Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: RTID75 on September 25, 2010, 05:15:48 pm
-
So, it's Ed for the next PM then! Didn't think he'd manage to pull past his brother, but he has by the tiniest margin.
Donny North man in the hot seat in 5 (hopefully less!) years then! :) Let's hope he can re-unite Labour and rip the coalition to shreds.
-
Donny to rule the world first drfc then this, c'mon.
Donny and proud.
-
I may be wrong but I think it is the first time that a Doncaster MP has been elected as leader of a major party.
Just heard on Radio 5 that he's a lapsed Weeds fan though! Let's hope he's VERY lapsed! :(
-
can anyone tell me how a man who grew up in London, still lives in fashionable Primrose Hill, went to Oxford University, and apart from a stint lecturing at Harvard has never had a job outside of politics has anything to do with Doncaster?
having said that, a few weeks of tweedle dee and tweedle dum, the public school chums means i wish him, or indeed anyone well.
-
I wonder how in touch he is with the people he represents. He doesn't fill me with confidence.
-
Why am I not surprised by your lack of confidence?
-
MrFrost wrote:
I wonder how in touch he is with the people he represents. He doesn't fill me with confidence.
What a bloody stupid comment. An MP represents on average about 100,000 people. How \"in touch\" are ANY of them with their constituents? How many of them could ever meet and discuss issues with any more than a tiny fraction of one percent of the people that they represent?
What does it matter where they come from? Why should having a certain upbringing give you a sense of shared community with others? I suspect that you and I come from very similar socio-economic backgrounds, and clearly we were both brought up in Donny. But I'm struggling to find a single topic that I agree with your outlook on. I would have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in YOU as representative of ME.
Personally, what I want from an MP is an intelligent, diligent, hard-working, ideally well-connected go-getter who broadly shares my political outlook. It matters not one iota if the MP cones from the Orkneys or Cornwall, whether he left school at 14 or was an Oxford Prof so long as he has the aforementioned qualities.
Which makes Ed Milliband a perfect MP for Donny.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I wonder how in touch he is with the people he represents. He doesn't fill me with confidence.
What a bloody stupid comment. An MP represents on average about 100,000 people. How \"in touch\" are ANY of them with their constituents? How many of them could ever meet and discuss issues with any more than a tiny fraction of one percent of the people that they represent?
What does it matter where they come from? Why should having a certain upbringing give you a sense of shared community with others? I suspect that you and I come from very similar socio-economic backgrounds, and clearly we were both brought up in Donny. But I'm struggling to find a single topic that I agree with your outlook on. I would have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in YOU as representative of ME.
Personally, what I want from an MP is an intelligent, diligent, hard-working, ideally well-connected go-getter who broadly shares my political outlook. It matters not one iota if the MP cones from the Orkneys or Cornwall, whether he left school at 14 or was an Oxford Prof so long as he has the aforementioned qualities.
Which makes Ed Milliband a perfect MP for Donny.
I wouldn't want you representing me either BST. I don't think I have ever come across anyone who believe's they are right about absolutely EVERYTHING. If someone else has an opinion that differs to your own, it is immidiately shot down in flames.
The qualities you have listed above, I believe Ed Milliband has very few of anyway. Fortunately for him, he has probably got four years or so to work on things and try and remember who's interests the Labour party are meant to work for.
-
On the contrary my friend. I am frequently wrong.
Just not when in discussion with you. You make it too easy for your interlocutor to be right all the time by spouting arrant nonsense.
You've just given a superb example. If you truly believe that anyone could get to the top of the political pole whilst lacking the qualities I listed, then you clearly know the square root if f**k all about politics.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
On the contrary my friend. I am frequently wrong.
Just not when in discussion with you. You make it too easy for your interlocutor to be right all the time by spouting arrant nonsense.
You've just given a superb example. If you truly believe that anyone could get to the top of the political pole whilst lacking the qualities I listed, then you clearly know the square root if fcuk all about politics.
So you'll have no problem in admitting that David Cameron, John Major and Maggie have (had) those qualities aswell?
I remember an interview a short while back with Ed Milliband. I can't for the life of me remember who was interviewing him, but the interviewer had him all over the place, and he basically showed himself up. Do you really see this man running the country?
-
So you'll have no problem in admitting that David Cameron, John Major and Maggie have (had) those qualities aswell?
Go back, read what I wrote again and ask yourself whether your question is necessary.
I remember an interview a short while back with Ed Milliband. I can't for the life of me remember who was interviewing him, but the interviewer had him all over the place, and he basically showed himself up. Do you really see this man running the country?
So you seem to recall an example of someone you don't remember scoring debating points on a topic that you don't specify against Ed Milliband? Do you really see me making my decision on who I want to lead the country on such evidence?
Give me examples of factual errors that Milliband made or inconsistencies in his policies that were exposed and I might take you more seriously.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
So you'll have no problem in admitting that David Cameron, John Major and Maggie have (had) those qualities aswell?
Go back, read what I wrote again and ask yourself whether your question is necessary.
I remember an interview a short while back with Ed Milliband. I can't for the life of me remember who was interviewing him, but the interviewer had him all over the place, and he basically showed himself up. Do you really see this man running the country?
So you seem to recall an example if someone you don't remember scoring debating points on a topic that you don't specify against Ed Milliband? Do you really see me making my decision on who I want to lead the country on such evidence?
Give me examples of factual errors that Milliband made or inconsistencies in his policies that were exposed and I might take you more seriously.
What's the point. You'll just dance around any point I make and try and turn it round in your favour.
I notice you didn't answer my question about the three Tory leaders.
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
So you'll have no problem in admitting that David Cameron, John Major and Maggie have (had) those qualities aswell?
Go back, read what I wrote again and ask yourself whether your question is necessary.
I remember an interview a short while back with Ed Milliband. I can't for the life of me remember who was interviewing him, but the interviewer had him all over the place, and he basically showed himself up. Do you really see this man running the country?
So you seem to recall an example if someone you don't remember scoring debating points on a topic that you don't specify against Ed Milliband? Do you really see me making my decision on who I want to lead the country on such evidence?
Give me examples of factual errors that Milliband made or inconsistencies in his policies that were exposed and I might take you more seriously.
What's the point. You'll just dance around any point I make and try and turn it round in your favour.
I notice you didn't answer my question about the three Tory leaders.
The point is very simple. Exceedingly simple. It is THIS. I will take you seriously when you present well-considered, well-supported, fact-based arguments. It couldn't be simpler. I respect and admire anyone who does that, whatever their political persuasion.
As for not answering your question, go back, read what I wrote and then consider whether you need to ask whether I answered your question.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
So you'll have no problem in admitting that David Cameron, John Major and Maggie have (had) those qualities aswell?
Go back, read what I wrote again and ask yourself whether your question is necessary.
I remember an interview a short while back with Ed Milliband. I can't for the life of me remember who was interviewing him, but the interviewer had him all over the place, and he basically showed himself up. Do you really see this man running the country?
So you seem to recall an example if someone you don't remember scoring debating points on a topic that you don't specify against Ed Milliband? Do you really see me making my decision on who I want to lead the country on such evidence?
Give me examples of factual errors that Milliband made or inconsistencies in his policies that were exposed and I might take you more seriously.
What's the point. You'll just dance around any point I make and try and turn it round in your favour.
I notice you didn't answer my question about the three Tory leaders.
The point is very simple. Exceedingly simple. It is THIS. I will take you seriously when you present well-considered, well-supported, fact-based arguments. It couldn't be simpler. I respect and admire anyone who does that, whatever their political persuasion.
As for not answering your question, go back, read what I wrote and then consider whether you need to ask whether I answered your question.
I already have read it, and don't need to for a second time. You didn't answer it, and that's fine. It sums it up for me.
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
So you'll have no problem in admitting that David Cameron, John Major and Maggie have (had) those qualities aswell?
Go back, read what I wrote again and ask yourself whether your question is necessary.
I remember an interview a short while back with Ed Milliband. I can't for the life of me remember who was interviewing him, but the interviewer had him all over the place, and he basically showed himself up. Do you really see this man running the country?
So you seem to recall an example if someone you don't remember scoring debating points on a topic that you don't specify against Ed Milliband? Do you really see me making my decision on who I want to lead the country on such evidence?
Give me examples of factual errors that Milliband made or inconsistencies in his policies that were exposed and I might take you more seriously.
What's the point. You'll just dance around any point I make and try and turn it round in your favour.
I notice you didn't answer my question about the three Tory leaders.
The point is very simple. Exceedingly simple. It is THIS. I will take you seriously when you present well-considered, well-supported, fact-based arguments. It couldn't be simpler. I respect and admire anyone who does that, whatever their political persuasion.
As for not answering your question, go back, read what I wrote and then consider whether you need to ask whether I answered your question.
I already have read it, and don't need to for a second time. You didn't answer it, and that's fine. It sums it up for me.
Christ up above man, are you auditioning for \"Donny's Got Obtuse Folk\" or summat.
I said that ANYONE who gets to the top of the political pole must have those qualities.
\"Anyone\".
As in \"Anyone\".
Of COURSE Thatcher, Major and Cameron had/have those qualities. I didn't think it needed to be spelled out, given that I'd said that ANYONE who succeeded in politics needed those qualities, but clearly I overestimated you.
-
Well I understood you well enough Billy. 'Anyone', by definition, means, err, err, anyone! In this context any leader of any major party. Which is a pretty logical state of affairs anyway. It is deeply saddening to see the evidence of the growing illiteracy amongst this population.
Cheers
BobG
-
BobG wrote:
Well I understood you well enough Billy. 'Anyone', by definition, means, err, err, anyone! In this context any leader of any major party. Which is a pretty logical state of affairs anyway. It is deeply saddening to see the evidence of the growing illiteracy amongst this population.
Cheers
BobG
It's deeply saddening to read the ramblings of two people who's only enjoyment in life seems to be the mocking of those with a lower IQ of them.
Tell me Bob, has your thesaurus got you far in life?
-
Funny you should mention that....I've always struggled to find another word for a thesaurus!
-
MrFrost wrote:
BobG wrote:
Well I understood you well enough Billy. 'Anyone', by definition, means, err, err, anyone! In this context any leader of any major party. Which is a pretty logical state of affairs anyway. It is deeply saddening to see the evidence of the growing illiteracy amongst this population.
Cheers
BobG
It's deeply saddening to read the ramblings of two people who's only enjoyment in life seems to be the mocking of those with a lower IQ of them.
Tell me Bob, has your thesaurus got you far in life?
I think you may be confusing \"thesaurus\", with \"dictionary\". Don't take that as mockery. Think of it as education.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BobG wrote:
Well I understood you well enough Billy. 'Anyone', by definition, means, err, err, anyone! In this context any leader of any major party. Which is a pretty logical state of affairs anyway. It is deeply saddening to see the evidence of the growing illiteracy amongst this population.
Cheers
BobG
It's deeply saddening to read the ramblings of two people who's only enjoyment in life seems to be the mocking of those with a lower IQ of them.
Tell me Bob, has your thesaurus got you far in life?
I think you may be confusing \"thesaurus\", with \"dictionary\". Don't take that as mockery. Think of it as education.
I'm not confusing anything.
And I seriously doubt you could educate me. Patronise - probably.
-
Something about meat products and education, but I can't quite remember the phrase........ but you must have heard it before Mr Frost, maybe you could help us poor intellectual folks out. After all we know nothing and only opinion matters even if it can't be backed up with facts if I remember previous ramblings by yourself.
-
You're right Mr Frost. It probably is impossible to educate those unwilling or unable to learn.
Cheers :)
BobG
-
Thats right Bob!
\"Knowledge sounds foolish to fools\" W.E. Deming 1986
-
Listen carefully Ed....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1-tcXX7bvo&feature=related
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BobG wrote:
Well I understood you well enough Billy. 'Anyone', by definition, means, err, err, anyone! In this context any leader of any major party. Which is a pretty logical state of affairs anyway. It is deeply saddening to see the evidence of the growing illiteracy amongst this population.
Cheers
BobG
It's deeply saddening to read the ramblings of two people who's only enjoyment in life seems to be the mocking of those with a lower IQ of them.
Tell me Bob, has your thesaurus got you far in life?
I think you may be confusing \"thesaurus\", with \"dictionary\". Don't take that as mockery. Think of it as education.
Jeez you are a patronising fooker Billy! :angry:
What do you get out of belittling or seemingly belittling Mr. Frost, your posts whilst extremely amusing on most occasions can be extremely ridiculous on others.
Both you and I know my little Marxist, that this man has been elected to be a 'poodle' for the Unions .
You take the art of being pedantic to a whole new level.
-
Forum statesmen 2 Months, 1 Week ago
Is it not true that some posters on here regard themselves as forum statesmen, and that they stick together in fear of disagreeing with each other?
I do wonder what stimulus people get from a football forum if it is intellectual chat they are seeking, especially if they can’t tolerate posters with lesser literacy. Surely there are more suitable forums available where their intellect will be more appreciated, and better understood.
It could be that they are happier as big fish in a small pond, not least because much of the gobbledegook they write camouflages a lot of b*llocks, and goes undetected by us simple footy fans who can’t be arsed to decipher it!
-
Bentley Bullet wrote:
Forum statesmen 2 Months, 1 Week ago
Is it not true that some posters on here regard themselves as forum statesmen, and that they stick together in fear of disagreeing with each other?
Oh the irony...
I seem to remember that post being followed up by a number of supportive posts. Several of them monosyllabic, but there you go. You can't choose your cyber-friends.
Actually, to answer both you and Hoola, I don't set out with the aim of belittling anyone. Who am I to set myself up to do that?
If I crack every once in a while, then mea culpa.
But then, this is a rough, tough, Northern Lads' forum. We can take the blows and ride them. Personally, it worries me not one jot being called a \"patronising f**ker\", a \"poof\", a \"clever Kitson\" being accused of writing \"b*llocks\", or willfully trying to belittle someone.
I'm a big lad and I take it on the chin. I assume others do the same to whatever barbs come their way. If they don't, they ought to re-consider getting involved in heated discussions.
-
Barmby Rover wrote:
Something about meat products and education, but I can't quite remember the phrase........ but you must have heard it before Mr Frost, maybe you could help us poor intellectual folks out. After all we know nothing and only opinion matters even if it can't be backed up with facts if I remember previous ramblings by yourself.
I wished there had been a fact or two for every opinion you have expressed in the past Barmby.
Are the 3 of you playing with him by agreement or are you all psychic arse'oles tonight ?
The demeaning phrase that you were looking for was that you with all your combined powers and intellect are unable to educate the 'pork' that is Mr. Frost......... am I right ? ;)
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Bentley Bullet wrote:
Forum statesmen 2 Months, 1 Week ago
Is it not true that some posters on here regard themselves as forum statesmen, and that they stick together in fear of disagreeing with each other?
Oh the irony...
I seem to remember that post being followed up by a number of supportive posts. Several of them monosyllabic, but there you go. You can't choose your cyber-friends.
Actually, to answer both you and Hoola, I don't set out with the aim of belittling anyone. Who am I to set myself up to do that?
If I crack every once in a while, then mea culpa.
But then, this is a rough, tough, Northern Lads' forum. We can take the blows and ride them. Personally, it worries me not one jot being called a \"patronising fcuker\", a \"poof\", a \"clever cnut\" being accused of writing \"b*llocks\", or willfully trying to belittle someone.
I'm a big lad and I take it on the chin. I assume others do the same to whatever barbs come their way. If they don't, they ought to re-consider getting involved in heated discussions.
Now you're just showing off.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Bentley Bullet wrote:
Forum statesmen 2 Months, 1 Week ago
Is it not true that some posters on here regard themselves as forum statesmen, and that they stick together in fear of disagreeing with each other?
Oh the irony...
I seem to remember that post being followed up by a number of supportive posts. Several of them monosyllabic, but there you go. You can't choose your cyber-friends.
Actually, to answer both you and Hoola, I don't set out with the aim of belittling anyone. Who am I to set myself up to do that?
If I crack every once in a while, then mea culpa.
But then, this is a rough, tough, Northern Lads' forum. We can take the blows and ride them. Personally, it worries me not one jot being called a \"patronising fcuker\", a \"poof\", a \"clever cnut\" being accused of writing \"b*llocks\", or willfully trying to belittle someone.
I'm a big lad and I take it on the chin. I assume others do the same to whatever barbs come their way. If they don't, they ought to re-consider getting involved in heated discussions.
Patronising fooker. ;)
-
I'm gonna start a petition to bring back Late Night Carling. That'll stop you brainy feckers from picking on us thickos.
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Bentley Bullet wrote:
Forum statesmen 2 Months, 1 Week ago
Is it not true that some posters on here regard themselves as forum statesmen, and that they stick together in fear of disagreeing with each other?
Oh the irony...
I seem to remember that post being followed up by a number of supportive posts. Several of them monosyllabic, but there you go. You can't choose your cyber-friends.
Actually, to answer both you and Hoola, I don't set out with the aim of belittling anyone. Who am I to set myself up to do that?
If I crack every once in a while, then mea culpa.
But then, this is a rough, tough, Northern Lads' forum. We can take the blows and ride them. Personally, it worries me not one jot being called a \"patronising fcuker\", a \"poof\", a \"clever cnut\" being accused of writing \"b*llocks\", or willfully trying to belittle someone.
I'm a big lad and I take it on the chin. I assume others do the same to whatever barbs come their way. If they don't, they ought to re-consider getting involved in heated discussions.
Now you're just showing off.
To be serious for a moment, why do you assume that I'm showing off? In fact, I'd be condescending if I adjusted my style to fit what I thought would be suitable for you wouldn't I?
One of the many reasons to love Tony Wilson was the way that he steadfastly clung throughout his career to the idea that just because he was from Manchester and worked in the music business, he shouldn't wear a hoody and talk in an \"Ey! Arr-rate!\" stylee. He could easily have aimed low, pretended to be thicker than he was, patronise folk and probably been far more successful for doing so. But he didn't. His approach was that if he inspired one person to aim their intellectual and cultural sights higher, then it was worthwhile.
A true hero, and one who anyone would be well advised to try to imitate.
Now. Go dig out a dictionary.
-
Well I'm still waiting for an answer!
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Bentley Bullet wrote:
Forum statesmen 2 Months, 1 Week ago
Is it not true that some posters on here regard themselves as forum statesmen, and that they stick together in fear of disagreeing with each other?
Oh the irony...
I seem to remember that post being followed up by a number of supportive posts. Several of them monosyllabic, but there you go. You can't choose your cyber-friends.
Actually, to answer both you and Hoola, I don't set out with the aim of belittling anyone. Who am I to set myself up to do that?
If I crack every once in a while, then mea culpa.
But then, this is a rough, tough, Northern Lads' forum. We can take the blows and ride them. Personally, it worries me not one jot being called a \"patronising fcuker\", a \"poof\", a \"clever cnut\" being accused of writing \"b*llocks\", or willfully trying to belittle someone.
I'm a big lad and I take it on the chin. I assume others do the same to whatever barbs come their way. If they don't, they ought to re-consider getting involved in heated discussions.
Now you're just showing off.
To be serious for a moment, why do you assume that I'm showing off? In fact, I'd be condescending if I adjusted my style to fit what I thought would be suitable for you wouldn't I?
One of the many reasons to love Tony Wilson was the way that he steadfastly clung throughout his career to the idea that just because he was from Manchester and worked in the music business, he shouldn't wear a hoody and talk in an \"Ey! Arr-rate!\" stylee. He could easily have aimed low, pretended to be thicker than he was, patronise folk and probably been far more successful for doing so. But he didn't. His approach was that if he inspired one person to aim their intellectual and cultural sights higher, then it was worthwhile.
A true hero, and one who anyone would be well advised to try to imitate.
Now. Go dig out a dictionary.[/quote]
Why do I need to do this. Wouldn't I then be attempting to adjust my style to fit what I thought would be suitable for you?
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Bentley Bullet wrote:
Forum statesmen 2 Months, 1 Week ago
Is it not true that some posters on here regard themselves as forum statesmen, and that they stick together in fear of disagreeing with each other?
Oh the irony...
I seem to remember that post being followed up by a number of supportive posts. Several of them monosyllabic, but there you go. You can't choose your cyber-friends.
Actually, to answer both you and Hoola, I don't set out with the aim of belittling anyone. Who am I to set myself up to do that?
If I crack every once in a while, then mea culpa.
But then, this is a rough, tough, Northern Lads' forum. We can take the blows and ride them. Personally, it worries me not one jot being called a \"patronising fcuker\", a \"poof\", a \"clever cnut\" being accused of writing \"b*llocks\", or willfully trying to belittle someone.
I'm a big lad and I take it on the chin. I assume others do the same to whatever barbs come their way. If they don't, they ought to re-consider getting involved in heated discussions.
Perhaps in some strange way it is a rite of passage of sorts?
As you say, this is a tough place to be at times, and give him his dues Mr Frost doesn't back down. I rather admire that in him...He is a catalyst for some of the deepest political thoughts from BST and Bob..
Football is the driving force on here, but there is room for passion in other areas too.
(I think they all slightly enjoy it too)
-
hoolahoop wrote:
Barmby Rover wrote:
Something about meat products and education, but I can't quite remember the phrase........ but you must have heard it before Mr Frost, maybe you could help us poor intellectual folks out. After all we know nothing and only opinion matters even if it can't be backed up with facts if I remember previous ramblings by yourself.
I wished there had been a fact or two for every opinion you have expressed in the past Barmby.
Are the 3 of you playing with him by agreement or are you all psychic arse'oles tonight ?
The demeaning phrase that you were looking for was that you with all your combined powers and intellect are unable to educate the 'pork' that is Mr. Frost......... am I right ? ;)
I am as cautious about this leader as anyone Hoola, a nice N.London boy from Champagne socialists dropped into a nice safe seat in S.Yorkshire. (some facts in there for you if you want) I am just going on previous threads mostly started by the said poster before, mostly based purely on prejudice and not fact. However if you wish we will have to completely agree with him then and not express our opinions either if we follow your logic. I would love to know how in an electoral college designed to balance the three strands within a party that only one part of it will be represented according to you. I would hope that any government would listen to organised labour within it's borders, but I have yet to see any government in my life that has been a poodle for unions, I do see a coalition that is being very friendly towards a banking system that has been propped up completely with our money and then not been expected to pay back enough. Only the working population is being expected to pay for the mess they created whilst they carry on with their games and receiving fat bonuses again, and denying manufacturing funds that would employ people.
-
I voted for him, even though he looks a bit like Beaker.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Now. Go dig out a dictionary.[/quote]
Why do I need to do this. Wouldn't I then be attempting to adjust my style to fit what I thought would be suitable for you?
Jesus wept lad, do you think \"irony\" is what they use to make \"steely\"? Do I have to put up one of them spazzy winky things every time?
-
One question at a time please!
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Now. Go dig out a dictionary.[/quote]
Why do I need to do this. Wouldn't I then be attempting to adjust my style to fit what I thought would be suitable for you?
Jesus wept lad, do you think \"irony\" is what they use to make \"steely\"? Do I have to put up one of them spazzy winky things every time?
Sorry, at the beginning of your post you put the word \"serious\".
Let me dig out my dictionary and check the meaning of the word.
-
Barmby Rover wrote:
I am as cautious about this leader as anyone Hoola, a nice N.London boy from Champagne socialists dropped into a nice safe seat in S.Yorkshire. (some facts in there for you if you want)
Me, I'm intensely relaxed about the whole background thing.
Who was the greatest Labour leader of all time? Clement Attlee?
Son of a solicitor from a comfortable West London home. Worked as a lecturer in economics at the LSE. Parachuted into a safe East End slum constituency.
He did alright for the Labour Party and the working class of the country.
Compare and contrast with the biggest Labour traitor of all time, Ramsay MacDonald. The dirt-poor bas**rd son of a Scottish crofter. Became an MP for a constituency that reflected his poverty-stricken and grindingly tough background. Then as Labour PM, sold his party down the river and went into coaltion with the Tories, implementing policies strikingly similar to the ones the current lot are advocating and leading to the Great Depression.
-
Haven't you got anyone to argue with at home Mr Frost, or have you driven them away?
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Now. Go dig out a dictionary.[/quote]
Why do I need to do this. Wouldn't I then be attempting to adjust my style to fit what I thought would be suitable for you?
Jesus wept lad, do you think \"irony\" is what they use to make \"steely\"? Do I have to put up one of them spazzy winky things every time?
Sorry, at the beginning of your post you put the word \"serious\".
Let me dig out my dictionary and check the meaning of the word.
I also said \"...for a moment...\" Look under \"F\", \"A\" and \"M\" while you're at it.
-
Haven't you got anyone to argue with at home Mr Frost, or have you driven them away?
No idea why I had to ask twice....
-
Viking Don wrote:
Haven't you got anyone to argue with at home Mr Frost, or have you driven them away?
No idea why I had to ask twice....
There is no arguing in my house. Our lass knows she'll never win one so doesn't bother.
-
Barmby Rover wrote:
hoolahoop wrote:
Barmby Rover wrote:
Something about meat products and education, but I can't quite remember the phrase........ but you must have heard it before Mr Frost, maybe you could help us poor intellectual folks out. After all we know nothing and only opinion matters even if it can't be backed up with facts if I remember previous ramblings by yourself.
I wished there had been a fact or two for every opinion you have expressed in the past Barmby.
Are the 3 of you playing with him by agreement or are you all psychic arse'oles tonight ?
The demeaning phrase that you were looking for was that you with all your combined powers and intellect are unable to educate the 'pork' that is Mr. Frost......... am I right ? ;)
I am as cautious about this leader as anyone Hoola, a nice N.London boy from Champagne socialists dropped into a nice safe seat in S.Yorkshire. (some facts in there for you if you want) I am just going on previous threads mostly started by the said poster before, mostly based purely on prejudice and not fact. However if you wish we will have to completely agree with him then and not express our opinions either if we follow your logic. I would love to know how in an electoral college designed to balance the three strands within a party that only one part of it will be represented according to you. I would hope that any government would listen to organised labour within it's borders, but I have yet to see any government in my life that has been a poodle for unions, I do see a coalition that is being very friendly towards a banking system that has been propped up completely with our money and then not been expected to pay back enough. Only the working population is being expected to pay for the mess they created whilst they carry on with their games and receiving fat bonuses again, and denying manufacturing funds that would employ people.
Champagne Socialist indeed, this lad comes from a deeply entrenched Marxist family and the farce that is the electoral college (or the larger part of it i.e. the Unions) know exactly what they want from this fella imo.
Smart suit, Oxbridge education, entrenched Marxist values are exactly the values that they are looking for from their new leader.
I know you don't like the Coalition and I too have my doubts about it's functionality but are they really completely 'turning a blind eye' to the Banks and is Vince Cable then the biggest con artist around with his intended attacks on them ?
-
MrFrost wrote:
Viking Don wrote:
Haven't you got anyone to argue with at home Mr Frost, or have you driven them away?
No idea why I had to ask twice....
There is no arguing in my house. Our lass knows she'll never win one so doesn't bother.
:laugh: I hardly ever use those things, but I did actually laugh at that!
-
hoolahoop wrote:
Barmby Rover wrote:
hoolahoop wrote:
Barmby Rover wrote:
Something about meat products and education, but I can't quite remember the phrase........ but you must have heard it before Mr Frost, maybe you could help us poor intellectual folks out. After all we know nothing and only opinion matters even if it can't be backed up with facts if I remember previous ramblings by yourself.
I wished there had been a fact or two for every opinion you have expressed in the past Barmby.
Are the 3 of you playing with him by agreement or are you all psychic arse'oles tonight ?
The demeaning phrase that you were looking for was that you with all your combined powers and intellect are unable to educate the 'pork' that is Mr. Frost......... am I right ? ;)
I am as cautious about this leader as anyone Hoola, a nice N.London boy from Champagne socialists dropped into a nice safe seat in S.Yorkshire. (some facts in there for you if you want) I am just going on previous threads mostly started by the said poster before, mostly based purely on prejudice and not fact. However if you wish we will have to completely agree with him then and not express our opinions either if we follow your logic. I would love to know how in an electoral college designed to balance the three strands within a party that only one part of it will be represented according to you. I would hope that any government would listen to organised labour within it's borders, but I have yet to see any government in my life that has been a poodle for unions, I do see a coalition that is being very friendly towards a banking system that has been propped up completely with our money and then not been expected to pay back enough. Only the working population is being expected to pay for the mess they created whilst they carry on with their games and receiving fat bonuses again, and denying manufacturing funds that would employ people.
Champagne Socialist indeed, this lad comes from a deeply entrenched Marxist family and the farce that is the electoral college (or the larger part of it i.e. the Unions) know exactly what they want from this fella imo.
Smart suit, Oxbridge education, entrenched Marxist values are exactly the values that they are looking for from their new leader.
I know you don't like the Coalition and I too have my doubts about it's functionality but are they really completely 'turning a blind eye' to the Banks and is Vince Cable then the biggest con artist around with his intended attacks on them ?
'kin 'ell Hoola. \"Entrenched Marxist values\"!?! Are you a sub-editor for the Daily Mail? The Unions have voted for Ed Miliband because they were wanting a move (a slight move) leftwards away from the Blairite approach that the other one would have implemented. It's a canny political move. The coalition will become progressively less popular as the scale and effect of the cuts become apparent, so where is the benefit in Labour electing a Blairite mini-me whose approach would have been barely different from the coalition's? This way, Labour offer a clear alternative.
PS: By the way, the Unions are NOT \"the bigger part\" of the Electoral College. The Unions collectively have 33.33% of the votes, the same as the MPs/MEPs and the individual members. Compare and contrast with the Tory party, where only the MPs get a vote.
As for Vince Cable, it's pretty straightforward. He has been utterly neutered by Clegg's sudden lurch to the right. He was his Party's biggest asset, and very much wanted the Liberals to go into coalition with Labour. But he has been sold down the river by Clegg's unquestioning support for Osbourne's economic policy. To cap it all, Cable's department will bear the brunt of the fiscal cutbacks. The rightward lurch of the Liberal elite has delievered a massive put-down to him.
He's been quiet for a while, biding his time. In that time, he's seen the Liberals' poll rating collapse to fringe-party status. Can you imagine the atmosphere in his private discussions with Clegg? Can you imagine phrases such as \"You daft t**t, you have just destroyed our support base for the next 50 years\" being used? Is it surprising that he then comes out fighting with wild threats to the financial barrow boys to wow his party conference. And do yo think there is the slightest chnace that Osbourne and Cameron (not to mention Clegg) will allow him to do anything whatsoever about it?
-
Is it just me but have has anyone else picked up on Milibands apparent denial of the medias portrayal of the red Ed label.Given his roots and the need for working class representation in this country you would think he would embrace it.Not chasing after the mythical middle ground that has has cost the labour movement its soul.
-
donnyproletarian wrote:
Is it just me but have has anyone else picked up on Milibands apparent denial of the medias portrayal of the red Ed label.Given his roots and the need for working class representation in this country you would think he would embrace it.Not chasing after the mythical middle ground that has has cost the labour movement its soul.
Perfectly simple. He wants to win the next election and he will not do so by lurching waybto the left.
It's the easy shot to complain at Labour for not remaining some ideologically pure socialist party. It conveniently ignores the reality that the one time in our lifetimes that Labour DID veer way to the left, they made themselves unelectable and allowed the most virulently right wing of Tory governments to wage unrestrained class warfare on the very people that Labour is supposed to protect. Good eh?
There is a middle ground between unelectable far left policies and the quasi-Tory approach of the Blairites. It's the centre-left ground that forms the traditional territory of the Labour party, where they have a chance of both winning elections AND (albeit slowly) making the country a better and fairer place for those at the bottom. Brown was firmlybinvthat tradition, and Ed Miliband is too. It's the ONLY place for a true Labour party to be. Put them where you would like to see them ANC they are nothing but a self indulgent protest movement.
-
Red Ed doesnt stand a chance vs Clegg and Cameron, they will run rings around him. Thats just my opinion, and as someone who dislikes the Labour Party I'm finding it all very funny.
As a Danesian born and bred (and still living here), I feel that in no way does he represent me. And by going on the results of the mayoral election, thousands of others feel the same.
-
Boomstick wrote:
Red Ed doesnt stand a chance vs Clegg and Cameron, they will run rings around him. Thats just my opinion, and as someone who dislikes the Labour Party I'm finding it all very funny.
As a Danesian born and bred (and still living here), I feel that in no way does he represent me. And by going on the results of the mayoral election, thousands of others feel the same.
My thoughts entirely, to me he is not in the same league as the 2 Coalition leaders and they will in time make 'mincemeat' of him.
Billy compares his politics to that of Brown, therein imo lies a very rocky road. In these days of 'charismatic' politics he will in my view undoubtedly fail as did Gordon Brown unfortunately much of politics these days depends on more style than substance.
It is never in anybody's interest to have either a weak Government and/or Opposition whoever currently runs the country. Strong policies require strong scrutiny and to some extent the last Labour Govt. was a victim of it's own success in that it did not scutinise from within correctly due to the leadership style of Brown and it wasn't curbed by what was imo a relatively weak opposition run by Cameron and to a far lesser extent by Clegg.
As to Billy's point re. the Lib Dems. it remains to be seen how they will fare at the next general election and is solely dependent on whether they can influence i.e. bring into check the more radical policies of the Tories. If they fail they will undoubtedly sink without trace but if they succeed the Labour Party has an almighty hill to climb.
Has Clegg 'climbed into the wrong bed', personally I think not. His party is far more likely to have a 'check and balance' influence on this Tory Govt. than they ever would have had under an irresponsible Labour Govt.who had already lost the faith and confidence of a good % of the Electorate. If this had not been the case then he would have fought far harder to align himself with the party where there would have been far more commonality historically.
-
hoolahoop wrote:
Boomstick wrote:
Red Ed doesnt stand a chance vs Clegg and Cameron, they will run rings around him. Thats just my opinion, and as someone who dislikes the Labour Party I'm finding it all very funny.
As a Danesian born and bred (and still living here), I feel that in no way does he represent me. And by going on the results of the mayoral election, thousands of others feel the same.
My thoughts entirely, to me he is not in the same league as the 2 Coalition leaders and they will in time make 'mincemeat' of him.
Billy compares his politics to that of Brown, therein imo lies a very rocky road. In these days of 'charismatic' politics he will in my view undoubtedly fail as did Gordon Brown unfortunately much of politics these days depends on more style than substance.
It is never in anybody's interest to have either a weak Government and/or Opposition whoever currently runs the country. Strong policies require strong scrutiny and to some extent the last Labour Govt. was a victim of it's own success in that it did not scutinise from within correctly due to the leadership style of Brown and it wasn't curbed by what was imo a relatively weak opposition run by Cameron and to a far lesser extent by Clegg.
As to Billy's point re. the Lib Dems. it remains to be seen how they will fare at the next general election and is solely dependent on whether they can influence i.e. bring into check the more radical policies of the Tories. If they fail they will undoubtedly sink without trace but if they succeed the Labour Party has an almighty hill to climb.
Has Clegg 'climbed into the wrong bed', personally I think not. His party is far more likely to have a 'check and balance' influence on this Tory Govt. than they ever would have had under an irresponsible Labour Govt.who had already lost the faith and confidence of a good % of the Electorate. If this had not been the case then he would have fought far harder to align himself with the party where there would have been far more commonality historically.
Why then did Cameron vet Cleggs speech to the LibDems at their recent conference, why did the tory party interfere with a LibDem conference. I wonder if Clegg will get the same privilege with Camerons speech at his partys conference, I think not!
-
A few points.
Clegg is on the fast track to irrelevance. His one and only appeal to the voters was that he looked like a nice honest guy on the telly. Well, the electorate soon learned their mistake on that score didn't they? As soon as the election was over, he dumped the Party's key economic policies (in the face of much opposition by Cable) and signed up to support vastly more vicious and rapid cutbacks than the Liberals had proposed. He justifies this by saying that he changed his mind in the last few days before the Election (but didn't think he'd bother telling his Party or the electorate) He's a political Dead Man Walking. Who is ever going to trust a word that he says in future? And why bother voting for a Clegg-led Liberal Party if he is simply going to endorse the wilder Tory economic policies? That us the reason that Clegg has performed a political miracle - he has managed to HALVE the Liberals' poll ratings within 4 months of a successful election. Utterly unprecedented.
The obvious conclusion is that the next election will revert to type and be a straightforward Tory-Labour run-off. It's quite astonishing how quickly folk have cottoned onto this andvthe polls have, fir several months now, been showing Labour and the Tories both at around 40% with the Liberals on 12-14%. And THAT is before the extent of the Tory-proposed, Liberal-supported cuts really begin to become apparent. Just see what the polls say after the Spending Round announcement next month, when we actually see the details.
The Liberals will revert to being a fringe party with a couple of dozen seats at the next election. The issue then will be whether the Tory cuts have worked or whether they have destroyed the fragile recovery and put millions of families through even more hardship. Personalities and TV performance will matter not a jot. If the Tory policies work, they will walk the next election. If they don't a sensible left-of-centre alternative will be able to say, \"See! We told you how reckless a gamble it was. There always was an alternative and we've been telling you that for 5 years\". And they will win with a landslide, whether Miliband looks like a geek or not.
EDIT: Hoola, how can Clegg be a moderating influence on the Tory cuts? He's signed up for them lock, stock and barrel! He's already flipped his Party's economic policy on the hoof once in order to join the coalition (against the policy of Cable who wanted a coalition with Labour and a more measured approach to balancing cuts with growth). If he flipped again and started opposing the proposed cuts, he'd be a laughing stock. He's chucked all the Liberals' egg into one basket, marked \"Tory economic policy\". Even if that policy works, why bother voting Liberal again? If you agree with the Tory economic approach, you might as well simply vote Tory.
-
There's quite a lot of assumptions in there, not least that Labour will put themselves forward as a \"sensible left of centre alternative\" when the next General Election comes around. They didn't do that in the early 80s, after all.
I'm not going to say that the choice of Ed Miliband represents a lurch to the left, or that he is going to be a puppet of the Unions- only time will tell. But if Labour don't position themselves right and fail to put themselves forward as a realistic alternative Government, then there's a fair chance the Tories could win the next election by default.
-
BBC:
Ed Miliband has won the Labour leadership after narrowly beating brother David in a dramatic run-off vote ahead of the party's conference.
He said a \"new generation\" had taken charge of Labour and it had to change.
\"We lost the election and we lost it badly. My message to the country is this: I know we lost trust, I know we lost touch, I know we need to change.
\"Today a new generation has taken charge of Labour, a new generation that understands the call of change.\"
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYkGThMYmbk[/video]
No change there then...
-
Just saw your PS after I posted. I think we ought to nail the myth that there could have been a Labour-Lib Dem coalition in May. The arithmetic just didn't stack up, added to which there was the whole issue of the Labour leadership: keeping Brown in office even as a caretaker PM would simply not have been credible.
Tim Farron, a senior Lib Dem who is no Tory-lover explained the dilemma rather well in an interview last week. He said they could have either entered a coalition with the Tories or let Cameron form a minority Govt. The outcome of the latter would certainly have been another election this year and a likely Tory majority Govt. It is easy to criticise the Lib Dems, but they really were between a rock and a hard place, because their \"other option\" (a coalition with Labour) just wasn't feasible.
-
Filo wrote:
hoolahoop wrote:
Boomstick wrote:
Red Ed doesnt stand a chance vs Clegg and Cameron, they will run rings around him. Thats just my opinion, and as someone who dislikes the Labour Party I'm finding it all very funny.
As a Danesian born and bred (and still living here), I feel that in no way does he represent me. And by going on the results of the mayoral election, thousands of others feel the same.
My thoughts entirely, to me he is not in the same league as the 2 Coalition leaders and they will in time make 'mincemeat' of him.
Billy compares his politics to that of Brown, therein imo lies a very rocky road. In these days of 'charismatic' politics he will in my view undoubtedly fail as did Gordon Brown unfortunately much of politics these days depends on more style than substance.
It is never in anybody's interest to have either a weak Government and/or Opposition whoever currently runs the country. Strong policies require strong scrutiny and to some extent the last Labour Govt. was a victim of it's own success in that it did not scutinise from within correctly due to the leadership style of Brown and it wasn't curbed by what was imo a relatively weak opposition run by Cameron and to a far lesser extent by Clegg.
As to Billy's point re. the Lib Dems. it remains to be seen how they will fare at the next general election and is solely dependent on whether they can influence i.e. bring into check the more radical policies of the Tories. If they fail they will undoubtedly sink without trace but if they succeed the Labour Party has an almighty hill to climb.
Has Clegg 'climbed into the wrong bed', personally I think not. His party is far more likely to have a 'check and balance' influence on this Tory Govt. than they ever would have had under an irresponsible Labour Govt.who had already lost the faith and confidence of a good % of the Electorate. If this had not been the case then he would have fought far harder to align himself with the party where there would have been far more commonality historically.
Why then did Cameron vet Cleggs speech to the LibDems at their recent conference, why did the tory party interfere with a LibDem conference. I wonder if Clegg will get the same privilege with Camerons speech at his partys conference, I think not!
'Vet' it , don't be daft Filo, they are working together in a Coalition aren't they ? Surely the pair of them have to have some consistency in their approach and I am not at all surprised by this and would think that Clegg will see a copy of Cameron's long before the Tory conference.
Why do you find this strange behaviour, surely both leaders of a Coalition need to show a consistent approach regardless of whether they are talking to their parties or not ? After all if one pisses the other off or either party's supporters withdraw their support for their 'joining at the hip'the Coalition would collapse.
The result some of you undoubtedly would love to see along with your Marxist brethren. Did you lot get sent to the Gulags when you were young for politicisation btw ? ;)
Perhaps I will now be subjected to the following drivel 'Thatcher destroyed the working class', 'Scargill was a God and a victm', 'Unions rule' etc. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Is there no middle ground with you BST, BobG or Barmby ?
-
hoolahoop wrote:
Filo wrote:
hoolahoop wrote:
Boomstick wrote:
Red Ed doesnt stand a chance vs Clegg and Cameron, they will run rings around him. Thats just my opinion, and as someone who dislikes the Labour Party I'm finding it all very funny.
As a Danesian born and bred (and still living here), I feel that in no way does he represent me. And by going on the results of the mayoral election, thousands of others feel the same.
My thoughts entirely, to me he is not in the same league as the 2 Coalition leaders and they will in time make 'mincemeat' of him.
Billy compares his politics to that of Brown, therein imo lies a very rocky road. In these days of 'charismatic' politics he will in my view undoubtedly fail as did Gordon Brown unfortunately much of politics these days depends on more style than substance.
It is never in anybody's interest to have either a weak Government and/or Opposition whoever currently runs the country. Strong policies require strong scrutiny and to some extent the last Labour Govt. was a victim of it's own success in that it did not scutinise from within correctly due to the leadership style of Brown and it wasn't curbed by what was imo a relatively weak opposition run by Cameron and to a far lesser extent by Clegg.
As to Billy's point re. the Lib Dems. it remains to be seen how they will fare at the next general election and is solely dependent on whether they can influence i.e. bring into check the more radical policies of the Tories. If they fail they will undoubtedly sink without trace but if they succeed the Labour Party has an almighty hill to climb.
Has Clegg 'climbed into the wrong bed', personally I think not. His party is far more likely to have a 'check and balance' influence on this Tory Govt. than they ever would have had under an irresponsible Labour Govt.who had already lost the faith and confidence of a good % of the Electorate. If this had not been the case then he would have fought far harder to align himself with the party where there would have been far more commonality historically.
Why then did Cameron vet Cleggs speech to the LibDems at their recent conference, why did the tory party interfere with a LibDem conference. I wonder if Clegg will get the same privilege with Camerons speech at his partys conference, I think not!
'Vet' it , don't be daft Filo, they are working together in a Coalition aren't they ? Surely the pair of them have to have some consistency in their approach and I am not at all surprised by this and would think that Clegg will see a copy of Cameron's long before the Tory conference.
Why do you find this strange behaviour, surely both leaders of a Coalition need to show a consistent approach regardless of whether they are talking to their parties or not ? After all if one pisses the other off or either party's supporters withdraw their support for their 'joining at the hip'the Coalition would collapse.
The result some of you undoubtedly would love to see along with your Marxist brethren. Did you lot get sent to the Gulags when you were young for politicisation btw ? ;)
Perhaps I will now be subjected to the following drivel 'Thatcher destroyed the working class', 'Scargill was a God and a victm', 'Unions rule' etc. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Is there no middle ground with you BST, BobG or Barmby ?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2010/09/21/revealed-nick-clegg-had-to-have-lib-dem-keynote-speech-cleared-by-tory-boss-david-cameron-86908-22577169/
A tory MP has to approve a speech by a LibDem MP to the LibDems just proves that the LibDems are no more than puppets, dancing to the Tory tune, by the time of the next election Clegg and his party will be political nobodies and the Tories will have long since ditched them!
-
The Red Baron wrote:
There's quite a lot of assumptions in there, not least that Labour will put themselves forward as a \"sensible left of centre alternative\" when the next General Election comes around. They didn't do that in the early 80s, after all.
I'm not going to say that the choice of Ed Miliband represents a lurch to the left, or that he is going to be a puppet of the Unions- only time will tell. But if Labour don't position themselves right and fail to put themselves forward as a realistic alternative Government, then there's a fair chance the Tories could win the next election by default.
There is no chance whatsoever of a re-run of Labour's mistakes of the early 80s. The world has changed beyond recognition since then. Only Daily Mail writers, retired Lt Cols in Surrey and Hoola now associate Labour and The Far Left.
There IS an interesting lesson from that period mind. 1980-83 was the last time that any Govt in Western Europe implemented anything remotely close to the scale of cutbacks that this lot are proposing. By late 1981, Thatcher's government was, as a result, one of the most unpopular on record. They would have had no chance whatsoever of winning in 1983 were it not for the felicitous combination of a suicidally left-wing Labour party, a fatally split Opposition and a convenient little escapade in the South Atlantic. Had Dennis Healy won the Labour leadership in 1980, and the Admiralty not removed the last gunboat in the South Atlantic thus giving a clear \"come on\" to Galtieri, the whole of 1980s history would have been utterly different.
The lesson? Well, history shows that when cutbacks really start to bite, Governments' popularity falls off a cliff. And since Cameron ain't going to find a neat little war to bolster his popularity or a rabidly lefty Labour Opposition to be a bogeyman, he's going to be in for done uncomfortable poll figures in the forthcoming years.
I suspect we'll see Labour ahead in the polls by 5% or so by the New Year once the scale of the October Spending Review becomes apparent. After that, it's all down to whether the private sector miracle that Osbourne dreams of actually materialises.
-
The Red Baron wrote:
Just saw your PS after I posted. I think we ought to nail the myth that there could have been a Labour-Lib Dem coalition in May. The arithmetic just didn't stack up, added to which there was the whole issue of the Labour leadership: keeping Brown in office even as a caretaker PM would simply not have been credible.
Tim Farron, a senior Lib Dem who is no Tory-lover explained the dilemma rather well in an interview last week. He said they could have either entered a coalition with the Tories or let Cameron form a minority Govt. The outcome of the latter would certainly have been another election this year and a likely Tory majority Govt. It is easy to criticise the Lib Dems, but they really were between a rock and a hard place, because their \"other option\" (a coalition with Labour) just wasn't feasible.
Forgive me for saying so TRB, but that comment by Farron is nonsense. Buy then, of course he will say there is no alternative. There IS no alternative NOW because they've made their bed. So they gave to spin it that there WAS no alternative THEN.
Absolute nonsense. There were several alternatives.
1) A Labour-Liberal-SNP-PC coalition would have (just) had a majority.
2) A Tory minority Government would not have been guaranteed to be either short lived, or to automatically result in a follow up Tory majority.
3) Even going into coalition with the Tories, there was nothing written in stone to say that the Tory economic policy should be taken on in its totality. Why could the Liberals not point out that fewer than 40% of voters had backed the policy of the biggest cutbacks for 80 years? Why could they not drive a bargain that said \"If you want our support, you have to give ground on the scale of the cuts. This is a coalition after all, not a capitulation by us.\"
Instead, the Liberals have given the (minority) Tory policies a stamp of approval that the electorate categorically did NOT give. In return, they have Bern chucked a couple of irrelevant sops, including an AV vote that has already been scuppered by the Tories' insistence on coupling it with boundary changes. Clegg has been out-manoeuvred at every turn and is now reaping the rewards in his Party's poll ratings.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
A few points.
Clegg is on the fast track to irrelevance. His one and only appeal to the voters was that he looked like a nice honest guy on the telly. Well, the electorate soon learned their mistake on that score didn't they? As soon as the election was over, he dumped the Party's key economic policies (in the face of much opposition by Cable) and signed up to support vastly more vicious and rapid cutbacks than the Liberals had proposed. He justifies this by saying that he changed his mind in the last few days before the Election (but didn't think he'd bother telling his Party or the electorate) He's a political Dead Man Walking. Who is ever going to trust a word that he says in future? And why bother voting for a Clegg-led Liberal Party if he is simply going to endorse the wilder Tory economic policies? That us the reason that Clegg has performed a political miracle - he has managed to HALVE the Liberals' poll ratings within 4 months of a successful election. Utterly unprecedented.
The obvious conclusion is that the next election will revert to type and be a straightforward Tory-Labour run-off. It's quite astonishing how quickly folk have cottoned onto this andvthe polls have, fir several months now, been showing Labour and the Tories both at around 40% with the Liberals on 12-14%. And THAT is before the extent of the Tory-proposed, Liberal-supported cuts really begin to become apparent. Just see what the polls say after the Spending Round announcement next month, when we actually see the details.
The Liberals will revert to being a fringe party with a couple of dozen seats at the next election. The issue then will be whether the Tory cuts have worked or whether they have destroyed the fragile recovery and put millions of families through even more hardship. Personalities and TV performance will matter not a jot. If the Tory policies work, they will walk the next election. If they don't a sensible left-of-centre alternative will be able to say, \"See! We told you how reckless a gamble it was. There always was an alternative and we've been telling you that for 5 years\". And they will win with a landslide, whether Miliband looks like a geek or not.
EDIT: Hoola, how can Clegg be a moderating influence on the Tory cuts? He's signed up for them lock, stock and barrel! He's already flipped his Party's economic policy on the hoof once in order to join the coalition (against the policy of Cable who wanted a coalition with Labour and a more measured approach to balancing cuts with growth). If he flipped again and started opposing the proposed cuts, he'd be a laughing stock. He's chucked all the Liberals' egg into one basket, marked \"Tory economic policy\". Even if that policy works, why bother voting Liberal again? If you agree with the Tory economic approach, you might as well simply vote Tory.
A few points, I have never known an incumbent party follow through to the letter their election policies and neither have you . You look at the books , see the compromises you MUST make (that incidentally would have made all 3 unelectable!)and then proceed from there. Obviously forming a Coalition is a far harder problem to overcome especially when you are much the smaller partner.
I can understand your distaste for Clegg after all it made you party of choice lose the Election but can't understand why for one minute you would think that he had the choice of forming such a Coalition with a disgraced and out of favour party and leader. It's now common knowledge that Brown had a problem dealing with his own folk let alone that interfering little t**t from the Lib/Dems.
Clegg had no choice, his party hadn't broken into mainstream politics as once was thought likely at the end of the campaign and they would not have had the resources or the stupidity to enforce a re-run where his party would quite undoubtedly have found their votes squeezed by the other two major parties. Incidentally precisely the future you envisage for them whether they are successful or not in moving us through this recession.
Which decision would you have made in his shoes Billy that's what I would find most interesting ?
Your perception of a 'left of centre' Labour party is based on what information and incidentally how much to the left ? Enough to please the Unions perhaps and tell them that all is OK with the world and that none of their members will ever get hurt in the cuts ? Perhaps you may think that there is no necessity for 'deep' cuts at all :dry:
Is there a need for more than 2 parties perhaps or should we all only have the opportunity to vote for the 2 main parties. Indeed in what I perceive to be your ideal world (please correct me if I'm wrong) we should perhaps only have a one party state........a party of the people for the people etc. We could even couple this up with ridiculous 5 year unrealistic plans and pretend the goals have been reached when they are never likely to be ; remind you of anywhere perhaps ?
As for Clegg and the Liberals , history may indeed prove you correct in your assertions but I doubt it. Democrats enjoy choice.
-
Hoola. There's absolutely nothing personal in what I'm about to say, but you don't half talk some b*llocks on the topic of politics.
Point out one single posting from me that gives you any grounds whatsoever for claiming that I'm a Marxist, in favour of a one-party state or any of the other ridiculous ramblings that you chuck at anyone with a left of centre approach. It's purile, childish and pathetic, and you're cleverer than that.
EDIT: Now I've got that off me chest, some of your other points are pertinent.
You're right that Governments always compromise to a greater or lesser extent. But the problem that THIS Govt has us that it has set its stall out from the outset to produce the deepest cuts in living memory. It's now painted into a corner. If it goes back on that, it shows political weakness (suicide). If it delivers, the results will be deeply damaging to many millions of people. Either way, it's impossible to see the Liberals coming out with credit from their core support This commitment stems from a deeply Thatcherite approach to economics which believes that public services are inherently bad and wasteful. It's an attitude that I despise and fundamentally disagree with.
Of course I believe that people should have choice. But it should be INFORMED choice. The despicable thing about the Liberals us not that they rutted put the Labour party (more childishness from you there) but that they have been demonstrated to stand for NOTHING. That us the reason I despise Clegg. He embodies the vacuousness of some politicians. He appealed through a boyish charm, his party campaigned on one set of economic policies (actually very similar to those put forward by Labour) then he immediately ditched the lot following the Election. That is not political tactics. It is disgraceful and blatant lying. On THE single most important issue affecting every one of us. He won votes, seats and influence on a lie and he and his party need to be held to account for that.
I'm not doubting that Clegg had difficult decisions to make after the election. That's politics. If he gas been left with a disaster whichever decision he took, then perhaps that brings into question the whole POINT if the Liberal Party. I mean, what IS the point of a party if you have no idea what a vote for them will lead to? It's a vote for no principle and no policy at all. It is simply nit sufficient to say\"vote for us and we'll tell you afterwards what we will do.\" So the issue of what I would have done in Clegg's shoes I'd a non-question. I would not gave been in Clegg's shoes because I have principled political beliefs. I'd no more think of chucking them up than I'd consider leaving the Rovers and supporting Leeds. Which is why I support Labour and not the Liberals. I want to know what the party I vote for will do BEFORE I vote for them.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Hoola. There's absolutely nothing personal in what I'm about to say, but you don't half talk some b*llocks on the topic of politics.
Point out one single posting from me that gives you any grounds whatsoever for claiming that I'm a Marxist, in favour of a one-party state or any of the other ridiculous ramblings that you chuck at anyone with a left of centre approach. It's purile, childish and pathetic, and you're cleverer than that.
Funny that Billy I was just thinking the same about your last post where you suggested that a Lab/Lib/SNP/PC coalition had any chance of success. What could ever give you the idea that Brown , Salmond and Clegg could ever possibly ever work together with their many different agendas.
Incidentally I don't take your observations personally and you're right I'm not stupid enough to think for one minute that you didn't want to keep the last Labour party in power despite it's massive flaws whatever the cost to the country.
This is as you stated yesterday 'a big boys forum' and you must agree with just one observation .......we are politically miles apart and I don't take your condescending attitude of my so called 'ridiculous ramblings' to heart.
Addressing your final point there are many posts that you have placed on ths board that more than suggest to me that you are politically more than just a bit more than 'left of centre'. The 'one party state' comment was purely to draw you out, I of course realise that you don't want a Stalnist state here ...yet! ;)
-
Brown was NEVER going to be able to stay on as PM after the election result. That much was perfectly clear. With that as a starting point for discussion, the coalition I suggested was no more outlandish than the one we ended up with. Economically (and economics was always going to be the key issue) Labour, SNP and PC are far closer than the Liberals and Tories. (At least if you go by what the Liberals said in their manifesto, although I accept the flaw in my argument...)
Anyway, coalitions are all about compromises aren't they? I mean, why should Salmond and say Miliband have any more trouble getting on than Cable and Pickles, who both now sit in the Cabinet but are as far apart politically as me and thee.
Anyway, I'd be delighted if you could dig out some posts from me that give any indication whatsoever that I'm a loony lefty. It'd give me summat to chuckle about. If you can't find any, then perhaps you'll allow me to describe anyone with a policy slightly to the left of Enver Hoxha as being a Nazi. Then we'd both be as childish as each other.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Brown was NEVER going to be able to stay on as PM after the election result. That much was perfectly clear. With that as a starting point for discussion, the coalition I suggested was no more outlandish than the one we ended up with. Economically (and economics was always going to be the key issue) Labour, SNP and PC are far closer than the Liberals and Tories. (At least if you go by what the Liberals said in their manifesto, although I accept the flaw in my argument...)
Anyway, coalitions are all about compromises aren't they? I mean, why should Salmond and say Miliband have any more trouble getting on than Cable and Pickles, who both now sit in the Cabinet but are as far apart politically as me and thee.
Anyway, I'd be delighted if you could dig out some posts from me that give any indication whatsoever that I'm a loony lefty. It'd give me summat to chuckle about. If you can't find any, then perhaps you'll allow me to describe anyone with a policy slightly to the left of Enver Hoxha as being a Nazi. Then we'd both be as childish as each other.
Of course i don't think you're a 'loony lefty' and I haven't stated as such (presumably you missed the ;) thing at the end of my post). As for foraging around the past 3 years for each and every one of your posts on both this and the previous forum (some 6000 posts perhaps) to prove that my perception of you is correct well I neither have the time nor am I that sad.
This is not meant as a backtrack, but if you say you are what you are i.e. 'just left of centre' then I believe you as you have never given me cause to doubt your validity or honesty. I apologise as that is the perception I have gained, childish I am not and I certainly relish discussion on here with you even if you constantly refer to me as being 'childish' etc. :laugh: Oh to be young again!
Getting back to the point there could never ever have been a chance that a disparate group of 4 parties could ever work things out , whoever was the leader imo and we probably would have ended up with a 'forced' election far sooner than with this Coalition.
Now as to my own politics , I am no more comfortable with this coalition than you are. Although it has a mandate in terms of % of vote share , I too believe that the Liberals have conceeded far too much far too soon and that was possibly the price they had to pay for their shot at Govt.
In terms of political agendas both the coalition parties couldn't be more at odds on most matters but I am hoping (probably falsely) that as the heat turns up on Clegg/LibDems. then they will have to be seen/act to rein the Tories in or pull out to save their own party ......that's when the fun starts.
Btw was Hoxha a friend of Hitler. :laugh:
Bonsoir mon ami a demain........................
-
Some corking political debate again on here, and some more of the short sighted Tory tripe from the usual suspects. When will they ever learn?
Back to the original topic. Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful. Potentially, this could be fantastic for my local area, according to a councillor I spoke to recently. If, nay when Labour get back in power, it could open the door to massive investment for Doncaster North, which can only be a good thing.
But one interesting thing I have heard from a very high ranking official from my union is that Labour will be forced to change by the union, it will simply have no choice, and Ed Miliband will be leant on from within the party by Unite sponsored MP's to make sure it happens.
Lets be right here, New Labour is dead. It lost 5 million voters in 13 years and is no longer representative of its historical electorate in my opinion. Its a tragedy that the harshest anti trade union laws in Europe still remain on the statute book after 13 years of Labour rule. These have to be relaxed, if not removed all together when Labour regain control and my union plan on pushing this all the way. The union will also campaign for a \"living wage\", possible £1-2 an hour more than the minimum wage is now. Either Labour looks after its historical electorate or there is a big chance Labour will lose its funding from Unite (and possibly a few more unions), which was worth £13 million last year. And without that sort of funding Labour is practically finished. And considering John Prescott admitted Labour hasn't got a penny to scratch its arse with, there could be interesting times ahead for the party.
-
Shame I fell asleep last night- I missed some interesting debate.
A \"rainbow coalition\" would have had no chance. Apart from the fact it would have been inherently unstable there are two other big issues. First, who would have led it? Second, the West Lothian question writ large. Having SNP and PC members of a UK government would really have gone down well with English voters (who never had the chance to vote for these paries.)
The recent precedent for a minority government- Harold Wilson's in 1974- suggests it would have been short lived and would have produced an outright majority for the party at a subsequent election.
jonrover's point about Labour and Unite is interesting. Obviously as a trade unionist, jon will be hoping that Labour takes more notice of the unions. However, in terms of the wider electorate, such moves (especially if they are too blatantly obvious) could be taking the party down the kind of cul-de-sac it went down in the early 80s.
Fascinating stuff!
-
Actually, the last minority Government was John Major's. By 1997, he had lost his majority through by election defeats and relied on the UUP to keep him in power. (I don't recall the English electorate having a chance to vote for them.) And in reality, given the deep and vicious splits in the Tory Party in the early 90s, his administration was practically a minority one from the off. In that he had to make huge concessions to his own right wing to get legislation through. (Pace the infamous \"bas**rds\" quote.)
And that minority government was annihilated at the next election.
In any case, the situation after this year's election was unprecedented in living memory, in that no party was remotely close to a majority. So comparisons with Wilson in 74 are not really fair - he missed a majority by a whisker in Feb 74.
I fully agree that a rainbow coalition would have been unlikely to succeed. But as I've said before, it would have been no less fundamentally irrational than expecting Cable and Osbourne to agree on an economic policy. (Which they have fine of course - the Tories have said, \"Here's the economic policy\" and the Liberals have said, \"Ok\"). Clearly the Liberals thought a Labour coalition was a possibility. If it wasn't, then why on earth negotiate with Labour as they did. Of course, given what actually happened, it's entirely in the Liberals' interest to tell a story that there was no alternative and they did the principled thing. That's called Political Spin.
-
I have to say I was thinking of the last time a General Election didn't produce an overall majority, rather than the party in power losing its majority. The Major Government did manage to last quite a long time in that state- and one can't help wondering whether the determination to cling on to power by whatever means contributed to the scale of its eventual defeat.
-
jonrover wrote:
Some corking political debate again on here, and some more of the short sighted Tory tripe from the usual suspects. When will they ever learn?
Back to the original topic. Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful. Potentially, this could be fantastic for my local area, according to a councillor I spoke to recently. If, nay when Labour get back in power, it could open the door to massive investment for Doncaster North, which can only be a good thing.
But one interesting thing I have heard from a very high ranking official from my union is that Labour will be forced to change by the union, it will simply have no choice, and Ed Miliband will be leant on from within the party by Unite sponsored MP's to make sure it happens.
Lets be right here, New Labour is dead. It lost 5 million voters in 13 years and is no longer representative of its historical electorate in my opinion. Its a tragedy that the harshest anti trade union laws in Europe still remain on the statute book after 13 years of Labour rule. These have to be relaxed, if not removed all together when Labour regain control and my union plan on pushing this all the way. The union will also campaign for a \"living wage\", possible £1-2 an hour more than the minimum wage is now. Either Labour looks after its historical electorate or there is a big chance Labour will lose its funding from Unite (and possibly a few more unions), which was worth £13 million last year. And without that sort of funding Labour is practically finished. And considering John Prescott admitted Labour hasn't got a penny to scratch its arse with, there could be interesting times ahead for the party.
As a former GMB shop steward, I`m with you comrade jonrover :)
(http://images.newstatesman.com/articles/2008/1040/20081203_045red-flag-on-grey_w.jpg)
-
whilst all the talk here is around Labour and the coalition, can i politely correct those in this debate refering to 'Liberals' and 'Liberal policy', this is actually LibDem, NOT Liberal.
i have always been a Liberal, in the true sense, and like others, did not approve of the merger with the SDP, the spiritual mushy centrist forerunner of New Labour.
believe it or not there is still a Liberal Party, that is nothing to do with this lot. we have councillors, some of us have stood for parliament [myself included] and we are now to the left of Labour.
we are opposed to a the EU and Trident, and in all things put freedom first.
so ends the party political broadcast.
-
Extremely enjoyable debate, however I was very interested to read Johnrover's account of democracy in action here goes............
''Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful.''
Jeez there was no wonder he won , incidentally could anybody tell me the amount of votes cast individually i.e. none Union block votes ?
It was interesting to read that Longbridge (a Liberal) now considered his party to be left of Labour, perhaps you can find a place for Billy in your squad. lol
Finally are we all trying to put a square Clegg in a round hole and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.
-
hoolahoop wrote:
Extremely enjoyable debate, however I was very interested to read Filo's account of democracy in action here goes............
''Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful.''
Jeez there was no wonder he won , incidentally could anybody tell me the amount of votes cast individually i.e. none Union block votes ?
It was interesting to read that Longbridge (a Liberal) now considered his party to be left of Labour, perhaps you can find a place for Billy in your squad. lol
Finally are we all trying to put a square Clegg in a round hole and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.
Point of order! I think you`ll find that they were jonrover`s words, not mine, you`re a bit like Mr Clegg there hoola, failing to read the finer details ;) :P
-
And you will see I quickly corrected them.sorry.
-
Hoola. I answered your question about Clegg in the post at the top of P4. Granted, the typing on this sodding iPhone made every second word sound like the copper off Allo Allo but the gist is clear enough.
-
PS Hoola, as with so many issues in this thread, you are living in the past on the block vote issue. The union votes were votes cast by individual union members. If 100,000 union members voted in total, and of those, say 50,000 voted for a given candidate, then that candidate received one half of the total union vote. Since the total union vote was one third of the entire vote, that would equate to a total of 16.66% of the total college vote.
The block vote does not exist in this election. But there you go. Why let facts get in the way when you can just recycle 30 year out if date prejudices?
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
PS Hoola, as with so many issues in this thread, you are living in the past on the block vote issue. The union votes were votes cast by individual union members. If 100,000 union members voted in total, and of those, say 50,000 voted for a given candidate, then that candidate received one half of the total union vote. Since the total union vote was one third of the entire vote, that would equate to a total of 16.66% of the total college vote.
The block vote does not exist in this election. But there you go. Why let facts get in the way when you can just recycle 30 year out if date prejudices?
I wasn't asking about the 'block vote' merely trying to exclude it when asking exactly how many members (i.e Party members/MP/MEP's), it was merely a question and not an inference.
Btw , as an aside, the Union vote was very relevant and entirely understandable as they do sponsor MP's but NOT part of my question.
Incidentally you have turned a mere question into a supposed 'out of date prejudice'.
An interesting fella and obviously very intelligent too but condescending in the extreme......thanks for the debate.
To summarise during this debate/lecture I have now been labelled as 'childish', 'out of date', 'prejudiced' and 'ill-informed'. :blink: :cry: :byebye
-
hoolahoop wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
PS Hoola, as with so many issues in this thread, you are living in the past on the block vote issue. The union votes were votes cast by individual union members. If 100,000 union members voted in total, and of those, say 50,000 voted for a given candidate, then that candidate received one half of the total union vote. Since the total union vote was one third of the entire vote, that would equate to a total of 16.66% of the total college vote.
The block vote does not exist in this election. But there you go. Why let facts get in the way when you can just recycle 30 year out if date prejudices?
I wasn't asking about the 'block vote' merely trying to exclude it when asking exactly how many members (i.e Party members/MP/MEP's), it was merely a question and not an inference.
Btw , as an aside, the Union vote was very relevant and entirely understandable as they do sponsor MP's but NOT part of my question.
Incidentally you have turned a mere question into a supposed 'out of date prejudice'.
An interesting fella and obviously very intelligent too but condescending in the extreme......thanks for the debate.
To summarise during this debate/lecture I have now been labelled as 'childish', 'out of date', 'prejudiced' and 'ill-informed'. :blink: :cry: :byebye
You think YOU should worry. I've been accused of being a patronising fcuker and Bob G's wide receiver.
As for the substance of your question, I don't know the precise number of voters.
The general principle was that MPs/SMPs/Wales representatives/MEPs had a vote each. The total sum of all their votes counted for 33.33% of the final sum. So, say there were 500 of them in total, and a candidate got 100 of their votes, it would equate to a vote of 6.66% for him/her. There were several hundred thousand individual Labour Members each with a single vote and the same 33.33% total sum. And again, several hundred thousand INDIVIDUAL trade union members who voted, with again the same 33.33% sum.
All I was meaning in tonight's bit of invenctive is that this is a world away from the 70s and 80s, when unions held open air, public \"hands up\" votes, and if the majority voted one way, ALL that Union's vote would be cast in that direction. That was a recipe for intimidation, blackmail and subversion by the far left. It is as far in the past as Pat Lally and Mickey French.
-
wrote another post on here and yet again failed to materialise after writing war and peace.But just to summarise this is my take on the situation.
1 a socialist movement based on bread and butter principles relevant to the needs of working people has never been more relevant to now.
2 We know the media is a powerful tool in the hands of their paymasters but has someone once said you cant fool all of the people all of the time .
3 Labour was formed to give the common people a voice in Parliment but has been hijacked by the SDP , new labour and the like.
4 The road to hell is paved with good intentions .Proof just look round at leading labour politicians who were once considered left .What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and loose his soul.
5 we need a re commitment to part 4 clause 4 of the labour constitution and to be straight with the people we are claiming to represent.
6 Marx did not get it all right but by god he got most of it right .POLICIES AIMED AT WORKING PEOPLE WILL BRING THEM BACK TO THE POLLS NOT BACKROOM DEALS WITH A RUTHLESS SYSTEM WHOSE SOLE EXISTENCE IS THE ABJECT SQUALER WE ARE SURROUNDED BY TODAY.
PS.rovers till i die
-
Whats wrong with the block vote .Put the shoe on the other foot and picture this.I go to work and have no choice but to have my wages paid into my bank account.Said money is the taken along with countless others and put in coffers that not only accumulates interest but pays out fat bonuses to leeches who are partly responsible for the current economis calimity.To rub salt in the wound a percentage of my wages is then contributed to the tories for services rendered.Am i missing anything .Surely the issue should be making the trade union leaders accountable to its menbers and encouraging open democracy.Imagine the panic if everyone went down to their bank and withdrew our money.Instead of commiting economic suicide for ourselves by withdrawing our labour ,lets withdraw our cash and watch the b@@@@@rds squirm.
-
Filo wrote:
jonrover wrote:
Some corking political debate again on here, and some more of the short sighted Tory tripe from the usual suspects. When will they ever learn?
Back to the original topic. Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful. Potentially, this could be fantastic for my local area, according to a councillor I spoke to recently. If, nay when Labour get back in power, it could open the door to massive investment for Doncaster North, which can only be a good thing.
But one interesting thing I have heard from a very high ranking official from my union is that Labour will be forced to change by the union, it will simply have no choice, and Ed Miliband will be leant on from within the party by Unite sponsored MP's to make sure it happens.
Lets be right here, New Labour is dead. It lost 5 million voters in 13 years and is no longer representative of its historical electorate in my opinion. Its a tragedy that the harshest anti trade union laws in Europe still remain on the statute book after 13 years of Labour rule. These have to be relaxed, if not removed all together when Labour regain control and my union plan on pushing this all the way. The union will also campaign for a \"living wage\", possible £1-2 an hour more than the minimum wage is now. Either Labour looks after its historical electorate or there is a big chance Labour will lose its funding from Unite (and possibly a few more unions), which was worth £13 million last year. And without that sort of funding Labour is practically finished. And considering John Prescott admitted Labour hasn't got a penny to scratch its arse with, there could be interesting times ahead for the party.
As a former GMB shop steward, I`m with you comrade jonrover :)
(http://images.newstatesman.com/articles/2008/1040/20081203_045red-flag-on-grey_w.jpg)
You'll do for me Filo!
I'm a rep too, just about finished my basic training. Its quite funny really, I was one of those people who paid my union subs every month, and just waited until I needed the union for anything. Being voted on to the reps committee, and also the branch committee, you see the other side of the coin, and get all the shit that comes with it! But I'm really enjoying it even though it sometimes feels like a thankless task! I actually see the position I'm in now as an opportunity to re-educate myself and perhaps enhance my prospects career wise.
-
hoolahoop wrote:
Extremely enjoyable debate, however I was very interested to read Johnrover's account of democracy in action here goes............
''Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful.''
Jeez there was no wonder he won , incidentally could anybody tell me the amount of votes cast individually i.e. none Union block votes ?
It was interesting to read that Longbridge (a Liberal) now considered his party to be left of Labour, perhaps you can find a place for Billy in your squad. lol
Finally are we all trying to put a square Clegg in a round hole and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.
I'm not quite sure what the problem is? I legitimately get two votes, and got permission to vote on behalf of the other three because they couldn't be arsed, which to be honest really gets on my goat. Why people throw away their chance to have their say in something, which must be important to them since they pay the political levy is beyond me. As it happens, Ed Miliband was their first choice anyway, the only difference being I made sure Dave was their last preference!
As for a union block vote. Its b*llocks, utter b*llocks. All union votes were cast individually. End of story. You want to stop reading Murdoch's trash and try the beano instead.
-
The Red Baron wrote:
There's quite a lot of assumptions in there, not least that Labour will put themselves forward as a \"sensible left of centre alternative\" when the next General Election comes around. They didn't do that in the early 80s, after all.
Something I posted the other day. Reading some of the contributions on here I can see there's a strong appetite for Labour to \"reclaim its roots.\" Which is fine so long as the party doesn't make itself unelectable in the process. The rhetoric spouted by the likes of Bob Crow, Paul Kenney, Derek Simpson et al might strike a chord with Labour activists, but it will not win back the voters who have abandoned Labour.
There's a common misconception that political parties have to be \"more themselves\" in order to appeal to the voters. The Tories suffered from it after 1997 and chose their leaders (especially Iain Duncan-Smith) accordingly. What good did it do them? I now see Labour doing the same.
-
jonrover wrote:
hoolahoop wrote:
Extremely enjoyable debate, however I was very interested to read Johnrover's account of democracy in action here goes............
''Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful.''
Jeez there was no wonder he won , incidentally could anybody tell me the amount of votes cast individually i.e. none Union block votes ?
It was interesting to read that Longbridge (a Liberal) now considered his party to be left of Labour, perhaps you can find a place for Billy in your squad. lol
Finally are we all trying to put a square Clegg in a round hole and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.
I'm not quite sure what the problem is? I legitimately get two votes, and got permission to vote on behalf of the other three because they couldn't be arsed, which to be honest really gets on my goat. Why people throw away their chance to have their say in something, which must be important to them since they pay the political levy is beyond me. As it happens, Ed Miliband was their first choice anyway, the only difference being I made sure Dave was their last preference!
As for a union block vote. Its b*llocks, utter b*llocks. All union votes were cast individually. End of story. You want to stop reading Murdoch's trash and try the beano instead.
Are you serious jonrover, is it right just to toss your votes over to others to vote on your behalf......try doing that at a proper election ! This is the sort of thing that happens in 3rd. World countries and the very reason why votes are vetted!
In the leadership election, David Milliband won in 588 of the 650 seats; an overwhelming 'thrashing' of the eventual winner Ed Milliband and received only 8% of the total donations registered. This was undoubtedly a complete 'stitch up'by the Unions to achieve a result for what can only be described as 'their man' and still folk say their is no such thing as a block vote ? OK I agree it's not a 'block vote' in the traditional sense but not far away from it.
Union sources said and I quote....''the bosses of the 4 big Unions held a secret summit to agree a STOP DAVID MILLIBAND candidate shortly after the General Election''. The bosses of the GMB, Unison, CWU, and Unison must be beaming from ear to ear today.
As for reading the Beano, I must admit that it has always been my comic of choice.
Imo the Labour Party has got the wrong man, nay the weakest man even, to stand their corner on behalf of the 'working man'in the face of the Coalition and all it is preparing to do.
Prepare yourselves for another ''winter of discontent' and disruption. When you have to go down difficult economic avenues , the last thing you need is a reactionary Trade Union movement! Bear in mind the difficulties that are being faced in Greece by their current Govt.in the face of civil disobedience and disruption!!
Surely this is a time for level heads not.......off with their heads.
-
hoolahoop wrote:
jonrover wrote:
hoolahoop wrote:
Extremely enjoyable debate, however I was very interested to read Johnrover's account of democracy in action here goes............
''Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful.''
Jeez there was no wonder he won , incidentally could anybody tell me the amount of votes cast individually i.e. none Union block votes ?
It was interesting to read that Longbridge (a Liberal) now considered his party to be left of Labour, perhaps you can find a place for Billy in your squad. lol
Finally are we all trying to put a square Clegg in a round hole and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.
I'm not quite sure what the problem is? I legitimately get two votes, and got permission to vote on behalf of the other three because they couldn't be arsed, which to be honest really gets on my goat. Why people throw away their chance to have their say in something, which must be important to them since they pay the political levy is beyond me. As it happens, Ed Miliband was their first choice anyway, the only difference being I made sure Dave was their last preference!
As for a union block vote. Its b*llocks, utter b*llocks. All union votes were cast individually. End of story. You want to stop reading Murdoch's trash and try the beano instead.
Are you serious jonrover, is it right just to toss your votes over to others to vote on your behalf......try doing that at a proper election ! This is the sort of thing that happens in 3rd. World countries and the very reason why votes are vetted!
In the leadership election, David Milliband won in 588 of the 650 seats; an overwhelming 'thrashing' of the eventual winner Ed Milliband and received only 8% of the total donations registered. This was undoubtedly a complete 'stitch up'by the Unions to achieve a result for what can only be described as 'their man' and still folk say their is no such thing as a block vote ? OK I agree it's not a 'block vote' in the traditional sense but not far away from it.
Union sources said and I quote....''the bosses of the 4 big Unions held a secret summit to agree a STOP DAVID MILLIBAND candidate shortly after the General Election''. The bosses of the GMB, Unison, CWU, and Unison must be beaming from ear to ear today.
As for reading the Beano, I must admit that it has always been my comic of choice.
Imo the Labour Party has got the wrong man, nay the weakest man even, to stand their corner on behalf of the 'working man'in the face of the Coalition and all it is preparing to do.
Prepare yourselves for another ''winter of discontent' and disruption. When you have to go down difficult economic avenues , the last thing you need is a reactionary Trade Union movement! Bear in mind the difficulties that are being faced in Greece by their current Govt.in the face of civil disobedience and disruption!!
Surely this is a time for level heads not.......off with their heads.
With regard to the vote, I still can't see your problem. They all supported Ed, I made sure they voted accordingly! Get over it! And if Labour have chosen the weakest man then why are you making such an issue of it, along with all the right wing media?
And I am completely sick and tired of people saying there HASto be cuts. The deficit as a measure of GDP, without checking, is around 50-60% After the second world war the welfare state, NHS, comprehensive education and decent council housing were all build on the back of a deficit of well over 100% of GDP. The cuts agenda is a complete myth, and simple Tory ideology to finish off what Thatcher started.
There are justifiable alternatives. Tax evasion and avoidance costs the economy £120 Billion a year, scrap trident, saving another £80 billion, let America sort out Afghanistan, saving another £30 Billion, and make the f**kers who caused this mess pay back what they owe, plus interest. There is also an idea that every millionaire in the country should pay a one off levy on death of 20%, with the interest on that 20% paid until they kick the bucket. And believe it or not a survey of those eligible for this were mostly supportive of it!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/15/deficit-crisis-tax-the-rich
But the Con-Dem plans just do not add up to me. They will destroy any growth we have in the economy. Growth will reduce the debt as a measure of GDP. Sticking possibly a million people on the dole will not grow us out of debt. It will lower tax revenues and increase benefit payments, and will affect the private sector as businesses go to the wall because no one is spending. I don't give a shite what crap the IMF spout, unless the Con-Dems drastically water down their plans we are heading for a recession like we have not seen for 70 years. If you don't believe me, look across the Irish sea.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-cameron-needs-to-learn-from-ireland-2038887.html
-
jonrover wrote:
hoolahoop wrote:
jonrover wrote:
hoolahoop wrote:
Extremely enjoyable debate, however I was very interested to read Johnrover's account of democracy in action here goes............
''Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful.''
Jeez there was no wonder he won , incidentally could anybody tell me the amount of votes cast individually i.e. none Union block votes ?
It was interesting to read that Longbridge (a Liberal) now considered his party to be left of Labour, perhaps you can find a place for Billy in your squad. lol
Finally are we all trying to put a square Clegg in a round hole and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.
I'm not quite sure what the problem is? I legitimately get two votes, and got permission to vote on behalf of the other three because they couldn't be arsed, which to be honest really gets on my goat. Why people throw away their chance to have their say in something, which must be important to them since they pay the political levy is beyond me. As it happens, Ed Miliband was their first choice anyway, the only difference being I made sure Dave was their last preference!
As for a union block vote. Its b*llocks, utter b*llocks. All union votes were cast individually. End of story. You want to stop reading Murdoch's trash and try the beano instead.
Are you serious jonrover, is it right just to toss your votes over to others to vote on your behalf......try doing that at a proper election ! This is the sort of thing that happens in 3rd. World countries and the very reason why votes are vetted!
In the leadership election, David Milliband won in 588 of the 650 seats; an overwhelming 'thrashing' of the eventual winner Ed Milliband and received only 8% of the total donations registered. This was undoubtedly a complete 'stitch up'by the Unions to achieve a result for what can only be described as 'their man' and still folk say their is no such thing as a block vote ? OK I agree it's not a 'block vote' in the traditional sense but not far away from it.
Union sources said and I quote....''the bosses of the 4 big Unions held a secret summit to agree a STOP DAVID MILLIBAND candidate shortly after the General Election''. The bosses of the GMB, Unison, CWU, and Unison must be beaming from ear to ear today.
As for reading the Beano, I must admit that it has always been my comic of choice.
Imo the Labour Party has got the wrong man, nay the weakest man even, to stand their corner on behalf of the 'working man'in the face of the Coalition and all it is preparing to do.
Prepare yourselves for another ''winter of discontent' and disruption. When you have to go down difficult economic avenues , the last thing you need is a reactionary Trade Union movement! Bear in mind the difficulties that are being faced in Greece by their current Govt.in the face of civil disobedience and disruption!!
Surely this is a time for level heads not.......off with their heads.
With regard to the vote, I still can't see your problem. They all supported Ed, I made sure they voted accordingly! Get over it! And if Labour have chosen the weakest man then why are you making such an issue of it, along with all the right wing media?
And I am completely sick and tired of people saying there HASto be cuts. The deficit as a measure of GDP, without checking, is around 50-60% After the second world war the welfare state, NHS, comprehensive education and decent council housing were all build on the back of a deficit of well over 100% of GDP. The cuts agenda is a complete myth, and simple Tory ideology to finish off what Thatcher started.
There are justifiable alternatives. Tax evasion and avoidance costs the economy £120 Billion a year, scrap trident, saving another £80 billion, let America sort out Afghanistan, saving another £30 Billion, and make the fcukers who caused this mess pay back what they owe, plus interest. There is also an idea that every millionaire in the country should pay a one off levy on death of 20%, with the interest on that 20% paid until they kick the bucket. And believe it or not a survey of those eligible for this were mostly supportive of it!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/15/deficit-crisis-tax-the-rich
But the Con-Dem plans just do not add up to me. They will destroy any growth we have in the economy. Growth will reduce the debt as a measure of GDP. Sticking possibly a million people on the dole will not grow us out of debt. It will lower tax revenues and increase benefit payments, and will affect the private sector as businesses go to the wall because no one is spending. I don't give a shite what crap the IMF spout, unless the Con-Dems drastically water down their plans we are heading for a recession like we have not seen for 70 years. If you don't believe me, look across the Irish sea.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-cameron-needs-to-learn-from-ireland-2038887.html
Post of the thread Jon. You have hit the nail on the head. The Con-Dems have been allowed to get away with defining the deficit as something that can only he fixed by cuts. That is simply wrong. There is, and always has been an alternative. Growth naturally reduces the effect of a deficit.
The issue is one of political choice. Fostering growth, through Government fiscal expansion is THE classic Keynesian counter-cyclical response to a recession. That was what Governments worldwide did for 40 years until Thatcherite and Reaganite administrations took us on a wild experiment in Austrian School monetarist economics. That approach saw state intervention as inherently evil whereas unregulated markets were the best approach.
I think the experience of the last 3 years has nailed that particular piece of ideology.
Miliband struck precisely the right chord by hammering on this point in today's speech. The Tories simply cannot be allowed to dominate the argument in There Is No Alternative terms. They are wrong and potentially dangerously so. Even if they are right, the price will be years of hardship for ordinary folk and the dismantling of public services that make society a fairer and less brutal place. We KNOW that will be the outcome because that is precisely what happened the last time the Tories set about trying to shrink Government, in the early 80s.
The next issue that Miliband should hammer the Tories on is this lie that Labour were wild overspenders. It is simply and demonstrably untrue. In 2007, before the recession struck, Govt spending was lower as a proportion of GDP than it had been under Major in 1995! What the Tories are saying us that even THIS level of public expenditure is ideologically unacceptable to them. The party that presided over the destruction of OUR societies and allowed the nation's schools, railways and hospitals to rot away is saying \"Let's do it all again.\"
Miliband's speech today was an excellent first step on the road to presenting a fresh, credible and persuasive counter argument. We are back into a political debate where clear principles and values separate the two sides. Bring it on.
-
''and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.''
Come on Billy, you know you haven't really answered this question yet (despite your reply to the contrary). The question was posed purely out of interest and I am fully aware that you despise the man but surely you can give us your thoughts of how and why you would have played out this scenario.
The question is not designed to trick you but merely to see your 'full take' of his situation as it was and what he should have wanted and should have expected as concessions from the 2 major parties. Btw what could either party have been expected to concede given their hunger for power.
Did his negotiators get out-manouvered , lose the plot, or did they just consider the prize do you think ?
As discussed before this could either destroy their party in much the same way as the Liberal ''Jeremy bites the pillow'' fiasco of my youth or if they can somehow be seen to influence correctly the course of what I too see as over-reactionary fiscal policies eventually enhance the public perception of their party.
Why did they feel the need to 'hook up' with a party that the majority of their rank and file members abhorred when the more natural partners would have been the Labour Party ?
Why couldn't they come to an agreement with the Labour Party (with or without GB), they obviously made some attempt to and were obviously not happy with the Tory offers on the table at that time ? Were they offered even less influence maybe ?
I know there are loads of questions in my post but I am personally still intrigued at how the game went and am interested to consider your perception of all that went on.
P.S. I know you dislike Clegg so please don't labour that point again. lol
jonrover , I will come back re. your version of a democratic voting system later and the other points you have raised
-
I've told you Hoola. It's a non-question. I would never have BEEN in that situation were I a politician, because I couldn't get myself into a situation where I'd say, \"Vote for us, then we'll make our minds up AFTER the Election on what we actually stand for.\" It's a perversion of the entire democratic process.
He and the Lib-Dem party stood on a mannifesto whose economic policy was pretty much identical to that of Labour. Therefore, the only PRINCIPLED thing to do would have been to look at ways in which those key economic policies could be put into practice. If that meant putting together a coaltion that was inherently unstable, and perhaps would have crashed after a year then so be it.
THAT would have been what a politician and a party that actually had policies that they believed in would have done.
Instead, what they actually did was to jettison ALL the key macro-economic policies that they had stood on, justifying this by saying, \"Ah, well, in the last couple of days, Greece has been in trouble, so that means that everything we argued for previously was wrong, and the Tories were right all along.\"
It is political mendacity of the very, very highest degree and they deserve to be shot to pieces for it. They have won seats by utterly deceiving voters, and the voters have already started to crucify them for it according to the opinion polls over the last 3 months, where the Lib Dems are on a fast-track to oblivion.
Now, had they formed a coaltion with Labour, even a minority administration, the chances are that they would have been in power for at least 18 months or so, primarily because the main partners would have been in strong agreement on the broad thrust of the economic policy - namely to begin to reduce the deficit at a measured rate. The Tories would not have dared to bring the Government down immediately, as they would have taken the wrath of the electorate for playing politics at a time of national trouble. In any case, the Tories alone, even with DUP support could not have outvoted Labour plus the Lib-Dems.
It was perfectly possible to have such a minority coaltion Government. if it wasn't, then why on earth did the Lib Dems have serious negotiations with Labour after the Election?
The Lib Dems could potentially have reaped some big rewards from this. Their first bonus would have been to take the scalp of Gordon Brown. They could have presented this as:
\"We know that 60% of you the voters voted for us and Labour together. We have a very similar approach to getting the country out of the recession. So we are prepared to work together, even though it will be politically difficult. But we also know how deeply disliked Gordon Brown is, and we insist on his removal as a pre-requisite. We will then work with Labour to put the foundations of a recovery package together, working with them for the good of the country on policies that we both believe in. It may well be that, as we come out of recession, and the foundations have been laid, we will find it harder to find common ground, and it may be that in 18-24 months, there will have to be another election to produce a stronger overall Parliamentary majority. In the meantime, we will also aim to ensure that the AV system is implemented in time for that Election. We trust you, the electorate to see that this is a far from ideal scenario, but that we are acting in accordance with aour principles, b)the policies that we advocated before the election and c) the National Interest.\"
It's a high-minded, principled stance I know, but wasn't that supposed to be what the Lib-Dems were all about?
That way, the Lib Dems would be in a win-win situation. they would have got rid of the bogey-man Brown, demonstrated their maturity and more importantly, demonstrated their TRUSTWORTHINESS. They would have been working in Government to implement policies that they had actually advocated.
Instead, they have been shown to be utterly unprincipled, and prepared to turn 180 degrees at the drop of a hat on THE most important issue facing the country. How on earth can anyone ever trust them again?
-
I've said it before and it seems suitable to say it again: \"VOTE FOR BST AT THE NEXT ELECTION!\" B)
-
Top post Billy and that's more like I was looking for from you.
Funnily enough I see things or the scenarios described in a similar manner to you and they surely should have seen this as the most desirable end-game.
In terms of their own political principles, this should have suited them far more than 'hooking' up with a traditional enemy. Did they perhaps ask too much from the Labour Party , perhaps AV was never a 'given' and as for asking for the head of GB would the LP ever given them the satisfaction of ever allowing that precondition to be thrust upon them....I wonder. How ever much that was the intended decision of the LP to ask him to stand down would they ever allow the L/dems to inflict it upon them ?
I would have loved to have been 'a fly on the wall' throughout all of these discussions and I'm sure you would have enjoyed the same with your political nounce.
Soon we will hear more of the REAL story of what exactly every party required or were prepared to concede over the next 18 months or so as this unravels further and the so-called honeymoon period ends.
Undoubtedly there were some very bright L/Dems involved in those negotiations and I find it very difficult to believe that they wouldn't have taken the easier path had that of been viable. Perhaps the LP or the 'hidden agendas' of the cabinet shut this door firmly shut in their faces forcing them to consider the worst (in their eyes) of the 2 evils. Without the full facts of the stances of each of the 3 parties at the various negotiations, I think you have presumed far too much about the abandonment of L/Dem 'principles' at this early stage.
Oh that all political parties walked into office and carried out exactly or even half the full manifestos that they originally put to the people eh.
Perhaps you are being far too premature in your perceptions given only the short time that this Coalition has held the reins or indeed you may well be prescient.
Whichever it is , I personally believe the pressure will be mounted onto the L/Dem Party to exercise more caution when agreeing to throw their hat in completely with the Tories and thsat will come about by 'rank and file' dissention as the polls reflect a huge loss in vote share for them.
-
I appreciate what you are saying about the difficulty in putting intentions into practice. That is the hope I have for us being spared the madness of the speed of cuts that this lot is proposing.
I'm frankly astonished that the political debate hasn't focussed on this. The coalition is proposing to cut public spending much faster than even Thatcher's government did. That was a Government with a comfortable majority and a powerful, ideologically driven prime minister. Even THEY didn't find that easy. Thatcher proceeded very cautiously, wooing, then discarding the centrist Tories and it wasn't until 2 years into their administration that the full carnage was unleashed, in Geoffrey Howe's 1981 budget that overturned the Keynesian concensus and slashed public spending at the depth of a recession. Any one of us over 40 knows what the result was - the UK economy fell off a cliff and the pain was especially doled out on us in the industrial North. It took us a generation to recover.
Thatcher got away with it because she had a Government that was behind her, a strong Parliamentary majority and a feeble Opposition. Even then, she'd have lost in 1983 without the Falklands War.
This Government have NONE of those advantages, yet they are proposing to cut even faster and deeper than Thatcher did. It defies all political logic. I will be astonished if they get remotely close to the scale of cutbacks that they are proposing. The cracks are already showing with that leaked letter from Liam Fox, who is one of the most right-wing members of the Cabinet. If he is pretty much refusing to implement the proposed cuts at the MoD, the dam is already breaking.
The problem for the Lib-Dems of course is that they have already lost credibility by flipping their economic plicy once to justify getting into bed with the Tories. If they flip it again and start asking for a more measured approach when the cuts really start to bite and the full depth of the public fury is unleashed on them, they are politically dead - they'd be a total laughing stock.
The Lib-Dems' worst nightmare has been visited upon them. They have patiently spent a generation trying to build up support as an anti-party, with vacuous, wishy-washy non-policies. Now they are exposed to the full glare of scrutiny and they have been found desperately wanting. Unprincipled, blowing in the wind and irrelevant. If Labour and the Tories play it right from here on in, the Lib-Dems are finished. they will be squeezed from both sides as people realise that a vote for the Lib-Dems is a non-vote. You are going to end up with either a Labour-dominated or a Tory-dominated Government - if you are a recent Lib-Dem voter who sways one way or the other, why on earth take the risk of voting for them and finding out that they'll end up supporting the opposite side anyway? You might as well grit your teeth and vote either Labour or Tory - at least that way you'll know what you are actually voting for.
Look at the polls. Since the Election, the Tories have gone up slightly, Labour has gone up by about 1/3rd and ther Liberals have collapsed. THAT is what I'm saying. Within weeks, people have cottoned on to the irrelevance that the Lib-Dems are and voters (in particular left-leaning Lib-Dem voters) are reverting to type, realising that they have to make a choice.
The Lib-Dems will take half a century to recover from this. If they ever do. Because, if this Election has done anything, it's raised the question that the Lib-Dems have skillfully avoided for 30 years: What is the purpose of the Lib-Dems?
-
Hey Billy, I think I've just worked out what this is all about!
Are you Mr Frost's older brother?
-
What the current situation shows is what I have thought about the Liberals for a long time, nice enough people but in the end they believe in nothing except to try to keep things pleasant for the middle class hopefuls they tend to be. They have got into bed with the Tories I suspect because they offered the best deal for the party leadership, nothing to do with there being \"no alternative\" to the Tories, that was a suitable and unfortunately transparent fig leaf. ;)
The cuts being proposed are not simply severe but suicidal for our economy, but the dogma of letting the market decide will let the Tories do anything to destroy collective and societal nicities and allow the greedy to take over to make a profit, whether that be in privatising the Jobcentre, or selling off large chunks of the NHS, \"if you want help, buy it\" is going to be the rule after this has happened, and if you are not rich enough well that is your fault and your problem. As Ireland are now finding out, when you suddenly destroy all public spending the private sector are not on hand to pick up the pieces. the economy disappears down the pan because you have a lot of people deprived of money and surprise surprise they stop spending.This has the effect of tipping an economy into recession or even depression.
The economy has started to recover slowly, as Darling predicted in his last budget, so derided by the Tory press, he had it right, that will end soon. Without the actions of brown the Western economy would have collapsed, the price to be paid for that should not necessarily be by the people, but by the banks, they are now making big profits again, why are governments not asking for all their money back? After all that is where it all went in the first place. It does need a radical solution to this, and it should not involve making the majority of the population suffer, but that is what this coalition wants to do.
-
belton rover wrote:
Hey Billy, I think I've just worked out what this is all about!
Are you Mr Frost's older brother?
Oh be still my aching sides.
Has anyone on here ever met a right-wing supporter with a decent sense of humour?
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
belton rover wrote:
Hey Billy, I think I've just worked out what this is all about!
Are you Mr Frost's older brother?
Oh be still my aching sides.
Has anyone on here ever met a right-wing supporter with a decent sense of humour?
Charlie Williams?
Although technically, as a centre back, he couldn't be classed as direct support for whoever played right wing, but I'm sure he would have slotted into the right back position on occasion.
And he was quite funny.
-
Not really helping your cause here Belton.
See me? I agree with Marx that there is a historical inevitability about the eventual success of the Left.
Mind, he was wrong on the mechanism. He reckoned it was pre-ordained through his dialectic materialist analysis.
In fact, it's Darwinian. Right wingers are such dull t**ts that nobody wants to socialise with them. Therefore, fewer will breed in any generation and they will eventually die out.
QED.
-
belton rover wrote:
Hey Billy, I think I've just worked out what this is all about!
Are you Mr Frost's older brother?
Pages and pages of well thought out diametric positions from various posters on an important subject and.........that's all you can offer. :( :( :(
I don't necessarily agree with any or some of BST's posts or other contributors for that matter but I have the respect to hear them out you tosser.
No wonder the English don't vote in numbers, most of them can't think or discuss a/any subject beyond a 'one liner'. :headbang:
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Not really helping your cause here Belton.
See me? I agree with Marx that there is a historical inevitability about the eventual success of the Left.
Mind, he was wrong on the mechanism. He reckoned it was pre-ordained through his dialectic materialist analysis.
In fact, it's Darwinian. Right wingers are such dull t**ts that nobody wants to socialise with them. Therefore, fewer will breed in any generation and they will eventually die out.
QED.
My cause?
Do you mean your inference that I may have a right wing cause, or am I missing some clever allegory within your text?
-
hoolahoop wrote:
belton rover wrote:
Hey Billy, I think I've just worked out what this is all about!
Are you Mr Frost's older brother?
Pages and pages of well thought out diametric positions from various posters on an important subject and.........that's all you can offer. :( :( :(
I don't necessarily agree with any or some of BST's posts or other contributors for that matter but I have the respect to hear them out you tosser.
No wonder the English don't vote in numbers, most of them can't think or discuss a/any subject beyond a 'one liner'. :headbang:
That's pretty much my point Hoola. Why say what you think in one line when you can say it in pages and pages and pages.
If you choose to partake in a mammoth intellectually stimulating write fest, then fine. I thought the debate needed an injection of one lined humour before everyone disappeared up there own arses, that's all. Either way, we can all lie on our backs afterwards and enjoy a big fat cigar.
And don't call me a tosser.
-
See your point belton but if posters choose to carry out a 'thought provoking' debate amongst themselves in the 'Off Topic' section of the forum then that's their business.
Of course you are more than welcome to join in with your 'one liners'. lol
-
belton rover wrote:
And don't call me a tosser.
It`s a Term of Endearment in Thorne :)
-
belton rover wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Not really helping your cause here Belton.
See me? I agree with Marx that there is a historical inevitability about the eventual success of the Left.
Mind, he was wrong on the mechanism. He reckoned it was pre-ordained through his dialectic materialist analysis.
In fact, it's Darwinian. Right wingers are such dull t**ts that nobody wants to socialise with them. Therefore, fewer will breed in any generation and they will eventually die out.
QED.
My cause?
Do you mean your inference that I may have a right wing cause, or am I missing some clever allegory within your text?
My mistake. Tired typing fingers. I meant 'case'. As in the argument that right wingers might be funny.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
belton rover wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Not really helping your cause here Belton.
See me? I agree with Marx that there is a historical inevitability about the eventual success of the Left.
Mind, he was wrong on the mechanism. He reckoned it was pre-ordained through his dialectic materialist analysis.
In fact, it's Darwinian. Right wingers are such dull t**ts that nobody wants to socialise with them. Therefore, fewer will breed in any generation and they will eventually die out.
QED.
My cause?
Do you mean your inference that I may have a right wing cause, or am I missing some clever allegory within your text?
My mistake. Tired typing fingers. I meant 'case'. As in the argument that right wingers might be funny.
But why would you assume I was right wing?
-
belton rover wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
belton rover wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Not really helping your cause here Belton.
See me? I agree with Marx that there is a historical inevitability about the eventual success of the Left.
Mind, he was wrong on the mechanism. He reckoned it was pre-ordained through his dialectic materialist analysis.
In fact, it's Darwinian. Right wingers are such dull t**ts that nobody wants to socialise with them. Therefore, fewer will breed in any generation and they will eventually die out.
QED.
My cause?
Do you mean your inference that I may have a right wing cause, or am I missing some clever allegory within your text?
My mistake. Tired typing fingers. I meant 'case'. As in the argument that right wingers might be funny.
But why would you assume I was right wing?
Previous discussions many moons ago.
'Course, I could well be wrong.
EDIT: Just re-read that last sentence. I'm clearly not feeling myself. I'm going to sit down with a cup for a minute. Normal service will be resumed shortly.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
belton rover wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
belton rover wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Not really helping your cause here Belton.
See me? I agree with Marx that there is a historical inevitability about the eventual success of the Left.
Mind, he was wrong on the mechanism. He reckoned it was pre-ordained through his dialectic materialist analysis.
In fact, it's Darwinian. Right wingers are such dull t**ts that nobody wants to socialise with them. Therefore, fewer will breed in any generation and they will eventually die out.
QED.
My cause?
Do you mean your inference that I may have a right wing cause, or am I missing some clever allegory within your text?
My mistake. Tired typing fingers. I meant 'case'. As in the argument that right wingers might be funny.
But why would you assume I was right wing?
Previous discussions many moons ago.
'Course, I could well be wrong.
EDIT: Just re-read that last sentence. I'm clearly not feeling myself. I'm going to sit down with a cup for a minute. Normal service will be resumed shortly.
Oh you mean the time when I said that I did not wish that Maggie would die a terrible painful death so that I could dance with you and others on her grave forever more?
You think that makes me right wing?
I prefer to think that it makes me human - but hey - that's politics for you.
-
Ah the classic misquote approach to pointed debate.
If you remembered more carefully than you do, you wod recall that I never wished a terrible death upon her.
A quiet one in her sleep will do fine.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Ah the classic misquote approach to pointed debate.
If you remembered more carefully than you do, you wod recall that I never wished a terrible death upon her.
I never said that you did - I said that I didn't.
Quote / Misquote
-
I voted for Ed Miliband after speaking with him on election day (he was out knocking on doors on our street) I found him to be quite straighforward and refreshingly honest for a politician - he answered my questions and seemed sincere enough as far as any of them go. If he takes the party a bit to the left it doesn't bother me one iota - can't see the point of both Tory's and Labour occupying the same ground and it's time someone stood up to the bankers in deeds rather than words - make them suffer for the suffering they inflicted on the whole country with their greed end of as far as I'm concerned. No chance of the present coalition doing that they have not got the balls for it.
-
belton rover wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Ah the classic misquote approach to pointed debate.
If you remembered more carefully than you do, you wod recall that I never wished a terrible death upon her.
I never said that you did - I said that I didn't.
Quote / Misquote
Ah well. Every forum has its resident pedant who has to be right on every score.
-
arise you starvlings from your slumbers
come forth you criminals of want
for rovers in revolt now thunders
at at last ends the age of leeds
away with all your super wages
servile donny arise ,arise
welle change forthwith the old conference
spurn the championship to win the prize
then driscoll come rally
and the last match let us face
the total football army
united the football leauge
then driscoll come rally
and the last match let us face
the total football army
united the football leauge
Ps HAS ANYONE SEEN MY PROZAC
-
I like it. :)
-
Does anybody fancy a pint?
-
Mark Time wrote:
I voted for Ed Miliband after speaking with him on election day (he was out knocking on doors on our street) I found him to be quite straighforward and refreshingly honest for a politician - he answered my questions and seemed sincere enough as far as any of them go. If he takes the party a bit to the left it doesn't bother me one iota - can't see the point of both Tory's and Labour occupying the same ground and it's time someone stood up to the bankers in deeds rather than words - make them suffer for the suffering they inflicted on the whole country with their greed end of as far as I'm concerned. No chance of the present coalition doing that they have not got the balls for it.
Of course I forgot the Labour party had both full control of the Banking system when it virtually collapsed and a complete agenda for both recovering public money from them and exercising a far more rigid control over their transactions and policies.
Did I miss this some time ago in their manifesto or was it just a hotchpotch of 'maybes', couldbes' that evaded my eyes....btw who wrote the manifesto ?
Believe me this Coalition has got more than the balls for it fella and the power to do it only effectively when they start to unscramble it all!
An immediate 'full-on' attack on our own banks would be foolhardy in the extreme btw, they are part of the key to recovery.