Sharing this mainly because it pointed me towards FullFact’s Government Tracker, which looks handy. According to them, only one pledge has not been kept, on the National Wealth Fund:
“Capitalised with £7.3 billion over the course of the next Parliament, the National Wealth Fund will have a remit to support Labour’s growth and clean energy missions”
And three others are ‘Off track’, while six are ‘Unclear or disputed’.
Those that have been achieved include:
delivering an extra two million NHS operations, scans and appointments, recognising a Palestinian state, introducing a Football Governance Bill, ending the use of offshore trusts to avoid inheritance tax and abolishing non-dom status.
Utter fucking bull shit.
They had no mandate to support Israel in genocide. And have arrested 1000 for supporting protesters by for the first time ever suggesting property damage is an act of terrorism.
After Starmer himself supported and won an identical case of property damage as not a crime due to opposition to blairs war.
If that is not censorship of opposition you need to reconsider some of the crap your smoking.
Add all the other laws against protest. Them now talking about repeated protest for the same cause being classed as a crime.
Mo fucking way is that statement nonsense.
This adds nothing you didn’t say previously, just a load of pointless invective. I completely agree with you that the government crackdowns on protest, and on Palestine Action in particular, are egregious policies and should be opposed in every way possible. But it is not and does not amount to ‘censoring any opposition to the policies they don’t have a mandate for’. This very conversation proves that you’re wrong. You and I are currently discussing our shared opposition to government policies which weren’t in the manifesto (I assume this is your definition of ‘have a mandate for’); our only disagreement is the nature of those policies, which you wrongly think constitute blanket censorship. We’re discussing this on a server hosted in the UK, and I’m using my real name. Neither of us is expecting to be censored and neither of us is going to be. So you simply must be wrong.
Stop talking out of your arsehole.
People have been arrested for posting online support for PA. You are on a tiny community no one notices.
Your failure to notice the crap around you. Is just that. Your failure. I don’t need to add anything to my original statement. It was clear and accurate.
Your failure is also.
Okay, mod hat on for a warning: you’re being incredibly and unnecessary rude. Stop it. I’m not interested in talking to someone who cannot be even slightly civil. I would normally just stop replying but, as a mod, I have a responsibility to keep this sub a good place for discussion. Pack it in.
Fair point I lost my temper with you.
As a mod you should also consider the attitude of the community as a whole. Who clearly disagree with your opinion on my interpretation of labours actions.
Your arguments for labour. Are basically the equivalent of.
"Look at all the fish in the ocean. Fish have no reason to be nervous around fishermen. "
The fact that labour fails to arrest every voice of opposition. Is absolutely no excuse for you to criticise posters for suggesting they partake in censorship.
The evidence of the governments attempts to limit protest against them are far from hidden.
Also your use of the word illibralism. Is a very clear idea that you or your ideals are entirely American in origin. As no one in the EU considers lirbalism to be a left of centre ideal.
No problem, happens to the best of us.
Dissent is an important part of democracy! Which is exactly why Labour’s anti-protest actions are such a bad idea.
But this is the crux of the matter. That Labour are censoring specific dissent is undoubtedly true, as is the fact that they are wrong to do so. That they are ‘censoring opposition to every policy they don’t have a mandate for’, which was your proposition, is untrue.
I don’t really know what to make of this? I’m from the UK as are my ideals, as far as I know; censoring political speech and cracking down the right to protest just is illiberal; ‘illiberalism’ means ‘not liberal’, which has nothing to do with whether liberalism is left-of-centre. That said, I’m not particularly wedded to the word in this or any other context! If you think I should have said ‘authoritarianism’ or similar, that’s fine with me.
No idea how old you are. But anyone that grew up pre internet would not use Liberal to describe the left wing of the Labour party. Liberal have not been consider left since the late 1800s when only land owners could vote.
Only American media and politics think of it that way. But over the last 20 year US politics has been embedded in lots of UK right wing media. The Left do not think ofcurrent labour leadership as illibral. But as neolibral IE in support of corporate ownership of all production. Historically Liberalism is support for corperation and wealth. Where as conservatism was support for aristocratic leadership. That is the whole history of our 2 houses. Lords and Commons. Commons was not working class. But rich landowners with no aristocrat background. Supported by the liberal party.
So yes sorry the use of illibral to describe current labour. Is very opposite to whole UK and European idea of liberalism.
I mean. This is just false, on several levels. Firstly, on the level of what I said: I didn’t ‘use Liberal to describe the left wing of the Labour party’, because I didn’t describe anyone in this way.
Historically, the formation of the Commons predates the concept of liberalism by several centuries! The Liberal party came into being only in the 19th century and was not, at any point in the UK or elsewhere, simply the ‘support for corporation and wealth’. There’s certainly no consensus, on the left or elsewhere, that this is the case. Liberals in the UK were responsible for extending the franchise to working people and introducing the welfare state (very much opposed by many corporations and wealthy landowners). Unsurprisingly, given that they really did redistribute wealth and power to working people, many individual Liberal MPs were endorsed and sponsored by trade unions (until we got organised and founded the Labour party). Even major social democratic achievements like the NHS and the postwar consensus were both proposed and supported by liberals like Keynes and Beveridge!
The right to protest is a part of (social) liberalism and liberal democracy, as broad concepts, and has frequently been defended by liberals in the UK, the EU and elsewhere on the grounds that it’s a part of free speech and an acceptable - even necessary - part of liberal democracy. That being the case, which it is, it’s reasonable to describe an abrogation of the right to protest as illiberal, just in the sense of ‘not liberal’. This is not at all incompatible with (neo)liberals, in practice, failing to uphold it. Political ideologies are just not all that solid and coherent even theoretically, never mind in practice.