• 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:
Do not get me wrong Blair did a lot of good after the Torys years, however he lied about the reason he took us into war and joined the other warmonger Bush in doing so. As for lives lost a guy I played football with for years and also worked with lost his son, he is a shell now and Blair and Bush have blood on their hands.

Not only did itcost the lives of thousands it also led to the country spending billions on what was a illegal war based on a lie.
Click to expand...
I am sorry for your friend's loss, as a father myself I couldn't imagine losing my son. But As I said although Blair got it wrong on Iraq, horribly wrong, I don't believe he did it for any other reason than he thought it was in Britain's best interests. Of course only he will ever know.
 
Robspur12 said:
I am sorry for your friend's loss, as a father myself I couldn't imagine losing my son. But As I said although Blair got it wrong on Iraq, horribly wrong, I don't believe he did it for any other reason than he thought it was in Britain's best interests. Of course only he will ever know.
Click to expand...

That is true, but he did like to kiss Bush's arse. The thing that gets me is after the farce of Iraq they made him a peace envoy for the middle east.

You could not make it up. :eek:
 
Robspur12 said:
I think the Tories won simply because they have a more credible leader. The Labour Party actually the unions. Failed to learn from recent history, first Foot then Kinnock, leaders who did not resonate with the country. Well that's because they were too left wing I hear people saying, but the Tories also had their problems with Hague then IDS. Remember them 2001 election where blair's labour trounced hague's conservatives despite the fuel crisis and foot and mouth? Tories won this time because in the end the British electorate rejected Ed Miliband. I think one needs to be careful before concluding that Labour lost this for simply being too left wing. They didn't and they were not which is why the SNP trounced them in Scotland. The deficit must continue to be cut and borrowing reduced, while public services not decimated, so Politicians should not be afraid of putting forward some tax rises to mitigate cuts.
Click to expand...

Blair was successful by moving labour to the centre and being a brilliant communicator.

I'd say labour lost by admitting that they would have to be fiscally responsible but not being able to exain how, scrabbling for votes with ill thought out policies that attack business without taking into account that large swathes of voters want to continue their employment with them. Cameron is certainly a more credible leader for many but I don't think it's as simple as that.
 
parklane1 said:
You are right he was not the problem and he did well in his first few years, however he lost it by getting into bed with that other warmonger Bush and took us into a illegal war on a lie. I know lots of people have never voted for Labour since and will not until all trace of those who backed him in that decision are no longer part of the party.
Click to expand...

The war wasn't illegal. Also, what evidence do you have of him lying?
 
glorygloryeze said:
Ok, at least i now know you are not serious. There has been increased use of food banks. Food banks have needed to be created because the amount of people that would need them has been increasing and yes this has shown compassion, but let's not play silly statistics and say that their proliferation across many areas does not show that the number of people that are 'needy' has reached epic proportions in some areas. It's a humiliation for many who use them, and you use them if you are desperate. Also, many who do use them are IN WORK; so much for "much better living standards across the board"

Ok, tell me the source of this statement that "Living standards have never been higher then in the last decade"...which means of course the crash of the late naughties never happened...
Click to expand...

Yes, living standards have never been higher, as per people continually living longer.

Food banks are just a new idea to deal with the needy in our society and were brought over from America.

There were more people that needed help or were homeless before food banks even existed in this country
 
NWND said:
Yes, living standards have never been higher, as per people continually living longer.

Food banks are just a new idea to deal with the needy in our society and were brought over from America.

There were more people that needed help or were homeless before food banks even existed in this country
Click to expand...

I don't think food banks are a new idea, I've been buying stuff for the food bank bin at tesco for years
 
O
galeforce said:
Blair was successful by moving labour to the centre and being a brilliant communicator.

I'd say labour lost by admitting that they would have to be fiscally responsible but not being able to exain how, scrabbling for votes with ill thought out policies that attack business without taking into account that large swathes of voters want to continue their employment with them. Cameron is certainly a more credible leader for many but I don't think it's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Of course I will disagree. Labour record on the economy was horribly distorted by the coalition. Miliband foolishly allowed that to happen. He also delivered his message wrongly making out that taxing people was an end in itself as opposed to a means to protect essential services. I don't think combining cuts with some targeted tax rises is necessarily a vote loser per se. It's about how the message is delivered and by who imo. Btw I believe in giving hard working people tax cuts but I don't think the current economic situation or the state of public finances justify that now.
 
NWND said:
Yes, living standards have never been higher, as per people continually living longer.

Food banks are just a new idea to deal with the needy in our society and were brought over from America.

There were more people that needed help or were homeless before food banks even existed in this country
Click to expand...

First of all, people living longer in itself doesn't mean LIVING STANDARDS are higher; after all many people can live longer but with chronic long term conditions due to better medicine provision and availability. The standard of the extra years of life in that scenario may not actually be higher, though no doubt it can be.

Food banks -
i'll ask again: do you have a source for your statement? Until you do, i'm sorry but it simply looks like you are making this up or basing it purely on the view from your own bedroom window..
 
What makes Chuka Umunna New Labour? And which other Labour leadership candidates would be labelled as such (and why)?

Also, Alan Johnson, often mentioned as the leader that should have taken over in the last year to give Labour a chance of winning: which camp would have fallen into (i.e. is he 'old' or 'new' Labour)?
 
monkeybarry said:
I'm pretty sure there was a post almost word for word just after the last election.
Extreme left doesn't seem to be on the radar in the UK - hadn't been since pre Thatcher
Tory lite would probably be quite appealing - appealing to the middle classes but with a bit of social conscience thrown in...... Like Blair, and he was quite popular. Would have a great legacy if 9/11 hadn't happened
Click to expand...

Extreme left, what ARE you talking about? This Labour Party is nowhere near as left wing as the Wilson Government, which was itself considered to be pretty right wing by the standards of the day.
 
glorygloryeze said:
What makes Chuka Umunna New Labour? And which other Labour leadership candidates would be labelled as such (and why)?

Also, Alan Johnson, often mentioned as the leader that should have taken over in the last year to give Labour a chance of winning: which camp would have fallen into (i.e. is he 'old' or 'new' Labour)?
Click to expand...


Labelled as one of Blair's babies. Part of that machine. People in the know, want Jarvis, as I indicated above.
 
I'd love to know what % of people that use food banks still either smoke, gamble, drink or use drugs? 100% that I know do. Stop wasting money on the above and you may not need to go there!!!!

They were intended for the very needy not for scumbags that come into betting shops every day of their lives, smoke and drink every day!
 
Those Tories suggesting Tory-Lite for Labour. How enthused would you be, If I suggested that Cameron should nationalise all energy reserves, all public transport and the banks? You would say, well that's not what the Conservative party is about. Quite right too. Neither is Labour about adopting Tory policies. This was all part of Thatcher's evil. She wanted a de facto one party state, where the opposition were a pale shadow of the government. A Tweedele Dum, Tweedle De system. No thanks!
 
Roy1983 said:
I'd love to know what % of people that use food banks still either smoke, gamble, drink or use drugs? 100% that I know do. Stop wasting money on the above and you may not need to go there!!!!

They were intended for the very needy not for scumbags that come into betting shops every day of their lives, smoke and drink every day!
Click to expand...


Yeah right because they all do that. What bigoted nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back