Your allegiance to which political party?

Just thought I would ask people on here to which political party their allegiances lie?

Just out interest nothing more.

None I decide at the time which party I agree with.

They're all as bloody bad as each other!

Disagree that they’re all as bad as each other. Might all be toßers but policies are different and matters IMO.

Ticked ‘other’ because none of those listed match my views.

Always voted Labour, always will. Think Starmer is a bit of a tosser but would rather have him than bullsh1t Boris.

Besides, you should never vote for a person, but a party and it's policies, so Starmer is like a football manager; one day he will be gone, but the party/team will live on.

I've voted for 3 different parties in my voting lifetime but never for the Tories and unless there was a massive sea change in their outlook highly doubt I ever will. The core values of the Tories are nothing like my own, plus I grew up during the Thatcher years.

I have absolutely no political affiliation and vote for the person I think will do the most for the area where I live. That varies and there have been times I have deliberately abstained when I thought they were all w@nkers.

In my youth I was a Labour member, worked for Tony Crosland and later for the party in the West Riding in the 60s and 70s up to the time of T Dan Smith and Poulson and co.  I think it was Orwell who said every self-respecting teenager begins as a socialist.

Attending union and party conferences and reporting to various colours of council committees convinced me that the party system is the single biggest handicap to progress in this country. It is full of self-opinionated bigots whose primary aim is self-advancement. No decisions reflect public opinions and all are made behind closed doors for the benefit of vested interests. I don’t care which party it is, none is exempt, this is a truism.

Quoted from ginnywings

Always voted Labour, always will. Think Starmer is a bit of a tosser but would rather have him than bullsh1t Boris.

Besides, you should never vote for a person, but a party and it's policies, so Starmer is like a football manager; one day he will be gone, but the party/team will live on.

I think all party leaders are bull shitters and do many people actually vote for a leader rather than a party?

Mind you having said that I think in the December G.E. many voted against their party leader especially in the Labour Party and also voted for a leader namely Boris for his "lets get Brexit done" slogan.

Intertesting comments from a former Labour MP including about the current leader :-

People like Caroline Flint above demonstrate why it’s important not to tie yourself to any particular party. Flint was part of Blair’s New Labour which lost votes in every single GE since 1997, was caught out in the MPs expenses scandal in which she personally swindled the taxpayer out of thousands, employed her husband in her office on a £40k salary, voted for the illegal Iraq war and against investigations into it. All this while supposedly representing the working class, but in essence was taking her constituents for a well-paid, easy ride.

The best thing you can do is make yourself aware of what’s important, ignore the noise in the billionaire-funded media and vote accordingly.

Paid up party member of Labour,

Had the pleasure of growing up under Thatcher with a single parent on benefits, had to get a £20 voucher to buy school clothes and had to queue for free dinners at school. The Tories will always screw the poor, look after the rich and pretend social mobility exists.

I’m well off now, professional job but don’t vote for  what’s in it for me but those less fortunate.

Unsurprisingly, I am of the left. They have all the best music, comedy and economics - not to mention most of rest of the facts (undeniably) on their side.

This being the case, I couldn't vote for the Tories who care for nothing but the Convservation of wealth and power built up by their class over the centuries. The LibDems have done little but take votes away from Labour to enable the Tories ever since their inception so they would only get my vote if it stopped the Tories from getting into power. Not an issue around here, obviously.

Unfortunately, the FPTP system means that we're pretty much screwed as a proper representative democracy. I'm fully aware that Starmer is dragging Labour back to the barely-left-of-centre (and to the right of New Labour from initial indications), but what else is the choice for me? The LibDems destroyed themselves in 2010 by opting to go into government with the Tories instead of Labour who were on their wing of the political scale (Nick Clegg seems to be doing OK for himself, though). Even if they moved leftward there would be no point in considering them. The Greens are OK in social and economic terms but in most places a vote for them is just wasted because of FPTP and I also think they are terribly wrong about Nuclear power. Something I could overlook if it was tactical voting to beat the Tories but again, not an issue in this area.

Despite what the bias of the mainstream media would have you believe (much of it owned by right-wing billionaires, let's not forget), deep down, we're a left-leaning country. It's just that most people don't realise the fact. Just look at the combined vote of the parties of the left/centre-left in most elections over the past century. The Americans have their own broken FPTP system but have been 'sensible' enough to have a two-party system. Not the case with us. For a while, this screwed over the UKIPPERs whose votes didn't count for much but, in general, it's the left that loses out. It's why, if a Labour government should manage to get elected, the very first thing they should do is push through PR so that we become a proper representative democracy. New Labour's biggest failing.

Totally with you on New Lab not pushing PR through. Thought they could stay in power because of the landslides Blair got. Sheer hubris which the British people have paid for.

Quoted from Maringer

Unsurprisingly, I am of the left. They have all the best music, comedy and economics - not to mention most of rest of the facts (undeniably) on their side.

This being the case, I couldn't vote for the Tories who care for nothing but the Convservation of wealth and power built up by their class over the centuries. The LibDems have done little but take votes away from Labour to enable the Tories ever since their inception so they would only get my vote if it stopped the Tories from getting into power. Not an issue around here, obviously.

Unfortunately, the FPTP system means that we're pretty much screwed as a proper representative democracy. I'm fully aware that Starmer is dragging Labour back to the barely-left-of-centre (and to the right of New Labour from initial indications), but what else is the choice for me? The LibDems destroyed themselves in 2010 by opting to go into government with the Tories instead of Labour who were on their wing of the political scale (Nick Clegg seems to be doing OK for himself, though). Even if they moved leftward there would be no point in considering them. The Greens are OK in social and economic terms but in most places a vote for them is just wasted because of FPTP and I also think they are terribly wrong about Nuclear power. Something I could overlook if it was tactical voting to beat the Tories but again, not an issue in this area.

Despite what the bias of the mainstream media would have you believe (much of it owned by right-wing billionaires, let's not forget), deep down, we're a left-leaning country. It's just that most people don't realise the fact. Just look at the combined vote of the parties of the left/centre-left in most elections over the past century. The Americans have their own broken FPTP system but have been 'sensible' enough to have a two-party system. Not the case with us. For a while, this screwed over the UKIPPERs whose votes didn't count for much but, in general, it's the left that loses out. It's why, if a Labour government should manage to get elected, the very first thing they should do is push through PR so that we become a proper representative democracy. New Labour's biggest failing.

Sums it up for me. I could not, and would not, ever vote for a Tory under any circumstances. Vile, self serving goons, the lot of them. Lib Dems are shot and they deserve to be. Other parties not big enough, or powerful enough to ever get elected, so waste of time voting for them.

The Labour Party are too far to the right for my liking, but they are the closest party to my beliefs, so they will get my vote. Don't like the direction Starmer is taking and I didn't much like Blair either, but the likes of Foot, Kinnock and Corbyn will never win over the electorate as the right wing press will just destroy them in the eyes of the public, and the public fall for it every time and vote for a party that doesn't have their interests at heart. Always baffles me why, when you see what they do with their power, which is basically to keep them and theirs in the manner to which they are accustomed. In fact, they have gotten worse as time goes on, and we now have the biggest gap between rich and poor, since probably Victorian times.

Also agree we need a FPTP system, but it would be very difficult to achieve, given the establishment want things to stay just the way they are, and have the power to keep it that way.

Some of the public might fall for the press coverage putting them off from voting Labour Ginny.

But

Some of us have a mind of our own.

I have voted Labour when living in Grimsby because I knew the Tories would not help the likes of Grimsby.

I have voted Labour when I first came to Suffolk but since moving th Thurston and meeting our MP who happens to live in our village I have voted conservative.

If Labour want to get back in power they have to get an electable leader the likes of Corbyn and McDonald were not seen by many voters who used to vote Labour as people they want to run the country.

I could easily vote Labour again if they can come up with a decent cabinet and better policies than the rest.

Which Labour policy under Corbyn couldn’t you stomach, Pete? Just out of interest as a floating voter.


I see Sir Haircut has whipped to vote for the Brexit deal today, the ham-faced fraud. Labour’s Brexit position in 2019 and their performative objection to it was always just a wedge issue used to get rid of Corbyn. Same as antisemitism. These people don’t care.

Quoted from ska face

Which Labour policy under Corbyn couldn’t you stomach, Pete? Just out of interest as a floating voter.


I see Sir Haircut has whipped to vote for the Brexit deal today, the ham-faced fraud. Labour’s Brexit position in 2019 and their performative objection to it was always just a wedge issue used to get rid of Corbyn. Same as antisemitism. These people don’t care.

I did not like the man and did not want him as our prime minister.

What do you dislike about Boris.?

It's all about opinions it does not make me right and you wrong mate.

Maybe I have been persuaded to vote tory because I live in a very nice area very low unemployment just a prosperous area.
If I still lived in Grimsby I would still voting Labour and moaning about the tories.

BUT

Here I have nothing to moan about.

Can appreciate it you probably didn’t like him as a person, but policy-wise, anything that jumped out as a red flag?

I only ask because Keith Starmer sold himself as someone who’d take the policies forward but with a “politician’s” face on them. The policies under Corbyn were almost universally popular, but Starmer has jettisoned them all as the scumbags on the right of the party have pulled his strings.

The bloke has real problems and I imagine will be replaced within the next 2 years.

His spending plans seemed to me to be well over the top.

Then covid came along and behold money has been splashed everywhere.

I will vote tory while I live here because the only way is down so around this area people think the Tories are doing a good job.

Boris wants to even the country so when Shutes  transforms Grimsby and town get a new ground you might think Boris is not so bad after all.

No ?  Did not think so  

If Shutes gets a new ground built it will be in spite of this govt, not because of them.

Quoted from grimsby pete

None I decide at the time which party I agree with.

I am in Pete’s Party.

Quoted from Manchester Mariner

I've voted for 3 different parties in my voting lifetime but never for the Tories and unless there was a massive sea change in their outlook highly doubt I ever will. The core values of the Tories are nothing like my own, plus I grew up during the Thatcher years.

There's more chance of donkey rides on the beach being replaced by unicorns than the Tories changing the way they look out to sea  

The origin of their name always reinforces my views of them,..... same as it ever was

"As a political term, Tory was an insult (derived from the Middle Irish word tóraidhe, modern Irish tóraí, meaning "outlaw", "robber", from the Irish word tóir, meaning "pursuit" since outlaws were "pursued men") that entered English politics during the Exclusion Bill crisis of 1678–1681"

Btw, I went with "Other"

My first ever vote was Liberal and I've regularly voted Labour with an occasional Green and/or Independent in the European Elections.... won't be doing that anymore though  

I don't belong to any political party, and I think only a minuscule percentage of the voters do. Therein lies the problem for all parties - what can be decided as policy by a very few people (I think Labour have the most members but still a tiny tiny fraction of the population) means sodomist all to the voters who often want something quite different. I suppose the best recent example is the Labour position on Brexit - determined by the membership but rejected by the voting public in their previous rock-solid Labour heartlands.  

Membership skews people into thinking that the general populace agrees with them; they don't. This is perhaps best illustrated again by Labour who think membership meetings and endless nodding in agreement on social media is real life. It isn't.  

The best party to vote for would at a guess be a combination of the good bits from each, but of course "members" could never agree to something the other side does!

I don't know why a party isn't formed which uses the rather intriguing and novel notion of having a policy on every issue, that mirrors the majority of public opinion.

Labour. I was very right wing when younger but with life experience have drifted leftwards over the years, especially having seen how the working class were made to pay for the banking crash with savage cuts  to the safety net and vital public services (while there is always money available for billionaire tax cuts).

I'm probably now on what you would call the soft left. Not a nationalisation enthusiast but certainly think the wealth generated by one of the richest countries in the world could be spread around more evenly.

  
Seems like a good thread to put this petition on for you all to consider signing?


https://www.change.org/p/north-east-lincolnshire-council-a-full-investigation-in-to-councillor-fenty

Quoted from ska face

Which Labour policy under Corbyn couldn’t you stomach, Pete? Just out of interest as a floating voter.


I see Sir Haircut has whipped to vote for the Brexit deal today, the ham-faced fraud. Labour’s Brexit position in 2019 and their performative objection to it was always just a wedge issue used to get rid of Corbyn. Same as antisemitism. These people don’t care.

Corbyn had generally solid principles but was politically naive. It's a flipping horrible game where the left are up against so much more than the right.

Not sure what other option Labour had than to vote for the Brexit deal, and pragmatically, it would have passed anyway so why give the media a stick to beat you with. The time for decisive action on Brexit was years ago, the ship has sailed.

I'm not convinced by Starmer, but Blair he isnt. He is a self-declared socialist for a start, and policy wise is likely centre-left.

I do find it strange that a lot of Corbynistas spend more time & energy attacking Starmer than they do the Tories. And as for the 'Keith' thing, I mean, come on, it's flipping juvenile.

I'd rather see a radical left government than a centre left government. But if the option is centre-left or this flipping shambolic immoral Tory lot, then christ I'll take a Starmer led Labour party and work from there.

Lefty purity balderdash plays into the hands of the right - who are much better at pluralism and being pragmatic for their 'greater good'. I supported Corbyn's Labour and I support Starmer's Labour, whilst being convinced by neither, each for very different reasons.

Yes the time for decisive action on Brexit was 2017, when Corbyn’s “respect the result” policy delivered Labour’s highest number of votes for 20 years. The problem was the wreckers in the party spent the next two years needling the bloke, chipping away at the leadership, briefing hostile press daily, and even the Shadow Brexit Secretary decided he’d go off and start making his own policies on the hoof. Decisive leadership would’ve been introducing mandatory reselection in 2018, but that opportunity was missed.

Starmer might describe himself as a socialist, but I’d describe myself as having a 12-inch member. In reality, I’ve got a walnut whip, and he’s spent the last 7/8 months purging the party of anyone from the left and has abandoned each and every one of the ten pledges he made during his leadership bid. The bloke’s a weather vane and clearly of little moral fortitude if he’ll abandon the pledges so quickly, effectively admitting he’s lied to the party’s own members.  

Attacking Starmer and attacking the Tories aren’t mutually exclusive - people can do both, and rightly so. Starmer and his front bench might actually like to try it some time, rather than riding on the coat tails of people like Marcus Rashford who have actually forced the govt into action. The teaching unions were abandoned by Starmer and his urine-weak allies, and if it weren’t for the likes of the NEU growing in strength schools would still be at full capacity today.

Yeah, calling him Keith is juvenile, very funny though when you see people lose their minds over it. Keith is a slur now! This from the people who spent the last 5 years calling anyone left of Alan Johnson a trot, communist, Stalinist, antisemite, dangerous, economically illiterate, tankie, terrorist, IRA supporter, Maoist, snowflake, student politics, unserious, divisive, entryist, champagne socialists, liberal elite, detached from reality and whatever else they’d throw each day at fans of the “magic grandpa”. Even “corbynista” is used as a term of derision, rather than acknowledging the party attracted 300,000 new members, predominantly young and working class, in insecure employment, renting, no savings, etc.

Nobody’s looking for left purity, just a crumb of opposition from Keith, who seems to be hoping that the Tories will implode and he’ll just stroll into Downing St in 4 years time. The polls tell a different story.

Well if all the ones on here saying what a bad deal we got with the EU  and we are going to be so worse off they might crumble scar face .

I have said many times I am a floating voter I would like to vote Labour again but you have to have the right leader and sensible policies.

I don't like falling out with fellow town fans over politics.

Time will tell btw I don't think Boris knows what he is doing and I don't rate Starmer  either.

Quoted from grimsby pete

Well if all the ones on here saying what a bad deal we got with the EU  and we are going to be so worse off they might crumble scar face .

I have said many times I am a floating voter I would like to vote Labour again but you have to have the right leader and sensible policies.

I don't like falling out with fellow town fans over politics.

Time will tell btw I don't think Boris knows what he is doing and I don't rate Starmer  either.

Well said were all black and white fans. Politics is best left to politicians who promise the earth for your vote; and then weasel out of what they said "misquoted" is there normal type of excuse.

It doesn't matter who, red, blue or any other colour they all talk the talk and do as the whips tell them.

Quoted from grimsby pete

I don't like falling out with fellow town fans over politics.

Time will tell btw I don't think Boris knows what he is doing and I don't rate Starmer  either.

Thing is Pete sometimes you have to stand your ground or some will try to bully you with their views.

For what its worth I think politics is a minefield. Whatever politicians will do there will always be someone you cant please.

Tough job as well. I remember Theresa May for example. On the outside came across as a nice person and polished. But perhaps not strong enough . I remember reading that the stress of it all was really getting to her.

Who would want to be a politician?. For me the ideal candidate would be someone with a strong character and good morals. Something we all fall short on to some degree or another.

Thing about Theresa May is that she was a excrement politician. She was a excrement Home Secretary (whose 'Hostile environment' created all sorts of still ongoing issues) and proved to be an even more excrement Prime Minister. The fact that Johnson has been even more excrement is neither here nor there. May wanted to be Prime Minister, knowing she faced with an almost impossible situation after Cameron chickened out and did a very poor job once she got the job, almost by default. No sympathy whatsoever.

I'm sure her heart was probably in the right place (unlike Johnson), but it really doesn't help when you're so excrement at your job, does it?

Starmer is the Labour equivalent to Cameron. Wants to get into power because he thinks he'd be good at the job, will do anything to secure his position, but doesn't really have any firm ideals to aim for even if he is elected PM. Without a proper plan of action, you'll get nowhere, as so many governments have discovered in recent years.

Quoted from Maringer

Thing about Theresa May is that she was a excrement politician. She was a excrement Home Secretary (whose 'Hostile environment' created all sorts of still ongoing issues) and proved to be an even more excrement Prime Minister. The fact that Johnson has been even more excrement is neither here nor there. May wanted to be Prime Minister, knowing she faced with an almost impossible situation after Cameron chickened out and did a very poor job once she got the job, almost by default. No sympathy whatsoever.

I'm sure her heart was probably in the right place (unlike Johnson), but it really doesn't help when you're so excrement at your job, does it?

Starmer is the Labour equivalent to Cameron. Wants to get into power because he thinks he'd be good at the job, will do anything to secure his position, but doesn't really have any firm ideals to aim for even if he is elected PM. Without a proper plan of action, you'll get nowhere, as so many governments have discovered in recent years.

What an excellent summary of our current crop of politicians. What you forgot to add is that unlike politicians of decades ago our lot now have no morals or principles. Make statements with little truth and what truth there is stretched beyond that of a limo. And finally if they lose an election go off like winging dog with no guts to stand there corner and fight another day.

Quoted from Maringer

Thing about Theresa May is that she was a excrement politician.
I'm sure her heart was probably in the right place (unlike Johnson), but it really doesn't help when you're so excrement at your job, does it?

Starmer is the Labour equivalent to Cameron. Wants to get into power because he thinks he'd be good at the job, will do anything to secure his position, but doesn't really have any firm ideals to aim for even if he is elected PM. Without a proper plan of action, you'll get nowhere, as so many governments have discovered in recent years.

Interesting take on things . Out of curiosity who do you think was the best prime minister England has ever had?.

Clem Atlee, based on achievements. Just see what his government achieved in just one term of office and in difficult circumstances following the war. The right government at the right time making the right choices for the good of the country. It has taken the Tories many decades to undo much of these achievements but they are still working on it. Let's not forget that Labour won the popular vote by a reasonable amount in 1951 but the changes to boundaries (which may have been fair - I've no idea) gave the Tories a hefty majority.

Churchill was the right person in the right place during the war years but had certain flaws to his character and was always considered a bit of a chancer before the war. That said, he did a decent enough job during his time as PM, generally continuing with the necessary social reforms which were started by Labour. He wouldn't recognise the current Conservative Party.

Attlee stands head and shoulders above the field

Attlee is of the charts the best PM we’ve had. You’d have to be the blindest of the blind anti Labour person to disagree, even every tories favourite chap continued with the policies outlined by Attlee.

This bunch are so incompetent their heroes would be turning in their graves. This lot couldn’t make a decision and stick to it if their lives depended on it. Covid or no Covid, Johnson would be a disaster...let’s face it, nobody had seen nor heard of him leading up to and immediately after the election. Even his own party recognised he was a ducking idiot.

May is an odd one, a woman desperate to be PM but in truth, as explained previously, pretty excrement at every role she held. Thankfully, for her and the people her time will quickly forgotten with these current incumbents...

Attlee was a disgrace he starved the British people with continued rationing for over 6 year after the war had finished. His Labour Party actually believed they could run the food supply better than the markets, socialist nut jobs.Things only got better for the starving people once the conservatives and capitalism took back control. Same old Labour nothing changes.

Quoted from Humbercod

Attlee was a disgrace he starved the British people with continued rationing for over 6 year after the war had finished. His Labour Party actually believed they could run the food supply better than the markets, socialist nut jobs.Things only got better for the starving people once the conservatives and capitalism took back control. Same old Labour nothing changes.

There was rationing because there were shortages, not only of food but money , skilled labour and materials, a massive task de mobbing an army, setting up the NHS(against Tory objections) the welfare state, NATO, dealing with the break up of an Empire and starting to rebuild a bombed country, no other Government has changed this country so much for so much the better
Rationing didn’t end in Britain until July 1954, it ensured everyone got enough to survive rather than everything being only bought by those who could afford it

Quoted from codcheeky

There was rationing because there were shortages, not only of food but money , skilled labour and materials, a massive task de mobbing an army, setting up the NHS(against Tory objections) the welfare state, NATO, dealing with the break up of an Empire and starting to rebuild a bombed country, no other Government has changed this country so much for so much the better
Rationing didn’t end in Britain until July 1954, it ensured everyone got enough to survive rather than everything being only bought by those who could afford it

What! France and even Germany ended rationing before us! Attlee was a control freak who thought he knew better than the markets. It’s a total socialist fallacy to suggest that Labour was responsible for the NHS and the welfare state it’s not even up for debate. He did such a good job that the starving public voted them out for over a decade.

Sorry about the worms in your brain humbercod

Quoted from Humbercod

Attlee was a disgrace he starved the British people with continued rationing for over 6 year after the war had finished. His Labour Party actually believed they could run the food supply better than the markets, socialist nut jobs.Things only got better for the starving people once the conservatives and capitalism took back control. Same old Labour nothing changes.

An interesting view...the rationing system ensured that everyone got their share-however meagre that share was. Labour were elected in 1945 on a manifesto that those who'd been on the front line in the fight for freedom would have their sacrifices recognised. They rejected a continuation of rule by the upper class establishment with the period following the end of the Great War still very much in living memory. Where do you stand in your attitude to the Americans? It is a matter of fact that the Americans withheld some aid because the British had the temerity elect a Socialist government. Whatever happened to foreign powers not interfering in the internal politics of a sovereign nation?
The system had worked pretty well during the war years. Certainly better than the free for all money talks system that the free market would have heralded.
If rationing was so bad why on earth did Churchill continue with it for another three years after the 51 G.E?

Humbercod is clearly trolling. The UK (and Empire) was pretty much bankrupt after WWII. The Atlee government (and a few of the subsequent governments) produced a remarkable turnaround in fortunes through good policy and public sacrifice. Don't they think that the quality of the diet during the rationing was one of the healthiest we've had as a country, despite the limited choice due to limited resources. We didn't have the benefit of a whole continent of resources like the Yanks so we did pretty well, all things considered.

I think the Yanks certainly had one eye on the fact that pre-war, we had been one of their main economic rivals. Certainly didn't hurt them to see us struggle through lack of resources and the debt obligations we had built up during the long war years.

Quoted from barralad

An interesting view...the rationing system ensured that everyone got their share-however meagre that share was. Labour were elected in 1945 on a manifesto that those who'd been on the front line in the fight for freedom would have their sacrifices recognised. They rejected a continuation of rule by the upper class establishment with the period following the end of the Great War still very much in living memory.

Yet if you had the money you were free to visit restaurants that were surprisingly immune from rationing! Attlee’s rejection of the ruling class failed its biggest test when he attended princess Elizebeth’s tax payer funded wedding, sparing no expense for the 2000 plus upper class guests in a ration free zone! For the many not the few eh.

Quoted Text

Where do you stand in your attitude to the Americans? It is a matter of fact that the Americans withheld some aid because the British had the temerity elect a Socialist government. Whatever happened to foreign powers not interfering in the internal politics of a sovereign nation?
The system had worked pretty well during the war years. Certainly better than the free for all money talks system that the free market would have heralded.
If rationing was so bad why on earth did Churchill continue with it for another three years after the 51 G.E?

I love the Americans!
Are you talking about the end of lend lease? I think your ‘Facts’ sound a bit far fetched if so, but then again I don’t know a great deal on the subject to be honest.

Churchill’s election campaigned focused on the end of rationing as soon as possible, whilst Attlee unbelievably wanted to prolong it. Churchill made good on his word having Some foods freely available after 2 years and a complete end after 3 as you say.

I’d imagine it takes time to phase out complete rationing after 6 years as I guess the country was still on knees under a socialist regime, don’t forget this was a time of Arkwright style corner shops but with the markets back open the birth of the supermarket was about to begin, these things don’t happen overnight.

Quoted from Maringer

Humbercod is clearly trolling. The UK (and Empire) was pretty much bankrupt after WWII. The Atlee government (and a few of the subsequent governments) produced a remarkable turnaround in fortunes through good policy and public sacrifice. Don't they think that the quality of the diet during the rationing was one of the healthiest we've had as a country, despite the limited choice due to limited resources. We didn't have the benefit of a whole continent of resources like the Yanks so we did pretty well, all things considered.

I think the Yanks certainly had one eye on the fact that pre-war, we had been one of their main economic rivals. Certainly didn't hurt them to see us struggle through lack of resources and the debt obligations we had built up during the long war years.

The Americans looked after us in our time of need we should never forget that. Even after the end of lend lease the money still came in from them. It’s a bit like a John Fenty analogy where he put the money in at a time of great need, but it’s so easy to forget this fact whilst criticising him for everything else that followed.

Quoted from Chrisblor

Sorry about the worms in your brain humbercod

Excellent repartee! Your intellect is wasted on here 😂

Quoted from Humbercod

Yet if you had the money you were free to visit restaurants that were surprisingly immune from rationing! Attlee’s rejection of the ruling class failed its biggest test when he attended princess Elizebeth’s tax payer funded wedding, sparing no expense for the 2000 plus upper class guests in a ration free zone! For the many not the few eh.



I love the Americans!
Are you talking about the end of lend lease? I think your ‘Facts’ sound a bit far fetched if so, but then again I don’t know a great deal on the subject to be honest.

Churchill’s election campaigned focused on the end of rationing as soon as possible, whilst Attlee unbelievably wanted to prolong it. Churchill made good on his word having Some foods freely available after 2 years and a complete end after 3 as you say.

I’d imagine it takes time to phase out complete rationing after 6 years as I guess the country was still on knees under a socialist regime, don’t forget this was a time of Arkwright style corner shops but with the markets back open the birth of the supermarket was about to begin, these things don’t happen overnight.

I know people correcting other people on a website discussion is irritating but I'm not sure where to start with this.
Firstly Churchill understood the need for and actively supported rationing. Contrary to what you say the Tories 1945 campaign barely mentioned rationing. Both major parties (who had been involved in the coalition government) agreed on the need for it to continue. There was no other option. At the time of the election the country was still at war with Japan.
The Tories election campaign did little more than focus on the appeal of Churchill the war leader. At the time Winston's personal approval rating was sky high (from his becoming P.M. in 1940 it never dropped below 70%- a figure current politicians can only dream of). It offered nothing radical whereas Labour's offered real hope of change. The rebuilding of the country, the N.H.S, nationalisation of key industries appealed massively to the population who'd had years of deprivation.

I’m more than happy to be ‘corrected’ regarding the end of rationing, but I’d paraphrased a professional Historian. A respected Historian who’d extensively researched the post war austerity, so you’ll understand that I’d expect a little more from you just other than your worldly knowledge.

Quoted from Humbercod

I’m more than happy to be ‘corrected’ regarding the end of rationing, but I’d paraphrased a professional Historian. A respected Historian who’d extensively researched the post war austerity, so you’ll understand that I’d expect a little more from you just other than your worldly knowledge.

Touche...care to name your respected historian source?

I was born in ,1948 and can remember going to the corner shop with our ration book.

What I can not remember was going hungry and I think I would if I did because I like my food .

Quoted from grimsby pete

I was born in ,1948 and can remember going to the corner shop with our ration book.

What I can not remember was going hungry and I think I would if I did because I like my food .

👍  

God bless you Pete