The old Himmler axiom of tell a lie enough and the people will believe it is the truth is a principle the Tiories and their media chums practice every day. It goes without saying that the Tories will be deeply unpopular come 2020, they are now and we are about to have the neoliberal whirlwind unleashed without LIbDem moderation. Thus a prolonged campaign to fix in the electorate's collective mind that Labour, whatever they might say, are unelectable.
there were many who were saying throughout 2010-2015 that the austerity measures would make the Tories unpopular, yet they increased their vote share at the last election - the public wanted more austerity. Furthermore, Tory support according to the polls has increased to over 40 since the election!
Attack after attack after attack on anything to do with the Labour Party.
It is quite clear that they know the Conservatives got lucky in the election just gone and that 2020 can also go either way.
They are trying to stifle any political discourse apart from how evil the Labour Party are. And that is both scary and worrying.
Not so much a case of the Conservatives getting lucky as much as the fact that Labour did not have a coherent economic agenda. Their whole campaign was based on a mountain of spite and envy directed towards anyone wishing to do well for themselves.
The public are a darned site more intelligent and sophisticated than Labour politicians think they are.
there were many who were saying throughout 2010-2015 that the austerity measures would make the Tories unpopular, yet they increased their vote share at the last election - the public wanted more austerity. Furthermore, Tory support according to the polls has increased to over 40 since the election!
24% of the electorate voted for them, so I assume 76% did not agree with their policies. Even with the measures Cameron is going to take to maximise the chances of another Tory win, it will be difficult if the opposition are anything like coherent and powerful.
I wouldn't describe Tory as right and Labour as left. Both are similar IMO.
This.
The scariest thing by far is that some people actually think Labour vs Tory represents some sort of meaningful choice. Both parties are utterly contemptible.
That's because he has a point. That Labour left a mess (and not just financially) is not in dispute. The Conservatives could arguably have done things a lot better in their 5 years, but the problems they face aren't small.
Labour meanwhile were going on about Thatcher even after she had been gone for years, and they had been in power for the best part of a decade, and while under a supposed economic "boom" that should have allowed them to spend money to fix the perceived wrongs.
That is just a bit dramatic - and let's not pretend that "the left wing press" doesn't moan about the Conservatives at every opportunity.
I would agree, but there are people who think Labour are not to be criticised and who like to bring out the same tired arguments as to why Labour are blameless for a given issue
Heath left a mess. Callaghan left a mess. There were several messes under Thatcher. Major left a big mess that had to be cleared up. The financial crisis (which happened under Labour but wasn't caused by them) left a mess. The coalition left a mess. This government will leave a mess.
It seems to me that even if you assume that every single reader of one of the Right Wing papers voted for the Tories (which is self evidently ridiculous) that accounts for what 5-6 million votes (out of 11 million). Ditto with the two million Labour votes from Mirror, Guradian and i readers.
Newspaper readership has been falling for years, by the next election, even The Sun will struggle to reach a million per day if the current rate of decline continues. And yet I can't help but think that if the Tories win the next election we'll still have Labour supporters, blaming the press for every setback, despite newspaper reading being, by then, a tiny minority pastime. TV Choice has a higher circulation than most newspapers, are they going to be blamed next?
I've found that if I don't like the output of a particular paper the best thing to do is exercise my consumer choice to not buy it. There are hundreds of new outlets on the internet, there are countless 24 news channels. The choice is endless you know..
It seems to me that even if you assume that every single reader of one of the Right Wing papers voted for the Tories (which is self evidently ridiculous) that accounts for what 5-6 million votes (out of 11 million). Ditto with the two million Labour votes from Mirror, Guradian and i readers.
Newspaper readership has been falling for years, by the next election, even The Sun will struggle to reach a million per day if the current rate of decline continues. And yet I can't help but think that if the Tories win the next election we'll still have Labour supporters, blaming the press for every setback, despite newspaper reading being, by then, a tiny minority pastime. TV Choice has a higher circulation than most newspapers, are they going to be blamed next?
I've found that if I don't like the output of a particular paper the best thing to do is exercise my consumer choice to not buy it. There are hundreds of new outlets on the internet, there are countless 24 news channels. The choice is endless you know..
I find it humourous that quite often, the people who claim that others fall for propaganda and lies because they are sheep or stupid, state that they are immune from such things. The implication is that if you disagree with them it can only be because you don't have their intelligence, there can be no other reason, none, why people don't follow the one true path.
I find it humourous that quite often, the people who claim that others fall for propaganda and lies because they are sheep or stupid, state that they are immune from such things. The implication is that if you disagree with them it can only be because you don't have their intelligence, there can be no other reason, none, why people don't follow the one true path.
Yes that seems to be very common on DS. It's the same kind of people who claim to be tolerant and open-minded, but only if you agree with what they say.
Yes that seems to be very common on DS. It's the same kind of people who claim to be tolerant and open-minded, but only if you agree with what they say.
I am pefectly happy to discuss things with people who disagree with me but when their argment is a regurgitation of Tory propagan athat is demonstrably a lie, sensibel debate is impossible. It is akin to arguing atheism with a born-again Christian, it is not based upon fact but fantasy. Then open mined debate rapidly becomes righteous contempt.
I am pefectly happy to discuss things with people who disagree with me but when their argment is a regurgitation of Tory propagan athat is demonstrably a lie, sensibel debate is impossible. It is akin to arguing atheism with a born-again Christian, it is not based upon fact but fantasy. Then open mined debate rapidly becomes righteous contempt.
So if an article from the Guardian or Mirror is quoted I take it you will not enter into that debate as it simply a regurgitation of Labour propoganda?
Victimhood is one of the defining characteristics of the left. Victims of the press, victims of the electoral system, victims of cynical Tories, victims of the stupid voters, etc, etc.
The left seem to revel in victimhood, either claiming it for themselves or pinning it on someone else on their behalf.
Heath left a mess. Callaghan left a mess. There were several messes under Thatcher. Major left a big mess that had to be cleared up. The financial crisis (which happened under Labour but wasn't caused by them) left a mess. The coalition left a mess. This government will leave a mess.
So Labour didn't sell our gold at rock bottom prices, Labour didn't take us to war on the say so of a lie, the mysterious death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly and it's subsequent cover up (why do we have to wait 70 years until we can see how he died if there is nothing to hide?). So Labour didn't spend and spend until there was no money left. Labour caused enough of a mess that it was going to takes years for any government to clear it up and the Conservatives had the task of trying to save money and make cuts no country can carry on living on the never.
So if an article from the Guardian or Mirror is quoted I take it you will not enter into that debate as it simply a regurgitation of Labour propoganda?
And are you one of the "righteous"?
Taking the bit of my last post that you didnt highlight, if the Guardian article was demonstably a lie, i wouldn't argue their position. Quite easy to do as I haven't voted Labour since Blair became leader and don't knowingly follow any propaganda beyond my own.
Am I one of the righteous? More so than any Tory I have come scross for sure.
Taking the bit of my last post that you didnt highlight, if the Guardian article was demonstably a lie, i wouldn't argue their position. Quite easy to do as I haven't voted Labour since Blair became leader and don't knowingly follow any propaganda beyond my own.
Am I one of the righteous? More so than any Tory I have come scross for sure.
Your last sentence makes you sound incredibly arrogant. I'm no Tory fan, I've only ever voted Green and Libdem, but in no way do I think I'm more righteous than those who are. You need to be more open minded.
Labour aren't an irrelevance. They're the opposition and right now, grabbing the headlines because of their leadership campaign and because one member of their leadership campaign is very much on the left of the party.
The press aren't fair; just look at what they dish out to members of the public, never mind the politicians. But your take that this is happening to Labour is what concerns me here - the same stunts you abhor are being pulled by the Mirror and if you really want to focus on the issue of discrediting, the Guardian is permanently locked into discrediting the Conservatives.
It's the nature of media. They take sides. They're happy in the gutter. And they don't take prisoners.
But they are. And a mere change of the leader isn't going to start making them relevant. We need full blown reform of the Tories opposition to have an opposition which can effectively take them on and fill the political void in the across the centre ground from the moderate left to the moderate right which all the parties have abandoned.
The press can be vitriolic and there will be people on both sides who wish for the end of their respective opposition. There were already headlines after the election declaring the death of both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in the mainstream media.
"And Then There Was One"
"Lib Dems Are Annihilated"
"The Strange Death of Liberal Britain"
"...the End of Labour"
Let's not make any mistake, there are bloggers, commentators and media outlets whose pure desire is for a one party nation. And I see some on the hard left demanding the end of the Tories too, both sides can be as bad as each other.
The media is mirroring what is being seen in the political spectrum, the left and right going further to the left and right respectively, becoming more authoritarian whilst a gaping chasm has appeared in the middle ground and liberal/(social) libertarian side of the political spectrum which politics and the media have abandoned.
I can only imagine things will get worse as the gaping chasm in the political spectrum grows whilst newspapers get desperate for revenue and turn towards clickbait and hyperbole for clicks and most importantly, ever rare revenue which is hard to come by in journalism as of late.
I think the OP actually puts forward an observation worthy of debate, not dismissal.
I guess it can sometimes feel like the press may be 'ganging up' on Labour/Left because there are more notable right-wing voices than left-wing ones. The Sun is the highest circulating paper, the Daily Mail the second-highest circulating. Then there's the Telegraph, The Times, and The Daily Express. The only big circulating left-wing newspaper is the Mirror. The Guardian is in the red - although as far as I'm aware, The Times is in the red too.
It can certainly be argued that with the decline of newspaper circulation the influence of The Sun may have been limited. Their website, along with the Times is now behind a pay-wall. As an FM rightfully pointed out, as newspaper circulation declines The Sun may even struggle to sell a million per day. But the Daily Mail's website, by contrast is one of the most influential websites in the world. Although there's the caveat that must of those hits may well be from their Showbiz section, there is room to debate how much influence the 'Daily Mail' worldview has in shaping people's politics.
I think that although newspapers are a declining influence, they are still an influence. They are often key to shaping political narratives, and many other areas of mass media often adopt and reflect these narratives. The 'Red Ed' narrative for example originated from the newspapers, but this carried through into the wider media general. Still, I don't believe that the newspapers are the main reason Labour lost - although I think they would like to think that, and part of their criticisms of Labour post-election are based on a belief they can single-handedly shape the political debate.
Labour lost because it wasn't seen as economically credible, and because of Ed Miliband. The media may have reinforced/emphasised those factors, but they still there. Yet I do think the OP has valid criticisms of the media that aren't necessarily a sign of 'victimhood' and whatnot. I think there definite room for criticism of Labour, but the question is, is the criticism constructive? Does it help inform the public, does it add to the wider debate of what Labour needs do to to be a credible opposition? I think much of it does not. On the day before the election The Sun's front-page was Ed Miliband eating a bacon sand-which. Is that really, the most constructive criticism of Labour that anyone can make? Or is demonising an individual? I think that it is this kind of criticism the OP is getting at. There is a fine-line between criticism - such as what Dan Hodges does in his Telegraph columns, and demonization in how The Sun portray an individual, as opposed to a critique on what he stands for.
In reality, most media criticisms of Labour won't be of interested to your average person who has tuned-out of the politics so far. It's more Westminster Village stuff, and Labour should be careful about how it lets the assessments of such media affect the direction it goes in. A lot of the 'what went wrong' for Labour articles are based on unfounded projections.
I don't think the OP was trying to question the intelligence of those who didn't agree with him/her, either - I don't know where that came from. As for the left reveling in victimhood, I find many on the Right revel on victimhood when they start to talk about the evil BBC, and how PC/positive discrimination has ruined their lives. Both Left and Right are as bad as each other, on this one.
On the Cameron 'inherited a mess' thing, I agree Labour messed up economically. But I guess the biggest criticism you can make is that sometimes it feels the Tories use that to deflect attention off their own economic record. In 2020, they will have to take responsibility for the impact of their polices - after all they'd have been in power for 10 years.
Your last sentence makes you sound incredibly arrogant. I'm no Tory fan, I've only ever voted Green and Libdem, but in no way do I think I'm more righteous than those who are. You need to be more open minded.
Exactly. And I'd suggest that that sentence, alone provides more illumination as to why Labour lost than anything printed in a newspaper.
No ones going to vote for an arrogant morally superior lecturesome.
To clarify things I am not a Labour supporter and haven't voted for them since 2001. I am of no-fixed-abode politically.
It was an observation as to how we have had a lot of anti-Labour threads on here since the election from commentators from the right-wing press. I am also questioning the quality of political journalism we have - and you could also include Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee into that sphere.
Just yesterday the Telegraph was rebuked for breaking editorial guidelines during the election but it seems that no-one wants to discuss that fact.
The old Himmler axiom of tell a lie enough and the people will believe it is the truth is a principle the Tiories and their media chums practice every day. It goes without saying that the Tories will be deeply unpopular come 2020, they are now and we are about to have the neoliberal whirlwind unleashed without LIbDem moderation. Thus a prolonged campaign to fix in the electorate's collective mind that Labour, whatever they might say, are unelectable.
It may have escaped your notice but the Conservatives (against expectation) won the last election outright. They are certainly more popular than the alternative.
Much of the media is owned/run by people who really should be in prison.
Have they been charged with any crime, found guilty? Until such a time such statements are meaningless.
The relationship between the Conservatives and big business is a massive corruption waiting to be exposed.
Labour receiving a large degree of funding from the Unions - indeed the modern Labour Party would have gone bankrupt without the backing of the Unions - and with it many of the existing leaders of the party.
When in power the Labour party were exceptionally good at News Management - ensuring that only onside reporters got the scoops. It lost that ability under Brown and Milliband. What is this complaint - I agree with Free speech as long as you agree with me!
The Labour Party is expecting to challenge to be the government in 2020 and as such what it is going to do is subject to challenge and it should be able to face that challenge. Clearly the argument it made in the election was not sufficiently persuasive (where in 1997 it clearly was), nor was it in tune with the voters wishes and desires.
Labour should get over itself and have the challenge of it's convictions and stand up for something other than in terms of opposing what the other lot is doing is bad.
Labour receiving a large degree of funding from the Unions - indeed the modern Labour Party would have gone bankrupt without the backing of the Unions - and with it many of the existing leaders of the party.
While simultaneously funnelling millions of pounds of taxpayers money to those self same unions in the form of a "modernisation fund".
If we're going to infer corruption let's include that little nugget as well.
To clarify things I am not a Labour supporter and haven't voted for them since 2001. I am of no-fixed-abode politically.
It was an observation as to how we have had a lot of anti-Labour threads on here since the election from commentators from the right-wing press. I am also questioning the quality of political journalism we have - and you could also include Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee into that sphere.
Just yesterday the Telegraph was rebuked for breaking editorial guidelines during the election but it seems that no-one wants to discuss that fact.
I'm surprised you do - it's about the SNP, not Labour.
ETA: I've just had a look through the most recent 10 pages of threads here in this forum and by a long way - a long, long way - there are are many more anti-Tory / let's have a dig at the Tories threads than there are anti-Labour ones. If you don't believe me, I suggest you look for yourself and see.
I'm surprised you do - it's about the SNP, not Labour.
ETA: I've just had a look through the most recent 10 pages of threads here in this forum and by a long way - a long, long way - there are are many more anti-Tory / let's have a dig at the Tories threads than there are anti-Labour ones. If you don't believe me, I suggest you look for yourself and see.
Naughty David Tee!
You know I am not a Labour voter/supporter. That is a horrible thing to accuse me of being.
I may be a rabid anti-Tory but that doesn't make me Labour. It is possible to hate them without being one.
Comments
there were many who were saying throughout 2010-2015 that the austerity measures would make the Tories unpopular, yet they increased their vote share at the last election - the public wanted more austerity. Furthermore, Tory support according to the polls has increased to over 40 since the election!
Not so much a case of the Conservatives getting lucky as much as the fact that Labour did not have a coherent economic agenda. Their whole campaign was based on a mountain of spite and envy directed towards anyone wishing to do well for themselves.
The public are a darned site more intelligent and sophisticated than Labour politicians think they are.
The scariest thing by far is that some people actually think Labour vs Tory represents some sort of meaningful choice. Both parties are utterly contemptible.
Heath left a mess. Callaghan left a mess. There were several messes under Thatcher. Major left a big mess that had to be cleared up. The financial crisis (which happened under Labour but wasn't caused by them) left a mess. The coalition left a mess. This government will leave a mess.
Here are some interesting circulation figures
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation
It seems to me that even if you assume that every single reader of one of the Right Wing papers voted for the Tories (which is self evidently ridiculous) that accounts for what 5-6 million votes (out of 11 million). Ditto with the two million Labour votes from Mirror, Guradian and i readers.
Newspaper readership has been falling for years, by the next election, even The Sun will struggle to reach a million per day if the current rate of decline continues. And yet I can't help but think that if the Tories win the next election we'll still have Labour supporters, blaming the press for every setback, despite newspaper reading being, by then, a tiny minority pastime. TV Choice has a higher circulation than most newspapers, are they going to be blamed next?
I've found that if I don't like the output of a particular paper the best thing to do is exercise my consumer choice to not buy it. There are hundreds of new outlets on the internet, there are countless 24 news channels. The choice is endless you know..
I find it humourous that quite often, the people who claim that others fall for propaganda and lies because they are sheep or stupid, state that they are immune from such things. The implication is that if you disagree with them it can only be because you don't have their intelligence, there can be no other reason, none, why people don't follow the one true path.
Yes that seems to be very common on DS. It's the same kind of people who claim to be tolerant and open-minded, but only if you agree with what they say.
I am pefectly happy to discuss things with people who disagree with me but when their argment is a regurgitation of Tory propagan athat is demonstrably a lie, sensibel debate is impossible. It is akin to arguing atheism with a born-again Christian, it is not based upon fact but fantasy. Then open mined debate rapidly becomes righteous contempt.
So if an article from the Guardian or Mirror is quoted I take it you will not enter into that debate as it simply a regurgitation of Labour propoganda?
And are you one of the "righteous"?
The left seem to revel in victimhood, either claiming it for themselves or pinning it on someone else on their behalf.
So Labour didn't sell our gold at rock bottom prices, Labour didn't take us to war on the say so of a lie, the mysterious death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly and it's subsequent cover up (why do we have to wait 70 years until we can see how he died if there is nothing to hide?). So Labour didn't spend and spend until there was no money left. Labour caused enough of a mess that it was going to takes years for any government to clear it up and the Conservatives had the task of trying to save money and make cuts no country can carry on living on the never.
Taking the bit of my last post that you didnt highlight, if the Guardian article was demonstably a lie, i wouldn't argue their position. Quite easy to do as I haven't voted Labour since Blair became leader and don't knowingly follow any propaganda beyond my own.
Am I one of the righteous? More so than any Tory I have come scross for sure.
Your last sentence makes you sound incredibly arrogant. I'm no Tory fan, I've only ever voted Green and Libdem, but in no way do I think I'm more righteous than those who are. You need to be more open minded.
The press can be vitriolic and there will be people on both sides who wish for the end of their respective opposition. There were already headlines after the election declaring the death of both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in the mainstream media.
"And Then There Was One"
"Lib Dems Are Annihilated"
"The Strange Death of Liberal Britain"
"...the End of Labour"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEmPdz-UgAEEVhW.png:large
Let's not make any mistake, there are bloggers, commentators and media outlets whose pure desire is for a one party nation. And I see some on the hard left demanding the end of the Tories too, both sides can be as bad as each other.
The media is mirroring what is being seen in the political spectrum, the left and right going further to the left and right respectively, becoming more authoritarian whilst a gaping chasm has appeared in the middle ground and liberal/(social) libertarian side of the political spectrum which politics and the media have abandoned.
I can only imagine things will get worse as the gaping chasm in the political spectrum grows whilst newspapers get desperate for revenue and turn towards clickbait and hyperbole for clicks and most importantly, ever rare revenue which is hard to come by in journalism as of late.
I guess it can sometimes feel like the press may be 'ganging up' on Labour/Left because there are more notable right-wing voices than left-wing ones. The Sun is the highest circulating paper, the Daily Mail the second-highest circulating. Then there's the Telegraph, The Times, and The Daily Express. The only big circulating left-wing newspaper is the Mirror. The Guardian is in the red - although as far as I'm aware, The Times is in the red too.
It can certainly be argued that with the decline of newspaper circulation the influence of The Sun may have been limited. Their website, along with the Times is now behind a pay-wall. As an FM rightfully pointed out, as newspaper circulation declines The Sun may even struggle to sell a million per day. But the Daily Mail's website, by contrast is one of the most influential websites in the world. Although there's the caveat that must of those hits may well be from their Showbiz section, there is room to debate how much influence the 'Daily Mail' worldview has in shaping people's politics.
I think that although newspapers are a declining influence, they are still an influence. They are often key to shaping political narratives, and many other areas of mass media often adopt and reflect these narratives. The 'Red Ed' narrative for example originated from the newspapers, but this carried through into the wider media general. Still, I don't believe that the newspapers are the main reason Labour lost - although I think they would like to think that, and part of their criticisms of Labour post-election are based on a belief they can single-handedly shape the political debate.
Labour lost because it wasn't seen as economically credible, and because of Ed Miliband. The media may have reinforced/emphasised those factors, but they still there. Yet I do think the OP has valid criticisms of the media that aren't necessarily a sign of 'victimhood' and whatnot. I think there definite room for criticism of Labour, but the question is, is the criticism constructive? Does it help inform the public, does it add to the wider debate of what Labour needs do to to be a credible opposition? I think much of it does not. On the day before the election The Sun's front-page was Ed Miliband eating a bacon sand-which. Is that really, the most constructive criticism of Labour that anyone can make? Or is demonising an individual? I think that it is this kind of criticism the OP is getting at. There is a fine-line between criticism - such as what Dan Hodges does in his Telegraph columns, and demonization in how The Sun portray an individual, as opposed to a critique on what he stands for.
In reality, most media criticisms of Labour won't be of interested to your average person who has tuned-out of the politics so far. It's more Westminster Village stuff, and Labour should be careful about how it lets the assessments of such media affect the direction it goes in. A lot of the 'what went wrong' for Labour articles are based on unfounded projections.
I don't think the OP was trying to question the intelligence of those who didn't agree with him/her, either - I don't know where that came from. As for the left reveling in victimhood, I find many on the Right revel on victimhood when they start to talk about the evil BBC, and how PC/positive discrimination has ruined their lives. Both Left and Right are as bad as each other, on this one.
On the Cameron 'inherited a mess' thing, I agree Labour messed up economically. But I guess the biggest criticism you can make is that sometimes it feels the Tories use that to deflect attention off their own economic record. In 2020, they will have to take responsibility for the impact of their polices - after all they'd have been in power for 10 years.
Exactly. And I'd suggest that that sentence, alone provides more illumination as to why Labour lost than anything printed in a newspaper.
No ones going to vote for an arrogant morally superior lecturesome.
A leftist with moral certainty. (Shudders).
It was an observation as to how we have had a lot of anti-Labour threads on here since the election from commentators from the right-wing press. I am also questioning the quality of political journalism we have - and you could also include Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee into that sphere.
Just yesterday the Telegraph was rebuked for breaking editorial guidelines during the election but it seems that no-one wants to discuss that fact.
Would you care to name these people who should be in prison, and could you tell us what their crimes are?
Eh, no. I don't believe that is "the vibe".
Where exactly have you picked up this vibe that the UK is run by organised crime and is the corrupt centre of Europe?
It may have escaped your notice but the Conservatives (against expectation) won the last election outright. They are certainly more popular than the alternative.
Have they been charged with any crime, found guilty? Until such a time such statements are meaningless.
Labour receiving a large degree of funding from the Unions - indeed the modern Labour Party would have gone bankrupt without the backing of the Unions - and with it many of the existing leaders of the party.
When in power the Labour party were exceptionally good at News Management - ensuring that only onside reporters got the scoops. It lost that ability under Brown and Milliband. What is this complaint - I agree with Free speech as long as you agree with me!
The Labour Party is expecting to challenge to be the government in 2020 and as such what it is going to do is subject to challenge and it should be able to face that challenge. Clearly the argument it made in the election was not sufficiently persuasive (where in 1997 it clearly was), nor was it in tune with the voters wishes and desires.
Labour should get over itself and have the challenge of it's convictions and stand up for something other than in terms of opposing what the other lot is doing is bad.
While simultaneously funnelling millions of pounds of taxpayers money to those self same unions in the form of a "modernisation fund".
If we're going to infer corruption let's include that little nugget as well.
It's their Party and they'll cry if they want to, cry if they want to
You would cry too if it happened to you:D
I'm surprised you do - it's about the SNP, not Labour.
ETA: I've just had a look through the most recent 10 pages of threads here in this forum and by a long way - a long, long way - there are are many more anti-Tory / let's have a dig at the Tories threads than there are anti-Labour ones. If you don't believe me, I suggest you look for yourself and see.
Naughty David Tee!
You know I am not a Labour voter/supporter. That is a horrible thing to accuse me of being.
I may be a rabid anti-Tory but that doesn't make me Labour. It is possible to hate them without being one.