Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy."  how can an opposition not agree to an election? And I doubt he will step aside, he doesn't care about the party | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is not the end, its not even the beginning of the end.. It is perhaps the end of the beginning "I heard that quote just this morning! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. how can an opposition not agree to an election?"When it's not in their interests to hold one. Particularly when the there's a strong case to be made that May is doing this for herself and the Tory party, not for the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. how can an opposition not agree to an election?
When it's not in their interests to hold one. Particularly when the there's a strong case to be made that May is doing this for herself and the Tory party, not for the country. " why is it not in their interests to hold one? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. how can an opposition not agree to an election?
When it's not in their interests to hold one. Particularly when the there's a strong case to be made that May is doing this for herself and the Tory party, not for the country.
why is it not in their interests to hold one?"I'm really sure, if you think very hard, you can work this one out on your own. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. how can an opposition not agree to an election?
When it's not in their interests to hold one. Particularly when the there's a strong case to be made that May is doing this for herself and the Tory party, not for the country.
why is it not in their interests to hold one?
I'm really sure, if you think very hard, you can work this one out on your own. "So it is not in their interests to hold one because they cannot win because they are a bunch of clueless idiots? And how can you say that May is doing this for the party and not for the country? If the Tories get in then it is what the country wants and is therefore for the country. Duh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. how can an opposition not agree to an election?
When it's not in their interests to hold one. Particularly when the there's a strong case to be made that May is doing this for herself and the Tory party, not for the country.
why is it not in their interests to hold one?
I'm really sure, if you think very hard, you can work this one out on your own.
So it is not in their interests to hold one because they cannot win because they are a bunch of clueless idiots? And how can you say that May is doing this for the party and not for the country? If the Tories get in then it is what the country wants and is therefore for the country. Duh"See, you did know! Have a biscuit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. how can an opposition not agree to an election?
When it's not in their interests to hold one. Particularly when the there's a strong case to be made that May is doing this for herself and the Tory party, not for the country.
why is it not in their interests to hold one?
I'm really sure, if you think very hard, you can work this one out on your own.
So it is not in their interests to hold one because they cannot win because they are a bunch of clueless idiots? And how can you say that May is doing this for the party and not for the country? If the Tories get in then it is what the country wants and is therefore for the country. Duh"Probably beyond a one dimensional thought process, but it is called political strategy. Had Labour not agreed to hold the election then the Conservatives would have had to either soldier on with a risk of becoming a minority government either after the fraud investigations, or as a consequence of future by-elections. Alternatively PM May would have been forced to call a vote of no confidence in her own Govt. None of the above would be good for the Conservatives. Labour (or Corbyn specifically) agreeing to this election in the way that he did was the dumbest political strategy ever perpetrated by a political party in this country for generations. Their only consequences to this strategy will be disaster. The Conservatives have avoided embarrassment and the fraud investigation will probably not make headlines for more than a day as that particular election would have been nullified by the up coming one. That said, I think most people will be glad to see the back of Corbyn and hopefully a more charismatic leader emerges. It is entirely possible that Labour could mount a credible challenge if they ditch Corbyn and his team now and appoint a more capable leader and cabinet in very short order. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy." The problem is for every good policy they have, they have two awful ones. On the good side, Ed Milliband had a more realistic projection of how quickly the deficit could be cut (with hindsight) and had some good ideas about primary age childcare and I'd like a GP appointment within 2 days rather than the current 2 weeks. But for all that he had a bunch of shit based on ideology not practical relevance. Nobody gives a flying fuck about having a "people-led constitutional convention". The house of lords is just fine, the last fucking most people want is a system more like america. Companies don't need to publish details of their gender pay gap because there isn't one, rent controls just lead to sub-standard housing (see: New York), it's impossible for the state to guarantee a job for every young person without being communist, energy prices are due to a dysfunctional regulation structure that prevents competition, capping prices doesn't address this. So in other words he's great at spending money but shit at understanding where it comes from. His grasp of economics is frankly embarrassing. Oh and Ed's policies were amazing compared to what's on offer from Labour now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the Tories get in then it is what the country wants and is therefore for the country. Duh" Duh indeed. By this logic we could have elections every month, and the winning party would be the winning party so that'd be fine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the Tories get in then it is what the country wants and is therefore for the country. Duh Duh indeed. By this logic we could have elections every month, and the winning party would be the winning party so that'd be fine. " Like Switzerland | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is not the end, its not even the beginning of the end.. It is perhaps the end of the beginning
I heard that quote just this morning!". Churchill battle of Britain speech  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is not the end, its not even the beginning of the end.. It is perhaps the end of the beginning
I heard that quote just this morning!.
Churchill battle of Britain speech "Hopefully it's the end of people who want to recreate the 70's in Britain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is not the end, its not even the beginning of the end.. It is perhaps the end of the beginning
I heard that quote just this morning!.
Churchill battle of Britain speech .
Hopefully it's the end of people who want to recreate the 70's in Britain. "I preferred the 80s myself, miners strikes, wars and long long unemployment queues and everybody was on "their bike" so it was a win win unlike this nasty n02 death plague you have today!. To be fair, your all fucked and you've got nobody to blame but yourselves!!. A wise person would have made contingency plans  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is not the end, its not even the beginning of the end.. It is perhaps the end of the beginning
I heard that quote just this morning!.
Churchill battle of Britain speech .
Hopefully it's the end of people who want to recreate the 70's in Britain. I preferred the 80s myself, miners strikes, wars and long long unemployment queues and everybody was on "their bike" so it was a win win unlike this nasty n02 death plague you have today!.
To be fair, your all fucked and you've got nobody to blame but yourselves!!.
A wise person would have made contingency plans
"Messes take time to clear and sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. The problem is for every good policy they have, they have two awful ones. On the good side, Ed Milliband had a more realistic projection of how quickly the deficit could be cut (with hindsight) and had some good ideas about primary age childcare and I'd like a GP appointment within 2 days rather than the current 2 weeks. But for all that he had a bunch of shit based on ideology not practical relevance. Nobody gives a flying fuck about having a "people-led constitutional convention". The house of lords is just fine, the last fucking most people want is a system more like america. Companies don't need to publish details of their gender pay gap because there isn't one, rent controls just lead to sub-standard housing (see: New York), it's impossible for the state to guarantee a job for every young person without being communist, energy prices are due to a dysfunctional regulation structure that prevents competition, capping prices doesn't address this. So in other words he's great at spending money but shit at understanding where it comes from. His grasp of economics is frankly embarrassing. Oh and Ed's policies were amazing compared to what's on offer from Labour now. " Its obviously you who has no understanding of economics. Labour has some great ideas, the problem is people are easily brainwashed by the aristocracy via a right wing media into believing that Labour are the bad guys when the truth is the tories are the bad guys who if given a big majority will drive living standards down through the floor and privatise healthcare in this country leaving only the rich with access to healthcare, the rest of us who are the majority will be left to rot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. The problem is for every good policy they have, they have two awful ones. On the good side, Ed Milliband had a more realistic projection of how quickly the deficit could be cut (with hindsight) and had some good ideas about primary age childcare and I'd like a GP appointment within 2 days rather than the current 2 weeks. But for all that he had a bunch of shit based on ideology not practical relevance. Nobody gives a flying fuck about having a "people-led constitutional convention". The house of lords is just fine, the last fucking most people want is a system more like america. Companies don't need to publish details of their gender pay gap because there isn't one, rent controls just lead to sub-standard housing (see: New York), it's impossible for the state to guarantee a job for every young person without being communist, energy prices are due to a dysfunctional regulation structure that prevents competition, capping prices doesn't address this. So in other words he's great at spending money but shit at understanding where it comes from. His grasp of economics is frankly embarrassing. Oh and Ed's policies were amazing compared to what's on offer from Labour now. Its obviously you who has no understanding of economics. Labour has some great ideas, the problem is people are easily brainwashed by the aristocracy via a right wing media into believing that Labour are the bad guys when the truth is the tories are the bad guys who if given a big majority will drive living standards down through the floor and privatise healthcare in this country leaving only the rich with access to healthcare, the rest of us who are the majority will be left to rot. " Ok, let's discuss economics then. What makes economies grow in a manner that raises living standards for the majority of people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is not the end, its not even the beginning of the end.. It is perhaps the end of the beginning
I heard that quote just this morning!.
Churchill battle of Britain speech "I think it was actually his speech following the Second Battle of El-Aamein. His Battle of Britain speech or at least the one most associated with it was of course "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed to so few by so many." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. The problem is for every good policy they have, they have two awful ones. On the good side, Ed Milliband had a more realistic projection of how quickly the deficit could be cut (with hindsight) and had some good ideas about primary age childcare and I'd like a GP appointment within 2 days rather than the current 2 weeks. But for all that he had a bunch of shit based on ideology not practical relevance. Nobody gives a flying fuck about having a "people-led constitutional convention". The house of lords is just fine, the last fucking most people want is a system more like america. Companies don't need to publish details of their gender pay gap because there isn't one, rent controls just lead to sub-standard housing (see: New York), it's impossible for the state to guarantee a job for every young person without being communist, energy prices are due to a dysfunctional regulation structure that prevents competition, capping prices doesn't address this. So in other words he's great at spending money but shit at understanding where it comes from. His grasp of economics is frankly embarrassing. Oh and Ed's policies were amazing compared to what's on offer from Labour now. Its obviously you who has no understanding of economics. Labour has some great ideas, the problem is people are easily brainwashed by the aristocracy via a right wing media into believing that Labour are the bad guys when the truth is the tories are the bad guys who if given a big majority will drive living standards down through the floor and privatise healthcare in this country leaving only the rich with access to healthcare, the rest of us who are the majority will be left to rot. Ok, let's discuss economics then. What makes economies grow in a manner that raises living standards for the majority of people? "
If you want to discuss economics fine lets go for it. Those of you on the right have a very limited understanding of the subject unfortunately. As for making life better for the majority of people, well you are not going to do it with tory free market economics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Diane Abbot is one of the front runners to be leader. She has had a private poll done, and apparently from the 300,000 party members 80 Million of them would vote for her." She's just realised a statement with the new bank holiday dates 31st Feb 47th may 32nd August 85th December She's going viral again with the statement of the net losses of labour
"I think it was about 50"
Erm....it's was 125
"Well the last time I looked it was 100"
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Diane Abbot is one of the front runners to be leader. She has had a private poll done, and apparently from the 300,000 party members 80 Million of them would vote for her." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. The problem is for every good policy they have, they have two awful ones. On the good side, Ed Milliband had a more realistic projection of how quickly the deficit could be cut (with hindsight) and had some good ideas about primary age childcare and I'd like a GP appointment within 2 days rather than the current 2 weeks. But for all that he had a bunch of shit based on ideology not practical relevance. Nobody gives a flying fuck about having a "people-led constitutional convention". The house of lords is just fine, the last fucking most people want is a system more like america. Companies don't need to publish details of their gender pay gap because there isn't one, rent controls just lead to sub-standard housing (see: New York), it's impossible for the state to guarantee a job for every young person without being communist, energy prices are due to a dysfunctional regulation structure that prevents competition, capping prices doesn't address this. So in other words he's great at spending money but shit at understanding where it comes from. His grasp of economics is frankly embarrassing. Oh and Ed's policies were amazing compared to what's on offer from Labour now. Its obviously you who has no understanding of economics. Labour has some great ideas, the problem is people are easily brainwashed by the aristocracy via a right wing media into believing that Labour are the bad guys when the truth is the tories are the bad guys who if given a big majority will drive living standards down through the floor and privatise healthcare in this country leaving only the rich with access to healthcare, the rest of us who are the majority will be left to rot. Ok, let's discuss economics then. What makes economies grow in a manner that raises living standards for the majority of people?
If you want to discuss economics fine lets go for it. Those of you on the right have a very limited understanding of the subject unfortunately. As for making life better for the majority of people, well you are not going to do it with tory free market economics."Care to answer the question now? What is the root cause of sustainable economic growth that actually raises living standards as opposed to artificially inflating GDP? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. The problem is for every good policy they have, they have two awful ones. On the good side, Ed Milliband had a more realistic projection of how quickly the deficit could be cut (with hindsight) and had some good ideas about primary age childcare and I'd like a GP appointment within 2 days rather than the current 2 weeks. But for all that he had a bunch of shit based on ideology not practical relevance. Nobody gives a flying fuck about having a "people-led constitutional convention". The house of lords is just fine, the last fucking most people want is a system more like america. Companies don't need to publish details of their gender pay gap because there isn't one, rent controls just lead to sub-standard housing (see: New York), it's impossible for the state to guarantee a job for every young person without being communist, energy prices are due to a dysfunctional regulation structure that prevents competition, capping prices doesn't address this. So in other words he's great at spending money but shit at understanding where it comes from. His grasp of economics is frankly embarrassing. Oh and Ed's policies were amazing compared to what's on offer from Labour now. Its obviously you who has no understanding of economics. Labour has some great ideas, the problem is people are easily brainwashed by the aristocracy via a right wing media into believing that Labour are the bad guys when the truth is the tories are the bad guys who if given a big majority will drive living standards down through the floor and privatise healthcare in this country leaving only the rich with access to healthcare, the rest of us who are the majority will be left to rot. Ok, let's discuss economics then. What makes economies grow in a manner that raises living standards for the majority of people?
If you want to discuss economics fine lets go for it. Those of you on the right have a very limited understanding of the subject unfortunately. As for making life better for the majority of people, well you are not going to do it with tory free market economics.
Care to answer the question now? What is the root cause of sustainable economic growth that actually raises living standards as opposed to artificially inflating GDP? "I would guess technological inovation is the root cause of growth .  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Its obviously you who has no understanding of economics. Labour has some great ideas, the problem is people are easily brainwashed by the aristocracy via a right wing media into believing that Labour are the bad guys when the truth is the tories are the bad guys who if given a big majority will drive living standards down through the floor and privatise healthcare in this country leaving only the rich with access to healthcare, the rest of us who are the majority will be left to rot. Ok, let's discuss economics then. What makes economies grow in a manner that raises living standards for the majority of people?
If you want to discuss economics fine lets go for it. Those of you on the right have a very limited understanding of the subject unfortunately. As for making life better for the majority of people, well you are not going to do it with tory free market economics.
Care to answer the question now? What is the root cause of sustainable economic growth that actually raises living standards as opposed to artificially inflating GDP? I would guess technological inovation is the root cause of growth . "Let's allow our friend from dudley to explain it since i have no understanding of economics | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. The problem is for every good policy they have, they have two awful ones. On the good side, Ed Milliband had a more realistic projection of how quickly the deficit could be cut (with hindsight) and had some good ideas about primary age childcare and I'd like a GP appointment within 2 days rather than the current 2 weeks. But for all that he had a bunch of shit based on ideology not practical relevance. Nobody gives a flying fuck about having a "people-led constitutional convention". The house of lords is just fine, the last fucking most people want is a system more like america. Companies don't need to publish details of their gender pay gap because there isn't one, rent controls just lead to sub-standard housing (see: New York), it's impossible for the state to guarantee a job for every young person without being communist, energy prices are due to a dysfunctional regulation structure that prevents competition, capping prices doesn't address this. So in other words he's great at spending money but shit at understanding where it comes from. His grasp of economics is frankly embarrassing. Oh and Ed's policies were amazing compared to what's on offer from Labour now. Its obviously you who has no understanding of economics. Labour has some great ideas, the problem is people are easily brainwashed by the aristocracy via a right wing media into believing that Labour are the bad guys when the truth is the tories are the bad guys who if given a big majority will drive living standards down through the floor and privatise healthcare in this country leaving only the rich with access to healthcare, the rest of us who are the majority will be left to rot. Ok, let's discuss economics then. What makes economies grow in a manner that raises living standards for the majority of people?
If you want to discuss economics fine lets go for it. Those of you on the right have a very limited understanding of the subject unfortunately. As for making life better for the majority of people, well you are not going to do it with tory free market economics.
Care to answer the question now? What is the root cause of sustainable economic growth that actually raises living standards as opposed to artificially inflating GDP? I would guess technological inovation is the root cause of growth . ". I would go one step further and say it's actually innovation in energy that drives economics! We didnt really go anywhere fast until we dug coal up and then the steam engine revolutionised digging coal up and we "took off". In a bio sphere, theres no such thing as something for nothing, driving down prices relies on "freeing up" time and that comes from getting cheaper and cheaper energy. The splitting of the atom changed everything except mans mode of thinking | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. The problem is for every good policy they have, they have two awful ones. On the good side, Ed Milliband had a more realistic projection of how quickly the deficit could be cut (with hindsight) and had some good ideas about primary age childcare and I'd like a GP appointment within 2 days rather than the current 2 weeks. But for all that he had a bunch of shit based on ideology not practical relevance. Nobody gives a flying fuck about having a "people-led constitutional convention". The house of lords is just fine, the last fucking most people want is a system more like america. Companies don't need to publish details of their gender pay gap because there isn't one, rent controls just lead to sub-standard housing (see: New York), it's impossible for the state to guarantee a job for every young person without being communist, energy prices are due to a dysfunctional regulation structure that prevents competition, capping prices doesn't address this. So in other words he's great at spending money but shit at understanding where it comes from. His grasp of economics is frankly embarrassing. Oh and Ed's policies were amazing compared to what's on offer from Labour now. Its obviously you who has no understanding of economics. Labour has some great ideas, the problem is people are easily brainwashed by the aristocracy via a right wing media into believing that Labour are the bad guys when the truth is the tories are the bad guys who if given a big majority will drive living standards down through the floor and privatise healthcare in this country leaving only the rich with access to healthcare, the rest of us who are the majority will be left to rot. Ok, let's discuss economics then. What makes economies grow in a manner that raises living standards for the majority of people?
If you want to discuss economics fine lets go for it. Those of you on the right have a very limited understanding of the subject unfortunately. As for making life better for the majority of people, well you are not going to do it with tory free market economics.
Care to answer the question now? What is the root cause of sustainable economic growth that actually raises living standards as opposed to artificially inflating GDP? I would guess technological inovation is the root cause of growth . .
I would go one step further and say it's actually innovation in energy that drives economics!
We didnt really go anywhere fast until we dug coal up and then the steam engine revolutionised digging coal up and we "took off".
In a bio sphere, theres no such thing as something for nothing, driving down prices relies on "freeing up" time and that comes from getting cheaper and cheaper energy.
The splitting of the atom changed everything except mans mode of thinking"Limitless clean free energy should be the goal of governments.We need investment in fusion.Then a new revolution can begin. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. how can an opposition not agree to an election?
When it's not in their interests to hold one. Particularly when the there's a strong case to be made that May is doing this for herself and the Tory party, not for the country.
why is it not in their interests to hold one?"Because they have absolutely no chance of winning right now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. how can an opposition not agree to an election?
When it's not in their interests to hold one. Particularly when the there's a strong case to be made that May is doing this for herself and the Tory party, not for the country.
why is it not in their interests to hold one?
I'm really sure, if you think very hard, you can work this one out on your own.
So it is not in their interests to hold one because they cannot win because they are a bunch of clueless idiots? And how can you say that May is doing this for the party and not for the country? If the Tories get in then it is what the country wants and is therefore for the country. Duh"I think the Conservatives will win but that's got more to do with not wanting Corbyn's brand of Labour rather than wanting May's brand of Conservative. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. how can an opposition not agree to an election?
When it's not in their interests to hold one. Particularly when the there's a strong case to be made that May is doing this for herself and the Tory party, not for the country.
why is it not in their interests to hold one?
Because they have absolutely no chance of winning right now."Why not? If they have no chance of winning right now then what is the point of them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. how can an opposition not agree to an election?
When it's not in their interests to hold one. Particularly when the there's a strong case to be made that May is doing this for herself and the Tory party, not for the country.
why is it not in their interests to hold one?
I'm really sure, if you think very hard, you can work this one out on your own.
So it is not in their interests to hold one because they cannot win because they are a bunch of clueless idiots? And how can you say that May is doing this for the party and not for the country? If the Tories get in then it is what the country wants and is therefore for the country. Duh
I think the Conservatives will win but that's got more to do with not wanting Corbyn's brand of Labour rather than wanting May's brand of Conservative."Or Blairs or Browns or Millibands? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. how can an opposition not agree to an election?
When it's not in their interests to hold one. Particularly when the there's a strong case to be made that May is doing this for herself and the Tory party, not for the country.
why is it not in their interests to hold one?
I'm really sure, if you think very hard, you can work this one out on your own.
So it is not in their interests to hold one because they cannot win because they are a bunch of clueless idiots? And how can you say that May is doing this for the party and not for the country? If the Tories get in then it is what the country wants and is therefore for the country. Duh
Probably beyond a one dimensional thought process, but it is called political strategy.
Had Labour not agreed to hold the election then the Conservatives would have had to either soldier on with a risk of becoming a minority government either after the fraud investigations, or as a consequence of future by-elections. Alternatively PM May would have been forced to call a vote of no confidence in her own Govt. None of the above would be good for the Conservatives.
Labour (or Corbyn specifically) agreeing to this election in the way that he did was the dumbest political strategy ever perpetrated by a political party in this country for generations. Their only consequences to this strategy will be disaster. The Conservatives have avoided embarrassment and the fraud investigation will probably not make headlines for more than a day as that particular election would have been nullified by the up coming one.
That said, I think most people will be glad to see the back of Corbyn and hopefully a more charismatic leader emerges. It is entirely possible that Labour could mount a credible challenge if they ditch Corbyn and his team now and appoint a more capable leader and cabinet in very short order."That's a good analysis. Unfortunately I think there is more than a likely chance that Corbyn will cling on to the Labour leadership and continue to provide ineffectual and strategically poor opposition regardless of how badly Labour do in June. He didn't step down when 75% of his own parliamentary party voted against him, why will he step down just because he ends up with less seats after June than now. Already Corbynistas are arguing that the Labour vote is actually up on 2012 (last time current local elections were held) and Labour losses are due to UKIPers voting Tory. They are actually deluding themselves and some seriously believe that the great Labour come back has already started. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. how can an opposition not agree to an election?
When it's not in their interests to hold one. Particularly when the there's a strong case to be made that May is doing this for herself and the Tory party, not for the country.
why is it not in their interests to hold one?
I'm really sure, if you think very hard, you can work this one out on your own.
So it is not in their interests to hold one because they cannot win because they are a bunch of clueless idiots? And how can you say that May is doing this for the party and not for the country? If the Tories get in then it is what the country wants and is therefore for the country. Duh
I think the Conservatives will win but that's got more to do with not wanting Corbyn's brand of Labour rather than wanting May's brand of Conservative.
Or Blairs or Browns or Millibands?"Blair's brand of labour was spot on with the electorate as i remember. Everyone since then has deviated further and further from the center ground. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. how can an opposition not agree to an election?
When it's not in their interests to hold one. Particularly when the there's a strong case to be made that May is doing this for herself and the Tory party, not for the country.
why is it not in their interests to hold one?
I'm really sure, if you think very hard, you can work this one out on your own.
So it is not in their interests to hold one because they cannot win because they are a bunch of clueless idiots? And how can you say that May is doing this for the party and not for the country? If the Tories get in then it is what the country wants and is therefore for the country. Duh
I think the Conservatives will win but that's got more to do with not wanting Corbyn's brand of Labour rather than wanting May's brand of Conservative.
Or Blairs or Browns or Millibands?
Blair's brand of labour was spot on with the electorate as i remember. Everyone since then has deviated further and further from the center ground. "If Blair had stayed on as PM until the election, he too would have lost. People had realised by then that whetever Blair's brand was it was bollocks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He loves being in opposition and not carrying ultimate accountability." People that describe themselves as "progressive" are dissatisfied with the way things are. They specialise in knowing what's wrong with the world but have very few credible ideas on how to make it better. I've never heard Corbyn say anything that hasn't already been tried and failed in another country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He won't own the result of the General election but will step aside for another hard left leadership contender. When Labour or Conservative parties give up the centre ground they lose." I hope for the sake of the country you are wrong. When Theresa May says she isn't "taking anything for granted" you can be sure that means she thinks the election is in the bag. Doesn't bring out the best in politicians. I haven't heard her say anything remotely attractive about what benefits she will bestow if we grace her with our vote? She won't even keep to promises her party made at the last fecking election!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He won't own the result of the General election but will step aside for another hard left leadership contender. When Labour or Conservative parties give up the centre ground they lose. I hope for the sake of the country you are wrong. When Theresa May says she isn't "taking anything for granted" you can be sure that means she thinks the election is in the bag. Doesn't bring out the best in politicians. I haven't heard her say anything remotely attractive about what benefits she will bestow if we grace her with our vote? She won't even keep to promises her party made at the last fecking election!!! "I can't disagree. She is being efficient in a mercy killing  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He won't own the result of the General election but will step aside for another hard left leadership contender. When Labour or Conservative parties give up the centre ground they lose. I hope for the sake of the country you are wrong. When Theresa May says she isn't "taking anything for granted" you can be sure that means she thinks the election is in the bag. Doesn't bring out the best in politicians. I haven't heard her say anything remotely attractive about what benefits she will bestow if we grace her with our vote? She won't even keep to promises her party made at the last fecking election!!!
I can't disagree. She is being efficient in a mercy killing "I mean i don't believe any party will deliver more than 60% of what they promise but at least lie to me a little so i can have a few months of hope. Her election pledge is basically "we won't raise taxes as much as labour will". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Corbyn will continue to cling to the fact that he won the Labour leadership with a large mandate - and will continue to fail to understand how irrelevant that is if he, and labour polices, are not popular with the electorate. It's a numbers thing. 500,000 Labour party members, while perhaps an impressive number, is insignificant compared with millions and millions of voters. I see that the Labour Party are going to ensure that they 'get their message across' over the next four weeks. Again, they really are failing to appreciate that getting the message out there isn't the problem. It's the message that's the problem. " It's the problem with ideologues. When you are convinced you have the perfect system, but results don't follow then the only logical answer is that someone is sabotaging the system. So they spend all day debating who is sabotaging the system (the right-wing BBC, the russians, the elites or illuminati) instead of ever questioning their own system of beliefs (which have been tried and failed many times in many countries). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. The problem is for every good policy they have, they have two awful ones. On the good side, Ed Milliband had a more realistic projection of how quickly the deficit could be cut (with hindsight) and had some good ideas about primary age childcare and I'd like a GP appointment within 2 days rather than the current 2 weeks. But for all that he had a bunch of shit based on ideology not practical relevance. Nobody gives a flying fuck about having a "people-led constitutional convention". The house of lords is just fine, the last fucking most people want is a system more like america. Companies don't need to publish details of their gender pay gap because there isn't one, rent controls just lead to sub-standard housing (see: New York), it's impossible for the state to guarantee a job for every young person without being communist, energy prices are due to a dysfunctional regulation structure that prevents competition, capping prices doesn't address this. So in other words he's great at spending money but shit at understanding where it comes from. His grasp of economics is frankly embarrassing. Oh and Ed's policies were amazing compared to what's on offer from Labour now. Its obviously you who has no understanding of economics. Labour has some great ideas, the problem is people are easily brainwashed by the aristocracy via a right wing media into believing that Labour are the bad guys when the truth is the tories are the bad guys who if given a big majority will drive living standards down through the floor and privatise healthcare in this country leaving only the rich with access to healthcare, the rest of us who are the majority will be left to rot. Ok, let's discuss economics then. What makes economies grow in a manner that raises living standards for the majority of people?
If you want to discuss economics fine lets go for it. Those of you on the right have a very limited understanding of the subject unfortunately. As for making life better for the majority of people, well you are not going to do it with tory free market economics.
Care to answer the question now? What is the root cause of sustainable economic growth that actually raises living standards as opposed to artificially inflating GDP? "Still looking forward to the answer to this question from our resident economics expert... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. The problem is for every good policy they have, they have two awful ones. On the good side, Ed Milliband had a more realistic projection of how quickly the deficit could be cut (with hindsight) and had some good ideas about primary age childcare and I'd like a GP appointment within 2 days rather than the current 2 weeks. But for all that he had a bunch of shit based on ideology not practical relevance. Nobody gives a flying fuck about having a "people-led constitutional convention". The house of lords is just fine, the last fucking most people want is a system more like america. Companies don't need to publish details of their gender pay gap because there isn't one, rent controls just lead to sub-standard housing (see: New York), it's impossible for the state to guarantee a job for every young person without being communist, energy prices are due to a dysfunctional regulation structure that prevents competition, capping prices doesn't address this. So in other words he's great at spending money but shit at understanding where it comes from. His grasp of economics is frankly embarrassing. Oh and Ed's policies were amazing compared to what's on offer from Labour now. Its obviously you who has no understanding of economics. Labour has some great ideas, the problem is people are easily brainwashed by the aristocracy via a right wing media into believing that Labour are the bad guys when the truth is the tories are the bad guys who if given a big majority will drive living standards down through the floor and privatise healthcare in this country leaving only the rich with access to healthcare, the rest of us who are the majority will be left to rot. Ok, let's discuss economics then. What makes economies grow in a manner that raises living standards for the majority of people?
If you want to discuss economics fine lets go for it. Those of you on the right have a very limited understanding of the subject unfortunately. As for making life better for the majority of people, well you are not going to do it with tory free market economics.
Care to answer the question now? What is the root cause of sustainable economic growth that actually raises living standards as opposed to artificially inflating GDP?
Still looking forward to the answer to this question from our resident economics expert..."I don't know who you think our resident economic expect is but generally the following are considered indicators of general wealth. 1. A well educated population. 2. Well organised but not overly controlling government and bureaucracy. 3. A reasonable, but not totally equal, distribution of wealth. 4. Realistic chances for most individuals to increase their personal wealth. In general the more knowledge the populous is and the fairer the distribution of wealth is in a society the more wealthy that society both is and is likely to become. However it most be noted that a fair distribution of wealth is not the same think as an equal distribution of wealth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He's going to lose and he'll have to step aside for the good of the party. He should never have agreed to this election. The problem with the left is that they haven't got good strategists to manage their elections and political strategy. The problem is for every good policy they have, they have two awful ones. On the good side, Ed Milliband had a more realistic projection of how quickly the deficit could be cut (with hindsight) and had some good ideas about primary age childcare and I'd like a GP appointment within 2 days rather than the current 2 weeks. But for all that he had a bunch of shit based on ideology not practical relevance. Nobody gives a flying fuck about having a "people-led constitutional convention". The house of lords is just fine, the last fucking most people want is a system more like america. Companies don't need to publish details of their gender pay gap because there isn't one, rent controls just lead to sub-standard housing (see: New York), it's impossible for the state to guarantee a job for every young person without being communist, energy prices are due to a dysfunctional regulation structure that prevents competition, capping prices doesn't address this. So in other words he's great at spending money but shit at understanding where it comes from. His grasp of economics is frankly embarrassing. Oh and Ed's policies were amazing compared to what's on offer from Labour now. Its obviously you who has no understanding of economics. Labour has some great ideas, the problem is people are easily brainwashed by the aristocracy via a right wing media into believing that Labour are the bad guys when the truth is the tories are the bad guys who if given a big majority will drive living standards down through the floor and privatise healthcare in this country leaving only the rich with access to healthcare, the rest of us who are the majority will be left to rot. Ok, let's discuss economics then. What makes economies grow in a manner that raises living standards for the majority of people?
If you want to discuss economics fine lets go for it. Those of you on the right have a very limited understanding of the subject unfortunately. As for making life better for the majority of people, well you are not going to do it with tory free market economics.
Care to answer the question now? What is the root cause of sustainable economic growth that actually raises living standards as opposed to artificially inflating GDP?
Still looking forward to the answer to this question from our resident economics expert...
I don't know who you think our resident economic expect is but generally the following are considered indicators of general wealth.
1. A well educated population.
2. Well organised but not overly controlling government and bureaucracy.
3. A reasonable, but not totally equal, distribution of wealth.
4. Realistic chances for most individuals to increase their personal wealth.
In general the more knowledge the populous is and the fairer the distribution of wealth is in a society the more wealthy that society both is and is likely to become. However it most be noted that a fair distribution of wealth is not the same think as an equal distribution of wealth.
"It was aimed at the person from dudley who said i had "no understanding of economics", yet can't even answer the most basic question about economics themself. Since you seem interested on the subject may i direct your attention to another thread on the matter: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/632312 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is not the end, its not even the beginning of the end.. It is perhaps the end of the beginning
I heard that quote just this morning!.
Churchill battle of Britain speech "Sorry to correct you but it was Churchill after the Germans were defeated in North Africa. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
