Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

bianchimoon wrote:

[
if you can't defeat them on policy and actions, like a parasite pay £3 embed yourself within the host and rot them from within. To be honest Stevo it is a tactic that is beneath most people with a sense of fair play, democracy. Sort of thing you'd expect of Putin's followers in Russia to stop the people having a choice.

I don't give a sh1t whether you like the tactic or not. As explained above, it was still 3 quid well spent.

kingstongraham

£3 to help weaken a Tory government and make it more likely that we get a socialist pm. Bargain.

If only for comedy value.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

My 3 quid was well spent. If Labour had gone into this election with someone like Ummuna or Burnham leading them, we may well have had a Labour PM now.

If Ummuna or Burnham was leading them... What election?

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

£3 to help weaken a Tory government and make it more likely that we get a socialist pm. Bargain.

If only for comedy value.

Read my reasoning above and have another go at understanding why. Its not that difficult

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo probably thinks he won on penalties.

He's right. But the team captain/star player broke both legs in the process.

...and resultant transfers/sackings/resignations and the team that remains have little resemblance to the one that won on penalties.
Does Captain Stevo think that Boris will be a better PM than Jezza?!

Imagine: Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers's Trumpy!
...and: Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer's BoJo. Yay! Plenty of fodder for HIGNFY. Maybe they should bring Punch magazine and Spitting image back.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

£3 to help weaken a Tory government and make it more likely that we get a socialist pm. Bargain.

If only for comedy value.

Read my reasoning above and have another go at understanding why. Its not that difficult

Is that the reasoning that doesn't see that there was only an election because of Corbyn?

Or the one that doesn't recognise the momentum he has?

bompington

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

For some people ben, like my in-laws, who you vote for is a reflection of your income.

"We're not poor so why should be vote Labour?"

That people who are well off can and do vote Labour they find incomprehensible.

It's sad that they can't see the benefit of voting in a manner which looks after those less fortunate.

It's sad that people can't see that just because one party shouts the loudest about being caring it doesn't necessarily mean their policies actually benefit the less fortunate more.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/yes-lowest-paid-best-cameron/

pblakeney

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo probably thinks he won on penalties.

He's right. But the team captain/star player broke both legs in the process.

...and resultant transfers/sackings/resignations and the team that remains have little resemblance to the one that won on penalties.
Does Captain Stevo think that Boris will be a better PM than Jezza?!

Imagine: Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers's Trumpy!
...and: Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer's BoJo. Yay! Plenty of fodder for HIGNFY. Maybe they should bring Punch magazine and Spitting image back.

Good call.
We could do with Spitting Image right now. Overflowing with material too.

bobmcstuff

Haven't read this thread for months, but I thought I would check in to see if Stevo was trying to pretend this was all part of his plan...

bobmcstuff

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

My 3 quid was well spent. If Labour had gone into this election with someone like Ummuna or Burnham leading them, we may well have had a Labour PM now.

If Ummuna or Burnham was leading them... What election?

Exactly... Delusional to think having Corbyn in has kept Ummuna or Burnham out of no.10. If Labour had had a leader who was perceived as halfway credible when the election was called it would never have been called in the first place.

Ben6899

bompington wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

For some people ben, like my in-laws, who you vote for is a reflection of your income.

"We're not poor so why should be vote Labour?"

That people who are well off can and do vote Labour they find incomprehensible.

It's sad that they can't see the benefit of voting in a manner which looks after those less fortunate.

It's sad that people can't see that just because one party shouts the loudest about being caring it doesn't necessarily mean their policies actually benefit the less fortunate more.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/yes-lowest-paid-best-cameron/

Cameron's no longer pulling the strings (it's the DUP now).

Jez mon

bompington wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

For some people ben, like my in-laws, who you vote for is a reflection of your income.

"We're not poor so why should be vote Labour?"

That people who are well off can and do vote Labour they find incomprehensible.

It's sad that they can't see the benefit of voting in a manner which looks after those less fortunate.

It's sad that people can't see that just because one party shouts the loudest about being caring it doesn't necessarily mean their policies actually benefit the less fortunate more.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/yes-lowest-paid-best-cameron/

The whole public sector can't create jobs thing doesn't really stand up. The government can still run assets without net input from the taxpayer. Utilities, public transport and the postal service all strike me as examples where this can happen.

Also, the author says that the public sector is inefficient at creating jobs, and that in general for every 1 job lost in the public sector you can create 4 private sector jobs... So you need 4 workers to replace, 1? That sounds like the public sector is 4 times more efficient...

rolf_f

bobmcstuff wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

My 3 quid was well spent. If Labour had gone into this election with someone like Ummuna or Burnham leading them, we may well have had a Labour PM now.

If Ummuna or Burnham was leading them... What election?

Exactly... Delusional to think having Corbyn in has kept Ummuna or Burnham out of no.10. If Labour had had a leader who was perceived as halfway credible when the election was called it would never have been called in the first place.

No, they'd have probably already been in power for two years, there'd have been no Brexit and the whole Corbyn fiasco would have never happened.

bompington

Ben6899 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

For some people ben, like my in-laws, who you vote for is a reflection of your income.

"We're not poor so why should be vote Labour?"

That people who are well off can and do vote Labour they find incomprehensible.

It's sad that they can't see the benefit of voting in a manner which looks after those less fortunate.

It's sad that people can't see that just because one party shouts the loudest about being caring it doesn't necessarily mean their policies actually benefit the less fortunate more.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/yes-lowest-paid-best-cameron/

Cameron's no longer pulling the strings (it's the DUP now).

Yeah, in the same way that the Lib Dems pulled the strings in the last one. Still way too much DUP hysteria.

bompington

Jez mon wrote:

The whole public sector can't create jobs thing doesn't really stand up. The government can still run assets without net input from the taxpayer. Utilities, public transport and the postal service all strike me as examples where this can happen.

Except that the evidence does not suggest that it does. Government can run things, but usually with no incentive to make them better or more efficient.

Jez mon wrote:

Also, the author says that the public sector is inefficient at creating jobs, and that in general for every 1 job lost in the public sector you can create 4 private sector jobs... So you need 4 workers to replace, 1? That sounds like the public sector is 4 times more efficient...

Please remember to add a smiley when you're making a joke.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Yeah, in the same way that the Lib Dems pulled the strings in the last one. Still way too much DUP hysteria.

It's about perception though, and however you cut it, working with the DUP is undoing some of the detoxifying Cameron did, with and without the Lib Dems.

Tories have had a bit of a perception achilles heel in being the 'nasty party', and that really hurt them in the '90s and '00s. Cameron, for all his idiocy, did do a lot in that respect - but being quite so quick and mercenary about this election result, rather than laying a bit of the groundwork for the electorate (say, agreeing privately before making things public, and ensuring that they can say things like "we won't be agreeing on sectarian or homophobic issues" when the deal is announced), is not playing well.

rick_chasey

And given the platform labour ran off, it's an easy win for them to smash the Tories for it.

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

The whole public sector can't create jobs thing doesn't really stand up. The government can still run assets without net input from the taxpayer. Utilities, public transport and the postal service all strike me as examples where this can happen.

Except that the evidence does not suggest that it does. Government can run things, but usually with no incentive to make them better or more efficient.
Depends what you mean by efficiency. Providing the best value service or extracting the maximum from customers? Three examples: Railtrack, Metronet, Tube Lines.

Ben6899

bompington wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

For some people ben, like my in-laws, who you vote for is a reflection of your income.

"We're not poor so why should be vote Labour?"

That people who are well off can and do vote Labour they find incomprehensible.

It's sad that they can't see the benefit of voting in a manner which looks after those less fortunate.

It's sad that people can't see that just because one party shouts the loudest about being caring it doesn't necessarily mean their policies actually benefit the less fortunate more.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/yes-lowest-paid-best-cameron/

Cameron's no longer pulling the strings (it's the DUP now).

Yeah, in the same way that the Lib Dems pulled the strings in the last one. Still way too much DUP hysteria.

If you think people taking issue - with the Tories jumping in bed with the DUP - is hysteria, then that says quite a lot.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

The whole public sector can't create jobs thing doesn't really stand up. The government can still run assets without net input from the taxpayer. Utilities, public transport and the postal service all strike me as examples where this can happen.

Except that the evidence does not suggest that it does. Government can run things, but usually with no incentive to make them better or more efficient.
Depends what you mean by efficiency. Providing the best value service or extracting the maximum from customers? Three examples: Railtrack, Metronet, Tube Lines.

I am of the opinion that state run healthcare is more beneficial (in the broadest perspective possible) to the public than private sector.

I have had a fairly poor experience of private health, both in the UK and elsewhere, and it tallied with my preconceived ideas on the problems with it.

So there isn't necessarily one answer for all public services.

I am glad, for example, the state has taken over things like policing and the fire services.

Trains are complicated; the current system isn't entirely private either, so there's a whole mixed bag of incentives and disincentives.

bompington

Ben6899 wrote:

If you think people taking issue - with the Tories jumping in bed with the DUP - is hysteria, then that says quite a lot.

Two things:
1. I have no problem with people taking issue. It's the tone that is hysterical
2. It's using terms liking "jumping into bed with" that betray the hysteria. They're not jumping into bed, they're attempting to negotiate a political deal.

Ben6899

bompington wrote:

2. It's using terms liking "jumping into bed with" that betray the hysteria. They're not jumping into bed, they're attempting to negotiate a political deal.

Please. They [the Tories] asked the only party that fits the bill (one that would agree to it!) In no other circumstances would the Tories enter into an agreement with the DUP; they've only done it to suit their end. If that's not 'jumping into bed' with the DUP, then I don't know what is.

kingstongraham

Ben6899 wrote:

bompington wrote:

2. It's using terms liking "jumping into bed with" that betray the hysteria. They're not jumping into bed, they're attempting to negotiate a political deal.

Please. They [the Tories] asked the only party that fits the bill (one that would agree to it!) In no other circumstances would the Tories enter into an agreement with the DUP; they've only done it to suit their end. If that's not 'jumping into bed' with the DUP, then I don't know what is.

I think the phrase is apt, but not for those reasons. Saying that they wouldn't have done a deal if they didn't have to, therefore there is something wrong with the deal is bad logic.

However, they have announced a deal with the DUP without doing any of the courtship and finding out what the other side wants from the relationship.

Ben6899

KingstonGraham wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

bompington wrote:

2. It's using terms liking "jumping into bed with" that betray the hysteria. They're not jumping into bed, they're attempting to negotiate a political deal.

Please. They [the Tories] asked the only party that fits the bill (one that would agree to it!) In no other circumstances would the Tories enter into an agreement with the DUP; they've only done it to suit their end. If that's not 'jumping into bed' with the DUP, then I don't know what is.

I think the phrase is apt, but not for those reasons. Saying that they wouldn't have done a deal if they didn't have to, therefore there is something wrong with the deal is bad logic.

However, they have announced a deal with the DUP without doing any of the courtship and finding out what the other side wants from the relationship.

The deal is bad because it's bad; not because it wouldn't have happened under other circumstances.

The DUP ffs. Religious, regressive maniacs.

bendertherobot

It's odd that people are now complaining of double standards when the double standards complaint is about double standards.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

bompington wrote:

2. It's using terms liking "jumping into bed with" that betray the hysteria. They're not jumping into bed, they're attempting to negotiate a political deal.

Please. They [the Tories] asked the only party that fits the bill (one that would agree to it!) In no other circumstances would the Tories enter into an agreement with the DUP; they've only done it to suit their end. If that's not 'jumping into bed' with the DUP, then I don't know what is.

I think the phrase is apt, but not for those reasons. Saying that they wouldn't have done a deal if they didn't have to, therefore there is something wrong with the deal is bad logic.

However, they have announced a deal with the DUP without doing any of the courtship and finding out what the other side wants from the relationship.

The implication has to be they are a bunch of idiots who announced a deal prematurely so giving the DUP an incredibly strong hand in the negotiations.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

bompington wrote:

2. It's using terms liking "jumping into bed with" that betray the hysteria. They're not jumping into bed, they're attempting to negotiate a political deal.

Please. They [the Tories] asked the only party that fits the bill (one that would agree to it!) In no other circumstances would the Tories enter into an agreement with the DUP; they've only done it to suit their end. If that's not 'jumping into bed' with the DUP, then I don't know what is.

I think the phrase is apt, but not for those reasons. Saying that they wouldn't have done a deal if they didn't have to, therefore there is something wrong with the deal is bad logic.

However, they have announced a deal with the DUP without doing any of the courtship and finding out what the other side wants from the relationship.

The implication has to be they are a bunch of idiots who announced a deal prematurely so giving the DUP an incredibly strong hand in the negotiations.

bendertherobot

Didn't they start with telling the DUP that no deal would be better than a bad deal? That they would be prepared just to walk away?

rick_chasey

She is so sh!t at this.

rick_chasey

Forget party politics for a minute - she just lacks the capability.