All things Labour Party

 

Either way, I think Corbyn or Burnham should be leader. I think Labour supporters would prefer to just have Labour back as it were. There is a good blog where someone suggest that the 1997 Tory party were not "particularly good" Tories (namely, they were kinda headed by the people who ousted the arch tory, Maggie) and that they just weren't...well....c%ntish enough....so when a Labour party parading as a bunch of Tory-wannabes tried, they got in. But now, since we've a league of Maggie Thatcher's "lovely" boys, who are superb products of her teachings, total tories as it were who know how to use their mates in the media to their advantage.....why would labour ever want to go back to trying to be them? They'd lose and I agree with it that this is probably their only option.

 

(as for the ex-labour supporter on here who says he was once one and left.....then you weren't a very good one were you?)

 

Complete and utter rubbish . Cameron is a modern day Ted Heath . The people heading up the Tory party are nearer to Major , Clarke and Hestletine than they are to Thatcherite policies . Cameron is a wet always has been and always will be . The only thing dragging him towards his party is his slim majority . If he had a majority of 50 we'd have another wishy washy soaking wet government , exactly the same as the coalition .

Complete and utter rubbish . Cameron is a modern day Ted Heath . The people heading up the Tory party are nearer to Major , Clarke and Hestletine than they are to Thatcherite policies . Cameron is a wet always has been and always will be . The only thing dragging him towards his party is his slim majority . If he had a majority of 50 we'd have another wishy washy soaking wet government , exactly the same as the coalition .

 

Come on, Ted Heath was, as had been pointed out a number of times, more left wing than most in Labour today so I don't actually believe that.

 

Also Batman, or should I say how a fellow calling himself "Batman" has the audacity to call anyone else "odd" . What with your odd Tory boy ideas. Or do you really want me to start insulting you like you have just me?

 

Either way, here's the blog I speak of (Most people I know think it's spot on...just not odd right wingers):

 

https://acsdawson.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/an-open-letter-to-labour-party-members-supporters-affiliates/

Edited 24 July, 2015 by Hockey_saint

Complete and utter rubbish . Cameron is a modern day Ted Heath . The people heading up the Tory party are nearer to Major , Clarke and Hestletine than they are to Thatcherite policies . Cameron is a wet always has been and always will be . The only thing dragging him towards his party is his slim majority . If he had a majority of 50 we'd have another wishy washy soaking wet government , exactly the same as the coalition .

very true and why they are electable again to the vast majority of the general population again ,a one nation tory party .

Come on, Ted Heath was, as had been pointed out a number of times, more left wing than most in Labour today so I don't actually believe that.

 

Also Batman, or should I say how a fellow calling himself "Batman" has the audacity to call anyone else "odd" . What with your odd Tory boy ideas. Or do you really want me to start insulting you like you have just me?

 

Either way, here's the blog I speak of (Most people I know think it's spot on...just not odd right wingers):

 

https://acsdawson.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/an-open-letter-to-labour-party-members-supporters-affiliates/

hes not a consertive is he but a relic of the old tory right,still speaks slogans from the 1970s hence why the modern tories are glad to see the back of these relics and are glad they defected to other parties.ted heath believed in one nation after his experiences in the war like a lot of that generation saw what nationalism did and did not want to go back to those days .he tried to bring unions and business together to have a german style social economy. but unfortunately our unions at the time were run by extreme elements and our business leaders were just us bad hence why industrial relations in the uk were so bad. he was ahead of his time and would relate to cameron now that the party has returned to its one nation roots.

hes not a consertive is he but a relic of the old tory right,still speaks slogans from the 1970s hence why the modern tories are glad to see the back of these relics and are glad they defected to other parties.ted heath believed in one nation after his experiences in the war like a lot of that generation saw what nationalism did and did not want to go back to those days .he tried to bring unions and business together to have a german style social economy. but unfortunately our unions at the time were run by extreme elements and our business leaders were just us bad hence why industrial relations in the uk were so bad. he was ahead of his time and would relate to cameron now that the party has returned to its one nation roots.

 

Well those ideas actually make sense I must admit. I do not however like this demonisation of the Unions, maybe some of the people running them.

It certainly doesn't seem that fair to a lot of people. Ok, if we compare it to, say, India then yes, we live in a reasonably comfortable society but unless you do that, then it's not that particularly comfortable.

 

Either way, I think Corbyn or Burnham should be leader. I think Labour supporters would prefer to just have Labour back as it were. There is a good blog where someone suggest that the 1997 Tory party were not "particularly good" Tories (namely, they were kinda headed by the people who ousted the arch tory, Maggie) and that they just weren't...well....c%ntish enough....so when a Labour party parading as a bunch of Tory-wannabes tried, they got in. But now, since we've a league of Maggie Thatcher's "lovely" boys, who are superb products of her teachings, total tories as it were who know how to use their mates in the media to their advantage.....why would labour ever want to go back to trying to be them? They'd lose and I agree with it that this is probably their only option.

 

(as for the ex-labour supporter on here who says he was once one and left.....then you weren't a very good one were you?)

You're fast becoming one of my favourite contributors to the forum.

 

Pretty breathtaking stuff you seem able to come out with.

I should imagine the old duffer (should he win) will have the Russell brand and his army on side.

ted heath believed in one nation after his experiences in the war like a lot of that generation saw what nationalism did and did not want to go back to those days .he tried to bring unions and business together to have a german style social economy. but unfortunately our unions at the time were run by extreme elements and our business leaders were just us bad hence why industrial relations in the uk were so bad. he was ahead of his time and would relate to cameron now that the party has returned to its one nation roots.

 

Ted Heath was an absolute disaster, it needed Mrs T and people like Norman Tebbit to push the wet wing of the party to the sides and take the country forward . Heath was an incredibly weak leader with a massive chip on his shoulder , even weaker than Johnnie Major. " One nation " what a load of old bollards . It's just a cheap political slogan for people who haven't got the balls to change anything or force their ideas through.

You're fast becoming one of my favourite contributors to the forum.

 

Pretty breathtaking stuff you seem able to come out with.

 

A lot of people share them, just not this little group of right wingers (and so called former Labour supporters) you have surrounding you on this forum. This is supposed to be neutral forum not one for a bunch of tory bully boys who's views completely do not represent the world I or a lot of other people live in.

 

This article sums up my views pretty well and they appear to be shared by a lot of people.... http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/24/why-labour-voters-are-turning-towards-jeremy-corbyn

Edited 25 July, 2015 by Hockey_saint

Even I know that trickle dowm economics was a big lie and still the gullible swallow all that nonsense despite it being discredited .those who work hardest in our society are normally the poorest paid also.I prefer the German model of economics which has been successfully run since 1945;

 

This is a great post.

A lot of people share them, just not this little group of right wingers (and so called former Labour supporters) you have surrounding you on this forum. This is supposed to be neutral forum not one for a bunch of tory bully boys who's views completely do not represent the world I or a lot of other people live in.

 

This article sums up my views pretty well and they appear to be shared by a lot of people.... http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/24/why-labour-voters-are-turning-towards-jeremy-corbyn

You seem to have zero understanding of political discourse whatsoever.

 

It's not difficult to find some people supporting a left wing politician, especially within the Labour party. The fact you have taken this five minute wonder as the start of some "populist" movement is effing hilarious. Look, an article in the Guardian says so. Gosh.

 

Corbyn is a total non-entity, who when it comes to it is very unlikely to win anyway, at which point he can slink back to his Fabian Society newsletters and irrelevance.

 

Anyway I am thoroughly enjoying your feeble bedsit political analysis, not just flirting with cliché but balls out ****ging it.

 

If you could start calling the rest of us "crypto-fascists" that would really finish the look.

A lot of people share them, just not this little group of right wingers (and so called former Labour supporters) you have surrounding you on this forum. This is supposed to be neutral forum not one for a bunch of tory bully boys who's views completely do not represent the world I or a lot of other people live in.

 

This article sums up my views pretty well and they appear to be shared by a lot of people.... http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/24/why-labour-voters-are-turning-towards-jeremy-corbyn

 

I have looked through the Forum rules and cannot find anything that says that peoples' political views have to be neutral. Furthermore, I see no bullying, but it might be that you have some sort of inferiority complex that makes you feel that you are being bullied for expressing your views. And these so called Tory bully boys express their own views of our current political situation, i.e. it is their own opinion of how they see things from their own experience. That is the essence of debate, that people contribute opinions based on their own experience. No doubt there is much scope for them to observe that your views do not represent the world that they and a lot of other people live in too.

 

But I do share your desire that Corbyn is elected to the leadership of the Labour Party, so in that respect we are in total agreement.

If the forum was "politically neutral" then surely Hockey would have banned himself?

I do share your desire that Corbyn is elected to the leadership of the Labour Party, so in that respect we are in total agreement.

 

He won't win, Lord T - don't trouble your ukippy little head with that thought.

You seem to have zero understanding of political discourse whatsoever.

 

It's not difficult to find some people supporting a left wing politician, especially within the Labour party. The fact you have taken this five minute wonder as the start of some "populist" movement is effing hilarious. Look, an article in the Guardian says so. Gosh.

 

Corbyn is a total non-entity, who when it comes to it is very unlikely to win anyway, at which point he can slink back to his Fabian Society newsletters and irrelevance.

 

Anyway I am thoroughly enjoying your feeble bedsit political analysis, not just flirting with cliché but balls out ****ging it.

 

If you could start calling the rest of us "crypto-fascists" that would really finish the look.

 

He is not though is he Fry, just because most people haven't heard much of Corbyn before (presumably because they do not have a left wing agenda, and fair enough) doesn't make him a nonentity or a five minute wonder... ...Suggesting he is is hardly 'political discourse' now is it, sir?

 

There are those of us who are actively political that have been trudging through streets and fields with our banners and songs all our lives; fighting (as we see it) for a fairer and more just society, for better conditions and reparations for workers, for a nation that is secure through international cooperation not nuclear proliferation.

 

We can have the debate about how we, on this here forum, might disagree on any or all of those things but to dismiss one man (in this case Corbyn) for his belief in those things as 'irrelevant' (coupled with the 'Fabian society' brush off) is little better than what you mocking Hockey for (supposedly) doing!

 

Now; for those of us on the 'left' it is incredibly refreshing to have a figure (who most of us have probably met or at least seen speak over the years) who thinks much like we do, finally in the public eye.

 

It is also a boon to see so many (young, disenfranchised or disengaged) people who haven't been 'into politics' react positively to Jeremy Corbyn's straight-talking leftwing views.

 

This is what I think worries the 'opposition' more than anything else (and maybe that is why people trot out the, IMHO lazy and insulting, Russell Brand comments.)

 

Yes, the voting system means Corbyn won't win the leadership, but - -after nearly two decades of Labour ignoring it's traditional left (if not being outright oppose to it) - he may well win back labour's 'heart'. Personally I would welcome that, and I think it would be good for British politics (and therefore Britain) as a whole.

 

 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

He is not though is he Fry, just because most people haven't heard much of Corbyn before (presumably because they do not have a left wing agenda, and fair enough) doesn't make him a nonentity or a five minute wonder... ...Suggesting he is is hardly 'political discourse' now is it, sir?

 

There are those of us who are actively political that have been trudging through streets and fields with our banners and songs all our lives; fighting (as we see it) for a fairer and more just society, for better conditions and reparations for workers, for a nation that is secure through international cooperation not nuclear proliferation.

 

We can have the debate about how we, on this here forum, might disagree on any or all of those things but to dismiss one man (in this case Corbyn) for his belief in those things as 'irrelevant' (coupled with the 'Fabian society' brush off) is little better than what you mocking Hockey for (supposedly) doing!

 

Now; for those of us on the 'left' it is incredibly refreshing to have a figure (who most of us have probably met or at least seen speak over the years) who thinks much like we do, finally in the public eye.

 

It is also a boon to see so many (young, disenfranchised or disengaged) people who haven't been 'into politics' react positively to Jeremy Corbyn's straight-talking leftwing views.

 

This is what I think worries the 'opposition' more than anything else (and maybe that is why people trot out the, IMHO lazy and insulting, Russell Brand comments.)

 

Yes, the voting system means Corbyn won't win the leadership, but - -after nearly two decades of Labour ignoring it's traditional left (if not being outright oppose to it) - he may well win back labour's 'heart'. Personally I would welcome that, and I think it would be good for British politics (and therefore Britain) as a whole.

 

 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

Absolutely this

He is not though is he Fry, just because most people haven't heard much of Corbyn before (presumably because they do not have a left wing agenda, and fair enough) doesn't make him a nonentity or a five minute wonder... ...Suggesting he is is hardly 'political discourse' now is it, sir?

 

There are those of us who are actively political that have been trudging through streets and fields with our banners and songs all our lives; fighting (as we see it) for a fairer and more just society, for better conditions and reparations for workers, for a nation that is secure through international cooperation not nuclear proliferation.

 

We can have the debate about how we, on this here forum, might disagree on any or all of those things but to dismiss one man (in this case Corbyn) for his belief in those things as 'irrelevant' (coupled with the 'Fabian society' brush off) is little better than what you mocking Hockey for (supposedly) doing!

 

Now; for those of us on the 'left' it is incredibly refreshing to have a figure (who most of us have probably met or at least seen speak over the years) who thinks much like we do, finally in the public eye.

 

It is also a boon to see so many (young, disenfranchised or disengaged) people who haven't been 'into politics' react positively to Jeremy Corbyn's straight-talking leftwing views.

 

This is what I think worries the 'opposition' more than anything else (and maybe that is why people trot out the, IMHO lazy and insulting, Russell Brand comments.)

 

Yes, the voting system means Corbyn won't win the leadership, but - -after nearly two decades of Labour ignoring it's traditional left (if not being outright oppose to it) - he may well win back labour's 'heart'. Personally I would welcome that, and I think it would be good for British politics (and therefore Britain) as a whole.

 

 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

Basically a paper/symbolic excersize, then?

 

As you admit he won't win anyway, so when he doesn't the party will (I hope) pursue a sensible centre left social democratic agenda, presented in such a way that we actually get to see it in government.

 

That's what I want to see and actually changing people's lives, like sure start, like the minimum wage and the investment in schools and hospital infrastructure amongst countless other things that Labour while did in power, that the hollow - headed sneeringly dismiss as Tory.

 

You strike me as someone who wants to complain and campaign but from the comfort blanket of pressure group opposition. It suits you to have the Tories in power, and I have no doubt you'll be grizzling about "betrayal" within about five weeks of a Labour administration taking office.

 

Corbyn will disappear off down the rabbit hole of cosy opposition, be that to conservatism or to the "they're all Tories" kneejerk horsesh it we get towards anyone with an eye for pragmatic social democracy.

 

For the rest of us, let's hope someone comes forward to truly take on and beat the Tories. That's what I want. Changing the country for the better with Labour leading us into the 2020s.

That's what I want to see and actually changing people's lives, like sure start, like the minimum wage and the investment in schools and hospital infrastructure amongst countless other things that Labour while did in power, that the hollow - headed sneeringly dismiss as Tory.

They're right. The Conservative Party will double childcare hours to 30, increase the minimum wage to £9 by 2020, guaranteed an £8 billion increase in spending per year above inflation by 2020 for the NHS and promised to invest £18bn in building new schools.

Let's face it, in one budget the Labour Party has had the midfield snatched from it and only have the left touchline to run up and down, while complaining to the lino. I don't see them scoring many goals that way...

They're right. The Conservative Party will double childcare hours to 30, increase the minimum wage to £9 by 2020, guaranteed an £8 billion increase in spending per year above inflation by 2020 for the NHS and promised to invest £18bn in building new schools.

Let's face it, in one budget the Labour Party has had the midfield snatched from it and only have the left touchline to run up and down, while complaining to the lino. I don't see them scoring many goals that way...

 

The temerity of some sections to challenge where the funds will come from to pay for that after the behaviour of Labour over the past twenty years was frankly hillarious.

 

Have been enjoying the back and forth over the last few pages, it is a truly fascinating conundrm that labour find themselves in, revert back to their roots and become unelectable or finalise the Blairite selling out process and risk a split that will further undermine their political presence.

 

Either way, the powers that be in Labour are having to treat a terribly fine line between ideology and power.

Edited 25 July, 2015 by Colinjb

You're wasting your breath. You have to ask yourself that if these lefties are so smart, why aren't they rich?

 

Wow, what bullsh*t.

The temerity of some sections to challenge where the funds will come from to pay for that after the behaviour of Labour over the past twenty years was frankly hillarious.

 

It's an idiotic and unfunded policy that both parties championed.

Basically a paper/symbolic excersize, then?

 

As you admit he won't win anyway, so when he doesn't the party will (I hope) pursue a sensible centre left social democratic agenda, presented in such a way that we actually get to see it in government.

 

That's what I want to see and actually changing people's lives, like sure start, like the minimum wage and the investment in schools and hospital infrastructure amongst countless other things that Labour while did in power, that the hollow - headed sneeringly dismiss as Tory.

 

You strike me as someone who wants to complain and campaign but from the comfort blanket of pressure group opposition. It suits you to have the Tories in power, and I have no doubt you'll be grizzling about "betrayal" within about five weeks of a Labour administration taking office.

 

Corbyn will disappear off down the rabbit hole of cosy opposition, be that to conservatism or to the "they're all Tories" kneejerk horsesh it we get towards anyone with an eye for pragmatic social democracy.

 

For the rest of us, let's hope someone comes forward to truly take on and beat the Tories. That's what I want. Changing the country for the better with Labour leading us into the 2020s.

 

A symbolic exercise? Quite possibly yes. But one should never underestimated the power of such things!

 

Symbolic is very much the word I think.

 

Oh, I really hope I don't come across as a complainer? Campaigner maybe, and, although I could do more, I would hope everything I have done and supported over the years has been largely positive, not negative.

 

I do understand that there are many 'on the left' who are like that and it is probably the thing that frustrates me most about 'the movement'. (If course, the popular press - with no little help of the Labour party itself - has done a great job of tarring us all with the same brush). Honestly - I don't hold my ideals above all else and abhor the current governance of austerity. It is but cold comfort that it has forced others to seek out the socialism and activism I personally hold dear.

 

So, yes, as a symbol of what the labour party should embrace and could return to, then Corbyn has my utmost support!

 

(Should he defy the odds and win..? ...then I have no doubt he has the ability and sense to unite the party under exactly the kind of center leftist agenda you suggest, as he done in his constituency.)

 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

It's an idiotic and unfunded policy that both parties championed.

 

Allow extra time for new families to work, ensuring more taxes being paid and more funds coming in to the household.

 

Far from idiotic, when my little one arrives it could be a godsend.

They're right. The Conservative Party will double childcare hours to 30, increase the minimum wage to £9 by 2020, guaranteed an £8 billion increase in spending per year above inflation by 2020 for the NHS and promised to invest £18bn in building new schools.

Let's face it, in one budget the Labour Party has had the midfield snatched from it and only have the left touchline to run up and down, while complaining to the lino. I don't see them scoring many goals that way...

 

£2bn a year, not £8bn. "In addition, in the 2014 Autumn Statement, Chancellor George Osborne announced an extra £2bn a year - beginning in 2015/16 - for frontline health services across the UK, which he described as a "down payment" on the highlighted £8bn annual shortfall."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30796343

Allow extra time for new families to work, ensuring more taxes being paid and more funds coming in to the household.

 

Far from idiotic, when my little one arrives it could be a godsend.

 

It's totally unfunded. Currently funded two year olds are subsidised by fee paying parents because the government pays about half the amount a regular fee paying child would. This will continue with 3 year old funded so that there will be a big reduction accross the board and less parents paying fees (so there will be no opportunity to raise fees to cover the shortfall.) Add to this the living wage increase abd the fact that there will be nowhere near enough spaces to fulfill the demand of this policy and nurseries will be closing around the country because it isn't financially viable. The head of ofsted's solution is to stick pre schoolers in schools but this sidesteps the fact that schools are not equipped for it and they don't want it.

 

In principle 30 hours isn't a bad thing but in practice it hasn't been thought out at all (I'm fact when the bill went before the commons last week they remarked that it amounted to about six lines and was the worst written bill they had seen in years which suggests it was tacked on at the last minute) and was a populist policy designed to get votes.

Edited 25 July, 2015 by hypochondriac

They're right. The Conservative Party will double childcare hours to 30, increase the minimum wage to £9 by 2020, guaranteed an £8 billion increase in spending per year above inflation by 2020 for the NHS and promised to invest £18bn in building new schools.

Let's face it, in one budget the Labour Party has had the midfield snatched from it and only have the left touchline to run up and down, while complaining to the lino. I don't see them scoring many goals that way...

The Living Wage (to which the £9 you mention refers) which effectively replaces the minimum wage and is for 25yo and older (current min wage is 21yo and over). But don't let those millions of young people who will lose out stop you quoting headline figures.

 

I think others will tackle your other 'points'!

 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

The Living Wage (to which the £9 you mention refers) which effectively replaces the minimum wage and is for 25yo and older (current min wage is 21yo and over). But don't let those millions of young people who will lose out stop you quoting headline figures.

A minor lesson in practical economics. If the minimum wage was raised to £9 for 21-24 year olds, youth unemployment would rocket. Still, when you're on Planet Corbyn where economics is based on beliefs, not financial reality, then you'd put up with high youth unemployment. Socialism always thrives on discontent and an opposition Labour party and their whore masters, Unite, would love that.

Here they are for a more balanced argument. I know what political discourse is by the way, I also know what an insult is. My essential view is that we crapped on the world for a long time; we try to change that with some socialist values and now they are slowly being taken away by the right and people that support them like the little clique here.

 

Also, I know what I'm saying and obviously my views are diametrically opposed to what has been said here, does it make them wrong? no, but they'll be shot down with belittling or snarky comments by the right wingers but then, that's how they've always been isn't it. Ignore the actual problems in this country and focus on how well they might be doing.

Edited 25 July, 2015 by Hockey_saint

£2bn a year, not £8bn. "In addition, in the 2014 Autumn Statement, Chancellor George Osborne announced an extra £2bn a year - beginning in 2015/16 - for frontline health services across the UK, which he described as a "down payment" on the highlighted £8bn annual shortfall."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30796343

I think you're a budget behind. That was from the 2014 Autumn statement. Read this and weep for Labour. They've been trumped: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/budget-2015-george-osborne-promises-8bn-more-annual-funding-for-nhs-by-2020-10375397.html

A symbolic exercise? Quite possibly yes. But one should never underestimated the power of such things!

 

Symbolic is very much the word I think.

 

Oh, I really hope I don't come across as a complainer? Campaigner maybe, and, although I could do more, I would hope everything I have done and supported over the years has been largely positive, not negative.

 

I do understand that there are many 'on the left' who are like that and it is probably the thing that frustrates me most about 'the movement'. (If course, the popular press - with no little help of the Labour party itself - has done a great job of tarring us all with the same brush). Honestly - I don't hold my ideals above all else and abhor the current governance of austerity. It is but cold comfort that it has forced others to seek out the socialism and activism I personally hold dear.

 

So, yes, as a symbol of what the labour party should embrace and could return to, then Corbyn has my utmost support!

 

(Should he defy the odds and win..? ...then I have no doubt he has the ability and sense to unite the party under exactly the kind of center leftist agenda you suggest, as he done in his constituency.)

 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

He's the MP for that famous Tory stronghold, err, Islington.

I think you're a budget behind. That was from the 2014 Autumn statement. Read this and weep for Labour. They've been trumped: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/budget-2015-george-osborne-promises-8bn-more-annual-funding-for-nhs-by-2020-10375397.html

 

Apologies! My search didn't throw up anything more recent than the link I posted.

Here they are for a more balanced argument. I know what political discourse is by the way, I also know what an insult is. My essential view is that we crapped on the world for a long time; we try to change that with some socialist values and now they are slowly being taken away by the right and people that support them like the little clique here.

 

Also, I know what I'm saying and obviously my views are diametrically opposed to what has been said here, does it make them wrong? no, but they'll be shot down with belittling or snarky comments by the right wingers but then, that's how they've always been isn't it. Ignore the actual problems in this country and focus on how well they might be doing.

I'm starting to think you are sound kind of automated phrase generator. Just a random collection of non sequiturs adding up to nowt in particular.

 

Keep it coming. Forum legend status awaits you.

They're right. The Conservative Party will double childcare hours to 30, increase the minimum wage to £9 by 2020, guaranteed an £8 billion increase in spending per year above inflation by 2020 for the NHS and promised to invest £18bn in building new schools.

Let's face it, in one budget the Labour Party has had the midfield snatched from it and only have the left touchline to run up and down, while complaining to the lino. I don't see them scoring many goals that way...

 

All policies I agree with, yet if Labour had done that Tory nobheads like you would be crying like a bunch of babies saying it's not funded.

 

"I have to pay some tax" wahhhh wahhhh wahhhh

I'm starting to think you are sound kind of automated phrase generator. Just a random collection of non sequiturs adding up to nowt in particular.

 

Keep it coming. Forum legend status awaits you.

 

Again, no actual answer just an insult (albeit minor). I know, I know, all the usual right wing drivel "I don't want my taxes being taken away and....oh heaven forbid....go into the pockets of those less off" or some other nonsense like that because that's all you right wingers ever spout. No actual decent reply on why being left is a bad thing or why it's so wonderful to be a right winger.

All policies I agree with, yet if Labour had done that Tory nobheads like you would be crying like a bunch of babies saying it's not funded.

Not sure what argument you're trying to make but it seems to involve me being a nobhead and that you won't support a party whose policies you agree with. Like most of the vanishing breed of socialists, you're trapped in a world of dogma and class prejudice. You're just lucky that ignorance is bliss...

Again, no actual answer just an insult (albeit minor). I know, I know, all the usual right wing drivel "I don't want my taxes being taken away and....oh heaven forbid....go into the pockets of those less off" or some other nonsense like that because that's all you right wingers ever spout. No actual decent reply on why being left is a bad thing or why it's so wonderful to be a right winger.

You don't really read what people post, do you sweetheart?

The Living Wage (to which the £9 you mention refers) which effectively replaces the minimum wage and is for 25yo and older (current min wage is 21yo and over). But don't let those millions of young people who will lose out stop you quoting headline figures.

 

I think others will tackle your other 'points'!

 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

Out of interest, what pay protection is there going to be for under 25s?

It was his opinion, which seems valid enough. Instead of your usual snide sniping in an attempt to make yourself look clever by denigrating the opinions of others as clueless, why don't you respond by saying why you think JF doesn't have a clue?

 

Again, no actual answer just an insult (albeit minor). I know, I know, all the usual right wing drivel "I don't want my taxes being taken away and....oh heaven forbid....go into the pockets of those less off" or some other nonsense like that because that's all you right wingers ever spout. No actual decent reply on why being left is a bad thing or why it's so wonderful to be a right winger.

 

Watching people trying to have a rational debate with CB Fry is as entertaining as it is with Alpine

Not sure what argument you're trying to make but it seems to involve me being a nobhead and that you won't support a party whose policies you agree with. Like most of the vanishing breed of socialists, you're trapped in a world of dogma and class prejudice. You're just lucky that ignorance is bliss...

 

"class prejudice" pretty sure that's currently governmental policy.

Not sure what argument you're trying to make but it seems to involve me being a nobhead and that you won't support a party whose policies you agree with. Like most of the vanishing breed of socialists, you're trapped in a world of dogma and class prejudice. You're just lucky that ignorance is bliss...

 

I don't support any party and agree with some policies of the Conservatives, some from Labour, some from the Lib Dems and even UKIP and the Greens. I have never claimed to be a socialist and have never voted Labour in my life so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

I just particularly dislike greed which is at the core of Conservative thinking.

In principle 30 hours isn't a bad thing but in practice it hasn't been thought out at all (I'm fact when the bill went before the commons last week they remarked that it amounted to about six lines and was the worst written bill they had seen in years which suggests it was tacked on at the last minute) and was a populist policy designed to get votes.

 

It got votes because it's damned useful. A policy that rewards those who want to work and help themselves. If it requires a subsidy to the childcare system to make it work, fine. About time something useful was given a leg-up.

You don't really read what people post, do you sweetheart?

 

Oh, I've read what you've posted....sweetheart.

 

But as Aintforver says, I find that greed is essentially at the heart of all right-wing thinking and policy so I just find it completely abhorrent and the fact they try to hide this truth with nonsense, out of of touch thinking, damning people before they even get a chance (like the title of this thread) and just general insults makes it a bit well, just 1980's

Edited 25 July, 2015 by Hockey_saint

It got votes because it's damned useful. A policy that rewards those who want to work and help themselves. If it requires a subsidy to the childcare system to make it work, fine. About time something useful was given a leg-up.

 

That's the whole point though, no subsidy will be forthcoming. If they can provide proper financing to compensate nurseries for the money they lose then fair enough. Isn't going to happen though and the consequences coukd be quite serious for childcare provision in this country.

 

Policies need to be properly financed and thought out, not cooked up in response to the opposition during an election and then pushed through with no thought to the consequences. The public aren't going to consider it such a great policy when nurseries close and there won't be enough to cater for the free places.

Edited 25 July, 2015 by hypochondriac

...but as Aintforver says, I find that greed is essentially at the heart of all right-wing thinking and policy...

That's why Tony Blair has £60M in the bank, then...

 

No, everyone wants to be rich, even just to give it to charitable causes. Those that haven't got the brains or talent to become rich, simply say they hate it, but it's simply envy.

That's why Tony Blair has £60M in the bank, then...

 

No, everyone wants to be rich, even just to give it to charitable causes. Those that haven't got the brains or talent to become rich, simply say they hate it, but it's simply envy.

 

Yeah, they're all jealous.....Also, are you seriously suggesting that Tony Blair is left wing? because that's kinda the reason behind the reason for this thread?

Oh, I've read what you've posted....sweetheart.

 

But as Aintforver says, I find that greed is essentially at the heart of all right-wing thinking and policy so I just find it completely abhorrent and the fact they try to hide this truth with nonsense, out of of touch thinking, damning people before they even get a chance (like the title of this thread) and just general insults makes it a bit well, just 1980's

 

Greed? It certainly isn't greed. It's about how to have the right balance between rewarding hard work and endeavour and providing support for those in society who need it through no fault of their own. In order to do that we need to take the optimum amount of tax for everybody, which will never mean soaking the rich.

That's why Tony Blair has £60M in the bank, then...

 

No, everyone wants to be rich, even just to give it to charitable causes. Those that haven't got the brains or talent to become rich, simply say they hate it, but it's simply envy.

 

Of course everyone wants to be rich you plum, but some people have the intelligence and compassion to not want other people to suffer or live uncomfortable lives.

 

I am rich anyway, me and my mrs both earn way above average salaries in a wealthy part of a rich country, I am in the top 0.11% of the World - that's why I don't cry like a big baby because I pay a sizeable sum of tax.

Greed? It certainly isn't greed. It's about how to have the right balance between rewarding hard work and endeavour and providing support for those in society who need it through no fault of their own. In order to do that we need to take the optimum amount of tax for everybody, which will never mean soaking the rich.

 

So how do you explain almost all the financial savings introduced by this government in the name of austerity seemingly being targeted at those with the least whilst, on the fact of it, those with the most appear to be getting tax breaks?

That's the whole point though, no subsidy will be forthcoming. If they can provide proper financing to compensate nurseries for the money they lose then fair enough. Isn't going to happen though and the consequences coukd be quite serious for childcare provision in this country.

 

Policies need to be properly financed and thought out, not cooked up in response to the opposition during an election and then pushed through with no thought to the consequences. The public aren't going to consider it such a great policy when nurseries close and there won't be enough to cater for the free places.

 

Should that happen then your point will be proven..... All conjecture (even if based on reason) for now though.

Yeah, they're all jealous.....Also, are you seriously suggesting that Tony Blair is left wing? because that's kinda the reason behind the reason for this thread?

Tony Blair’s was arguably to the left of where Ed Miliband was, as follows:

 

1. Blair didn’t want to cut benefits for unemployed young people.

2. Blair supported a higher rate of tax on corporate profits than Miliband.

3. Blair supported renationalising the railways while in opposition.

4. Blair was more positive about immigration.

5. Blair imposed a windfall tax on privatised energy companies.

6. Blair pledged to scrap the market system imposed on the NHS.

7. Blair wanted regional government to be democratically elected.

8. Blair advocated lower university tuition fees than Miliband.

9. Blair flirted with putting ordinary workers into company boardrooms.

10. Blair didn’t support a freeze on public sector pay.

11. Blair left Labour with a stronger link to the trade unions.

 

Oh, and I forgot to add, he was an even greater hypocritical, champagne swigging, expenses addicted, wealthy, ex-public schoolboy than Milliband, who, like all Marxist ideologues will also be grabbing money as soon as he can. Neither of them can compare to the ultimate leftie of the Labour party, that old ginger windbag, Kinnock, who, with his wife have hoovered up more public money than any other failed politician I can remember and trained his son in the same caper.

 

At least Tories aren't dishonest about wanting to accumulate money. It's just that they generally do it by building something of value, like a business that employs people, not sponging off the taxpayer...and don't get me started on that ex-waiter and now Lord John Prescott or the awful John Bercow. Slime bags and apparently not ashamed of it...

 

Socialism in action? They are mugging you all off, as is the case in Scotland. Still the morons that vote these sh !ts in will get the MP's they deserve. The rest of us just lucky they are not allowed to spend our money any more...