• 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

Politics, politics, politics

parklane1 said:
That is not true, I know of many Labour supporters who decided after Blair and that other warmonger Bush took us into a illegal war that they would never vote Labour again while Blair, Brown and their other cronies were involved with the Labour party. So much so they either did not vote at all or went over to the Torys.
Click to expand...
I think that tells you all you need to know about their mental faculties at the time of making that decision.

I can only imagine the tinfoil hat shop did some good business around the same time.
 
the dza said:
Labour would commit an extra £2.5bn a year above Mr Osborne's plan. The money will come from three sources - a new "mansion" tax, clamping down on tax avoidance by big corporations and a new tax on tobacco companies. Patients in England would get a GP appointment within 48 hours ......Replace the Cancer Drugs Fund ....with a £330m fund.......Recruit 5,000 more healthcare workers .......increasing the proportion of the mental health budget spent on children.

But, in a nutshell, I'd trust them more to take care of public services and look after the low paid.
Click to expand...

Behold! A miracle! Labour have thought of a simple way to drum up an extra few billion and will lash it into Health Services!

Marvellous, if only Osborn had thought of that idea. Drum up a few billion and spend it. Fantastic plan. Don't worry about the national deficit, that will all be fine.

Are you sure about your last statement? Surely taking care of people involves cutting the deficit and debts and trying to get the country back working properly, not spending money we don't have until we go broke?
 
Bullet said:
Behold! A miracle! Labour have thought of a simple way to drum up an extra few billion and will lash it into Health Services!

Marvellous, if only Osborn had thought of that idea. Drum up a few billion and spend it. Fantastic plan. Don't worry about the national deficit, that will all be fine.

Are you sure about your last statement? Surely taking care of people involves cutting the deficit and debts and trying to get the country back working properly, not spending money we don't have until we go broke?
Click to expand...
This is what I don't get about Labour's campaign. They've split it into Conservatives = economy, Labour = NHS and schools.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a successful economy that allows us to pay for the NHS and schools?
 
scaramanga said:
Absolutely - that's very true. That's not hatred of Labour though, that's hatred of the left.

If the two parties switched policies (and if Labour had someone more authoritative than Rain Man as a leader) pretty much every Con voter I know would vote Labour.

Those Labour voters I'm talking about (and they exist in significant numbers) would still vote Labour, or at least anyone other than the Conservatives, out of pure hatred.
Click to expand...

Socialism became a sullied word thanks to the careful, studious propagandist brick of the Thatcherites. The implication is that socialism cannot accommodate any degree of capitalism, but this is (of course) total gonads is evidenced in countries such as Norway where a 'socialist' mentality has provided quality services for all of society without disallowing those who wish to be millionaires/billionaires the chance to do so. It's a simple premise, but does require those who tread the path of riches to chip in a proportionate amount. Funnily enough, you never hear of people in such countries complaining, whatever end of the economic spectrum they are. Anyway, to continue...

...Milliband might not be, er, charismatic, but I would hardly call David Cameron the Steve McQueen of politics. More like a consistently damp and slightly mildewed dish-cloth which always seems to carry the faint whiff of a failed attempt at some spectacular 'creamed fish' dish. I mean look, I think he's probably a 'nice enough chap' and I feel certain he is a loyal patron of the Marks & Spencer Collection range, but their Autograph brand might be a little toooo 'hip' for him, right? Let's face it Scara, neither Ed or Dave are going to be wearing Ermenegildo Zegna on the campaign trail! But with Damp Fishy Dishtowel Man now looking to flog off the NHS another few stations at a time to some low-rent, undercutting 'value' sub-contractors who will likely recycle old bandages in order to look like 'top cost-cutters', I think I'd take my chances with ol' Uncle Ed!

The biggest joke is how many 'conservative' voters genuinely believe that Damp Fishy Dishtowel Man is actually going to lead them to the degrees of extreme prosperity they desire whilst stamping out the 'oi-polloi'...truth is, DFDM has overseen an era of British politics so poorly that a complete idiot such as Nigel Farage (who you might genuinely believe was a Barry Humphries creation) has gained a national platform. On that basis alone, he and his are worthy of contempt. Sorry. On a person-by-person basis I get on with most people (other than kkunts who obviously, are precisely that) regardless of their party politics, because most people are just that. People. But it must be said that I think most people vote the way their instincts/families work. 'Hatred'? No. They simply think that DFDM and 'his' are not working in their best interests. Easy to believe if you're north of the Watford Gap (I've left you an avenue of retort but honestly, perhaps you'd best not take it ;))...

Truth be told, national (and international) politics has increasingly become about preservation of the few and IF that happens to include some upswing for the masses, marvelous. But generally-speaking, most of the major modern political decisions of the last 40 years have been to serve an Industrial Military Complex. I don't sit around faffing about it, and I don't sit around conspiracizing (sp) either, but every so often the facts scream out. And they are that there ain't be a Ghandi or Mother Theresa in office ANYWHERE in my lifetime.

In the spirit of discussion/debate as always mate.
 
parklane1 said:
That is not true, I know of many Labour supporters who decided after Blair and that other warmonger Bush took us into a illegal war that they would never vote Labour again while Blair, Brown and their other cronies were involved with the Labour party. So much so they either did not vote at all or went over to the Torys.
Click to expand...

I was one of the biggest critics of Bliar from the start. He is (IMO) a total and UTTER scumbag who lives on par with Thatcher. In fact Thatcher at least had the decency not to try and hide. That arsehole was the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing...
 
scaramanga said:
This is what I don't get about Labour's campaign. They've split it into Conservatives = economy, Labour = NHS and schools.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a successful economy that allows us to pay for the NHS and schools?
Click to expand...

...only if you invest in them properly on a public level.
 
thfcsteff said:
Socialism became a sullied word thanks to the careful, studious propagandist crude of the Thatcherites. The implication is that socialism cannot accommodate any degree of capitalism, but this is (of course) total cobblers is evidenced in countries such as Norway where a 'socialist' mentality has provided quality services for all of society without disallowing those who wish to be millionaires/billionaires the chance to do so. It's a simple premise, but does require those who tread the path of riches to chip in a proportionate amount. Funnily enough, you never hear of people in such countries complaining, whatever end of the economic spectrum they are. Anyway, to continue...

...Milliband might not be, er, charismatic, but I would hardly call David Cameron the Steve McQueen of politics. More like a consistently damp and slightly mildewed dish-cloth which always seems to carry the faint whiff of a failed attempt at some spectacular 'creamed fish' dish. I mean look, I think he's probably a 'nice enough chap' and I feel certain he is a loyal patron of the Marks & Spencer Collection range, but their Autograph brand might be a little toooo 'hip' for him, right? Let's face it Scara, neither Ed or Dave are going to be wearing Ermenegildo Zegna on the campaign trail! But with Damp Fishy Dishtowel Man now looking to flog off the NHS another few stations at a time to some low-rent, undercutting 'value' sub-contractors who will likely recycle old bandages in order to look like 'top cost-cutters', I think I'd take my chances with ol' Uncle Ed!

The biggest joke is how many 'conservative' voters genuinely believe that Damp Fishy Dishtowel Man is actually going to lead them to the degrees of extreme prosperity they desire whilst stamping out the 'oi-polloi'...truth is, DFDM has overseen an era of British politics so poorly that a complete idiot such as Nigel Farage (who you might genuinely believe was a Barry Humphries creation) has gained a national platform. On that basis alone, he and his are worthy of contempt. Sorry. On a person-by-person basis I get on with most people (other than kkunts who obviously, are precisely that) regardless of their party politics, because most people are just that. People. But it must be said that I think most people vote the way their instincts/families work. 'Hatred'? No. They simply think that DFDM and 'his' are not working in their best interests. Easy to believe if you're north of the Watford Gap (I've left you an avenue of retort but honestly, perhaps you'd best not take it ;))...

Truth be told, national (and international) politics has increasingly become about preservation of the few and IF that happens to include some upswing for the masses, marvelous. But generally-speaking, most of the major modern political decisions of the last 40 years have been to serve an Industrial Military Complex. I don't sit around faffing about it, and I don't sit around conspiracizing (sp) either, but every so often the facts scream out. And they are that there ain't be a Ghandi or Mother Theresa in office ANYWHERE in my lifetime.

In the spirit of discussion/debate as always mate.
Click to expand...

That sir is one hell of a post, and I salute you for it.
 
thfcsteff said:
Socialism became a sullied word thanks to the careful, studious propagandist crude of the Thatcherites. The implication is that socialism cannot accommodate any degree of capitalism, but this is (of course) total cobblers is evidenced in countries such as Norway where a 'socialist' mentality has provided quality services for all of society without disallowing those who wish to be millionaires/billionaires the chance to do so. It's a simple premise, but does require those who tread the path of riches to chip in a proportionate amount. Funnily enough, you never hear of people in such countries complaining, whatever end of the economic spectrum they are. Anyway, to continue...

...Milliband might not be, er, charismatic, but I would hardly call David Cameron the Steve McQueen of politics. More like a consistently damp and slightly mildewed dish-cloth which always seems to carry the faint whiff of a failed attempt at some spectacular 'creamed fish' dish. I mean look, I think he's probably a 'nice enough chap' and I feel certain he is a loyal patron of the Marks & Spencer Collection range, but their Autograph brand might be a little toooo 'hip' for him, right? Let's face it Scara, neither Ed or Dave are going to be wearing Ermenegildo Zegna on the campaign trail! But with Damp Fishy Dishtowel Man now looking to flog off the NHS another few stations at a time to some low-rent, undercutting 'value' sub-contractors who will likely recycle old bandages in order to look like 'top cost-cutters', I think I'd take my chances with ol' Uncle Ed!

The biggest joke is how many 'conservative' voters genuinely believe that Damp Fishy Dishtowel Man is actually going to lead them to the degrees of extreme prosperity they desire whilst stamping out the 'oi-polloi'...truth is, DFDM has overseen an era of British politics so poorly that a complete idiot such as Nigel Farage (who you might genuinely believe was a Barry Humphries creation) has gained a national platform. On that basis alone, he and his are worthy of contempt. Sorry. On a person-by-person basis I get on with most people (other than kkunts who obviously, are precisely that) regardless of their party politics, because most people are just that. People. But it must be said that I think most people vote the way their instincts/families work. 'Hatred'? No. They simply think that DFDM and 'his' are not working in their best interests. Easy to believe if you're north of the Watford Gap (I've left you an avenue of retort but honestly, perhaps you'd best not take it ;))...

Truth be told, national (and international) politics has increasingly become about preservation of the few and IF that happens to include some upswing for the masses, marvelous. But generally-speaking, most of the major modern political decisions of the last 40 years have been to serve an Industrial Military Complex. I don't sit around faffing about it, and I don't sit around conspiracizing (sp) either, but every so often the facts scream out. And they are that there ain't be a Ghandi or Mother Theresa in office ANYWHERE in my lifetime.

In the spirit of discussion/debate as always mate.
Click to expand...
Sorry dude, I'll have to take another look at this post when I'm less tired - it's not making a lot of sense.

If you're holding up Norway as an example of successful socialism then you're very wide of the mark. Norway's spend as a proportion of its GDP is high, but that's because a massive chunk of its income comes from natural resources (of which it has many) and a gigantic sovereign wealth fund. Good ol' capitalist market investments pays for the high spending that Norway is almost unique in being able to afford.

Its businesses also do very well out of the comparatively soft touch regulation in the country:
http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=norway|unitedstates&src=ranking (see business & trade freedom measures).

Oh, and I do like Zegna suits but I'd really like to see our leader in Boateng if he's really going to stand out. I'd let Dave borrow one of my coats but he's a bit too chubby. George could probably fit in one but his shoulders aren't broad enough to fill them.
 
thfcsteff said:
Socialism became a sullied word thanks to the careful, studious propagandist crude of the Thatcherites. The implication is that socialism cannot accommodate any degree of capitalism, but this is (of course) total cobblers is evidenced in countries such as Norway where a 'socialist' mentality has provided quality services for all of society without disallowing those who wish to be millionaires/billionaires the chance to do so. It's a simple premise, but does require those who tread the path of riches to chip in a proportionate amount. Funnily enough, you never hear of people in such countries complaining, whatever end of the economic spectrum they are. Anyway, to continue...
Click to expand...

I really admire the Scandinavian countries. But they are not without their problems and I believe basically that people are the same the world over, which means you get good and bad white people good and bad black people good and bad gay people etc.

So I say with some certainty that the are people in Norway complaining about something as people love to biitch and moan.

But yes I agree their model(society) seems a fairer one then what we have, of course they used their oil income better then us. But they also have a far lower population and lower percentage of benefit claimants. It would be impossible to offer the welfare benefits they do there, here because of the sheer amount of benefits receiptants in this country. Welfare and benefit claimants have a bad rep these days, but we should remember that it includes pensions and I am thinking of this as well when I say we could not do what the Norwegians are doing.

I think it has less to do with Thatcher but more how Labour behaved in the 70's as to why Socialism got a bad name, because if it is done properly then of course socialism is a good thing. How could people not want to help others and those less fortunate then themselves. Unfortunately in this country it has created a huge underclass of scum who do not want to work. Sadly Labour 97-08 liked this because they saw it as easy votes to keep people like this.

The tories have the same vested interests when it comes to pensioners, for both labour and the tories it is all about voters.
 
scaramanga said:
Sorry dude, I'll have to take another look at this post when I'm less tired - it's not making a lot of sense.

If you're holding up Norway as an example of successful socialism then you're very wide of the mark. Norway's spend as a proportion of its GDP is high, but that's because a massive chunk of its income comes from natural resources (of which it has many) and a gigantic sovereign wealth fund. Good ol' capitalist market investments pays for the high spending that Norway is almost unique in being able to afford.

Its businesses also do very well out of the comparatively soft touch regulation in the country:
http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=norway|unitedstates&src=ranking (see business & trade freedom measures).

Oh, and I do like Zegna suits but I'd really like to see our leader in Boateng if he's really going to stand out. I'd let Dave borrow one of my coats but he's a bit too chubby. George could probably fit in one but his shoulders aren't broad enough to fill them.
Click to expand...

That was my point.
There is this absurd concept that you can only have one or the other.
My point was clear. You can have both.
And whilst we never quite had the natural resources of these regions, we did manage to switch the basis of our economy from production and industry to a largely southern-based service and financial one...

Regulation? Funny stuff. I would say the transparency of those nations is far better than ours or Americas...

I will always stand aside to you when it comes to suits; Zegna makes a nice suit (sadly not my cut) but yes Boateng would be nice...I'd personally go for a mate with Saville Row chops to custom for my specs ;-)
 
japenesegardenlover said:
I really admire the Scandinavian countries. But they are not without their problems and I believe basically that people are the same the world over, which means you get good and bad white people good and bad black people good and bad gay people etc.

So I say with some certainty that the are people in Norway complaining about something as people love to biitch and moan.

But yes I agree their model(society) seems a fairer one then what we have, of course they used their oil income better then us. But they also have a far lower population and lower percentage of benefit claimants. It would be impossible to offer the welfare benefits they do there, here because of the sheer amount of benefits receiptants in this country. Welfare and benefit claimants have a bad rep these days, but we should remember that it includes pensions and I am thinking of this as well when I say we could not do what the Norwegians are doing.

I think it has less to do with Thatcher but more how Labour behaved in the 70's as to why Socialism got a bad name, because if it is done properly then of course socialism is a good thing. How could people not want to help others and those less fortunate then themselves. Unfortunately in this country it has created a huge underclass of scum who do not want to work. Sadly Labour 97-08 liked this because they saw it as easy votes to keep people like this.

The tories have the same vested interests when it comes to pensioners, for both labour and the tories it is all about voters.
Click to expand...

Mate...a very fair post indeed...some fine points...I will absolutely agree that the darkness of early '70s Labour politicians & the union behaviours sadly helped open the door for a reactive vote of the nature that we eventually got. Greed and complacency, in fact a very similar scenario to Animal Farm with regards to a few ruining it for the many.

I agree there is a woefully uneducated, unmotivated and lazy underclass which currently exists and fulfill the prophecy of 'scummage' but sadly, there are an awful lot of good people suffering too (which you have noted)...your comments on Labour '97-08 are bang-on the money!!!!!

Fine post.
 
thfcsteff said:
Mate...a very fair post indeed...some fine points...I will absolutely agree that the darkness of early '70s Labour politicians & the union behaviours sadly helped open the door for a reactive vote of the nature that we eventually got. Greed and complacency, in fact a very similar scenario to Animal Farm with regards to a few ruining it for the many.

I agree there is a woefully uneducated, unmotivated and lazy underclass which currently exists and fulfill the prophecy of 'scummage' but sadly, there are an awful lot of good people suffering too (which you have noted)...your comments on Labour '97-08 are bang-on the money!!!!!

Fine post.
Click to expand...
Animal farm???? I am not sure what a questionable porno has to do with it. Look I am one of the most open minded people sexually you will ever meet, but children and animals are off limits way off limits.

That movie made me feel sick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back