Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What is Labour for?
Topic Started: Jan 30 2015, 08:21 AM (3,076 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]

Quote:
 
Labour would not reverse billions of pounds of spending cuts to the police, hospitals, armed forces and local councils, Ed Balls has confirmed.
The savings include cutting £3.3billion from councils’ budgets, making £700million worth of cuts to the pay of members of the armed forces and shaving £400million off the NHS pay bill.


LINK

It has to be asked, what are Labour for if it is going to match the Tory budget programme? They now promise to stick to current Coalition plans so what are the offering? Maybe they think they can offer an experienced Management Team that can stimulate the economy and hold a tighter grip on State spending? Makes one want to laugh. Let's get real, without a programme of increases in State expenditure coupled with a programme of social engineering to make us fit their mould there is absolutely no point in Labour.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Jan 31 2015, 08:08 AM
HIGHWAY
Jan 31 2015, 08:06 AM
Lewis
Jan 31 2015, 08:02 AM
HIGHWAY
Jan 31 2015, 01:00 AM
No, but the Tories are the worst ones, the worst examples of those who are at it.
Hogwash they are all as bad as each other
Hogwash, the Tory scroungers are the absolute worse!
So no Labour or Libs who got rich fiddling there expenses count in your mind
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
HIGHWAY
Jan 31 2015, 08:52 AM
Lewis
Jan 31 2015, 08:08 AM
HIGHWAY
Jan 31 2015, 08:06 AM
Lewis
Jan 31 2015, 08:02 AM
Hogwash they are all as bad as each other
Hogwash, the Tory scroungers are the absolute worse!
So no Labour or Libs who got rich fiddling there expenses count in your mind
Well at least no Labour MPs put in claims for floating duck housed like Vigger's claimed for. Then Giddie claimed mortgage expenses by circa £100,000.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 08:26 AM
johnofgwent
Jan 31 2015, 08:08 AM
RJD
Jan 30 2015, 08:21 AM
Quote:
 
Labour would not reverse billions of pounds of spending cuts to the police, hospitals, armed forces and local councils, Ed Balls has confirmed.
The savings include cutting £3.3billion from councils’ budgets, making £700million worth of cuts to the pay of members of the armed forces and shaving £400million off the NHS pay bill.


LINK

It has to be asked, what are Labour for if it is going to match the Tory budget programme? They now promise to stick to current Coalition plans so what are the offering? Maybe they think they can offer an experienced Management Team that can stimulate the economy and hold a tighter grip on State spending? Makes one want to laugh. Let's get real, without a programme of increases in State expenditure coupled with a programme of social engineering to make us fit their mould there is absolutely no point in Labour.
If Labour put forward a programme of increased spending you jump up and down and rant they are the party of tax and spend

If they pledge to adhere to their opponents policy on spending you rant whats thevpiint

Mr Milliband cant fucking win with you can he.
.
He cant win with me either, but that's because the shitebags party is fucking me over west of offas dyke where they never got evicted, not becayse of some phony argument over what is a packnof lies anyway

At least I make my decisions based on the actions they have taken rather tgan the bollocks they spout

Just looking for clear blue water John and from where I sit, on my podium, I hear a lot of anger from the left (phoney in my view), but I see little in the way of new policies that are commensurate. Take the NHS, a lot of hot air from Burnham, a strategy to weaponise the issue by Milliband, but what is the difference in policy? Not much of note except that Labour thinks it can find ~£2.5b extra via a tax on so-called mansions and the Tories wish to squeeze out a similar amount via productivity gains. So thats ~£2.5b in a budget of £120b and the accuracy of measurement is? Sounds like a very phoney war too me .Same goes for the deficit, a lot of Labour noise but no substance. So I repeat "what is Labour for", beyond revving up the Envy and Spite Brigade?
Why are the wealthy so addicted to self entitlement? This is a question Labour will actually ask and the Conservatives will not. Only then is there any hope of rebalancing the economy.

And no it is not the politics of envy, I see it day in and day out and frequently meet it face to face.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Lewis
Jan 31 2015, 09:22 AM
HIGHWAY
Jan 31 2015, 08:52 AM
Lewis
Jan 31 2015, 08:08 AM
HIGHWAY
Jan 31 2015, 08:06 AM
Hogwash, the Tory scroungers are the absolute worse!
So no Labour or Libs who got rich fiddling there expenses count in your mind
Well at least no Labour MPs put in claims for floating duck housed like Vigger's claimed for. Then Giddie claimed mortgage expenses by circa £100,000.
Why is it that only Labour MPs have been found guilty of expenses fraud?

Not a single one is Tory, Lib Dem or from one of the nationalist parties. All six are Labour.

The Labour party may take the moral high ground, but lying and cheating are deep in its DNA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Jan 31 2015, 12:23 PM
Why is it that only Labour MPs have been found guilty of expenses fraud?
It couldn't POSSIBLY be because the trials began under a conservative / lib dem coalition, using rules (oh sorry, GUIDELINES) imposed on the DPP by that government ... or possibly that the said DPP fancies a gong and a nice cushy job in a few years time courtesy of prime ministerial patronage, could it ?

Perish the thought ...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 30 2015, 11:34 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 30 2015, 11:08 PM
Lewis
Jan 30 2015, 08:42 AM
Strange you were saying a few posts ago that Labour would reverse all the cuts and start spending like mad. Now you change your opinion because your bible the Torygraph dictates otherwise.

Now what is more relevant what is the point of the Tories at all, now it is clear that everything they have promised amounts to nothing. Expect that is pure incompetence.
That is not true for they have made progress in reducing the debt, creating employment and improving the economy .I doubt that Labour in office would have achieved anything at all except to increase the welfare bill and the national debt.
It's working people/the middle classes the needy who have reduced the deficit while the government has increased the debt.

How many jobs that the coalition claim to have created are just jobs moved from the public sector to the private sector ?

NL wanted cuts and growth to take place at the same time, Brown and Obama argued for this at the G8/20 meeting.

The Tories have made cuts their man choice.

Its a pity Greece and Spain didn't, and did not start to do so when our Government decided to do so on our behalf.
All debt has to be paid off one way or another, so it is best not to incur it with impossible dreams Be thankful that we are now on the right side of common sense with some practical reality. The reason the labour leadership is in such a mess is because they promise to maintain the austerity programme , and spend more at the same time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
I would say you can sum up what Labour are for in just one simple sentence

"Labour are here to do the same as the Conservatives, govern the country, except in a fairer way"

And that s it in a nutshell
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tig: Why are the wealthy so addicted to self entitlement? This is a question Labour will actually ask and the Conservatives will not. Only then is there any hope of rebalancing the economy.

You better show some evidence of this as I thought the opposite was the truth. Conservatives believe in work whereas Labour believe in welfare. Looking forward to seeing some proof of your claims,.

Tig: And no it is not the politics of envy, I see it day in and day out and frequently meet it face to face.

Then you should have no difficulty is describing exactly what it is that you witness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 01:34 PM
Conservatives believe in work
As long as someone else is doing it, and are on low wages.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 31 2015, 01:30 PM
I would say you can sum up what Labour are for in just one simple sentence

"Labour are here to do the same as the Conservatives, govern the country, except in a fairer way"

And that s it in a nutshell
Here we go again with that subjective and emotional word "fairer". I hear the rhetoric, but would love to see some hard examples.

Me I am not interested in the fairness twaddle, I just want a Gov. that gets us good value for Taxpayers money for the delivery of quality State services, if they earn the reputation of being tough, nasty, uncaring with the mindless minions then who gives a sh1t? You see I know that money wasted due to inefficiency or even a lack of need, actually kills other peoples job prospects and attenuates the amount of real wealth that can be generated in the economy. Yes we can all wear our hearts on our sleeves and pretend we really care, but it takes toughness to deliver real improvements. Problem is that the Red Nag Myth Factory has persuaded many that improvements can be easily obtained by picking another persons pocket. Increasing spending this on State services is no guarantee of improvements in performance or quality, as we have seen with the NHS.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 31 2015, 01:42 PM
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 01:34 PM
Conservatives believe in work
As long as someone else is doing it, and are on low wages.
Rubbish you cannot make money out of people with poor educations and no skills. All you are doping is keeping these people off the streets. The UK needs to produce many more jobs creating higher amounts of added value and the people you mention are not suited to such work. If you bother to inform yourself of the structure of adding value then you will find that the Lifters and Shifters and the end of the process, a highly automated one, add little of significance. So the question really is "how are we going to get the legions of poorly educated with zero skills off the streets and into some kind of job"?
You need to get real Mr Smurf, the main reason why the low paid are paid low wages is that there is significantly more of them than jobs available and they have little that is special to offer an Employer.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 01:44 PM
Here we go again with that subjective and emotional word "fairer". I hear the rhetoric, but would love to see some hard examples.

I would like you to explain what is fair about deliberately attacking poor and vulnerable people as a policy as the Tories have been doing since May 2010.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 31 2015, 01:53 PM
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 01:44 PM
Here we go again with that subjective and emotional word "fairer". I hear the rhetoric, but would love to see some hard examples.

I would like you to explain what is fair about deliberately attacking poor and vulnerable people as a policy as the Tories have been doing since May 2010.




I would first like to see you demonstrate where and when the attacks took place. You use emotive words to make your claims.
Anyway I am really not interested in feeding your addiction to conspiracy.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 01:44 PM
krugerman
Jan 31 2015, 01:30 PM
I would say you can sum up what Labour are for in just one simple sentence

"Labour are here to do the same as the Conservatives, govern the country, except in a fairer way"

And that s it in a nutshell
Here we go again with that subjective and emotional word "fairer". I hear the rhetoric, but would love to see some hard examples.

Me I am not interested in the fairness twaddle, I just want a Gov. that gets us good value for Taxpayers money for the delivery of quality State services, if they earn the reputation of being tough, nasty, uncaring with the mindless minions then who gives a sh1t? You see I know that money wasted due to inefficiency or even a lack of need, actually kills other peoples job prospects and attenuates the amount of real wealth that can be generated in the economy. Yes we can all wear our hearts on our sleeves and pretend we really care, but it takes toughness to deliver real improvements. Problem is that the Red Nag Myth Factory has persuaded many that improvements can be easily obtained by picking another persons pocket. Increasing spending this on State services is no guarantee of improvements in performance or quality, as we have seen with the NHS.

Some hard examples ?

Well let us take for example "The Bedroom Tax"

This is something that a Labour government would never have introduced because it is unfair, and it is also something which the Liberal Democrats feel very uncomfortable about, because they know deep down that they would not have introduced it, and they know it is unfair.

Why is it unfair ?

Well let us begin by saying, ok we all agree that a couple with one child should not be living in a 3 bedroom home, and a single person should not be living in a 2 or 3 bedroom home.

So the answer is - when you next move house, you will be informed that you cannot expect housing benefit to be based upon anything other than your needs, but the Bedroom Tax has not been implemented like this, it is crippling low paid people, and it is causing severe hardship to working people, sending some into poverty.

In many area s there simply is no smaller dwellings, many thousands of people are stuck, hit by the Bedroom Tax, no place to go, nowhere to turn.

This is but one simple example of the unfairness we have come to expect from the Conservatives, the same political party that opposed the National Minimum Wage, that has made it more difficult to claim unfair dismissal, the Lib Dems made some attempt to back track on the Bedroom Tax, because they could see how unfair it is, and how big the backlash is against it.

The term or word "unfairness" is a simple word, its not emotive, its just descriptive and fitting of this government.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
K: Well let us take for example "The Bedroom Tax". This is something that a Labour government would never have introduced because it is unfair, and it is also something which the Liberal Democrats feel very uncomfortable about, because they know deep down that they would not have introduced it, and they know it is unfair. Why is it unfair ? Well let us begin by saying, ok we all agree that a couple with one child should not be living in a 3 bedroom home, and a single person should not be living in a 2 or 3 bedroom home.

Proof from you that in that circumstance the change is not unfair.

K: So the answer is - when you next move house, you will be informed that you cannot expect housing benefit to be based upon anything other than your needs, but the Bedroom Tax has not been implemented like this, it is crippling low paid people, and it is causing severe hardship to working people, sending some into poverty.

Without a carrot or a stick why would anyone with highly subsidised accommodation want to downsize?
You have already accepted that it is not reasonable for individuals to sit on accommodations which are significantly larger than their needs, the question surely is about the methodology to get them to change. Hence your claim that the tax, as you call it, is unfair is unfounded, your criticism is on method.

K: In many area s there simply is no smaller dwellings, many thousands of people are stuck, hit by the Bedroom Tax, no place to go, nowhere to turn.

As I have said a number of times in the past the change in subsidy is sensible, but timings should be left in the hands of Local Gov., which it mainly is.

It certainly is unfair to keep a family in cramped accommodation when a neighbour is enjoying accommodation much greater than his needs.

K: This is but one simple example of the unfairness we have come to expect from the Conservatives, the same political party that opposed the National Minimum Wage, that has made it more difficult to claim unfair dismissal, the Lib Dems made some attempt to back track on the Bedroom Tax, because they could see how unfair it is, and how big the backlash is against it.

K: The term or word "unfairness" is a simple word, its not emotive, its just descriptive and fitting of this government.

Not true it is an emotive word when used in such a generalised manner. As for the NMW it has under this Gov. increased faster than inflation. As for the basic tax threshold that has also increased greater than inflation. Are you claiming that as "fair" or "unfair"? Or is it with your dogma you can only see "unfairness"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 01:59 PM
I would first like to see you demonstrate where and when the attacks took place. You use emotive words to make your claims.
Anyway I am really not interested in feeding your addiction to conspiracy.

RJD, I have been doing so for over four and a have years, that you refuse to read references is your fault.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 31 2015, 02:30 PM
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 01:59 PM
I would first like to see you demonstrate where and when the attacks took place. You use emotive words to make your claims.
Anyway I am really not interested in feeding your addiction to conspiracy.

RJD, I have been doing so for over four and a have years, that you refuse to read references is your fault.
No you have not. You only think you have and that is your problem and why I will no longer waste my time fuelling your addictions.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 02:32 PM
You only think you have and that is your problem and why I will no longer waste my time fuelling your addictions.

I know I have RJD, you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 31 2015, 02:35 PM
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 02:32 PM
You only think you have and that is your problem and why I will no longer waste my time fuelling your addictions.

I know I have RJD, you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
No intention of feeding your phycological problems, I need to get another coat of pain on the ceiling.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 31 2015, 01:42 PM
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 01:34 PM
Conservatives believe in work
As long as someone else is doing it, and are on low wages.
Unlike yourself who seems to want everyone on government handouts
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
We'd do as well (a bit of a contraction is 'well') if we did away with Parliament and left everything to Whitehall .......... in many ways we already have, but the show must go on and it does require its actors to play the roles on the public stage where the questions are asked, no solutions/answers ever given. We get rhetoric, but not much truth ........ spin and spin until dizziness makes drunks of us all.




Edited by Affa, Jan 31 2015, 02:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
HIGHWAY
Jan 31 2015, 02:47 PM
papasmurf
Jan 31 2015, 01:42 PM
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 01:34 PM
Conservatives believe in work
As long as someone else is doing it, and are on low wages.
Unlike yourself who seems to want everyone on government handouts
Replace "Government Handouts" with living at someone else's expense.

Truth is that the UK is, relatively speaking, a generous country towards those that it deserves require some help, but it is bedevilled by an ungrateful bunch of moaners who believe that they are entitled. They are not entitled to anything more than the State decides and it is the responsibility of the State to decide who is deserving of support. The moaners always dress up the situation to appear that they have been deprived of their dues, but they were not such and never will be. It would be a good idea to send a coach load of the moaners to Italy say or even Spain and ask them to try a month sampling the generosity of those countries, then they would develop a completely new perspective of how good things are in Old Blighty. The moaners should also put themselves in the shoes of those that are the givers and wonder why is it that they welcome the welfare reform programme. Claiming it is all a conspiracy is getting to be beyond a joke and one must wonder as to the sanity of those that claim such.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
From one of their own:
Quote:
 
It’s not simply that Labour isn’t reaching out to the people whose support it needs to win in May. It is now actively in the business of making it impossible for people to vote for Labour in May. If you believe that the NHS is under threat from private sector encroachment, and you see Andy Burnham talking of “preferred providers” and refusing to identify any limit on private outsourcing, how are you supposed to say: “Yep, that’s the party for me.”? Similarly, if you think the NHS is in need of serious reform, and you see that same Andy Burnham “calling time on the Tory market experiment”, why would you think that party reflects your views? And if Labour doesn’t want either of those people to vote for it, whose vote is it after?
- Dan Hodges

Full article

For those idiots that subscribe to the view that the message is unimportant and that the Messenger is all that matters please note that this article is in The Daily Telegraph, so avoid it and stick with your dogma.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
HIGHWAY
Jan 31 2015, 02:47 PM
Unlike yourself who seems to want everyone on government handouts
I want nothing of the kind RJD, I have made myself VERY clear about that.
I want everyone who can work in work, but I don't want them working for peanuts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 31 2015, 03:38 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 31 2015, 02:47 PM
Unlike yourself who seems to want everyone on government handouts
I want nothing of the kind RJD, I have made myself VERY clear about that.
I want everyone who can work in work, but I don't want them working for peanuts.
Yes you have made that clear several times, RJD was taking your defence of those on benefits too far.

But a question: you say "I want everyone who can work in work, but I don't want them working for peanuts." So if someone could be either Out of Work or Working for Peanuts which would you prefer them to be in?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 31 2015, 03:45 PM
So if someone could be either Out of Work or Working for Peanuts which would you prefer them to be in?


Why only the two options?
It appears very defeatist to me.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 31 2015, 03:45 PM
I want everyone who can work in work, but I don't want them working for peanuts."[/i] So if someone could be either Out of Work or Working for Peanuts which would you prefer them to be in?

Neither, in work but not being paid peanuts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 31 2015, 04:51 PM
Steve K
Jan 31 2015, 03:45 PM
I want everyone who can work in work, but I don't want them working for peanuts."[/i] So if someone could be either Out of Work or Working for Peanuts which would you prefer them to be in?

Neither, in work but not being paid peanuts.
How much would you want a low skilled worker to get
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 31 2015, 12:50 AM
C-too
Jan 30 2015, 11:36 PM
Rich
Jan 30 2015, 11:32 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 30 2015, 11:08 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
You left out core voters who will always dance to the tune of a pied piper with taxpayers money to waste.
While others dance to the tune of right-wing newspapers ?
Regardless of which papers one reads, WHOEVER gets in next time round will HAVE to adopt right wing policies in order to get the UK back into a surplus situation.....or do you disagree?
I disagree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 03:33 PM
From one of their own:
Quote:
 
It’s not simply that Labour isn’t reaching out to the people whose support it needs to win in May. It is now actively in the business of making it impossible for people to vote for Labour in May. If you believe that the NHS is under threat from private sector encroachment, and you see Andy Burnham talking of “preferred providers” and refusing to identify any limit on private outsourcing, how are you supposed to say: “Yep, that’s the party for me.”? Similarly, if you think the NHS is in need of serious reform, and you see that same Andy Burnham “calling time on the Tory market experiment”, why would you think that party reflects your views? And if Labour doesn’t want either of those people to vote for it, whose vote is it after?
- Dan Hodges

Full article

For those idiots that subscribe to the view that the message is unimportant and that the Messenger is all that matters please note that this article is in The Daily Telegraph, so avoid it and stick with your dogma.



It is common sense not dogma that does not want to see the UK health system sink into a two tier system, split into private and public health, with private being the dominant system while the NHS falls into a very secondary underfunded safety net.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
HIGHWAY
Jan 31 2015, 04:53 PM
How much would you want a low skilled worker to get
Enough so their employer does not have to be subsidised by the government so they can pay low wages.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Jan 31 2015, 01:23 PM
C-too
Jan 30 2015, 11:34 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 30 2015, 11:08 PM
Lewis
Jan 30 2015, 08:42 AM
Strange you were saying a few posts ago that Labour would reverse all the cuts and start spending like mad. Now you change your opinion because your bible the Torygraph dictates otherwise.

Now what is more relevant what is the point of the Tories at all, now it is clear that everything they have promised amounts to nothing. Expect that is pure incompetence.
That is not true for they have made progress in reducing the debt, creating employment and improving the economy .I doubt that Labour in office would have achieved anything at all except to increase the welfare bill and the national debt.
It's working people/the middle classes the needy who have reduced the deficit while the government has increased the debt.

How many jobs that the coalition claim to have created are just jobs moved from the public sector to the private sector ?

NL wanted cuts and growth to take place at the same time, Brown and Obama argued for this at the G8/20 meeting.

The Tories have made cuts their man choice.

Its a pity Greece and Spain didn't, and did not start to do so when our Government decided to do so on our behalf.
All debt has to be paid off one way or another, so it is best not to incur it with impossible dreams Be thankful that we are now on the right side of common sense with some practical reality. The reason the labour leadership is in such a mess is because they promise to maintain the austerity programme , and spend more at the same time.
Comparing the UK to Greece and Italy shows just how desperate you are to make some sort of rebuttal. It is of course nonsense.

Your apparent common sense and practical reality has left the UK needing even heavier cuts and has increased the national debt.

Labour want to use growth and cuts as a way forward, this is rubbished by the right-wing because they have always been in favour of cutting welfare regardless of the economic situation. While cuts are a necessity the Tories are taking FULL advantage of the opportunity to do just that.
After all if growth had been greater the aggressiveness of their cuts would be less acceptable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 31 2015, 04:51 PM
Steve K
Jan 31 2015, 03:45 PM
I want everyone who can work in work, but I don't want them working for peanuts."[/i] So if someone could be either Out of Work or Working for Peanuts which would you prefer them to be in?

Neither, in work but not being paid peanuts.

That is to duck the question. Shocked I am not

Affa
Jan 31 2015, 04:07 PM
Why only the two options?
It appears very defeatist to me.


Because sometimes the sun doesn't shine and it is useful to know what people would have as a priority when push comes to shove.

A lot of the Labour party and some here would rather have someone unemployed than in work at a low salary. To me it says so much about them.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
I thought at First this was a joke,

Ed Miliband has no coherent policies and is unsuited to lead our country.

This is the Daily Mirror, read by most Labour supporters, it goes on to say.

Quote:
 
The first month of the 2015 General Election campaign has made it clear that Ed Miliband and his Labour Party have not grasped the concept of leadership and as such, have no coherent policies for the good of this country.


Quote:
 
However, perhaps most damning is that the moment the Labour Party’s economic figures were challenged, the Shadow Chancellor announced live on air that Labour would not reverse any cuts and would continue to cut whilst CONTINUING to freeze public sector pay.

Up until then, most Labour supporters would have had the opinion that the exact opposite would happen under Labour.

This is because Labour are only interested in gaining power, for power’s sake and not in being a serious alternative government.



We are doomed I tell you, doomed.  :o
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Jan 31 2015, 05:54 PM
I thought at First this was a joke,

Ed Miliband has no coherent policies and is unsuited to lead our country.

This is the Daily Mirror, read by most Labour supporters, it goes on to say.

Quote:
 
The first month of the 2015 General Election campaign has made it clear that Ed Miliband and his Labour Party have not grasped the concept of leadership and as such, have no coherent policies for the good of this country.


Quote:
 
However, perhaps most damning is that the moment the Labour Party’s economic figures were challenged, the Shadow Chancellor announced live on air that Labour would not reverse any cuts and would continue to cut whilst CONTINUING to freeze public sector pay.

Up until then, most Labour supporters would have had the opinion that the exact opposite would happen under Labour.

This is because Labour are only interested in gaining power, for power’s sake and not in being a serious alternative government.



We are doomed I tell you, doomed.  :o
Thank goodness for the Daily Mirror ;D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 31 2015, 05:36 PM

A lot of the Labour party and some here would rather have someone unemployed than in work at a low salary. To me it says so much about them.

Substantiate, please.
I have have not seen any evidence of it

Edited by Affa, Jan 31 2015, 07:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 01:34 PM
Tig: Why are the wealthy so addicted to self entitlement? This is a question Labour will actually ask and the Conservatives will not. Only then is there any hope of rebalancing the economy.

You better show some evidence of this as I thought the opposite was the truth. Conservatives believe in work whereas Labour believe in welfare. Looking forward to seeing some proof of your claims,.

Tig: And no it is not the politics of envy, I see it day in and day out and frequently meet it face to face.

Then you should have no difficulty is describing exactly what it is that you witness.


Right back at you.

Why do some very wealthy people feel the need to avoid tax? Why do they shamelessly put out their hands when their financial interests are threatened? ie banks, multi nationals etc? How come Supermarkets feel the need to squeeze suppliers almost to the point of destroying them? I'm sure you'll have all the answers for us...........

And at my far lower level I used get rather tired of wealthy clients trying to wriggle out of contracts they have signed by insisting that they get some extra work done for free, presumably because they have already spent a small fortune and because of this they seem to imagine you'll throw in a few freebies!

These days I simply explain that those doing the work have families to support and mortgages to pay and working for nothing is not an option, I usually then ask the person concerned if they ever work for free. The signed contract is then honoured and additional work if still requested is then priced up for appraisal.
Edited by Tigger, Jan 31 2015, 06:54 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 31 2015, 03:33 PM
From one of their own:
Quote:
 
It’s not simply that Labour isn’t reaching out to the people whose support it needs to win in May. It is now actively in the business of making it impossible for people to vote for Labour in May. If you believe that the NHS is under threat from private sector encroachment, and you see Andy Burnham talking of “preferred providers” and refusing to identify any limit on private outsourcing, how are you supposed to say: “Yep, that’s the party for me.”? Similarly, if you think the NHS is in need of serious reform, and you see that same Andy Burnham “calling time on the Tory market experiment”, why would you think that party reflects your views? And if Labour doesn’t want either of those people to vote for it, whose vote is it after?
- Dan Hodges

Full article

For those idiots that subscribe to the view that the message is unimportant and that the Messenger is all that matters please note that this article is in The Daily Telegraph, so avoid it and stick with your dogma.



A Labour government that promoted the values that led to the formation of the NHS would have those oh so wonderful free market types shitting their pants and wondering where their next taxpayer subsidised free meal was coming from.

Labour would be damned if it did and damned if it didn't by the venal right wing press and media.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Back in the 1960s the SUN was a working mans paper in the 1970s(?) it was bought by Rupert Murdoch. It then began to poison the political thoughts of its readers.

It seems that Trinity Mirror that produces the Daily Mirror also produces the Sunday Mail. :'(
Edited by C-too, Jan 31 2015, 07:15 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

The first imperative of the State has nothing to do with serving the people ........
....... it is the 'control the media'.

They used to ban books, burn them ..... now they own the publishers.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply