Ed Milliband

Robbie G said:
What's wrong with toffs and rich kids? Everyone seems to dislike them, but I never hear why.
Click to expand...
They use a disproportionately high amount of resources & usually swan around in blissful ignorance of the massive prielleges they received yet seem to claim to be self-made (in my experience).

This isn't just true of rich kids/toffs - people in society are generally pretty ignorant of the contributing factors which lead to either their success or failure.
 
elmarko1234 said:
I just find it hilarious that people think unions are to blame for the current mess.

Oh really yes, it's the excessive power of labour (not the political party) that is causing the problems now isn't it. :rolleyes:

The only reason 99% of this forum have any employment rights at all is because of unions.

Thatcher is a waste of space & I won't be shedding any tears when she is gone.

Yes, the t-shirt is in bad taste (I wouldn't wear it, or support it personally) - but who said you have the right to not be offended?
Click to expand...

I don't think many people think unions are to blame for this mess (assuming by mess you mean the financial situation)? It is however funny to see how deluded the hard line trade unionists are. They still just don't understand that the Government has limited money and it comes from the public and not some magic tree that has an endless supply. Therefore when spending has to be reduced, pay in the public sector is naturally going to be part of that.

Thatcher to me seemed to wake the country up a bit, cut the dead wood (and saved lives - those mines were taking lives don't forget) and got things going.

Unfortunately people will forget what Labour did to the country (tax & spend) in the past (80s) and more recently and blindly vote them in again for another round of debt.
 
Duke said:
I don't think many people think unions are to blame for this mess (assuming by mess you mean the financial situation)? It is however funny to see how deluded the hard line trade unionists are. They still just don't understand that the Government has limited money and it comes from the public and not some magic tree that has an endless supply. Therefore when spending has to be reduced, pay in the public sector is naturally going to be part of that.

Thatcher to me seemed to wake the country up a bit, cut the dead wood (and saved lives - those mines were taking lives don't forget) and got things going.

Unfortunately people will forget what Labour did to the country (tax & spend) in the past (80s) and more recently and blindly vote them in again for another round of debt.
Click to expand...
Actually if you look at the wealth distribution statistics in the developed world you will see that the above is complete & utter tosh.

The share of the wages/money for the bottom quartile has fallen over the last 30 years - not risen.

We have the money to pay for good pensions for the working population, just it's all in the pockets of a few select groups.

I'd like a genuine answer as to how a group with less than 3% of the total wealth can really cause that much of a problem to an economy.

Thatchers neo-liberal doctrine (along with Reagan) with the idea that slacking the regulation of the markets is actually what caused the financial mess we are in now.

Blair continued the same utter stupidity, which provided a short term boon (for a few) at the expense of long term sustainability.
 
Duke said:
Unfortunately people will forget what Labour did to the country (tax & spend) in the past (80s) and more recently and blindly vote them in again for another round of debt.
Click to expand...

Labour weren't in power during the 80s.
 
I cant take this guy seriously. Not least because of this kind of gaff.

Its more his resemblance to an animated character.

wallace2.jpg




I cant disassociate him from Wallace :eek:
 
elmarko1234 said:
Actually if you look at the wealth distribution statistics in the developed world you will see that the above is complete & utter tosh.

The share of the wages/money for the bottom quartile has fallen over the last 30 years - not risen.

We have the money to pay for good pensions for the working population, just it's all in the pockets of a few select groups.

I'd like a genuine answer as to how a group with less than 3% of the total wealth can really cause that much of a problem to an economy.

Thatchers neo-liberal doctrine (along with Reagan) with the idea that slacking the regulation of the markets is actually what caused the financial mess we are in now.

Blair continued the same utter stupidity, which provided a short term boon (for a few) at the expense of long term sustainability.
Click to expand...

People have never had it so good, the fact the gap has increased doesn't detract from the ability that we have had healthy and prosperous economy, and it will return but at a much lower rate of growth.
 
simulatorman said:
That depends on which side of the fence you're sitting on. He's the right to choice to keep labour unelectable.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the sentiment entirely. I agree that I don't want a left leaning government in power but when you have such a degree of delusion and grandeur in opposition they can say whatever they want. They can't actually deliver on what they say, but people don't care/understand about that so they win votes. A healthy democracy needs strong opposition that heeds to the health of the country, and not just votes at all costs.
 
elmarko1234 said:
They use a disproportionately high amount of resources
Click to expand...

The wealthiest in society use private education, private healthcare, private housing and private transport.

They quite clearly consume less state resources than the average person, and yet are taxed significantly more in absolute terms in tax, so how can you say they use disproportionately high amounts of resources?
 
Muffin` said:
The wealthiest in society use private education, private healthcare, private housing and private transport.

They quite clearly consume less state resources than the average person, and yet are taxed significantly more in absolute terms in tax, so how can you say they use disproportionately high amounts of resources?
Click to expand...
I've put the "odd" lines in bold to help you out.

You are the one who started talking about state resources, not me.
 
I do struggle with this, you'll have to help me out.

After 13 years of pretty much abject failure, lies, spin, 2 wars we didnt need to be involved in, bribery, expenses fiddling, massaged statistics about the NHS, immigration, crime and the complete mismanagement of the economy on a scale never before witnessed.....

Why is voting labour a good idea again?
 
atpbx said:
I do struggle with this, you'll have to help me out.

After 13 years of pretty much abject failure, lies, spin, 2 wars we didnt need to be involved in, bribery, expenses fiddling, massaged statistics about the NHS, immigration, crime and the complete mismanagement of the economy on a scale never before witnessed.....

Why is voting labour a good idea again?
Click to expand...
Because you get exactly the same with the Tory's (but with less provisions to the vulnerable).

Or are you implying you don't get wars/spin/lies/bribery/expenses/fiddling/massaged statistics/just as much immigration/crime & mismanagement of our economy under this government or we didn't get it under previous Tory governments?.

I think you will find our economy didn't fully tank until this government started the slash & burn policies which destroyed any chance of economic growth.
 
Muffin` said:
You're going to have to spell it out
Click to expand...
Resources ≠ state resources.

I'm talking about physical resources, more oil, plastic, increased pollution etc.

Rich people use far more finite resources per capita than the rest of the population.
 
elmarko1234 said:
Because you get exactly the same with the Tory's (but with less provisions to the vulnerable).

Or are you implying you don't get wars/spin/lies/bribery/expenses/fiddling/massaged statistics/just as much immigration/crime & mismanagement of our economy under this government or we didn't get it under previous Tory governments?.

I think you will find our economy didn't fully tank until this government started the slash & burn policies which destroyed any chance of economic growth.
Click to expand...

That's simply not the case.
The last Labour government have damaged this country pretty much worse than any other administration.

Forget the 70's and begging for bailouts after the last time they destroyed the economy, the scale of failure of the Blair/Brown double whammy makes that look like a small hiccup:
 
In 1981 I started work after a short period out of work following a driving ban. I am still in the same job at a higher position for the same organisation (although it has changed ownership).

So for most of Maggies time, all of Nu labour and the current coalition. Just live your life and politics evens out over the years.

If not Maggie we could have had a reoccurrence of Ted Heath and horror, even Michael Foot may have come back against him. She did many services to the country at the time but towards the end of her time, a few disservices. Not as many as A Blair esq.
 
norm said:
Ed will never be PM anyway.

His brother David on the other hand had more stature and standing which I think would have allowed him to be PM.
Click to expand...

i have a feeling Ed is just a stand in anyway.

zero hope of him becoming MP for at least 4 years and when he steps down around a future election they hope people with think 'ah, the gimp from wallace and gromit is gone' and it will make his brother look much more likely.

why are all politicians such weirdos? how many actual politicians would you even trust to walk your dog let alone run anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom