Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members
1 minute ago, westlondonmist said:

Him being the first non-white prime minister means fuck all in my eyes. If he'd won an election, I think it would be quite an achievement. I feel the same about May and Truss. I don't like Thatcher, but I do think a woman winning an election in the seventies was a hell of an achievement. 

To be honest, Thatcher being a woman also means fuck-all to me because she pulled the ladder up behind her. The only thing I could find that she did specifically to improve the lot of women in the UK was to legislate women no longer needing a male sponsor to get a credit card.

1 minute ago, westlondonmist said:

 

Labour have had 3 female deputy leaders, although only one has served as that in a government (Harman).

It's still a piss-poor record, isn't it? No permanent leaders, and no PMs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

It's still a piss-poor record, isn't it? No permanent leaders, and no PMs.

To contextualise, only 6 of our 57 PMs have been Labour and of course only 2 since the 80s. I’ve no skin in the game not being a member but I would’ve liked to have seen Rebecca Long Bailey get the gig. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
12 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

To contextualise, only 6 of our 57 PMs have been Labour and of course only 2 since the 80s. I’ve no skin in the game not being a member but I would’ve liked to have seen Rebecca Long Bailey get the gig. 

What I tend to point to as a demonstration of how right-wing this country actually is is that, since Labour became a party of government, the Tories have had twice as many PMs, and have been in government for twice the amount of time, roughly - six Labour PMs, fourteen Tory ones; thirty years in government for Labour, over sixty for the Tories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carbomb said:

What I tend to point to as a demonstration of how right-wing this country actually is is that, since Labour became a party of government, the Tories have had twice as many PMs, and have been in government for twice the amount of time, roughly - six Labour PMs, fourteen Tory ones; thirty years in government for Labour, over sixty for the Tories.

Can’t remember who said it or word for word but for Chests sake I’ll put it in football terms. Labour are always a caretaker manager for this country, they take temporary charge over first team duties while the Tories regroup and sort themselves out after the public get temporarily fed up off them. 
 

Obviously a Tory wipeout at the election would put an end to that, but that won’t change having conservative governments. It’ll just be a change of name for the manager and caretaker. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
8 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

What I tend to point to as a demonstration of how right-wing this country actually is is that, since Labour became a party of government, the Tories have had twice as many PMs, and have been in government for twice the amount of time, roughly - six Labour PMs, fourteen Tory ones; thirty years in government for Labour, over sixty for the Tories.

Though I have a theory that most of the "Tories as natural party of government/Labour only get in when they fuck up" theories hang solely on 1970. If you look at post-war electoral records knowing nothing, you'd think the listing for 1970 was a typo. Ignore that (very close) result and you've got a near perfect pattern of "Labour and the Conservatives take it in turn to run the county until they run out of steam after three or four terms."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JNLister said:

Though I have a theory that most of the "Tories as natural party of government/Labour only get in when they fuck up" theories hang solely on 1970. If you look at post-war electoral records knowing nothing, you'd think the listing for 1970 was a typo. Ignore that (very close) result and you've got a near perfect pattern of "Labour and the Conservatives take it in turn to run the county until they run out of steam after three or four terms."

I think I'm missing something - post-war, Labour have been in power for roughly a total of 29 years, whilst the Tories have had 45. Even if you took out Heath's nearly four years, they've still got a decade more.

EDIT: Sorry, I haven't had enough sleep. Turn Heath's four years into a Labour government, and it's roughly forty years to about thirty-three. So I see what you mean.

Edited by Carbomb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

To be honest, Thatcher being a woman also means fuck-all to me because she pulled the ladder up behind her. The only thing I could find that she did specifically to improve the lot of women in the UK was to legislate women no longer needing a male sponsor to get a credit card.

It's still a piss-poor record, isn't it? No permanent leaders, and no PMs.

I still think it was an amazing achievement, sure she could of used her platform for better or even done amazing things with it. Blair probably had a bigger impact on women in politics really.  

 

To the second point, it is piss poor when you consider Conservatives, Scottish Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Scottish Labour, SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP and Sinn Fein have all had female leaders. Strangely 51% of Labour MPs are female, only 35% of Tory or SNP ones are. It will come eventually you would think. The current shadow cabinet has women in some big positions such as Reeves, Rayner, Phillipson, Cooper, Mahmood and Kendall. 

1 hour ago, Keith Houchen said:

To contextualise, only 6 of our 57 PMs have been Labour and of course only 2 since the 80s. I’ve no skin in the game not being a member but I would’ve liked to have seen Rebecca Long Bailey get the gig. 

If Long-Bailey had become leader I'm not sure she'd still be leader now. I think the press would have picked her off by now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, westlondonmist said:

If Long-Bailey had become leader I'm not sure she'd still be leader now. I think the press would have picked her off by now. 

Yep I think you could be right. It’s as I alluded to on page one 

 

On 5/22/2024 at 4:57 PM, Keith Houchen said:

Wonder if the client journalist lot will start applying the slightest bit of pushback to Starmer now. Can’t help but think they’ve been keeping their powder dry to see how Starmers cosying up to the media barons goes and take their lead from them. 

A working class, left leaning, northern woman wouldn’t get the same treatment from establishment journalists like a southern middle class centrist man would in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...