- Re: Labour isn't fascist. Archived Message
Posted by dereklane
on November 24, 2019, 11:25 am, in reply to "Re: Labour isn't fascist. "
|
Perhaps. But again, who called labour fascist? Certainly not me. The assertion that they are not is like me arguing with you by saying 'you're wrong, guppies are not tadpoles and I can't be bothered arguing with anyone who thinks they are.' It wasn't even suggested by me. Maybe there are parallels, but I tend to steer away from labelling things politically with specifics, because every new version of the same old thing is different enough to fool most into believing they're getting some new and improved. So, labour policies in the last iteration followed broadly that of the tories; more Money for the rich, less for the poor. Bailouts for the rich, condemnation for the poor. Wars for the rich, against the poor (here and abroad). What that adds up to in terms of political structure I don't know or care. What I care about is that it still screws the majority (both at home and abroad). Meagre concessions with the coming of a labour government from the slightly heavier boot of the tories doesn't get me excited; it's still a downward trajectory until someone comes along to tell all the money grabbing bastards to #### off without any concession. That's not even in the labour manifesto; it's the difference between being offered that boot on the face by a 250 pound man or from a 180 pound man. There needs to be serious change to even begin to affect the lot of the poorest, and there is not. If we have any doubt, we can look at the leader of that party to see how quickly he folds when there is opposition. That couldn't change as leader, because an effective government needs a majority of votes to succeed as a government. It isn't just the one man, it is not how the system works. A crippled government is a powerless one. And so he will either concede or be replaced, even if he wins. Based on track record I would say he will concede. Cheers |