to abandon Liverpool at one time and pretty much let it rot? After that though I think.
They needed to keep someone there for when Howard sent Boz to apologize. The current guy runs it from a mobile phone screen repair booth
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
So you think the LDs were to the left of Militant in Liverpool. It's a view I suppose.
There are, or were until recently, Liberal councillors in Liverpool as well as LD's. I don't think David Alton (Lord Alton) describes himself as a LD, does he.
Ah the proper liberals. My actual party of choice.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
So you think the LDs were to the left of Militant in Liverpool. It's a view I suppose.
There are, or were until recently, Liberal councillors in Liverpool as well as LD's. I don't think David Alton (Lord Alton) describes himself as a LD, does he.
Yep it is one of the few areas where the original Liberals still exist. Last time I heard David Alton was a cross bencher so also yes.
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My most divisive cup final was West Ham - Arsenal in 1980 was it? We got a new cat that day. Play with the kitten or watch the football?!
Back then the FA cup final was a much bigger event as it was the only live game you saw on television apart from World Cup and Euro Cup. Now with about 2,000 live games a year it's just another game!
Interesting that the first live match in 1960 resulted in a half empty stadium and then teams refused their matches from being shown
One thing that about Hillsborough that is barely comprehensible to the modern fan is was that it was not televised. And played at 3pm on a Saturday. An FA Cup semi-final.
Like no doubt many people, the first I knew something was amiss was from watching on Ceefax.
I got initially very confused yesterday, having planned my day around an assumed 3pm kickoff. I know it hasn’t been like that for years - but it still is in my head.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.
Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).
His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.
It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
Hm. I'm with kjh here. Militant were never *that* popular among Liverpool's electorate - but with a Tory government, Labour always got the vote out. With a Labour government, Labour was less able to get its vote out and a (non-Tory - but Liverpool had a long tradition of liberalism anyway) opposition could take advantage. Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
Liverpool kept on electing a far left Labour Council with Derek Hatton as deputy leader in the 1980s even when it was too leftwing for Kinnock. It only went LD when Labour were in government and note the midterm protest vote did not go to the Tories but to a LDs which were increasingly leftwing in the Blair years
In the 70's I knew a chap who was the full-time Tory agent in Liverpool.
Not something you'd want on your CV now.
Short hours and limited workload though
Quite. Wasn't there a Cabinet proposal to abandon Liverpool at one time and pretty much let it rot? After that though I think.
They needed to keep someone there for when Howard sent Boz to apologize. The current guy runs it from a mobile phone screen repair booth
He’s also the Sun’s sales agent and organises the delivery of Man U shirts.
Frost as PM . Good grief! His hysterical rantings over the NI protocol, the deal he previously called excellent should mean he’s nowhere near the levers of power , that of course also precludes much of the cabinet and Johnson aswell . Frost should STFU , no one gives a flying fxck what the imbecile has to say now .
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.
Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).
His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.
It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
Just because you keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct.
Frost as PM . Good grief! His hysterical rantings over the NI protocol, the deal he previously called excellent should mean he’s nowhere near the levers of power , that of course also precludes much of the cabinet and Johnson aswell . Frost should STFU , no one gives a flying fxck what the imbecile has to say now .
If you ignore all of that, then appointing a man who’s been a civil servant, and then briefly a minister, to PM with no Commons Experience would be….. courageous.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.
Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).
His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.
It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
Just because you keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct.
Yes, for mere persistent repetition to make something CORRECT, it needs to be done in CAPITALS.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
So you think the LDs were to the left of Militant in Liverpool. It's a view I suppose.
There are, or were until recently, Liberal councillors in Liverpool as well as LD's. I don't think David Alton (Lord Alton) describes himself as a LD, does he.
Yep it is one of the few areas where the original Liberals still exist. Last time I heard David Alton was a cross bencher so also yes.
David Alton was another Liberal who had strong religious views. Indeed I believe he attempted to establish a Christian Democrat party.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
'Left' doesn't automatically mean 'socialist', though.
They were left of New Labour though, which was the only reason socialist Liverpool had a Liberal Democrat controlled council in the New Labour years. Liverpool swiftly returned to Labour control by 2010 once Blair had left as Labour leader and PM
No it's not. I explained that earlier. It is because Liverpool council had a reputation of being very left wing that the LDs were successful there. So they went LD for exactly the opposite reason you gave, they went more moderate with the LDs
Wrong. As Liverpool elected socialist Labour Councils from 1983 and throughout the early 1990s. It only went LD when New Labour were in government before returning to Labour control when Brown was Labour leader
Hm. I'm with kjh here. Militant were never *that* popular among Liverpool's electorate - but with a Tory government, Labour always got the vote out. With a Labour government, Labour was less able to get its vote out and a (non-Tory - but Liverpool had a long tradition of liberalism anyway) opposition could take advantage. Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
Liverpool kept on electing a far left Labour Council with Derek Hatton as deputy leader in the 1980s even when it was too leftwing for Kinnock. It only went LD when Labour were in government and note the midterm protest vote did not go to the Tories but to a LDs which were increasingly leftwing in the Blair years
In the 70's I knew a chap who was the full-time Tory agent in Liverpool.
Not something you'd want on your CV now.
Short hours and limited workload though
Quite. Wasn't there a Cabinet proposal to abandon Liverpool at one time and pretty much let it rot? After that though I think.
They needed to keep someone there for when Howard sent Boz to apologize. The current guy runs it from a mobile phone screen repair booth
He’s also the Sun’s sales agent and organises the delivery of Man U shirts.
And heads up the committee campaigning for the removal of the Liver Bird and the arrest and imprisonment of Steven Gerrard
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
There are no Tory MPs or Tory councillors in Liverpool despite the fact we have a Tory government elected by a landslide in 2019
The only time the council did not go Labour controlled this century was in the Blair years went it went to the control of the even more leftwing Charles Kennedy led LDs rather than the Tories before returning to Labour control when Brown became PM
Yes. A city that has a LibDem council for 12 years in recent times is not "the most socialist city in the UK".
Its laughable. YOU are laughable. You say this absurd absolutist stuff that simply isn't true.
It had a Lib Dem Council when the LDs were leftwing under Charles Kennedy and indeed more leftwing than New Labour.
Many LD voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Labour in 2019 while many New Labour voters from 2001 and 2005 voted Tory or LD in 2018.
So my point Liverpool is a socialist city stands absolutely
So the LibDems are Socialist?
On that measure, are Plaid Cymru really Tories...?
Under Charles Kennedy the LDs were certainly more socialist than Blair's New Labour, let alone IDS and Howard's Tories.
Even if now Starmer Labour is more socialist than Davey's LDs and Johnson's Tories and Corbyn's Labour were far more socialist than Swinson's LDs
The LDs have never been socialist. I am anti socialist and have never felt uncomfortable in the LDs.
From 2001 to 2008 the Liberal Democrats were certainly more leftwing and socialist than Blair's New Labour.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Nonsense. I suggest you read the manifestos.
In 2001 and 2005 Kennedy's LDs wanted a top rate of income tax of 50%, increased spending and opposed more private sector involvement in the public services and wanted to scrap university tuition fees and opposed the Iraq War.
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
I suggest you actually read and compare them rather than cherry pick. Just like you did with IQ tests, reading something on the internet doesn't make it correct.
It is correct, the Liberal Democrats under Kennedy were the party of the left in 2005, Labour under Blair the centre party and the Conservatives under Howard the party of the right.
Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
Erm, no. Charlie Kennedy was a campaigning genius and had a few left wing policies aimed at stealing Labour seats, but he also oversaw the writing of the orange book and had a whole other identity down south. Left of the Tories, but not of Labour over all (though there was an issue in presenting the two parties very differently north and south, which ultimately came home to roost).
His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
When New Labour were led by Blair the LDs under Kennedy were left of them on everything from wanting higher taxes for the rich, to opposing tuition fees, to opposing private sector involvement in public services to opposing the Iraq War.
It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
Just because you keep repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct.
Just watched the Liverpool fans booing the National Anthem AND Abide with Me
I mean, Abide with Me? What are they booing? A poetic hope for some meaning in death? Nah, let’s boo that
What utter scum. Hope they lose to Real Madrid
Well done, Liverpool fans. The tune is a dirge, and totally out of keeping with the excitement of the FA Cup final. It should be replaced. We aren't in the Victorian era any more.
"excitement of the FA Cup final" ?
You do realise that most people are not football fans. If forced to watch a match, I think I'd get some paint in, daub some on the wall beneath the TV, and watch that dry instead.
(Then again, I've watched hundreds of F1 races...)
My memory of the 1980s I'd that the world stopped for the FA Cup final. It was on two out of four TV channels. The streets were empty. There was certainly no other football on the same day. There was almost no other sport on the same day. No one would get married on FA Cup Final day. I can still remember all the FA Cup finals of the 80s. Whereas I couldn't tell you who won it last year. Obviously the fans of the respective teams still watch it, and the sort of people who will watch a football match or a major sporting event if it happens to be on telly (like my wife, and therefore, for indirect reasons, me). But it feels like the attention it commands is much diminished. I don't know if I'm just extrapolating from myself here.
Grandstand would have footage of the teams that morning having a fry up and a couple of pints for breakfast at the team hotel, then they'd follow the coaches and the teams would show off their hideous suits, have a couple of pints and head to the changing room. There would be an extensive discussion on what history and 'luck' tells you about the dressing room you got and then the teams would have a couple of pints watching good luck messages from club legends. Also, interviews with the club magic sponge boy and mascots while they enjoyed a couple of pints
Around 20 years ago one of my sons, who has no interest whatsoever in football, got married on what turned out to be Cup Final Day, to the horror of his brother, who is not only keen on the game (!) but whose team were in the Final. Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
My most divisive cup final was West Ham - Arsenal in 1980 was it? We got a new cat that day. Play with the kitten or watch the football?!
Back then the FA cup final was a much bigger event as it was the only live game you saw on television apart from World Cup and Euro Cup. Now with about 2,000 live games a year it's just another game!
Interesting that the first live match in 1960 resulted in a half empty stadium and then teams refused their matches from being shown
One thing that about Hillsborough that is barely comprehensible to the modern fan is was that it was not televised. And played at 3pm on a Saturday. An FA Cup semi-final.
Like no doubt many people, the first I knew something was amiss was from watching on Ceefax.
At the same time as the other Semi! We had one on BBC Merseyside and the other on Radio City.
Comments
Local business free advertising bunting contests
Goober family with supporters of both teams interviews were a scream.
NEW: for this week’s column I dug into the curious case of British attitudes to immigration
Before the EU ref, concern about immigration tracked levels of arrivals. Since then, immigration has kept rising but concerns have evaporated
What’s going on?
ft.com/content/f2d72f…
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1525766106119606273
Folk remember Wigan, Wimbledon, Southampton and Sunderland winning it.
I was struck that Liverpool hadn't won it since 2006. I just assumed they did every 3 or 4 years or so.
Perhaps you think HMRC should consider setting up an office in, I don’t know, Bremen or Bratislava?
Son 2 was 'persuaded' to attend ..... 'don't you dare not' was Mrs C's firmly expressed view. Fortunately the wedding breakfast and speeches were more or less finished by 3.30 or so in the function room of a Golf Club, and the only problem we had was sending someone down to the TV bar whenever son 2 was wanted for family photographs.
A reminder of how cancerous that paper (and others) are.
Hence so many leftwing Labour voters voted LD in 2005 and 2010 then switched back to Labour with Ed Miliband and Corbyn. While plenty of New Labour voters in 2005 voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015.
LDs now attract more ex Tory voters than ex Labour under Davey however but under Kennedy they were leftwing if not now
Mind, as someone who is reasonable certain that most, if not all, his direct ancestors have been here since at least the Vikings, there are lot of people I could regard as immigrants!
1 Glasgow
2 Liverpool
3 Dundee
4 Manchester
5 Bristol
Are you one of those dafties that thinks the U.K. government will leave any Services or ship building in SINDY?
https://twitter.com/CZEdwards/status/1525642258082451457
The idea that people are pregnant from the day of conception is actually very very modern because it simply wasn't possible to know until the late 20th century.
@HYUFD this isn't posted to generate a debate - I found it just too interesting not to highlight.
His Godfather was Italian and not happy.
Charles K, (and Paddy Ashdown and to some degree David Steel) could reasonably be described as radical but I wouldn't define them as 'socialist'
eg William the Conqueror.
Where interesting = moronically stupid.
People moaned that Portsmouth v Barnsley and Cardiff v WBA as semis was devaluing the FA Cup!
Interesting that the first live match in 1960 resulted in a half empty stadium and then teams refused their matches from being shown
Blair's New Labour however wanted to keep the top rate of income tax at 40%, wanted more private sector involvement in the public services, had introduced tuition fees and backed the Iraq War.
There is no question Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were left of Tony Blair's New Labour government
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
* edit - after Carlos Alberto no doubt.
Incidentally, have you ever come across a one-term Essex Tory MP called Tim Janman?
Then his ardour for revenge cooled.
Over many, many years……
We also still have university tuition fees which Kennedy and Corbyn wanted to scrap
Only under Clegg as LD leader and Brown and Ed Miliband and Corbyn as Labour leaders did we return to the usual position of Labour as the party of the left, the Liberal Democrats as the centre party and the Conservatives still the party of the right (if more centre right under Cameron than Howard)
Senior Scottish nationalists and opponents were surprised when the Scottish first minister extended “many congratulations” to the former political wing of the IRA for its success in the local elections.
She wished its first minister designate Michelle O’Neill “the very best for what comes next”, saying the result demonstrated that there are “big questions” around the UK’s future “as a political entity”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sturgeon-criticised-for-sinn-fein-comments-nt80jrp5b
Edit: and the afternoon pensioner's version as well, I'd forgotten it existed to be honest! I'm more a Flog It man.
Like no doubt many people, the first I knew something was amiss was from watching on Ceefax.
Dom’s right on this, and doom prone liberal commentators are wrong: since Brexit we have seen the largest, broadest abs most sustained liberal shift in immigration attitudes since polling began
Dominic Cummings@Dominic2306
2016 FT/Economist/Guardian etc: Leave = turbocharging Farage + anti-immigrant opinion
Vote Leave: No, take back control = end of Farage, immigration stops being top tier issue, extremism declines UK but still big EU problem.
Facts now clear who was right #VoteLeave twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/s…
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1525790012046028800
Liverpool City contains a goodly area of middle class suburbia - the equivalent areas in Manchester are outside the city boundary. Manchester has Chorlton and Didsbury, of course, but these are rather different in tone to Childwall and West Allerton. (I was in Chorlton yesterday where I overheard the very Chorlton phrase "am I the rug place for the Flamenco workshop?")
First place he went when he earned a bit of money
He attempted to make himself PM, didn't care less about Brexit or respecting a vote either way beyond manipulating a divided country at every stage for his personal ambition.
Not something you'd want on your CV now.
There are 3 others nationally
His niche was to be the better Leader of the Opposition until Cameron’s arrived. And even then he probably would have done ok if not for his health issues.
It became too much for the more fiscally conservative Orange Book LDs who launched a coup to replace him with Ming Campbell in 2006 replacing him in turn with Nick Clegg in 2007 who went into coalition government with the Tories in 2010. That would have been inconceivable if Kennedy was still LD leader
We had one on BBC Merseyside and the other on Radio City.