What will Britain's Labor Coup mean for Poland?

....na ja....those who want to cull Capitalism think so.

At least they never came up with a better, viable option till now...it somehow always ends in Socialism! And Socialism/Communism is inhuman, as in against human nature. To keep it alive the Socialists need always soon the means of oppression or people would just vote them out of power again. Since 200 years the alternatives always ended in oppression.

So...till they don't throw all these books by Marx etc. into the trashcan for good I keep fearing the worst. *shrugs*

Who thinks that? Not any of the Labour Party.


Socialism is the better option and shouldn't be compared to communism, a very different thing, one beloved of some mainland European absolutists.


We aren't a Marxist party. Do not compare us with your own political crazies on the right or the left.

Until you roll out ration cards or have to eat zoo animals...

reuters.com/article/world/uk/police-believe-thieves-steal-venezuela-zoo-animals-to-eat-them-idUSKCN1AW2NO/

Well....since 1989 all western Lefties have been careful not to use the old words and slogans....they put away the red flags with Che and Mao on them too....but they have still no real alternative developed since. They just don't talk about the soon-to-be-build-Socialism anymore but the idea is still there. It's the only alternative to Capitalism there is!

PS: Socialism is only the pre-step to Communism. The big old goal! And it can't be democratic, it must be oppressive...for "the good of mankind", you know....

That doesn't mean very much, however you'll doubtless be relieved to hear that the Labour Party doesn't have flags of Mao or Guevara. They were communists. We aren't.


It isn't. There are mixed economies where private capital is allowed and these tend to be the most liveable countries in the world.


For communists. You're mistaking mainland European absolutism, something that on right or left brings certain countries down again and again.


Not that capitalism has ever existed side by side with poverty and hunger, eh...

I know....Germany has a long great tradition with "Social Democracy"....a way to counter the worst excesses of unchecked Capitalism. But even they have to take care of their more radical left wing, since Socialism...any socialist ideas....are no vote winner in Germany. The "Left" is generally losing percents every election now.

But that was since 1989....the global left was defeated then, not only in the former Eastern Bloc countries. The western left still has not gotten over this, I wonder if that is at least a talking point in western left parties, sometimes I doubt that! Just ignoring that big elephant in the room, just avoiding the words, won't help in the long run. It needs a new story, something outside of the old known books....something new!

Where I'm from (you can compare it to the Ruhr Valley albeit neglected by successive right wing governments who fear us) it's always solid Socialist.


Don't assume the Labour Party in the U.K. is anything like those. It's not a party of ideologues.

Yeah....I come to think that too....it's our different election systems....we have alot more parties for alot more different opinions....GB essentially only two which have to represent an alot broader spectrum of opinions!

What moron came up with the thread title?
What will Britain's Labor Coup mean for Poland?

Quoting:

What is the full meaning of coup?

A sudden decisive exercise of force

So the British spineless weasels used force? Sure...


What is your party's stand on migrants and men becoming women?

That's basically true,

One reason I like our very old fashioned voting system is that it keeps minor parties mostly out and means that the main parties have to be quite broad in approach.

The Labour Party is made up of a broad membership structure of Branches (especially in the northern industrial areas) which cover a council ward (a community of a few thousanfpd) which each send delegates to the constituency party which covers an electoral district of about 70,000 people. They vote for delegates to the NEC (national executive committee) which runs the party. As well, there are the Trade Unions which are affiliated to the party and make up part of its structure, and special interest groups (about 7 or 8) which members can join if they wish. All these send delegates to the annual conference where the party's policies are made.

Yes, if it works that system has definitive advantages.

But if it not then you get something as in the current USA...two hostile halves, a split people....

Fortunately we've avoided that, despite right wing groups (funded by state entities in r*SSia and private entities in America) doing their best to create division.

Where is "r*SSia", fagotinski?

Novichok really wanted to be Pole or at least liked by the Poles initially. But alas his love was not reciprocated, which left him... broken.

That is true, The Lib Dems got 71 seats on 3.5 million votes, Reform got over 4 million votes and got just 4 seats.
Labour got less votes for Starmer than they did with Corbyn, Corbyn was thrashed in his election, Starmer got a landslide......go figure!

How exactly? The Rwanda plan was phenomenally expensive and the numbers of migrants they planned to export per year was less than the daily arrivals by boat. It wasn't a plan it was an absolute joke. To date, no-one has come up with a credible solution. The Tories even managed to lose 17000 asylum seekers whose claims had been withdrawn on their watch and no-one has any idea where they are!


Amen.

Becuase both major parties are united in their desire for open borders..... (which means less and less services for tax payers because you can't expand the welfare classes forever).

Interestingly... there's this from Denmark.... MENA (Middle East/North African) immigrants work at lower rates than all other categories....

How is migration by them remotely sustainable?

x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1809243561503711663

They survive on welfare (and petty crime) at the cost of the rest of society....

Again.... how is this sustainable?

Where did you pull that one from. Neither support open borders even within Europe.

Reality in dinghies....


Don't pay attention to what they say... pay attention to what they do. What are the chances of any of those arriving in dinghies ever being forced to leave?

That's not a 'desire for open borders' though, is it...


Those who haven't been granted asylum have to leave.

Remember, most people don't obsess on migration; the main issues in the election were housing, cost of living and the NHS.The party that's specifically against almost any migration won
5 seats out of 635.

All that connected to immigration and illegal migration, people are afraid that the Labour project to build new houses from public money will seemly be used to house those illegal migrants in the first place because the UK government seems to be unable to deport them even after their claim from asylums had been rejected.

With a caveat that such a result happened due to the British elections system and that party gained about four million voters in the elections where the two-party system dominates.
If we look at the percentage of the popular support they are the third result after Labour and Tories.

All bs, Labour's vote decreased from Corbyn by about a million votes, had Reform stood down seats in conservative target areas as they did in 2019 we would have a conservative government today. This election was a decimation of the Tories at the hands of Nigel Farage for their failure to control immigration. Therefore immigration was the central issue as to why Keir Starmer is in No. 10.

How many did the UK deport in 2023? 2022?


It's called the tip of the spear...


To do anything about those you need a good tax base.... and those arriving in the UK aren't going to help that.

Won. With a supermajority.


We wouldn't, if you look at the actual figures.


Their failures with the economy, the NHS and housing according to the polls. The public purse being left in the worst state since WW2 should be a clue.

Most people don't obsess about migration, and fewer than one in five voted for that fascistic grifter Farahe.

Aren't you happy we've got a Labour government again!

Labour won by default, Tory voters voted for Farage and many stayed at home.


80% of the country didn't vote for Starmer, that's 4 out of 5 of the population didn't want Starmer. Let's see how happy Labour voters are when this government run the country into the ground over the next 4 or 5 years.

...but refuse to answer how many would be too many because to specify a number would lead to the question of why more is bad and how to stop the N+1 - an impossible task in the land of gutless spineless suicidal bootlickers...I mean the UK. Poles are still not as stupid but it's changing...

So they pretend that all is OK. They also know that being openly against migrants may be an invitation to the British Thought Gestapo and an arrest.

FYI, over 3000 are arrested in the UK every year for "offensive" posts like this:

I hate fagots, Muslim migrants, Paki rapists, and transgender "women".

This is too far of a simplification. Some people simply didn't vote, but if they had, they would have voted for him. @Vincent

How did you figure that out?

40% of the population didn't vote because the Tories and Labour are two cheeks of the same arse. Ones as bad as the other.

I understand that 40 of the population did not vote, i.e. approximately 60% of voters voted. That seems like a lot to me. People don't vote for various reasons: they are abroad, they work, they are sick, they forget. I think the actual support could be 10-15% more which would be quite good.

Normal enough there. It seems the other 60% don't mind which of the two major parties is in office for two decades.


The only two important words in that sentence are the first two. You could easily say that the Tories only won by default last time.


You mean vote for Labour? A clear majority of those who bothered to vote in 412 constituencies put an X next to the Labour candidate.


Why do you think that, given that one increases poverty, reduces standards of living and enriches their chums at the expense of society as a whole and the other does the opposite.

Don't forget, in the first year of the last Labour administration, 2 million children were lifted out of a poverty that they should not have been in

When Labour left office before, there were 7 food banks, now there are more than 3000. So no, capitalists and Socialists are not "two cheeks of the same arse".