trousers

There's gonna be a hell of a lot of people with egg on their faces if Labour are/were right (to propose a 'meagre' 4/5ths of the ConDem cuts....)

a.k.a. relying on the short-term selective memories of fickle voters...which, of course, all politicians from all parties rely on at the end of the day

No.

Back to my OP question...has Miliband shot himself in the foot by aligning himself with a movement that are against most/all cuts when he's leading a party that supports/supported 4/5ths of the ConDem cuts? Genuine question.

To be fair to Dune, he's always quite clear about which sub-set of benefit claimants he's referring to. Your daughter has a genuine right to state support so isn't in one of those subsets.

I think the irony maybe lost on some on here... :-)

;-)

Indeed. They advocate a modified/fairer FPTT (sic) system whereby the constituencies are evenly spread.

Sssshhhh....it's more fun if people only see the facts I quote out of context.... ;-) And, yet, Cameron still got a higher percentage of the increased vote pool than B-liar, yet got significantly less seats.

...or, put another way... c.1.2million more people in the country wanted David Cameron as Prime Minister in 2010 than wanted Tony B-liar in 2005. (roughly 3 times the number of people who turned up for the "no cuts" rally) Make of that what you will... ;-)

In 2005, Tony B-liar / Labour received 9,552,436 votes (35% = 355 seats) In 2010, David Cameron / Conservatives received 10,703,754 votes (36% = 306 seats) When you say "majority" I assume you mean 'number of seats' rather than 'actual human beings'...? Now....if only we had a voting system that had the same number of people per constituency rather than being weighted in favour of a certain red party....hmmm.... ;-) ;-) ;-)

Indeed. But please open such posts in future with : "SaintsWeb Forum Logic Alert". Some of us need to be sitting down before encountering such common sense on here... ;-)

For every £5 cut proposed by the ConDems, Labour proposed to cut £4. Why didn't Miliband mention this at the "no cuts" rally? And not forgetting the fact that the ConDem cuts only take public expenditure back to 2008/09 levels. That is all. "Massive" cuts? Hmmm...

Depends if Cortese himself sticks around i'd imagine...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12882499 Cabin crew at British Airways have voted eight-to-one in favour of new strike action. The vote opens the possibility of strikes over Easter, although union sources have previously played down the prospect of any April walk-out. The ballot was a rerun of an invalid vote held before Christmas.

I did search for alternative reports and views on Miliband's appearance at a "no cuts" rally but the left wing media seem very reluctant to highlight his speech for some unfathomable reason.... FFS ;-)

Lallana

Not true. Although I do use that ID exclusively to post nonsense. Granted, it's the one I use the most.

4 of my accounts post exclusively on the lounge and 3 of my accounts post exclusively on the main board. The other 7 are split evenly across all of the forums.

'Ed Miliband's attempts to compare the cause of the protesters to the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa was a grotesque piece of hyperbole.' 'Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, addressed Saturday's TUC "rally against the cuts" purporting to represent the "mainstream majority". He doesn't – any more than the thugs who caused mayhem in central London stand for anything other than a predilection for criminal violence. Mr Miliband is entitled to make a speech attacking Government economic policy just as the public sector unions are free to demonstrate against what they consider to be an unwarranted attack on the pay and conditions of their members. But they cannot get away unchallenged with the assertion that they represent anything other than the sectional interests of a client state built up by the last Labour government at great cost to the nation's financial health. Furthermore, Mr Miliband's attempts to compare the cause of the protesters to the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa or the campaign for civil rights in America was a grotesque piece of hyperbole that has prompted even his own colleagues to question his judgment.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8410498/TUC-protest-march-Ed-Miliband-does-not-speak-for-the-country.html

Fait points. Perhaps the word I was looking for was 'gullible' rather than 'stupid'. Edit: and if it was all so obvious, why did successive governments (Tory and Labour) do nothing to stop it?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. For one, I wasn't duped. I've always set my own risk thresholds when borrowing money. I certainly steered clear of those 100%+ mortgages and maxing out on credit cards, etc, even though it was tempting at the time to keep up with my peers. Instead I settled for a much smaller house than some friends/colleagues saddled themselves with. I'll leave you to guess who is better off now.... Just because some people aren't savvy enough to work out they're being duped doesn't mean that they ('the general public') should dissolve themselves of any blame whatsoever. We all played our part, no matter how small, in the banking 'game'....the Tories, Labour, the bankers, the general public. All of us. Just my opinion of course.

And the point that most people conveniently gloss over is that no-one forced the general public at gunpoint to take out loans they couldn't afford. Yes, the banks were stupid to loan money to the general public who couldn't afford to pay it back, but the general public we're equally stupid to take the money in the first place. We are, indeed, all in this together...

That teach you to give your name as "Mr M Le Tissier" over the phone... ;-))

Oh, just thought of another Blue Peter related regret....Leslie Judd