The General Election Thread

[hilts]

Anyone earning below £100,00 voting Tory,are just pretentious pricks.

You have had your little break, back to the cell please young man, the doctor will be with you shortly, your colouring book is in the corner

 

[Dextersmate]

Anyone earning below £100,00 voting Tory,are just pretentious pricks.

You have had your little break, back to the cell please young man, the doctor will be with you shortly, your colouring book is in the corner

Ok on my way.

 

[SWP's back]

Anyone earning below £100,00 voting Tory,are just pretentious pricks.

And poor.

But seriously, what?

 

[Dextersmate]

Anyone earning below £100,00 voting Tory,are just pretentious pricks.

And poor.

But seriously, what?

Don,t think much of many politicians,good and bad on either side,but the masses are more likely to get a slightly fairer society from Labour.

 

[hilts]

Anyone earning below £100,00 voting Tory,are just pretentious pricks.

And poor.

But seriously, what?

I don't think he understands the word pretentious

He also seems to struggle quoting what i presume is an annual salary, those 0's and commas can be problematic

although a lot of people earning over a hundred grand a year will sleep that bit easier tonight

 

[Dextersmate]

Anyone earning below £100,00 voting Tory,are just pretentious pricks.

And poor.

But seriously, what?

I don't think he understands the word pretentious

He also seems to struggle quoting what i presume is an annual salary, those 0's and commas can be problematic

although a lot of people earning over a hundred grand a year will sleep that bit easier tonight

Sorry about the 0, will find you a definition of pretentious later,got to go.

 

[hilts]

And poor.

But seriously, what?

I don't think he understands the word pretentious

He also seems to struggle quoting what i presume is an annual salary, those 0's and commas can be problematic

although a lot of people earning over a hundred grand a year will sleep that bit easier tonight

Sorry about the 0, will find you a definition of pretentious later,got to go.

Arse has just moved to edge of seat, you should in fairness already have a definition if you have quoted the word

 

[the god Gerry Gow]

Anyone earning below £100,00 voting Tory,are just pretentious pricks.

Well I earn under £100,000 and I vote Tory. Don't consider myself pretentious, arrogant maybe but not pretentious.

Now I have spent a while considering my response to you and I think it's quite good

"Fuck off"

 

[The perfect fumble]

Not a chance due to the "I'm a Labour voter me, just like my Father was and just like my Grandfather was" mob.

The Conservative party has been in power far more often and for longer than any other party these last 100 years. In the post war years, including these past 5 years of coalition, they've been in power 40 out of the last 70 years.

The period of real destruction to our ecomomy was the early 80's, where we lost 45% of our manufacturing industry.

Yet all our woes are down to labour, including, I assume, the global meltdown brought about by bankers engaging in wanton casino gambling of toxic assets, poisoned by millions of sub prime mortgages, mostly originating in the USA.

Christ! Labour really knows how to fuck up on a global scale!

Fallacy. Manufacturing as a share of GDP fell from 21% in 1979 to about 16% in 1997 so it fell by about a quarter in 18 years. It then fell from 16% to about 12% in 2010, so about a quarter in just 13 years. Manufacturing fell faster under Blair and Brown than it did under Thatcher and Major.

By all means criticise the Conservatives; they've done plenty to be critical of. But it's misleading to suggest, as you did, that the Conservatives destroyed manufacturing, when Labour destroyed it quicker.

You're dead right about the financial meltdown in 2007 though. That was absolutely down to Labour's decision to stop regulating the City in order to suck all the dodgy money in from elsewhere in the world where there were tighter regulations (eg the USA) when they introduced the Financial Services Act 2000. No single person anywhere in the world bears more responsibility for it than that act's author, Gordon Brown.

As a share of GDP you might well be correct, you can lose X of something that makes up GDP, but if Y that makes up the rest grows then the decline of X is diminished as a percentage of the whole. Nevertheless you still lose X, I think the figure was 44% of manufacturing capacity now I've done a bit of digging, but I'll find something a bit more definitive.

As for financial de-regulation, you can draw the line in the sand as far back as the Big Bang, no guesses where I draw it.

But regardless of lines in the sand, the financial crash started across the pond and it effects are profound and still felt today, placing the blame on Labour is very convenient, but that's all it is.

 

[Chancy Termites]

The Conservative party has been in power far more often and for longer than any other party these last 100 years. In the post war years, including these past 5 years of coalition, they've been in power 40 out of the last 70 years.

The period of real destruction to our ecomomy was the early 80's, where we lost 45% of our manufacturing industry.

Yet all our woes are down to labour, including, I assume, the global meltdown brought about by bankers engaging in wanton casino gambling of toxic assets, poisoned by millions of sub prime mortgages, mostly originating in the USA.

Christ! Labour really knows how to fuck up on a global scale!

Fallacy. Manufacturing as a share of GDP fell from 21% in 1979 to about 16% in 1997 so it fell by about a quarter in 18 years. It then fell from 16% to about 12% in 2010, so about a quarter in just 13 years. Manufacturing fell faster under Blair and Brown than it did under Thatcher and Major.

By all means criticise the Conservatives; they've done plenty to be critical of. But it's misleading to suggest, as you did, that the Conservatives destroyed manufacturing, when Labour destroyed it quicker.

You're dead right about the financial meltdown in 2007 though. That was absolutely down to Labour's decision to stop regulating the City in order to suck all the dodgy money in from elsewhere in the world where there were tighter regulations (eg the USA) when they introduced the Financial Services Act 2000. No single person anywhere in the world bears more responsibility for it than that act's author, Gordon Brown.

Would this deregulation of the financial services act be the one the tories ridiculed Brown for as they felt it didn't go far enough?
for the sake of the nation and to prevent another lost generation we simply cannot afford the tories in power in any shape or form, though the oily c**t has played a blinder by insisting that the Greens have to be in any televised debate, as they are the nearest we have to a socialist party

Yes, that deregulation. The one that Gordon Brown of Labour wrote in 2000 and implemented in 2001.