"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-ledâ€*, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc,
the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

â€* Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour
it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,� said nobody,
ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

and they're cheering Corbyn for making them un-electable?

tim