Page 5 | Andy B’s speech

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 17:04

BIossomtoes · 30/09/2026 17:01

What about all its failures?

Show quote history

The failures of Labour and Blair? I could give you a long list. Devolution and the Iraq War for a start.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 17:03

BIossomtoes · 30/09/2026 16:57

It also made whole communities jobless with no prospect of employment because their traditional industries were closed down and not replaced. It sold off the utilities that belonged to us all and that we all depend on so they sacrificed maintaining the assets for shareholder profit. It caused house price inflation and the rise of private landlords many of whose mortgages are now being paid by the taxpayer via housing benefit. It caused many families to live in expensive, substandard homes because council houses were not replaced.

Edited

Show quote history

Labour closed down considerably more pits than the Conservatives.

Ship building could not and cannot happen here any more due to competition from China for example. We just don't have the dock size.

Privatisation was essential due to the terrible way a state monopoly leads to poor services. It will happen again.

HelpMyBlackLabradorVotesReform · 30/09/2026 17:02

BIossomtoes · 30/09/2026 17:01

What about all its failures?

Show quote history

What about all of its successes?

BIossomtoes · 30/09/2026 17:01

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 17:00

Andy Burnham is all about collectivism and nationalising industries. Not the individual success and support of free markets under Blair and the acceptance of Thatcher's reforms. I'm presuming Andy is including the Blair years in his critique of the last 40 years.

Show quote history

What about all its failures?

BIossomtoes · 30/09/2026 17:00

HelpMyBlackLabradorVotesReform · 30/09/2026 16:59

The exact point was when Labour picked the wrong brother!

Show quote history

It didn’t die. It’s back.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 17:00

CountBinfaceForPM · 30/09/2026 16:55

When did it die?

Show quote history

Andy Burnham is all about collectivism and nationalising industries. Not the individual success and support of free markets under Blair and the acceptance of Thatcher's reforms. I'm presuming Andy is including the Blair years in his critique of the last 40 years.

HelpMyBlackLabradorVotesReform · 30/09/2026 16:59

CountBinfaceForPM · 30/09/2026 16:55

When did it die?

Show quote history

The exact point was when Labour picked the wrong brother!

HelpMyBlackLabradorVotesReform · 30/09/2026 16:58

CountBinfaceForPM · 30/09/2026 16:54

Burnham is a Blairite. New Labour through and through.

Show quote history

He's not a Blairite. He was a Blairite when it was politically expedient for him, just like he Corbynite when he was Shadow Home secretary. How he seems to rocked up at a 70s celebration event.

BIossomtoes · 30/09/2026 16:57

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 16:48

It meant that the proles could be house owners and shareholders and a vast expansion of the middle class. That's anathema for the 1970s super fan Andy. Back down those pits for you, working classes.

Edited

Show quote history

It also made whole communities jobless with no prospect of employment because their traditional industries were closed down and not replaced. It sold off the utilities that belonged to us all and that we all depend on so they sacrificed maintaining the assets for shareholder profit. It caused house price inflation and the rise of private landlords many of whose mortgages are now being paid by the taxpayer via housing benefit. It caused many families to live in expensive, substandard homes because council houses were not replaced.

CountBinfaceForPM · 30/09/2026 16:55

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 16:55

No he isn't! New Labour is dead!

Show quote history

When did it die?

EasternStandard · 30/09/2026 16:55

CountBinfaceForPM · 30/09/2026 16:53

Well yes, because that is what he's said. But he hasn't said he wants to take us backwards to the 1970s. Or the 80s. I think perhaps maybe read what he has actually said rather than what his critics are trying to frame it as.

I think some are rattled because his speech has gone down well with many across the political spectrum.

Show quote history

Ah yes the ‘rattled’ thing, there were the same posts on here after Starmer’s speech.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 16:55

CountBinfaceForPM · 30/09/2026 16:54

Burnham is a Blairite. New Labour through and through.

Show quote history

No he isn't! New Labour is dead!

CountBinfaceForPM · 30/09/2026 16:54

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 16:48

It meant that the proles could be house owners and shareholders and a vast expansion of the middle class. That's anathema for the 1970s super fan Andy. Back down those pits for you, working classes.

Edited

Show quote history

Burnham is a Blairite. New Labour through and through.

CountBinfaceForPM · 30/09/2026 16:53

EasternStandard · 30/09/2026 16:39

Yes and you corrected the pp on using 40 years, you’ve just cited Burnham using the same.

Show quote history

Well yes, because that is what he's said. But he hasn't said he wants to take us backwards to the 1970s. Or the 80s. I think perhaps maybe read what he has actually said rather than what his critics are trying to frame it as.

I think some are rattled because his speech has gone down well with many across the political spectrum.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 16:48

Pearlstillsinging · 30/09/2026 16:44

He was talking about the reforms put in place by Thatcher; privatisation of public services and the Right to Buy council houses whi h couldn't be replaced. Nothing at all to do with the 70s!

Show quote history

It meant that the proles could be house owners and shareholders and a vast expansion of the middle class. That's anathema for the 1970s super fan Andy. Back down those pits for you, working classes.

EasternStandard · 30/09/2026 16:46

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 16:37

We can of course discuss everything in dull, mundane, plain utilitarian language. It's very socialist I suppose.

And obviously as Labour are now considering policing language and setting up a Ministry of Truth, rather apt that the left wing people on here are criticising the way I have posted rather than the actual point I was making.

Show quote history

Haha some victory gin for you.

EasternStandard · 30/09/2026 16:45

Pearlstillsinging · 30/09/2026 16:44

He was talking about the reforms put in place by Thatcher; privatisation of public services and the Right to Buy council houses whi h couldn't be replaced. Nothing at all to do with the 70s!

Show quote history

Not sure why you’re quoting my post here. The pp corrected someone on using 40 years, then used it. The pp didn’t need that.

Pearlstillsinging · 30/09/2026 16:44

EasternStandard · 30/09/2026 16:06

You should mention this to Burnham’s speech writers, who use 40 years ago.

Show quote history

He was talking about the reforms put in place by Thatcher; privatisation of public services and the Right to Buy council houses whi h couldn't be replaced. Nothing at all to do with the 70s!

EasternStandard · 30/09/2026 16:39

CountBinfaceForPM · 30/09/2026 16:37

No he isn't. He isn't selling in a return to the 1970s either. What he has talked about is changing some of the bad decisions that have been made over the past 40 years.

Show quote history

Yes and you corrected the pp on using 40 years, you’ve just cited Burnham using the same.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 16:38

Raiderofthelostbattenburg · 30/09/2026 16:35

I'm sorry if I sounded pompous. But the relentless sarcasm just really isn't my preferred style of political debate. So, I do think it's best we leave it there. Always happy to agree to disagree!

Show quote history

If you don't like my style don't engage. I don't criticise how you draft your posts out of the blue do I? No. Because that would be rude.

CountBinfaceForPM · 30/09/2026 16:37

EasternStandard · 30/09/2026 16:27

Burnham is not selling in returning to 1986.

Show quote history

No he isn't. He isn't selling in a return to the 1970s either. What he has talked about is changing some of the bad decisions that have been made over the past 40 years.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 16:37

BIossomtoes · 30/09/2026 16:34

Your post wasn’t sensible. It was puerile and reductive. It’s the kind of thing that’s incredibly annoying to people who are attempting an adult conversation. But you know that.

Show quote history

We can of course discuss everything in dull, mundane, plain utilitarian language. It's very socialist I suppose.

And obviously as Labour are now considering policing language and setting up a Ministry of Truth, rather apt that the left wing people on here are criticising the way I have posted rather than the actual point I was making.

SoWhatAndThen · 30/09/2026 16:35

For those who are reminded of Neil Kinnock useful to remember he never won a general election...

I thought it was a good speech that appeals to Labour voters. Is it enough to see off the other parties. I'm not sure.

Raiderofthelostbattenburg · 30/09/2026 16:35

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 16:30

Oh dont be so pompous. Ive been engaging perfectly sensibly. And if you can't understand the point I was making (a vision needs to be possible and also needs to be affordable) then that's not my fault.

Show quote history

I'm sorry if I sounded pompous. But the relentless sarcasm just really isn't my preferred style of political debate. So, I do think it's best we leave it there. Always happy to agree to disagree!

BIossomtoes · 30/09/2026 16:34

Pineneedlesincarpet · 30/09/2026 16:30

Oh dont be so pompous. Ive been engaging perfectly sensibly. And if you can't understand the point I was making (a vision needs to be possible and also needs to be affordable) then that's not my fault.

Show quote history

Your post wasn’t sensible. It was puerile and reductive. It’s the kind of thing that’s incredibly annoying to people who are attempting an adult conversation. But you know that.