Bluemoon labour thread.

[Skashion]

I want to live in Cloud Cuckoo Land as the reviews are excellent. Ehere might it be found and can I get a bus there from Piccadilly Gardens?

the bottom of a whisky bottle is the best way to find it i find

If it involves whisky, it can't be as good as it's cracked up to be. Can't stand whisky.

 

[Anonymous]

the bottom of a whisky bottle is the best way to find it i find

If it involves whisky, it can't be as good as it's cracked up to be. Can't stand whisky.

I thought you were strange. This just confirms it ;-)

 

[mackenzie]

If it involves whisky, it can't be as good as it's cracked up to be. Can't stand whisky.

I thought you were strange. This just confirms it ;-)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awi14wDTxNw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awi14wDTxNw</a>


When you are Sttrrrraaaaaaange!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SWP's back]

& nu-labour are continuing the theme, east coast mainline, Metronet and The Third Way in London being three that spring to mind. you seem to think that I am some right wing tory voter, and you counldnt be further from the truth, although if 5 years of tory misrule was what is required for the labour party to get back to its core values then it MIGHT be a price worth paying (although god knows what state the country would be in by then).

Labour cannot go back to its core values under this electoral system and form a government. The two are mutually-exclusive. If Labour goes back to its core values then we will have indefinite tory government. I'm surprised eighteen years of tory misrule hasn't made that abundantly clear.

For fucks sake 13 years of Labour bollocks and you still support them so some people are beyond help.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:03 am --

labours core values dont work which is why they changed them, they never would get in government again if they changed back

The problem is that the marginals haven't liked Labour's core values for a few decades now (and that's not likely to change). However, the electorate as a whole has always been to the left of Thatcherism. Those voting for something other than Thatcherism have always substantially outnumbered those voting for it. FPTP simply meant that this wasn't reflected in seats. If we had a proportional system the chances are that the Conservatives wouldn't have seen power since the 1940s and we'd have had a Labour-Liberal (Democrat) power sharing agreement.

-- Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:41 pm --

I think that the electorate have seen enough of how well the free market economy works over the last two years or so to realise the core socialist policy works best for the entire community.

How much I'd love that to be true, but, I don't think it is. The public certainly don't like unregulated casino capitalism but whether that implies that they'd go for socialism, I don't think so. Mind you, Labour's 'core values' have never been radically socialist. More social democracy. That's where I think the public mostly are; social democracy.

Total fucking bollocks as usual from you in this thread. More ENGLISH people voted Tory than Labour in the last election but that did not stop Labour gaining power once more despite the Scottish and Welsh citizens also getting a vote in their own "local" elections.

Good - you vote Labour, enjoy the next month as you will not see power for a good decade or so after next month.<br /><br />-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:04 am --<br /><br />

please dont scare me with that scenario

Yeah, screw democracy if it doesn't give you the result you want...

Was it not Kinnock who said in 93 that democracy wasn't working?

 

[maineman]

Labour cannot go back to its core values under this electoral system and form a government. The two are mutually-exclusive. If Labour goes back to its core values then we will have indefinite tory government. I'm surprised eighteen years of tory misrule hasn't made that abundantly clear.

For fucks sake 13 years of Labour bollocks and you still support them so some people are beyond help.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:03 am --

The problem is that the marginals haven't liked Labour's core values for a few decades now (and that's not likely to change). However, the electorate as a whole has always been to the left of Thatcherism. Those voting for something other than Thatcherism have always substantially outnumbered those voting for it. FPTP simply meant that this wasn't reflected in seats. If we had a proportional system the chances are that the Conservatives wouldn't have seen power since the 1940s and we'd have had a Labour-Liberal (Democrat) power sharing agreement.

-- Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:41 pm --



How much I'd love that to be true, but, I don't think it is. The public certainly don't like unregulated casino capitalism but whether that implies that they'd go for socialism, I don't think so. Mind you, Labour's 'core values' have never been radically socialist. More social democracy. That's where I think the public mostly are; social democracy.

Total fucking bollocks as usual from you in this thread. More ENGLISH people voted Tory than Labour in the last election but that did not stop Labour gaining power once more despite the Scottish and Welsh citizens also getting a vote in their own "local" elections.

Good - you vote Labour, enjoy the next month as you will not see power for a good decade or so after next month.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:04 am --

Yeah, screw democracy if it doesn't give you the result you want...

Was it not Kinnock who said in 93 that democracy wasn't working?

was it not thatcher who stated there is no such thing as society?
cameron claims hes a man of the people from where eton?
osborne as chanchellor he once famously forgot his credit card bill
hague enough said

dont forget the last tory govt
record inflation
record unemployment
the rich got richer
nom doms
manufacturing totally destroyed
education short fundrd
NHS short funded
public utillities sold off on the cheap hence the crap foriegn owned services we get today
railway privatisation where the customer pays twice, the tories made sure that ticket prices out ran the govt subsidies haha mat knows what im talking about here.


vote the twats in at leisure
suffer at length

the majority on here will be worse off under the etonian maffia
so if you vote em you deserve em
so in another 15 years time a labour govt has to try and undo more tory cuts

 

[Skashion]

Labour cannot go back to its core values under this electoral system and form a government. The two are mutually-exclusive. If Labour goes back to its core values then we will have indefinite tory government. I'm surprised eighteen years of tory misrule hasn't made that abundantly clear.

For fucks sake 13 years of Labour bollocks and you still support them so some people are beyond help.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:03 am --

The problem is that the marginals haven't liked Labour's core values for a few decades now (and that's not likely to change). However, the electorate as a whole has always been to the left of Thatcherism. Those voting for something other than Thatcherism have always substantially outnumbered those voting for it. FPTP simply meant that this wasn't reflected in seats. If we had a proportional system the chances are that the Conservatives wouldn't have seen power since the 1940s and we'd have had a Labour-Liberal (Democrat) power sharing agreement.

-- Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:41 pm --

How much I'd love that to be true, but, I don't think it is. The public certainly don't like unregulated casino capitalism but whether that implies that they'd go for socialism, I don't think so. Mind you, Labour's 'core values' have never been radically socialist. More social democracy. That's where I think the public mostly are; social democracy.

Total fucking bollocks as usual from you in this thread. More ENGLISH people voted Tory than Labour in the last election but that did not stop Labour gaining power once more despite the Scottish and Welsh citizens also getting a vote in their own "local" elections.

Good - you vote Labour, enjoy the next month as you will not see power for a good decade or so after next month.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:04 am --

Yeah, screw democracy if it doesn't give you the result you want...

Was it not Kinnock who said in 93 that democracy wasn't working?

Eighteen years of Conservative bollocks is worse than thirteen years of Labour bollocks. That's what it adds up to.

Jesus Christ, you're so retarded that you can't even read what I wrote. When more people vote Conservative than Labour it's still always LESS than those who voted for Labour and the Liberal (Democrats) combined. Go on, look back through Britain's previous elections and tell me when the tories last bested Labour and the Liberals (Democrats) combined. The fact is that if we had a proportional system the tories wouldn't get in because they would always be in a minority and the Liberal/s (Democrats) have historically been more content to join forces with Labour than the Conservatives.

Now, ladies and gentlemen who may be observing this thread. This is what we call a straw man argument: <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man</a> I hold the position that I accept any result of true democracy (where one vote equals one vote, and none are wasted, elections are not rigged, and parties have fairly equitable access to the media, and to funding). This guy responds, not to my argument - which is that true democracy must be respected whatever its outcome, with a contradictory argument or even by agreeing with it. No, instead, he quotes someone who he has mistakenly assumed I support.

Incidentally, can you find me that Kinnock quote. It's not one I can recall and I'm quite confident that you've likely removed it from its context. Something else that you can probably add to your list of debating faux pas.

 

[terryphelan]

Eighteen years of Conservative bollocks is worse than thirteen years of Labour bollocks. That's what it adds up to.

Jesus Christ, you're so retarded that you can't even read what I wrote. When more people vote Conservative than Labour it's still always LESS than those who voted for Labour and the Liberal (Democrats) combined. Go on, look back through Britain's previous elections and tell me when the tories last bested Labour and the Liberals (Democrats) combined. The fact is that if we had a proportional system the tories wouldn't get in because they would always be in a minority and the Liberal/s (Democrats) have historically been more content to join forces with Labour than the Conservatives.

Now, ladies and gentlemen who may be observing this thread. This is what we call a straw man argument: <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man</a> I hold the position that I accept any result of true democracy (where one vote equals one vote, and none are wasted, elections are not rigged, and parties have fairly equitable access to the media, and to funding). This guy responds, not to my argument - which is that true democracy must be respected whatever its outcome, with a contradictory argument or even by agreeing with it. No, instead, he quotes someone who he has mistakenly assumed I support.

Incidentally, can you find me that Kinnock quote. It's not one I can recall and I'm quite confident that you've likely removed it from its context. Something else that you can probably add to your list of debating faux pas.

Are you head of your school's debating society?

 

[Skashion]

Eighteen years of Conservative bollocks is worse than thirteen years of Labour bollocks. That's what it adds up to.

Jesus Christ, you're so retarded that you can't even read what I wrote. When more people vote Conservative than Labour it's still always LESS than those who voted for Labour and the Liberal (Democrats) combined. Go on, look back through Britain's previous elections and tell me when the tories last bested Labour and the Liberals (Democrats) combined. The fact is that if we had a proportional system the tories wouldn't get in because they would always be in a minority and the Liberal/s (Democrats) have historically been more content to join forces with Labour than the Conservatives.

Now, ladies and gentlemen who may be observing this thread. This is what we call a straw man argument: <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man</a> I hold the position that I accept any result of true democracy (where one vote equals one vote, and none are wasted, elections are not rigged, and parties have fairly equitable access to the media, and to funding). This guy responds, not to my argument - which is that true democracy must be respected whatever its outcome, with a contradictory argument or even by agreeing with it. No, instead, he quotes someone who he has mistakenly assumed I support.

Incidentally, can you find me that Kinnock quote. It's not one I can recall and I'm quite confident that you've likely removed it from its context. Something else that you can probably add to your list of debating faux pas.

Are you head of your school's debating society?

Seeing as I'm not at school at the age of 22, I'm gonna say no.

 

[SWP's back]

For fucks sake 13 years of Labour bollocks and you still support them so some people are beyond help.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:03 am --




Total fucking bollocks as usual from you in this thread. More ENGLISH people voted Tory than Labour in the last election but that did not stop Labour gaining power once more despite the Scottish and Welsh citizens also getting a vote in their own "local" elections.

Good - you vote Labour, enjoy the next month as you will not see power for a good decade or so after next month.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:04 am --




Was it not Kinnock who said in 93 that democracy wasn't working?

was it not thatcher who stated there is no such thing as society?
cameron claims hes a man of the people from where eton?
osborne as chanchellor he once famously forgot his credit card bill
hague enough said

dont forget the last tory govt
record inflation
record unemployment
the rich got richer
nom doms
manufacturing totally destroyed
education short fundrd
NHS short funded
public utillities sold off on the cheap hence the crap foriegn owned services we get today
railway privatisation where the customer pays twice, the tories made sure that ticket prices out ran the govt subsidies haha mat knows what im talking about here.


vote the twats in at leisure
suffer at length

the majority on here will be worse off under the etonian maffia
so if you vote em you deserve em
so in another 15 years time a labour govt has to try and undo more tory cuts

The sins of the father etc etc.

I would rather take a chance if change than have these pro-scum lying shit bags in charge.

I will enjoy my Tory vote and I WILL be better off.

As for Etonian mafia, ha! That is just inverse snobbery, I hope you enjoyed your comprehensive. (Also there are more public school boys on the governments bench than the Tory's - but lie all you want. The truth can get in the way sometimes).

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:21 pm --

For fucks sake 13 years of Labour bollocks and you still support them so some people are beyond help.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:03 am --



Total fucking bollocks as usual from you in this thread. More ENGLISH people voted Tory than Labour in the last election but that did not stop Labour gaining power once more despite the Scottish and Welsh citizens also getting a vote in their own "local" elections.

Good - you vote Labour, enjoy the next month as you will not see power for a good decade or so after next month.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:04 am --




Was it not Kinnock who said in 93 that democracy wasn't working?

Eighteen years of Conservative bollocks is worse than thirteen years of Labour bollocks. That's what it adds up to.

Jesus Christ, you're so retarded that you can't even read what I wrote. When more people vote Conservative than Labour it's still always LESS than those who voted for Labour and the Liberal (Democrats) combined. Go on, look back through Britain's previous elections and tell me when the tories last bested Labour and the Liberals (Democrats) combined. The fact is that if we had a proportional system the tories wouldn't get in because they would always be in a minority and the Liberal/s (Democrats) have historically been more content to join forces with Labour than the Conservatives.

Now, ladies and gentlemen who may be observing this thread. This is what we call a straw man argument: <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man</a> I hold the position that I accept any result of true democracy (where one vote equals one vote, and none are wasted, elections are not rigged, and parties have fairly equitable access to the media, and to funding). This guy responds, not to my argument - which is that true democracy must be respected whatever its outcome, with a contradictory argument or even by agreeing with it. No, instead, he quotes someone who he has mistakenly assumed I support.

Incidentally, can you find me that Kinnock quote. It's not one I can recall and I'm quite confident that you've likely removed it from its context. Something else that you can probably add to your list of debating faux pas.

Well if the Lib Dems and Labour are so pally you thick tit (I can get personal aswell after your "retarded" jibe), then they can always make one party. It is like saying Liverpool and Man City (when combining points total have consistantly beaten Man Utd over the years) - ie So fucking what? They are not one party and we have a first past the post system. Labour could have changed whatever they wanted with the 1st 2 land slides.

I watched Kinnock or one of his cronies say that on election night in '92 - you don't remember as you would have been 4 and funnily enough, not everything that has ever been said is quotable from Wiki-fucking-pedia labour lad. Personally not that arsed.

Anyway, it is all a moot point as you know full well you have lost this election before it has even begun and I for one am extremely pleased about this and non of your nasty little slurs or arguments can change that :)

Long live the free market. Socialism is the opposite of the natural forces that bring about evolution.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:22 pm --

Are you head of your school's debating society?

Seeing as I'm not at school at the age of 22, I'm gonna say no.

Just finished uni and so sure of how the world works then eh?

 

[Skashion]

was it not thatcher who stated there is no such thing as society?
cameron claims hes a man of the people from where eton?
osborne as chanchellor he once famously forgot his credit card bill
hague enough said

dont forget the last tory govt
record inflation
record unemployment
the rich got richer
nom doms
manufacturing totally destroyed
education short fundrd
NHS short funded
public utillities sold off on the cheap hence the crap foriegn owned services we get today
railway privatisation where the customer pays twice, the tories made sure that ticket prices out ran the govt subsidies haha mat knows what im talking about here.


vote the twats in at leisure
suffer at length

the majority on here will be worse off under the etonian maffia
so if you vote em you deserve em
so in another 15 years time a labour govt has to try and undo more tory cuts

The sins of the father etc etc.

I would rather take a chance if change than have these pro-scum lying shit bags in charge.

I will enjoy my Tory vote and I WILL be better off.

As for Etonian mafia, ha! That is just inverse snobbery, I hope you enjoyed your comprehensive. (Also there are more public school boys on the governments bench than the Tory's - but lie all you want. The truth can get in the way sometimes).

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:21 pm --

Eighteen years of Conservative bollocks is worse than thirteen years of Labour bollocks. That's what it adds up to.

Jesus Christ, you're so retarded that you can't even read what I wrote. When more people vote Conservative than Labour it's still always LESS than those who voted for Labour and the Liberal (Democrats) combined. Go on, look back through Britain's previous elections and tell me when the tories last bested Labour and the Liberals (Democrats) combined. The fact is that if we had a proportional system the tories wouldn't get in because they would always be in a minority and the Liberal/s (Democrats) have historically been more content to join forces with Labour than the Conservatives.

Now, ladies and gentlemen who may be observing this thread. This is what we call a straw man argument: <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man</a> I hold the position that I accept any result of true democracy (where one vote equals one vote, and none are wasted, elections are not rigged, and parties have fairly equitable access to the media, and to funding). This guy responds, not to my argument - which is that true democracy must be respected whatever its outcome, with a contradictory argument or even by agreeing with it. No, instead, he quotes someone who he has mistakenly assumed I support.

Incidentally, can you find me that Kinnock quote. It's not one I can recall and I'm quite confident that you've likely removed it from its context. Something else that you can probably add to your list of debating faux pas.

Well if the Lib Dems and Labour are so pally you thick tit (I can get personal aswell after your "retarded" jibe), then they can always make one party. It is like saying Liverpool and Man City (when combining points total have consistantly beaten Man Utd over the years) - ie So fucking what? They are not one party and we have a first past the post system. Labour could have changed whatever they wanted with the 1st 2 land slides.

I watched Kinnock or one of his cronies say that on election night in '92 - you don't remember as you would have been 4 and funnily enough, not everything that has ever been said is quotable from Wiki-fucking-pedia labour lad. Personally not that arsed.

Anyway, it is all a moot point as you know full well you have lost this election before it has even begun and I for one am extremely pleased about this and non of your nasty little slurs or arguments can change that :)

Long live the free market. Socialism is the opposite of the natural forces that bring about evolution.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:22 pm --

Seeing as I'm not at school at the age of 22, I'm gonna say no.

Just finished uni and so sure of how the world works then eh?

Seriously? Combining league points is the same as power sharing? Some people are so beyond help... What do you think would happen if there was a hung parliament then? Yes, Labour could have changed the electoral system and it's one of the many many things I criticise them over. Also, you can get 'personal aswell'? So, 'Total fucking bollocks as usual from you in this thread' isn't personal then?

Nope, certainly don't remember it. Seen a lot of old political speeches and headlines etc. but that one has escaped my notice. It was irrelevant in the first place however so we'll let it drop.

I have not lost any election because I am not standing in any. I don't see Labour as my 'team' to be honest. I'm going to put in football terms, as that's something you like doing. Wanting Labour to win is kind of like wanting Everton to beat Tottenham. Both are our rivals for 4th, but one more than another. Don't like either party but one is worse than the other. However, as you were getting at Labour losing the election, I don't know whether Labour have lost the election or not. The polls have narrowed unquestionably. However, polls mean nothing. Marginals mean everything. It tends not to be until after the election that we know where the marginals have gone. My gut instinct is that they will go tory but who knows. I'd like to see your evidence though, sure as you are.

As for your last statement, it's just total fucking bollocks from you as usual...

I really don't see what understanding the world has got to do with age. Comrade Stalin is, presumably, older than you. Was he right then?

 

[BTH]

cloud cuckoo land im afraid, this only works if everyone is willing to at least try and contribute and a large % of people werent naturally selfish, theories are great but the real world is different

I want to live in Cloud Cuckoo Land as the reviews are excellent. Where might it be found and can I get a bus there from Piccadilly Gardens?

You'll be lucky to get a bus anywhere these days thanks to Thatcher's deregulation of the buses in 1986 (everywhere except London, naturally) whilst saying: "Anybody seen on a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life." Pretty much sums her and the Tories up for me.

P.S. If anyone really does think that farming out public services to the private sector and allowing them to continue paying dividends to their shareholders whilst taking subsidies from the public purse is a good idea, then do let me know.

 

[SWP's back]

You talk about hung parliaments in this post but that has nothing to do with what you were saying before. You stated that Labour and Lib Dem have always have a larger combined vote. What has that got to do with a hung parliament? Nothing as each time, the Tories still had the majority in the house. Power sharing can only happen if there is a hung parliament which happens as often as a City winning the league. Hence me point about City & Liverpool combining points.

If there had been a hung parliament every election then yes, you are right, the Tories would not have been in power. But that has not happened and as such those two shitty parties could always join forces if they so wished.

As for age, I do tend to find, and did during my uni days that students with their ideals, tended to be great on idioligey and crap in the real world. Much like communism. For the record, I think Stalin and Marx are shite aswell.

Why can't we talk about hypotheticals? I was simply trying to make a counterfactual analysis and what it would mean if we had a different electoral system. As for the hung parliament, it was a separate question which can be answered separately. I was interested in what you think would happen if we did get one this election. Thanks for answering.

Ah, you think I'm one of these left-wingers who wear my ideals as a fashion accessory. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have anything with Che's face on it. I honestly cannot see my views changing but only time will tell. I'm a socialist of the Orwell mould. Yes, of course you think that Marx and Stalin were shite. That's not a surprise at all, and like Orwell, I'm not a big fan of Stalin to put it mildly. My point though is that they were older than you (presumably, you still haven't answered that) and yet had vastly differing world views to your own. I see what you're getting at though. There are people who will pretend to be socialists just to get a shag on campus.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:17 pm --

Arhhh bless, still wet behind the ears and calling other posters out for not agreeing. I bet people like you used to get the shit kicked out of you before the invention of the internet forum.

Why so serious?

Fair play to you then if you are not one of those (and glad you also recognise them yourself) but I fear we will never agree. I believe socialism stops a socirty evolving and a free market will always see a society striving for improvement. (though one always needs a welfare state to look after the less fortunate).


I always find it funny, neither of us will run the country, neither will have a party that matches our own ideals exactly, both of us will be let down by pricks in charge giving a bad name to what we believe in. Yet here we are, arguing the toss and knowing full well that we have no control whatsoever in what a government actually does once it is in power (be itthe party the support or hate). It is a bit like telling the scousers to fuck off and that City would never lose to them at home. Only for your team to then let you down (Brown).

You have only had a few years of Tory rule. You may like it now you are out of short shorts. ;)

And yes, I am younger than both Stalin and Marx. (and Thatcher)

As for the "Why so serious" bit - when nobs like the other poster keep calling people a dick. It makes me smile really knowing they would never do so to ones face. Atleast you have the conviction of your arguments rather than resorting to (solely) name calling (even if you did try pandering to the "crowd" with your stick man bit).

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:30 pm --

I want to live in Cloud Cuckoo Land as the reviews are excellent. Where might it be found and can I get a bus there from Piccadilly Gardens?

You'll be lucky to get a bus anywhere these days thanks to Thatcher's deregulation of the buses in 1986 (everywhere except London, naturally) whilst saying: "Anybody seen on a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life." Pretty much sums her and the Tories up for me.

P.S. If anyone really does think that farming out public services to the private sector and allowing them to continue paying dividends to their shareholders whilst taking subsidies from the public purse is a good idea, then do let me know.

Better than a wastful public sector (with far less efficiency and higher rates of absentee-ism) with gold rimmed pensions that the country cannot afford.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:34 pm --

You would want me to wouldn't you as you have lost the argument.

Enjoy labours last month in charge. (By the way, calling me a Tory doesn't upset me at all - not does the dick bit - It just shows how grown up you are).

and your so grown up timothy nice but dim.

Do you only use Enfield put downs or have you tried "pre sell out" Ben Elton ones?

Plus it should be "you're" not "your" but I guess you didn't go to a provate school so I shouldn't be blaming you, but the education system as a whole. Also, it is generally seen as bad grammar to start a sentence with "and".

 

[Skashion]

Why can't we talk about hypotheticals? I was simply trying to make a counterfactual analysis and what it would mean if we had a different electoral system. As for the hung parliament, it was a separate question which can be answered separately. I was interested in what you think would happen if we did get one this election. Thanks for answering.

Ah, you think I'm one of these left-wingers who wear my ideals as a fashion accessory. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have anything with Che's face on it. I honestly cannot see my views changing but only time will tell. I'm a socialist of the Orwell mould. Yes, of course you think that Marx and Stalin were shite. That's not a surprise at all, and like Orwell, I'm not a big fan of Stalin to put it mildly. My point though is that they were older than you (presumably, you still haven't answered that) and yet had vastly differing world views to your own. I see what you're getting at though. There are people who will pretend to be socialists just to get a shag on campus.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:17 pm --



Why so serious?

Fair play to you then if you are not one of those (and glad you also reconbise them yourself) but I fear we will never agree. I believe socialism stops a socirty evolving and a free market will always see a society striving for improvement. (though one always needs a welfare state to look after the less fortunate).


I always find it funny, neither of us will run the country, neither will have a party that matches our own ideals exactly, both of us will be let down by pricks in charge giving a bad name to what we believe in. Yet here we are, arguing the toss and knowing full well that we have no control whatsoever in what a government actually does once it is in power (be itthe party the support or hate). It is a bit like telling the scousers to fuck off and that City would never lose to them at home. Only for your team to then let you down (Brown).

You have only had a few years of Tory rule. You may like it now you are out of short shorts. ;)

And yes, I am younger than both Stalin and Marx. (and Thatcher)

As for the "Why so serious" bit - when nobs like the other poster keep calling people a dick. It makes me smile really knowing they would never do so to ones face. Atleast you have the conviction of your arguments rather than resorting to (solely) name calling (even if you did try pandering to the "crowd" with your stick man bit).

As it happens, I'm probably what you'd call a 'market socialist'. I do not like command economy.

True, I have only experienced nine years of my earlier life of the tories but as someone with a degree in politics I have wrote essays on the unemployment, rising inequalities, fire sales of nationalised industries (on the cheap to foreign ownership) etc. of the Thatcher era.

I actually said 'what a dick' ironically. When I'm being sarcastic I use dots (...) to indicate that I am being. I was actually trying to lighten the mood, which failed.

 

[BTH]

I want to live in Cloud Cuckoo Land as the reviews are excellent. Where might it be found and can I get a bus there from Piccadilly Gardens?

You'll be lucky to get a bus anywhere these days thanks to Thatcher's deregulation of the buses in 1986 (everywhere except London, naturally) whilst saying: "Anybody seen on a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life." Pretty much sums her and the Tories up for me.

P.S. If anyone really does think that farming out public services to the private sector and allowing them to continue paying dividends to their shareholders whilst taking subsidies from the public purse is a good idea, then do let me know.

Better than a wastful public sector (with far less efficiency and higher rates of absentee-ism) with gold rimmed pensions that the country cannot afford.

[/quote]

Apart from not answering the question, I see the old myth that the public sector is "wastful" {sic} has been dragged out again. I would like you to provide the source you used to demonstrate your assertion that the public sector is indeed "wastful": "with far less efficiency and higher rates of absentee-ism" if you don't mind...

I don't think the worldwide recession has got much to do with the public sector unless, of course, you know something that I don't know?

Perhaps you can tell me how (just off the top of my head) annually increased fares, filthy buses, a duopoly amongst operators and the fact that we are charged through the eyes and nose in North Manchester and Salford and forced to pay 35% more on fares than our counterparts in East and South Manchester when profits for First Bus were £130+ million although their drivers were offered a 0% pay rise somehow suggest a better model that placing public transport in the hands of local authorities.

While we are at it, name something that has been improved by moving from the public to the private sector. I can't think of anything. Private firms have to make a profit, meaning cuts in jobs or wages or cutting corners. But again, if you know different...

And as for 'gold-plated' pensions? Another Tory lie! At current figures the average is about£3,000 a year; hardly gold-plated. On top of that public employees (like myself) have to actually pay in (an oft-overlooked fact) and it is cheaper for the state in the long run that we do this via a well-run and high-performing pensions fund (Greater Manchester) rather than leaving the state to provide. You'll be interested to know that there are many pensions' schemes in the south that aren't so well managed in predominantly - would you believe it? - Tory-run councils.

 

[SWP's back]

Fair play to you then if you are not one of those (and glad you also reconbise them yourself) but I fear we will never agree. I believe socialism stops a socirty evolving and a free market will always see a society striving for improvement. (though one always needs a welfare state to look after the less fortunate).


I always find it funny, neither of us will run the country, neither will have a party that matches our own ideals exactly, both of us will be let down by pricks in charge giving a bad name to what we believe in. Yet here we are, arguing the toss and knowing full well that we have no control whatsoever in what a government actually does once it is in power (be itthe party the support or hate). It is a bit like telling the scousers to fuck off and that City would never lose to them at home. Only for your team to then let you down (Brown).

You have only had a few years of Tory rule. You may like it now you are out of short shorts. ;)

And yes, I am younger than both Stalin and Marx. (and Thatcher)

As for the "Why so serious" bit - when nobs like the other poster keep calling people a dick. It makes me smile really knowing they would never do so to ones face. Atleast you have the conviction of your arguments rather than resorting to (solely) name calling (even if you did try pandering to the "crowd" with your stick man bit).

As it happens, I'm probably what you'd call a 'market socialist'. I do not like command economy.

True, I have only experienced nine years of my earlier life of the tories but as someone with a degree in politics I have wrote essays on the unemployment, rising inequalities, fire sales of nationalised industries (on the cheap to foreign ownership) etc. of the Thatcher era.

I actually said 'what a dick' ironically. When I'm being sarcastic I use dots (...) to indicate that I am being. I was actually trying to lighten the mood, which failed.

Ah I see - sarcasm is so easily lost on here.

Ah well, ermm good stuff.

ps - Thatcher was what the country needed as the cancer of unions was strangling us and hampering the renaissance of our great country (the 70's really were dour times) - surely you can agree with that (I am guessing you wont).

 

[BTH]

As it happens, I'm probably what you'd call a 'market socialist'. I do not like command economy.

True, I have only experienced nine years of my earlier life of the tories but as someone with a degree in politics I have wrote essays on the unemployment, rising inequalities, fire sales of nationalised industries (on the cheap to foreign ownership) etc. of the Thatcher era.

I actually said 'what a dick' ironically. When I'm being sarcastic I use dots (...) to indicate that I am being. I was actually trying to lighten the mood, which failed.

Ah I see - sarcasm is so easily lost on here.

Ah well, ermm good stuff.

ps - Thatcher was what the country needed as the cancer of unions was strangling us and hampering the renaissance of our great country (the 70's really were dour times) - surely you can agree with that (I am guessing you wont).

Thatcherism... wasn't it great?

Just what the country needed, apparently!

 

[1_barry_conlon]

Ah I see - sarcasm is so easily lost on here.

Ah well, ermm good stuff.

ps - Thatcher was what the country needed as the cancer of unions was strangling us and hampering the renaissance of our great country (the 70's really were dour times) - surely you can agree with that (I am guessing you wont).

Thatcherism... wasn't it great?

Shame you never posted the pics of the piling rubbish, rotting corpses and unions ruining/running the country. This was the aftermath and sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war.

 

[BTH]

Why can't we talk about hypotheticals? I was simply trying to make a counterfactual analysis and what it would mean if we had a different electoral system. As for the hung parliament, it was a separate question which can be answered separately. I was interested in what you think would happen if we did get one this election. Thanks for answering.

Ah, you think I'm one of these left-wingers who wear my ideals as a fashion accessory. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have anything with Che's face on it. I honestly cannot see my views changing but only time will tell. I'm a socialist of the Orwell mould. Yes, of course you think that Marx and Stalin were shite. That's not a surprise at all, and like Orwell, I'm not a big fan of Stalin to put it mildly. My point though is that they were older than you (presumably, you still haven't answered that) and yet had vastly differing world views to your own. I see what you're getting at though. There are people who will pretend to be socialists just to get a shag on campus.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:17 pm --



Why so serious?

Fair play to you then if you are not one of those (and glad you also recognise them yourself) but I fear we will never agree. I believe socialism stops a socirty evolving and a free market will always see a society striving for improvement. (though one always needs a welfare state to look after the less fortunate).


I always find it funny, neither of us will run the country, neither will have a party that matches our own ideals exactly, both of us will be let down by pricks in charge giving a bad name to what we believe in. Yet here we are, arguing the toss and knowing full well that we have no control whatsoever in what a government actually does once it is in power (be itthe party the support or hate). It is a bit like telling the scousers to fuck off and that City would never lose to them at home. Only for your team to then let you down (Brown).

You have only had a few years of Tory rule. You may like it now you are out of short shorts. ;)

And yes, I am younger than both Stalin and Marx. (and Thatcher)

As for the "Why so serious" bit - when nobs like the other poster keep calling people a dick. It makes me smile really knowing they would never do so to ones face. Atleast you have the conviction of your arguments rather than resorting to (solely) name calling (even if you did try pandering to the "crowd" with your stick man bit).

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:30 pm --

You'll be lucky to get a bus anywhere these days thanks to Thatcher's deregulation of the buses in 1986 (everywhere except London, naturally) whilst saying: "Anybody seen on a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life." Pretty much sums her and the Tories up for me.

P.S. If anyone really does think that farming out public services to the private sector and allowing them to continue paying dividends to their shareholders whilst taking subsidies from the public purse is a good idea, then do let me know.

Better than a wastful public sector (with far less efficiency and higher rates of absentee-ism) with gold rimmed pensions that the country cannot afford.

-- Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:34 pm --

and your so grown up timothy nice but dim.

Do you only use Enfield put downs or have you tried "pre sell out" Ben Elton ones?

Plus it should be "you're" not "your" but I guess you didn't go to a provate school so I shouldn't be blaming you, but the education system as a whole. Also, it is generally seen as bad grammar to start a sentence with "and".

If you're going to have a go at someone else's spelling, at least get your own house in order FFS!

And there is nothing wrong at all with starting a sentence with the word 'And'. Or finishing one!

 

[law74]

As it happens, I'm probably what you'd call a 'market socialist'. I do not like command economy.

True, I have only experienced nine years of my earlier life of the tories but as someone with a degree in politics I have wrote essays on the unemployment, rising inequalities, fire sales of nationalised industries (on the cheap to foreign ownership) etc. of the Thatcher era.

I actually said 'what a dick' ironically. When I'm being sarcastic I use dots (...) to indicate that I am being. I was actually trying to lighten the mood, which failed.

Ah I see - sarcasm is so easily lost on here.

Ah well, ermm good stuff.

ps - Thatcher was what the country needed as the cancer of unions was strangling us and hampering the renaissance of our great country (the 70's really were dour times) - surely you can agree with that (I am guessing you wont).

So the country NEEDED the Police to be mobilised against the workers and for the manufacturing businesses in this country to be killed off?
Minaworkers, ship building, the textile industry.....all killed by the thatcher regime.
Then there was the sell off of the profitable aspects of the public sector, things like transport, utility companies, leading to ever increasing costs for gas, electric and even the most basic of human needs, water.
The biggest (of many) scandals that can be levied against Nu-labour is that rather than bringing these things back under public ownership, they continued with the greed is good economic policy , and with the de-regulation of the financial sector, and the ever more greedy capitalistic bankers, we have now found ourselves in a position where we are expecting Public Sector workers to stand idly by while their terms and conditions of employment are ripped to shreds while Mr broon says that the bankers (who are by now Public Sector workers in al but name, as if it hadnt been for OUR MONEY bailing them out they would be unemployed), must have their bonuses as it is in their contracts?????????
Bloody hypocrite.

 

[Skashion]

As it happens, I'm probably what you'd call a 'market socialist'. I do not like command economy.

True, I have only experienced nine years of my earlier life of the tories but as someone with a degree in politics I have wrote essays on the unemployment, rising inequalities, fire sales of nationalised industries (on the cheap to foreign ownership) etc. of the Thatcher era.

I actually said 'what a dick' ironically. When I'm being sarcastic I use dots (...) to indicate that I am being. I was actually trying to lighten the mood, which failed.

ps - Thatcher was what the country needed as the cancer of unions was strangling us and hampering the renaissance of our great country (the 70's really were dour times) - surely you can agree with that (I am guessing you wont).

I don't agree that we needed Thatcher or that she initiated a renaissance. However, I do agree that the over-exuberant unions turned the British public against them which was a problem in several respects. It's gone way too far the other way now though. Now the unions are so weak that it's hard to serve the purpose they are supposed to; secure better working conditions and defend jobs.