[Youngian]

But since their factory’s closure, they have seen fellow union members switch in droves from voting for Keir Starmer in 2024 to backing Farage.

“The system of capitalism is dying because people are seeing it’s not worked,” says Gary Reay.

Its works extremely well for Farage and his donors. What makes these people think Farage is an anti-free market protectionist?
Perhaps Nigel will find them lucrative work as crypto traders.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Starmer tried very hard to do a deal to keep the factory open, but the owner wouldn't negotiate. By contrast, in Italy, they did a deal with the Meloni Government.

https://novaramedia.com/2025/02/05/luto ... far-right/

It is a grim irony then that when it comes to intervention the UK government is being outflanked by Italy’s far-right prime minister Giorgia Meloni government. Following the first national auto workers strike in 20 years, the Italian government and Stellantis reached a deal to keep all Fiat plants open. This has included investment in the supply chain, but also the use of furlough to keep plants alive as production falls to levels below the 1950s.

Not sure why it's an irony, likely that the car company prefers Meloni's approach to unions over Starmer and his workers rights agenda.

[The Weeping Angel]

This is what's been like on Bluesky today, just dealing with self-righteous blowhards who are convinced they know how to fight fascism.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Starmer used to wait a day for some strange reason, but he would condemn. I thought Burnham would have the political sense to condemn properly quickly.

[The Weeping Angel]

I get that, but it's just so frustrating that that becomes the focus rather than those far-right arseholes.

[RedSparrows]

I get that, but it's just so frustrating that that becomes the focus rather than those far-right arseholes.

Nobody expects anything good from those arseholes. They might expect something good from Labour.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This a BTL post on The Guardian by a rare good poster. The first bit is a quote from an article, the second is his response.

the days of Labour premiers attracting and holding on to large numbers of rightwing voters, as Tony Blair, Harold Wilson and Clement Attlee once did, are gone

True, but that's because of a different change.
The right-wing voters Blair attracted were middle-class, socially liberal, moderate Tories, and socially liberal but economically strict LibDems. They're the ones they're picking up now.

The ones they've lost, sadly, I suspect, for good, are working-class, socially illiberal voters who care about their own pocket but no-one else's, and who actively dislike a large section of society. Back in the day they'd have been staunch trade-unionists (think the Dagenham women's strike, and racial discrimination when the shop steward as well as the foreman had a hand in who got a job, and how the wife was expected to vote the same way as the husband), and voted Labour out of (what they saw as) necessity. In today's economy, that necessity has gone, and ain't coming back.

I think this is an interesting diagnosis. I would disagree slightly that all these Reform voters are lost forever. Why would the ones who voted Labour in 2024 be? I actually do think that some attempt to meet them on immigration control could work by the next election. They could have voted for Farage in 2024, but they didn't.

The logic of the original piece is doubtless that Burnham do what the author believes anyway- it was Andy Beckett, so no doubt it's Corbyn politics.

[Oboogie]

This is what's been like on Bluesky today, just dealing with self-righteous blowhards who are convinced they know how to fight fascism.

Er what "street violence"? I've not heard any reports of that.

Also, people in the comments are describing it as terrorism - not according to the Terrorism Act it isn't - and demanding it be banned because of the disruption it caused. Well every protest, every demo for every cause is disruptive by it's very nature, if disruption is grounds for a ban, that's the end of the right to protest.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It was at the very least threatened, surely? What's the point of being masked and dressed in black otherwise?

[Oboogie]

It was at the very least threatened, surely? What's the point of being masked and dressed in black otherwise?

John Elledge didn't say it was "threatened", he implied it happened when there's no evidence it did.

I agree that masks on demos should be illegal, but currently they're not and they are commonly worn on demonstrations for all sorts of causes, including ones I (and maybe you) support, are all the wearers threatening violence by dint of wearing masks? If not, what are the legal grounds for making an exception in this instance?