Jump to content

The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

seen it as it was linked to me, unfortunately we are heading for 5 years more of neo-liberal driven bollocks and the rampant escalation of the giveaway of public assets to corporate entities before a moderate center party, let alone a center left party have a chance to get anywhere near government.

Edited by mockingbird_franklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

 the rampant escalation of the giveaway of public assets to corporate entities 

Actually that raises a point I read the other week , the govt had to essentially pay £28bn to take the burden off Royal Mail pernsions and pass them onto the exchequer...  another burden for future generations to carry in the name of pricitisation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Actually that raises a point I read the other week , the govt had to essentially pay £28bn to take the burden off Royal Mail pernsions and pass them onto the exchequer...  another burden for future generations to carry in the name of pricitisation 

Sounds like you agree that the privatisation was at best stupid and at worst done for less than honourable reasons...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Sounds like you agree that the privatisation was at best stupid and at worst done for less than honourable reasons...

From memory Alan Duncan accused Labour of trying to steal £22bn to dump on future generations , at the time they were proposing it ... I can't see how that situation changed , so it gets filed under less than honourable reasons ( and probably stupid as well :) )

Edited by tonyh29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've never understood about Labour is why the leader never gets to pick his deputy. Corbyn becomes leader and Tom Watson is independently appointed as his number two and deputy leader. Neither can stand each other, don't talk to each other and so you have divisions begin to appear in the party.

It's a bit like appointing Steve Bruce as manager and then appointing the person he most despises in football as his assistant (would probably be more use than Calderwood though).

Even if they were a pair of slimebags, Cameron and George Osborne got on and could present a united front to their voters and followers. Labour just can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Actually that raises a point I read the other week , the govt had to essentially pay £28bn to take the burden off Royal Mail pernsions and pass them onto the exchequer...  another burden for future generations to carry in the name of pricitisation 

Makes one wonder why settling a bill with the EU is such a moral outrage for some people, when those sorts of sums are written off and quickly forgotten about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

Makes one wonder why settling a bill with the EU is such a moral outrage for some people, when those sorts of sums are written off and quickly forgotten about.

I did write that as part of my initial reply and deleted it as it didn't seem relevant to the comment I was replying to  , but yeah I agree it does suggest the divorce bill is being used for a political game ... maybe we leaked the £50bn figure so when we settle on £30bn it can be deemed a victory !!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

From memory Alan Duncan accused Labour of trying to steal £22bn to dump on future generations , at the time they were proposing it ... I can't see how that situation changed , so it gets filed under less than honourable reasons ( and probably stupid as well :) )

Which was ludicrous really irrespective of opinions on the privatisation. Sure the Government were looking to take the assets of the pension fund onto their books and there would have been a liability cost of that but they certainly weren't trying to steal the pension fund.

The sale of Royal Mail at a reduced price to 'friends' and backers of the then Government was though bordering on theft.

As for Duncan, he seems a little less concerned with the concept of right and wrong when it comes to oil deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, VillaChris said:

One thing I've never understood about Labour is why the leader never gets to pick his deputy. Corbyn becomes leader and Tom Watson is independently appointed as his number two and deputy leader. Neither can stand each other, don't talk to each other and so you have divisions begin to appear in the party.

It's a bit like appointing Steve Bruce as manager and then appointing the person he most despises in football as his assistant (would probably be more use than Calderwood though).

Even if they were a pair of slimebags, Cameron and George Osborne got on and could present a united front to their voters and followers. Labour just can't.

To be fair, Corbyn gets on very well with John McDonnell, who is the equivalent in this example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diane Abbott. Oh Dear.

http://shr.gs/o6vBarN

audio of incompetence

Quote

when asked how much the policy would cost, Ms Abbott said: "Well, erm... if we recruit the 10,000 policemen and women over a four-year period, we believe it will be about £300,000."

Nick queried the amount: "£300,000 for 10,000 police officers? What are you paying them?"

Ms Abbott tried to clarify: "Haha, no. I mean... sorry. They will cost... they will, it will cost, erm, about... about £80million."

Again Nick asked how she got to that figure, explaining that it would mean paying the police officers an annual salary of £8,000.

Ms Abbott said: "We get to that figure because we anticipate recruiting 25,000 extra police officers a year at least over a period of four years and we're looking at what average police wages are generally, but also specifically police wages in London."

Despite struggling with how much the policy would cost, Ms Abbott insisted the plan was fully-costed and fully-thought-through, paid for by reversing the Conservative cuts to Capital Gains Tax.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the flags.

I'd say there's probably bigger things to poke at than the flags he's standing under but it's easy ammunition for anyone looking for excuses to shoot.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

 

It's a reasonable but bollocks point. Left wing victories have been rare, but both Callaghan and Wilson have been pm in the past 50 years. It's also looking back when he says look forward. Other than that  ..... :crylaugh:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â