[Truth To Power]

What? How? Why? How would you know?

It's the established pattern.

[Rich]

when Kinnock was trying to purge the Labour Party of Militant Tendency.

So Corbyn had been trying to get Tariq Ali into the Labour Party even before he became an MP. I wonder what you think he's real politics were. In practice both USSR aligned Communists and Trotskyists supported entryism so it can be difficult to tell. Many Communist Party aligned people back then hated the Trotyskists more than the Labour right, that was clearly not the case with Corbyn.

Anyway was it fair to say that Corbyn was the most left wing Labour MP in 2015? Having him as leader was surly an utterly ridiculous situation, wherever you lie on the political spectrum. He was surrounded with a cabinet of assassins. Despite the sabotage of his cabinet under his leadership, in 2017 Labour still got 12.8 million votes under Corbyn. In 2019 Starmer forced his absurd Brexit renegotiation followed by another referendum policy on Labour, betraying Labour's working class Brexit voters in order to compete with the Lib Dems for the metropolitan liberal vote. Starmer's demented policy reduced the Labour vote to 10.2 million votes and gave Johnson a large majority.

So the question that has hung over Starmer since his election as leader and quick betrayal of all his promises in the leadership election, is how many millions of votes would he gain by abandonment of socialist commitments?

The result, he actually succeeded in reducing the Labour vote to 9.7 million. Just imagine if he'd stood up and told people on the hustings, back me, ditch all the policies you like, completely pander to ultra Zionism and you could lose half a million votes. Keir Starmer deserves absolutely zero credit for this massive majority.

[JohnRawls]

Macron seems to have also crushed Le Pen.

[AFAIK]

Macron came 2nd

[Istanbuller]

Thatcher shut down all British industry and replaced it with banking and insurance. She turned over half the country into poverty and permanently destroyed the British economy which never recovered and nor does it seem it ever will as this economy has not run a surplus ever since. She introduced extra benefits to cushion the people she turned into poverty, laziness & idleness.

Slogans matter not in the face of brutal reality.

Have you ever been to Coventry, Manchester and Birmingham?

That's Detroit times 1000.

She destroyed companies like Rolls Royce, Aston Martin, Jaguar Land Rover, Bentley and even almost destroyed Cosworth too! It only barely survived as a small niche engineering werks company just months after winning everything there was to win.

Can't make this up. Global Market leaders turned into beggars for the sake of a handful of bankers who in turn have destroyed both housing and business with their interest rates and laziness.

False.

Labour's protectionist policies in 1960s and 1970s led to bankruptcy. Labour left them vulnerable to rivals around the world. They just went bankrupt when Thatcher set markets free again. Because those corporates were in a bubble created by the Labour. When they did not get any protection, they were just unable to compete.

Also, British people got good and services cheaper thanks to markets liberalized.

[noemon]

LOL, you mean they made China rich and industrial by sending all the succesful British products to be made in China!!

[Rich]

OK so I certainly make no claims to be a historical expert on the Thatcher government, but my impression is that there was a lot of post rationalisation on their part. So its my belief that they wanted to create an economy with

1 Lower taxes
2 Lower Public Borrowing
3 Much more restrained wage rises
4 tightly controlled money supply
5 lower inflation
6 increased profitability
7 lower unemployment

However within less than a year they found themselves in a situation where

1 They had to increase taxes in the 1980 budget
2 Because Public borrowing was exploding
3 Wages were surging both in real and nominal terms
4 Expanding money supply
5 Inflation was surging to its second highest level ever
6 Profitability was collapsing
7 Unemployment was ramping up.

Some of this may have been forseen, such as a temporary rise in wages with the lifting of restrictions on collective bargaining but nothing of the scale and depth of what actually was happening. In this situation the Tories had almost lost track of where they were going. Another thing not forseen, at least in its scale was the fall in monetary velocity. This meant that demand was collapsing while the money supply continued to expand. It was this that led to the obsession and grasping of Money supply figures, specifically M3. I don't think the Tories had any intention of butchering British industry the way it happened and on the positive side although the Tories hoped to stimulate banking and financial services through liberalisation, I don't think they predicted expansion that would take place.

In my view the great Thacherite plan was almost entirely a post rationalisation of a an unpredicted outcome.

[JohnRawls]

Macron came 2nd

Well that was the plan for him to remain in charge without obstructions. Le Pen came in 3rd.

[Istanbuller]

It seems like Starmer already got in trouble with folks. British people are very much anti-immigration. His pro-immigration policy can trigger a an early general election.

[Istanbuller]

Starmer now blames riots on social media. He will probably use riots as a weapon to censor social media and free speech.