General Election June 8th

Who will you vote for at the General Election?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 189 28.8%
  • Labour

    Votes: 366 55.8%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 37 5.6%
  • SNP

    Votes: 8 1.2%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 23 3.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 33 5.0%

  • Total voters
    656
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep. i also lived through the seventies and experienced them first hand. It had it's good & it's bad points.
But funny that you try to pull me up on my selective memory, but then only select to address a few of the points i've made.

So you not gonna dispute the damage that Labour did to engineering in Manchester?

Also so whilst throwing the odd bone to a few of the low paid, i take it you have no problem then of Labour targeting the rest of the people in the temp worker/contractor/agency/self-employed sector, just to appease their ideology and their mates in the unions?

Lets look at what you wrote

"Not sure what point you are trying to make with this other than that you seem to want Labour to return us to the 'Golden Age' of the 70's.
I remember those times, mass strikes, power cuts, 3 day weeks, crap engineering & manufacturing, and rubbish laying around the streets uncollected.

Also 'benevolent employers who had things like health departments and sports clubs'; the firms that i know that once had these sort of things were places like GEC/Metrovicks, British Aerospace (Chadderton), Mather & Platt's and other similiar Engineering companies. These all disappeared under Labour's watch and if you look at it as a whole, Labour destroyed more engineering in Manchester than Maggie & the Luftwaffe did put together."

mass strikes - early 70s - tory, winter of discontent - Labour.
power cuts - On December 13 Mr Heath addressed the nation. "As prime minister I want to speak to you plainly about the grave emergency now facing our country," he said. "We are asking you to cut down to the absolute minimum the use of electricity in your homes." He announced the imposition of a "three-day week" from January 1 for all industries and a 10.30pm shutdown for television except at Christmas. "In terms of comfort we shall have a harder Christmas than we have known since the war," Heath gloomily declared.
It was the tories
3 days weeks - as above, it was the tories.
crap engineering & manufacturing - both
rubbish laying around the streets - Labour

GEC/Metrovicks - In 1960 the rivalry that had continued between Metrovick and BTH was eventually ended when the AEI management decided to rid themselves of both brands and conduct all their busines under the brand AEI. Seven years later AEI was purchased by GEC which changed its name to Marconi plc in 1999. - nothing to do with labour.

British Aerospace (Chadderton) - The site was closed in 2012, after BAE announced that it was no longer viable to operate from the site. At the time, BAE had 200 employees at the site. 160 employees, and ongoing work at the site, were transferred to Samlesbury Aerodrome - under the tories.

Mather & Platt's - it continues as a food processing and packaging business, trading as M & P Engineering in Trafford Park, Manchester - nothing to do with Labour.

Labour destroyed more engineering in Manchester than Maggie & the Luftwaffe did put together. - quite clearly bollocks.

I would be quite happy for them to have protection from the ideology of austerity in which the tories consistently lie that it is good for the people of Britain just to appease their mates who own these firms and throw millions at the tories to prop them up and to be at their beck and call for their benefit.
 
You telling me she's actually trying to engineer a victory by a certain number of seats?Come on mate.
The danger for her is that the Tories have invested everything in this campaign in her character and personality. Public opinion on that can change quickly with potential huge shifts in the polls.

Perhaps not trying to win by just 60 -70 seats, but I dont think she would be unhappy if that's how it turns out.
 
Are you simply mistaken or deliberately trying to mislead people? I can only assume the latter, since you've edited the quote.

The actual line is "(it should be) as hard for children to access violent and degrading pornography online as it is in the high street."

Unless you want your kids freely accessing violent and degrading porn, I can't see anyone having a problem with this.

You can't because you don't understand the issue properly.

Please explain, in as technical terms as you wish, how this is possible to achieve
 
Ukip voters will boost Tory votes IMHO, the pundits probably have this one right it's going to be a big Tory win. I would like to see a new party emerge that places working class interests front and centre.
That's Labour's problem. "For the many not the few" (with its echo of post Peterloo revolutionary fervour) doesn't work if too many consider themselves part of the few (and have no problem with vast disparity of wealth). Plus the Tories have done an awful lot of work to make sure the poor are kept on the move and don't vote, the bedroom tax, benefit cap, no housing benefit for young people.



Why's it a race to the bottom?
It may come as a shock to you but not every person who is a temporary worker, contractor or self-employed is on a minimum wage equivalent.
Things like holiday/maternity/paternity/sick pay are factored into the hourly rates on offer.
And a lot of issues you say that it stores up was caused by Labour themselves; things like when Gordon Brown decided to rob blind the private pension schemes that were considered some of the best in the world at the time.

The main problem for me is that Labour are hell bent on trying to remove the 'choice' of how people supply their labour to firms & businesses, and also how they sort out their finances. With their latest manifesto Labour are, as usual, purposefully trying to force as many people as possible onto PAYE & NI type employment onto temporary worker/contractor/self-employed sector, by introducing punitive taxes, draconian red tape which actually restrict the amount of work available to them.

The Labour party & unions absolutely despise these type of workers, so it's even more galling is they are trying to dress it up as increasing 'workers rights' and that they are doing us a favour, when in fact they've led a crusade against them for probably the last 2 decades.
So someone goes for a well paid, highly qualified job, then finds they are supposed to get it by becoming self employed by setting up their own company and "contracting" so the "employer" can avoid National Insurance. It beggars belief that people would prefer that sort of "choice" to a proper job under a benevolent employer (or at least one where the unions could negotiate some of that benevolence). You really have no idea of how much you now take for granted - all the
"Things like holiday/maternity/paternity/sick pay" - came about because of the unions. Trade Unions - the people that gave you the weekend.

As for rubbish lying uncollected in the 70s, just wow. A few places with mounds of rubbish for a few weeks. Unlike now, where thanks to the Tories' ideological austerity cuts to councils, uncollected rubbish is everywhere (maybe not in Surrey thanks to May's secret corrupt deal with the Tory council).
 
Last edited:
You can't because you don't understand the issue properly.

Please explain, in as technical terms as you wish, how this is possible to achieve

You have no idea what I do and do not understand.

The point is not to what degree this is technically possible (we might not be able to eliminate it, but we could make it "more difficult" as the quote suggests). It is that the Tory's aspirations are perfectly reasonable in this respect, whereas you chose to misquote them in order to try to suggest they were going to do something completely unreasonable. Given the rest of your posts on this thread, that's not surprising I guess.
 
Last edited:
We don't often agree on here but that's a disgrace. If your grandparents had pissed their lives away, they'd have paid nothing.

As I read the current situation, you can pass a £425k estate on without incurring a penny of Inheritance Tax. Double that to £850k for a married couple. But if one of you is stricken by dementia, that same estate could get robbed of £750k. In effect they've simultaneously ramped up death tax on the poorly while reducing it for the healthy.

How the fcuk is this "Tories moving to the left"? It stinks and I'm amazed there hasn't been a bigger backlash.

Anyway, they have lost my vote. That'll teach the bastards.

Cheers BF.
My grandad worked for the government one way or another all his life before parkinsons did him in. He even had a place in a bunker assigned for him if a bomb was dropped. My Gran spent the last 30 years of her life raising money for charity, baking cakes and selling them at the local baths. In the end they were both shit on by the country they'd supported all their lives.
 
Getting interesting now.

All this stuff about not having to sell your house while your partner/spouse lives there. Seems like there's a catch that hasn't been mentioned yet. To do that you'll need to buy an insurance policy that pays the fees and the premium will be reclaimed on the sale of the property. They've been taking to the Insurance industry about this for a while.

But the insurer will have a lien on the property and can demand a quick sale, meaning the price will be lower than it would be if the family wanted to take their time to get the best price. All they're interested in is getting their premium back.

And to cap it all, because Osborne fucked them over on annuities, the insurance companies have been given assurances that's there will be no cap on the premiums.

The logical conclusion is that we'll all have to have private insurance to pay for care. Yet another winner for the handfull of people that run the insurance industry in this country.
 
Who would have thought it, MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn in the 90s due to his links to one of the IRA Balcombe Street gang who waged a murderous bombing campaign across south east England, they also opened a file on his links to the bomb maker who constructed the Regents Park and Hyde Park devices
Clearly a man to run the country, forward with Jeremy, For The Many, Not The Few
 
Who would have thought it, MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn in the 90s due to his links to one of the IRA Balcombe Street gang who waged a murderous bombing campaign across south east England, they also opened a file on his links to the bomb maker who constructed the Regents Park and Hyde Park devices
Clearly a man to run the country, forward with Jeremy, For The Many, Not The Few

But he is a pacifist. Isn't he? Or someone told me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.