Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I always find such comments interesting because technically I think they are true. When was the last time that a government got in with more than 50% of the vote? Without more than 50% of the vote you have a government that got in with more voting against them. That is before you factor in those registered to vote who didn't or those who just did not register but could have done so. Basically this makes the comment about saying a country didn't vote for a government just because they got less than 50% irrelevant, IMHO it is a non-argument since all governments could have that leveled against them.Of course the Tories won and of course won the largest section of the vote BUT to say the country voted for a tory government is rubbish.
In the FPTP system the tories with more votes and more MPs returned did win the right to form a government the actual percentage vote is irrelevant after that fact. You win or lose under the system in place and both Labour and Tories have won that way over the years. So basically I would say the country did vote for them. Or at least more of them than any other party. Something like 39% to the tory and 34% Labour if you went through the figures. !2% to UKIP and what 5% to SNP. Ridiculous the whole system IMO. Especially since the constituency boundaries and changes made do not follow the population changes without a long time lag. Used no doubt for political gain by whoever is in power (Labour and Tory both).0 -
Perhaps the new rules on union ballots ought to be applied to all elections GE,council all of 'em that'd be interesting, there would never be a valid election.
I always find such comments interesting because technically I think they are true. When was the last time that a government got in with more than 50% of the vote? Without more than 50% of the vote you have a government that got in with more voting against them. That is before you factor in those registered to vote who didn't or those who just did not register but could have done so. Basically this makes the comment about saying a country didn't vote for a government just because they got less than 50% irrelevant, IMHO it is a non-argument since all governments could have that leveled against them.Of course the Tories won and of course won the largest section of the vote BUT to say the country voted for a tory government is rubbish.
In the FPTP system the tories with more votes and more MPs returned did win the right to form a government the actual percentage vote is irrelevant after that fact. You win or lose under the system in place and both Labour and Tories have won that way over the years. So basically I would say the country did vote for them. Or at least more of them than any other party. Something like 39% to the tory and 34% Labour if you went through the figures. !2% to UKIP and what 5% to SNP. Ridiculous the whole system IMO. Especially since the constituency boundaries and changes made do not follow the population changes without a long time lag. Used no doubt for political gain by whoever is in power (Labour and Tory both).Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
That post has just made me realise how hard it must be for unions to proceed to strike. How the law has it so that it is hard to meet the mark required to get to a strike. Good on Thatcher and Tories for raising the bar I say!!
Seriously I am guessing the rules for strikes and union ballots are 50% of votes or more? I guess that shows how serious the issue of striking is. Whereas the GE is all about electing another faceless Westminster government in to make dodgy decisions and not really work for the good of the common man. That is not as important as a strike that could threaten people's journey into Central London to work.
I think they should do that, 50% of the vote or you are in coalition. I would like to enforce voting with fines for missing a vote without a good reason too. Then give the option to vote for non of the above or some similar system. So many changes could be made by a government with a decent majority and the b@ll$ to do it. First to change would need to be the House of Lords.0 -
Think of the post of police commissioner which cost a fair amount to the tax payer.
My police commissioner is an ex MP who had dubious "expenses" and the turnout in the election was less than 10%, I'll leave it to others to debate how much of a mandate he really has.
As an aside the GB has some of the toughest (anti)trade union laws in europe and that's before the latest legislation.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Re unions, there's a fair bit of ecomonic analysis that points to the decline of collectivism post 1985 as a key force behind the real wage stagnation experienced by most Western economies.
Basically along the lines of collectivism incentivising improvements in productivity over cost cutting (which is the easiest short term way to improve the bottom line of a firm - unless you're dealing with a TU)0 -
Don't listen to me, listen to the man himselfCould have fooled a lot of people including me.
So can you explain in what way the Labour manifesto was socialist?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10325076/Ed-Miliband-Im-bringing-socialism-back-to-Britain.html
Millipede thought he was bringing socialism to the UK and said so publically. I don't care what technical definition of socialism you try to trot out, it's good enough for me and most other people.
I'll deal with the rest of them if I get time..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Burnham "reaching out" to Corbyn.... the man has no shame. Anything, just absolutely anything to try and gain power. Total a*sehole.“You may think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!”
Wilier Cento Uno SR/Wilier Mortirolo/Specialized Roubaix Comp/Kona Hei Hei/Calibre Bossnut0 -
Don't listen to me, listen to the man himselfCould have fooled a lot of people including me.
So can you explain in what way the Labour manifesto was socialist?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10325076/Ed-Miliband-Im-bringing-socialism-back-to-Britain.html
Millipede thought he was bringing socialism to the UK and said so publically. I don't care what technical definition of socialism you try to trot out, it's good enough for me and most other people.
I'll deal with the rest of them if I get time...
It's just empty rhetoric. The manifesto itself as not a commitment to a socialist economy. It was a commitment to a capitalist economy with a few more concessions to workers chucked in there.0 -
Everyone knows that there is often more than what is stated in the manifesto. He was very clear on the intent above even if he lacked the balls to put it all in the manifesto. It would have been how a large part of the electorate saw him and his intent and as they say, perception is reality. That is what they voted against.
Don't listen to me, listen to the man himselfCould have fooled a lot of people including me.
So can you explain in what way the Labour manifesto was socialist?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10325076/Ed-Miliband-Im-bringing-socialism-back-to-Britain.html
Millipede thought he was bringing socialism to the UK and said so publically. I don't care what technical definition of socialism you try to trot out, it's good enough for me and most other people.
I'll deal with the rest of them if I get time...
It's just empty rhetoric. The manifesto itself as not a commitment to a socialist economy. It was a commitment to a capitalist economy with a few more concessions to workers chucked in there.
Same will go for Corbyn - do you really think everything he wants to do will go on the next Labour manifesto? - especially when they still have a PR department. That said, I would rather it all did go in
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Burnham "reaching out" to Corbyn.... the man has no shame. Anything, just absolutely anything to try and gain power. Total a*sehole.
Isn't this the guy who left the note on his desk saying that Labour had spent all the money and there was nothing left? Now he wants to run the country? They've also trotted out that Gordon "Prudent", "Where's all the gold gone" Brown, the worst Prime minister and Chancellor ever, to offer his tuppence worth!
You couldn't make it up with these Labour clowns, most of them wouldn't know what a proper days labour is! 0 -
Burnham "reaching out" to Corbyn.... the man has no shame. Anything, just absolutely anything to try and gain power. Total a*sehole.
Isn't this the guy who left the note on his desk saying that Labour had spent all the money and there was nothing left? Now he wants to run the country? They've also trotted out that Gordon "Prudent", "Where's all the gold gone" Brown, the worst Prime minister and Chancellor ever, to offer his tuppence worth! You couldn't make it up with these Labour clowns, most of them wouldn't know what a proper days labour is!
If yu are going to slag off a political party and the people in it, get your facts rights.... it was Liam Byrne, who isnt standing in the leadership election.
Cameron used to rip up money infront of homeless folk to p1$$ them off, on his nights out as student, people make mistakes.
the electorate decided to vote him back in as an MP too.0 -
Looking at recent financial headlines instead of propaganda headlines, I am left fearing it is more of a when than an if.Even If the economy did 'crash and burn' why do you think the electorate would seek refuge in the hard left.
Not that I have a solution.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Everyone knows that there is often more than what is stated in the manifesto. He was very clear on the intent above even if he lacked the balls to put it all in the manifesto. It would have been how a large part of the electorate saw him and his intent and as they say, perception is reality. That is what they voted against.
Don't listen to me, listen to the man himselfCould have fooled a lot of people including me.
So can you explain in what way the Labour manifesto was socialist?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10325076/Ed-Miliband-Im-bringing-socialism-back-to-Britain.html
Millipede thought he was bringing socialism to the UK and said so publically. I don't care what technical definition of socialism you try to trot out, it's good enough for me and most other people.
I'll deal with the rest of them if I get time...
It's just empty rhetoric. The manifesto itself as not a commitment to a socialist economy. It was a commitment to a capitalist economy with a few more concessions to workers chucked in there.
Same will go for Corbyn - do you really think everything he wants to do will go on the next Labour manifesto? - especially when they still have a PR department. That said, I would rather it all did go in
There is often more than what goes in the manifesto, but that still does not change the fact that Milliband would not have even aimed to lead the country into a socialist economy. And neither would Corbyn.0 -
Burnham "reaching out" to Corbyn.... the man has no shame. Anything, just absolutely anything to try and gain power. Total a*sehole.
Isn't this the guy who left the note on his desk saying that Labour had spent all the money and there was nothing left? Now he wants to run the country? They've also trotted out that Gordon "Prudent", "Where's all the gold gone" Brown, the worst Prime minister and Chancellor ever, to offer his tuppence worth! You couldn't make it up with these Labour clowns, most of them wouldn't know what a proper days labour is!
If yu are going to slag off a political party and the people in it, get your facts rights.... it was Liam Byrne, who isnt standing in the leadership election.
Cameron used to rip up money infront of homeless folk to p1$$ them off, on his nights out as student, people make mistakes.
the electorate decided to vote him back in as an MP too.
That's a limp wristed comparison; Liam Byrne was a Government minister ffs! Cameron, at the time (if he even did as you say) was a pissed up student..
Let's face it, labour are vacuous, vacant and totally spent and pointless as a political party.Outside the rat race and proud of it0 -
Amen to that.Burnham "reaching out" to Corbyn.... the man has no shame. Anything, just absolutely anything to try and gain power. Total a*sehole.
Isn't this the guy who left the note on his desk saying that Labour had spent all the money and there was nothing left? Now he wants to run the country? They've also trotted out that Gordon "Prudent", "Where's all the gold gone" Brown, the worst Prime minister and Chancellor ever, to offer his tuppence worth! You couldn't make it up with these Labour clowns, most of them wouldn't know what a proper days labour is!
If yu are going to slag off a political party and the people in it, get your facts rights.... it was Liam Byrne, who isnt standing in the leadership election.
Cameron used to rip up money infront of homeless folk to p1$$ them off, on his nights out as student, people make mistakes.
the electorate decided to vote him back in as an MP too.
That's a limp wristed comparison; Liam Byrne was a Government minister ffs! Cameron, at the time (if he even did as you say) was a pissed up student..
Let's face it, labour are vacuous, vacant and totally spent and pointless as a political party.
The illusion that Labour has enough relevance to be in power can only be perpetuated in the minds of certain people by convincing themselves that people are worse off and in greater numbers than they really are by doing down the situation of the country as a whole. And once Corbyn is in, their relevance will take another nose dive. Roll on September."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The illusion that Labour has enough relevance to be in power can only be perpetuated in the minds of certain people by convincing themselves that people are worse off and in greater numbers than they really are by doing down the situation of the country as a whole. And once Corbyn is in, their relevance will take another nose dive. Roll on September.
We're one of the most highly indebted countries in the world. You don't need to be a Labour voter (I'm not) to realise that sooner or later the sticky stuff will hit the fan.0 -
Where's Rick when you need him?The illusion that Labour has enough relevance to be in power can only be perpetuated in the minds of certain people by convincing themselves that people are worse off and in greater numbers than they really are by doing down the situation of the country as a whole. And once Corbyn is in, their relevance will take another nose dive. Roll on September.
We're one of the most highly indebted countries in the world. You don't need to be a Labour voter (I'm not) to realise that sooner or later the sticky stuff will hit the fan.
Aside from the small question of which parry racked up a good proportion if that debt in the previous decade , sure there are global risks and threats out there - there always are. If Corbyn gets in we will have a whole new set of domestic ones. These things go in cycles' as history has show - and will continue to do so. No amount of socialist style intervention will change that. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
Where's Rick when you need him?The illusion that Labour has enough relevance to be in power can only be perpetuated in the minds of certain people by convincing themselves that people are worse off and in greater numbers than they really are by doing down the situation of the country as a whole. And once Corbyn is in, their relevance will take another nose dive. Roll on September.
We're one of the most highly indebted countries in the world. You don't need to be a Labour voter (I'm not) to realise that sooner or later the sticky stuff will hit the fan.
Aside from the small question of which parry racked up a good proportion if that debt in the previous decade , sure there are global risks and threats out there - there always are. If Corbyn gets in we will have a whole new set of domestic ones. These things go in cycles' as history has show - and will continue to do so. No amount of socialist style intervention will change that.
I was referring more to private debt (which is horrendously high) than to public debt (which is pretty much in line with other major economies).0 -
Where's Rick when you need him?The illusion that Labour has enough relevance to be in power can only be perpetuated in the minds of certain people by convincing themselves that people are worse off and in greater numbers than they really are by doing down the situation of the country as a whole. And once Corbyn is in, their relevance will take another nose dive. Roll on September.
We're one of the most highly indebted countries in the world. You don't need to be a Labour voter (I'm not) to realise that sooner or later the sticky stuff will hit the fan.
Aside from the small question of which parry racked up a good proportion if that debt in the previous decade , sure there are global risks and threats out there - there always are. If Corbyn gets in we will have a whole new set of domestic ones. These things go in cycles' as history has show - and will continue to do so. No amount of socialist style intervention will change that.
that last paragraph is interesting, Labour did rack up huge debt, with socialist style intervention to prop up the banking industry, which got themselves in a mess lending to people who didnt have any money.
So, i take you are of the school of thought that says that was a mistake and Brown et el should have let the UK banks go to the wall ?0 -
And now the tories are selling the banks back to their own at great loss to the tax payer.
I'm now waiting to be told who sold off the gold at the bottom of the market...................again :roll:Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
And now the tories are selling the banks back to their own at great loss to the tax payer.
I'm now waiting to be told who sold off the gold at the bottom of the market...................again :roll:
I'm not au fait with high finance, perhaps there are some on here more savvy than me, but itdoesn't seem to be the dramatic loss forst implied.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-profit-bank-bailouts/21010
Also, as gilts were issued to raise money for the buyout, interest is being paid still. How much interest should the government keep paying out, waiting for the share price to rise?
I am not critical of the buyout, but the price paid was dramatically higher than the share value the following day.0 -
Shhhh! Don't spoil the lefty's view of the world with anything close to logic and facts.
Seriously though, perhaps someone with more knowledge on these things could come on and discuss. Personally I am not up on the gold issue but can guess what might have happened (it passed me by to my shame but I do not recall the gold sale fiasco). It would be interesting to know how much each sale cost the nations or how much selling at the price they got compared to later prices shortly afterwards. Of course both the shares and the gold price could have gone down as well as up after the sales at which point they would potentially have been a good decision to sell. Of course the share sales is going to create a lose because the value pre-bail out was inflated since there was a lot of risk that had not been correctly factored in. That is just my view and probably wrong.0 -
In that instance I believe that Brown actually did the right thing to prevent a run on the banks.
Where's Rick when you need him?The illusion that Labour has enough relevance to be in power can only be perpetuated in the minds of certain people by convincing themselves that people are worse off and in greater numbers than they really are by doing down the situation of the country as a whole. And once Corbyn is in, their relevance will take another nose dive. Roll on September.
We're one of the most highly indebted countries in the world. You don't need to be a Labour voter (I'm not) to realise that sooner or later the sticky stuff will hit the fan.
Aside from the small question of which parry racked up a good proportion if that debt in the previous decade , sure there are global risks and threats out there - there always are. If Corbyn gets in we will have a whole new set of domestic ones. These things go in cycles' as history has show - and will continue to do so. No amount of socialist style intervention will change that.
that last paragraph is interesting, Labour did rack up huge debt, with socialist style intervention to prop up the banking industry, which got themselves in a mess lending to people who didnt have any money.
So, i take you are of the school of thought that says that was a mistake and Brown et el should have let the UK banks go to the wall ?
However that is not the point I am trying to make - that there will always be markets which will go up and down in an often unpredictable fashion (ever read chaos theory?) and that socialist style attempts to control the markets will fail. Even China, which has a pretty high degree of central influence over its financial markets cannot do that - look at the recent Chinese events in the papers.
What Brown was tryig to do with the bailout was to prevent the specific fallout from a set of market conditions. Neither he nor anyone else could have prevented the situation that led up to it. And of course blotted his copy boom with the famously hubristic claim that he had 'eliminated boom and bust'.
Anyway, back to Corbyn. Even Millipede senior has now come out against him, although the 'anyone but Corbyn' campaign has made a big mistake by not agreeing on a single altrrnative candidate to back. So looks lime the left wing messiah ( even the initials JC are exactly the same) will be in charge in roughly 3 weeks."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Bally, it's just another irritating set of facts that spoils the left wing view of the world as TM rightly says. The usual tactic is to ignore the facts and repeat what they believe over and over in the belief that repetition will somehow make it right. There are plenty of other examples along the lines of heartless tories /trying to screw the less well off /big business is evil etc etc.And now the tories are selling the banks back to their own at great loss to the tax payer.
I'm now waiting to be told who sold off the gold at the bottom of the market...................again :roll:
I'm not au fait with high finance, perhaps there are some on here more savvy than me, but itdoesn't seem to be the dramatic loss forst implied.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-profit-bank-bailouts/21010
Also, as gilts were issued to raise money for the buyout, interest is being paid still. How much interest should the government keep paying out, waiting for the share price to rise?
I am not critical of the buyout, but the price paid was dramatically higher than the share value the following day.
Bottom line is that the state should not be running banks but the government should turn a profit returning them to private ownership if feasible. Looks like they will or at least break even after funding costs so good on them. Unlike the gold debacle..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Bally, it's just another irritating set of facts that spoils the left wing view of the world as TM rightly says. The usual tactic is to ignore the facts and repeat what they believe over and over in the belief that repetition will somehow make it right.
0 -
I back up my views where possible with facts, evidence or real life situationsBally, it's just another irritating set of facts that spoils the left wing view of the world as TM rightly says. The usual tactic is to ignore the facts and repeat what they believe over and over in the belief that repetition will somehow make it right. The point I am making is that there are too many unsubstantiated rants usually mentioning words like 'unfair' which are often not supported by anything substantive. It's how I came to coin the phrase 'leftiebollox'
The one above relates to the tories selling the banks back into private hands allegedly at a big loss - not borne out by the available facts. To be fair, you are one of the better ones on here at trying to support your views.
In other news, I got my email from the Labour party today with a link to the leadership and mayoral vote. Decisions, decisions..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I back up my views where possible with facts, evidence or real life situationsBally, it's just another irritating set of facts that spoils the left wing view of the world as TM rightly says. The usual tactic is to ignore the facts and repeat what they believe over and over in the belief that repetition will somehow make it right. The point I am making is that there are too many unsubstantiated rants usually mentioning words like 'unfair' which are often not supported by anything substantive. It's how I came to coin the phrase 'leftiebollox'
The one above relates to the tories selling the banks back into private hands allegedly at a big loss - not borne out by the available facts. To be fair, you are one of the better ones on here at trying to support your views.
In other news, I got my email from the Labour party today with a link to the leadership and mayoral vote. Decisions, decisions...
Unlike Iain Duncan Smith/DWP....... what prize plonkers, who are these people that they think they ll get away with it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33974674
Bottom line is whatever facts etc you post, its tainted by your political views, so your hardly likely to post anything that is counter to those :shock:
Re the Banks; Without the benefit of foresight we cant say if this is a good deal for the UK or not, Osbourne may well be right that as the bank returns to private ownership, the share price will increase, making the sale of remaining shares offset any earlier lose.
i for one, i'm pleased your voting Corbyn? and should it (highly unlikely i admit) backfire on you, i ll be first to buy you a drink 8)0 -
And I'm sure any facts you post will be totally unbiased. You should try posting some
I'll take you up on the drink offer, ta . On the offchance that Corbyn does end up in 10 Downing Street in a few years time, I will try to look at the positives. Mainly that demand for my services will go through the bloody roof and as there are not that many with my skillset, I should get a nice fat pay rise or two
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And I'm sure any facts you post will be totally unbiased. You should try posting some
I'll take you up on the drink offer, ta . On the offchance that Corbyn does end up in 10 Downing Street in a few years time, I will try to look at the positives. Mainly that demand for my services will go through the bloody roof and as there are not that many with my skillset, I should get a nice fat pay rise or two
i dont need too, i ll give you an example, in stockholm, rent controls have caused a black market and fraud (though it still does help about 36% of renters) so some facts to back your views up, yes? conversly avg rent in uncontrolled London is 50% of avg wage (for a one bed flat) unsustainable and still rising.. another fact, supporting my view - all we do is bat so called facts and opinions back and forth..... whilst changing nothing.
Regardless of your future pay rise (no doubt eaten up by extra tax ) i very much doubt it will be 183 x greater than the avg pay in your company but of course thats "fair" and sustainable, these guys totally deserve it, without them and their unequalled skills, UK plc would go down the drain, they have without doubt not a single greedy money grabbing bone in their bodies. 0
