• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Dear oh dear Ed Milliband, what a joke of a man !!!

Same way a Tory UKIP pact would work if they only had 10 seats.

I'm not sure I agree totally, if UKIP has 10 seats then they'll have only taken (at most) 10 from the Tories, whereas Labour could lose double that to the SNP. Any losses the Tories suffer to UKIP can be made back in Lib Dem marginals, it's unlikely that Labour could take 20 seats from Lib Dems.

All this however misses the point, which is that a UKIP/Tory pack would be two English parties voting on English laws. A Labour/SNP pact would be constantly lambasted (and rightly so) that Scottish MPs would be carrying laws through Parliament that don't effect them.
 
The biggest criticism of the last Labour government is how they increased the debt during the buoyant part of the economic cycle. This took away the option of strong Keynesian stimulus and made the financial crisis bailout more painful. Without that basic economic ineptitude we could be discussing the relative merits of stimulus versus austerity and Labour might have a valid argument for an alternative economic policy. The fact they don't is entirely their own doing.
 
Don't know don't care. **** 'em they can't have them.

Seriously though, workplace security comes from being too good to sack. You want to keep your job? Do it really well - it really is that simple.



Trust me, I hear that term thrown around a lot and have never once heard it used to specify anything other than being left of centre. Maybe for those of you already on the dark side it has some distinction, but not for the enlightened.

No it is really not that simple. Many businesses that are struggling because of poor management are able to lay off workers whenever they want,regardless of that workers ability. Those who chose to do the sacking are not going to sack themselves where the problem lies. I know you would want this to be simple but industrial relations are far from simple.

Trotsky was most certainly left of centre.
 
The biggest criticism of the last Labour government is how they increased the debt during the buoyant part of the economic cycle. This took away the option of strong Keynesian stimulus and made the financial crisis bailout more painful. Without that basic economic ineptitude we could be discussing the relative merits of stimulus versus austerity and Labour might have a valid argument for an alternative economic policy. The fact they don't is entirely their own doing.

I agree with everything said here. So true. A real fair critique.
 
I'm not sure I agree totally, if UKIP has 10 seats then they'll have only taken (at most) 10 from the Tories, whereas Labour could lose double that to the SNP. Any losses the Tories suffer to UKIP can be made back in Lib Dem marginals, it's unlikely that Labour could take 20 seats from Lib Dems.

All this however misses the point, which is that a UKIP/Tory pack would be two English parties voting on English laws. A Labour/SNP pact would be constantly lambasted (and rightly so) that Scottish MPs would be carrying laws through Parliament that don't effect them.

Voting on British laws,it is still a British parliament.
 
Voting on British laws,it is still a British parliament.

Not really, once Scotland receives more devolution powers there won't be a many issues that affect all of the United Kingdom. If you think its acceptable for Scottish MPs to carry votes that only affect English voters you are in a significant minority.
 
Not really, once Scotland receives more devolution powers there won't be a many issues that affect all of the United Kingdom. If you think its acceptable for Scottish MPs to carry votes that only affect English voters you are in a significant minority.

Lets wait and see if the extra powers are acceptable to them yet.
 
No it is really not that simple. Many businesses that are struggling because of poor management are able to lay off workers whenever they want,regardless of that workers ability. Those who chose to do the sacking are not going to sack themselves where the problem lies. I know you would want this to be simple but industrial relations are far from simple.

It is simple. The people laid off first are the ones of least value to the company - highest absences, lowest output, union membership, etc. No company intentionally gets rid of its best staff - even when forced to it's the **** ones who go.

Trotsky was most certainly left of centre.

All much of a muchness really. There's varying degrees of being wrong/deluded, but those distinctions become less relevant the further to the left you go.
 
It is simple. The people laid off first are the ones of least value to the company - highest absences, lowest output, union membership, etc. No company intentionally gets rid of its best staff - even when forced to it's the **** ones who go.



All much of a muchness really. There's varying degrees of being wrong/deluded, but those distinctions become less relevant the further to the left you go.

Ahh now you are changing your position. Previously you made it about competency,now you are making it about value. Which one is it ?

Ad hominem twaddle,based around the ignorance you seem proud of.
 
Ahh now you are changing your position. Previously you made it about competency,now you are making it about value. Which one is it ?

It's a combination of all of it. My company has about 100 employees in the branch I'm in this morning. I can tell you right now the 20 or so that would be last on the redundancy list if it ever came to it. I can also tell you the 5 or so that would be straight out the door given half a chance, and around another 10 that we really wouldn't be sorry to see go.

Of the 20 we'd really like to keep, they're all very good at their jobs and they all put the effort in. The company would have to be in receivership before they were let go. It's pretty simple to work out who's worth keeping and who isn't.

Ad hominem twaddle,based around the ignorance you seem proud of.

What ignorance?

Why are you so obsessed with me reading books on socialism? I don't need to read a book about gang *struggle cuddle* to know I disapprove of it and I don't need to eat **** to know I wouldn't like the taste.
 
It's a combination of all of it. My company has about 100 employees in the branch I'm in this morning. I can tell you right now the 20 or so that would be last on the redundancy list if it ever came to it. I can also tell you the 5 or so that would be straight out the door given half a chance, and around another 10 that we really wouldn't be sorry to see go.

Of the 20 we'd really like to keep, they're all very good at their jobs and they all put the effort in. The company would have to be in receivership before they were let go. It's pretty simple to work out who's worth keeping and who isn't.



What ignorance?

Why are you so obsessed with me reading books on socialism? I don't need to read a book about gang *struggle cuddle* to know I disapprove of it and I don't need to eat **** to know I wouldn't like the taste.

So what if a bank has 3000 cashiers all competent at their job,yet the bank can not longer afford to employ them. They are of less value to the company yes,but they are good at their job. This has happened at Barclays within the last year. The same with teaching assistants,perfectly good at their job,just that they are of less value to the school when their budget is cut. To equate competency to value is a mistake.

Also you should do some research into Gang *struggle cuddle* if you consistently misunderstand and misuse the word and concept you are trying to attack. So you attempt at a response though humorous was utterly vacuous.
 
Why exactly? Can you give me three reasons ?

1) I do not believe that Balls et al know better than me how to live my life and to spend my money... they do not believe in choice and prefer to treat the electorate with contempt.
2) Welfare is a safety net for people who have contributed, but then fallen on hard times. It is NOT a lifestyle choice!
3) Unison!
 
So what if a bank has 3000 cashiers all competent at their job,yet the bank can not longer afford to employ them. They are of less value to the company yes,but they are good at their job. This has happened at Barclays within the last year.

I'd expect those that stand out as being good at their jobs to get promoted into more secure ones.

How do you know they are all good at their jobs? I don't bank with Barclays and never have to go into branches for personal banking, but on very rare occasions I've had to go into Lloyds branches on business and not all cashiers are created equal. There is clearly some variation in how good or bad they are.

I'd also expect any intelligent person to know that their job is becoming extinct and start some kind of retraining to cover it. Please don't try to tell me that any of those cashiers have never heard of internet banking, or that they couldn't make the pretty small leap in understanding more internet banking = fewer cashiers.

The same with teaching assistants,perfectly good at their job,just that they are of less value to the school when their budget is cut. To equate competency to value is a mistake.

As the husband of someone who (until recently) was a state school teacher for over 10 years I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that teaching assistants are more of a hindrance than a help. Other than in the very rare cases where a teaching assistant is generally very good (ask any teacher - almost never) or very specifically trained to deal with a particular problem one or two students may have (Asperger's, speech impediments, etc), most teachers simply don't want them in the classroom.

That's an opinion I've heard from a good number of teachers and most of them are from your end of the political spectrum (as you'd expect with that kind of vocation).

Also you should do some research into Gang *struggle cuddle* if you consistently misunderstand and misuse the word and concept you are trying to attack. So you attempt at a response though humorous was utterly vacuous.

Wow, you union types really are fun vacuums aren't you!?

I get that you don't think socialism is what I think it is. I get that in your head it's all unicorns and kittens in socialism land, but that's simply not the case for the rest of the country. Here in the real world, we've voted for (or at least thought we did) right of centre, capitalist governments for more than a generation. There are people who are old enough to be council estate grandparents who've never seen a government that claims to be left of centre.

If the king of the autists manages to convince the country that this is where he sits on the political spectrum then he stands a decent chance of becoming the next Prime Minister. That won't be too much of a problem though as he'll need to stay somewhat within the boundaries set by his party's manifesto and they simply won't get voted in on one that stands left of centre.
 
1) I do not believe that Balls et al know better than me how to live my life and to spend my money... they do not believe in choice and prefer to treat the electorate with contempt.
2) Welfare is a safety net for people who have contributed, but then fallen on hard times. It is NOT a lifestyle choice!
3) Unison!

I disagree with almost all of that but the big **** off to Ed Balls's have personally told Ed he is useless many times.
 
I disagree with almost all of that but the big **** off to Ed Balls's have personally told Ed he is useless many times.
Do you seriously believe that the labour party (Balls, Milliband whoever) genuinely know better than me how I should live my life? All they want to do is 'tax until the pips squeak' than waste the lot on buying votes through benefit rises to their client state. I want to be taxed less by big government, not more!
Bunch of hypocritical, champagne swilling socialist millionaires, driven by envy. How many of the labour shadow cabinet aren't millionaires in their own right? Hypocrits the lot of them.
 
I'd expect those that stand out as being good at their jobs to get promoted into more secure ones.

How do you know they are all good at their jobs? I don't bank with Barclays and never have to go into branches for personal banking, but on very rare occasions I've had to go into Lloyds branches on business and not all cashiers are created equal. There is clearly some variation in how good or bad they are.

I'd also expect any intelligent person to know that their job is becoming extinct and start some kind of retraining to cover it. Please don't try to tell me that any of those cashiers have never heard of internet banking, or that they couldn't make the pretty small leap in understanding more internet banking = fewer cashiers.



As the husband of someone who (until recently) was a state school teacher for over 10 years I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that teaching assistants are more of a hindrance than a help. Other than in the very rare cases where a teaching assistant is generally very good (ask any teacher - almost never) or very specifically trained to deal with a particular problem one or two students may have (Asperger's, speech impediments, etc), most teachers simply don't want them in the classroom.

That's an opinion I've heard from a good number of teachers and most of them are from your end of the political spectrum (as you'd expect with that kind of vocation).



Wow, you union types really are fun vacuums aren't you!?

I get that you don't think socialism is what I think it is. I get that in your head it's all unicorns and kittens in socialism land, but that's simply not the case for the rest of the country. Here in the real world, we've voted for (or at least thought we did) right of centre, capitalist governments for more than a generation. There are people who are old enough to be council estate grandparents who've never seen a government that claims to be left of centre.

If the king of the autists manages to convince the country that this is where he sits on the political spectrum then he stands a decent chance of becoming the next Prime Minister. That won't be too much of a problem though as he'll need to stay somewhat within the boundaries set by his party's manifesto and they simply won't get voted in on one that stands left of centre.

The first point can be thrown back as you,you are making as big an assumption as I am.

Both my parents are school teachers have been for over 30 years and disagree with you. However my point is not that all teaching assistants but that some are. Those that are competent are thrown out with those that are. Hence to equate competence with value is a category mistake.


I bloody hate kittens,I hope they are not in any future society. You do not get to decide what the real world is,the real world defence has been used to excuse almost all cruelty the world has seen. Also it interest you are willing to appeal to argument by majority when it suits you. The majority of the world still believe in a supernatural deity in the sky. Does that mean there is a GHod ?

The right on economic issues have as of yet won the economic argument when the majority of people. That is not however enough to discourage me. I see too many contradictions within the current economic system. I do not want communism,I do not want bland uniformity. Just as I would hope you do not want to see children starving to death in a total pay as you go society.

I am willing to fight to get the ideas in across. Not by bloody revolution. No one wants that. I want to win via the ballot box,though I admit as someone that wants to change things I will face more defeats than victories.

I am a Tottenham fan,I am used to supporting a team that often loses,but still has the echo of glory. As with my football team,as with my politics.

Enjoy your real world of rampant unfairness,homelessness growing,the need for begging for food growing,wages continuing to fall. The majority of people having no control over their lives.

That however is not for me. Will Ed change any of this ? **** no,he won't have the balls{excuse the overused political pun} to do it. I still will take the path of lesser evil.

Anyway that is the end of me in this thread,bitch about Ed all you want. Make everyone that wants some change into a rampant fantasist. I will still believe.
 
Do you seriously believe that the labour party (Balls, Milliband whoever) genuinely know better than me how I should live my life? All they want to do is 'tax until the pips squeak' than waste the lot on buying votes through benefit rises to their client state. I want to be taxed less by big government, not more!
Bunch of hypocritical, champagne swilling socialist millionaires, driven by envy. How many of the labour shadow cabinet aren't millionaires in their own right? Hypocrits the lot of them.

How can they be driven by envy,yet at the same time be Champagne swilling millionaires ?

http://new-agenda2012.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/greed-and-envy-are-good-says-boris.html
 
Last edited:
Back