Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

 

 

This has to be one of the weakest labour contests I have seen in a while. Does not stem well for the future as an alternative to conservative

 

the only possible saving grace for Labour  is that Cameron will be standing down before the next GE (unless he does a Blair and breaks promises)  and that the conservative party will likely end up with either May or Osborne ...neither of whom will be that popular with the public at large

 

I suspect though that whoever Unite decide will win the labour contest will struggle to hold the party together and Labours future looks much bleaker than the conservatives

 

If they vote May as leader I think labour will win a bigger landslide than conservatives did in the recent election

 

She is vile 

 

 

The landslide that is a majority of 12?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This has to be one of the weakest labour contests I have seen in a while. Does not stem well for the future as an alternative to conservative

 

the only possible saving grace for Labour  is that Cameron will be standing down before the next GE (unless he does a Blair and breaks promises)  and that the conservative party will likely end up with either May or Osborne ...neither of whom will be that popular with the public at large

 

I suspect though that whoever Unite decide will win the labour contest will struggle to hold the party together and Labours future looks much bleaker than the conservatives

 

If they vote May as leader I think labour will win a bigger landslide than conservatives did in the recent election

 

She is vile 

 

 

The landslide that is a majority of 12?

 

he's probably talking more in terms of Ed was already measuring the curtains for number 10 landslide than actual numbers landslide

Link to post
Share on other sites

Burnham now pledging to scrap tuition fees. He's on the road to Damascus here, he'll be the full Tony Benn by the middle of next week

 

Burnham has launched his manifesto today, you can read it here:

 

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/558290fc01925b0184000001/attachments/original/1438791117/ANDY_BURNHAM_MANIFESTO.pdf?1438791117

 

It's a bit of a mixed bag. Some of the ideas in it are great - I like his stance on the NHS, helping people deal with the costs of care. My own family are experiencing this at the moment, and it's hard to see my grandfather torn between acknowledging he needs care for his wife and his financial concerns for his own future. In general I think mental health is quite neglected policy-wise and Burnham seems to have some good ideas in the area. 

 

On the other hand, I don't really think it's completely honest to say he favours re-nationalising the railways, what he favours is creating a taxpayer-backed company called National Rail to bid on tenders as they become available. Maybe this is more practical than Corbyn signing private rail companies into history with a swish of his pen, but it's a bit less pulse-racing and it would take a decade of PM Burnham before a significant chunk of the rail network were re-nationalised, even assuming 'National Rail' won all their bids. 

 

I don't know who I would vote for, if I had a vote. It would be Burnham or Corbyn though, Cooper seems to be campaigning without ideas and Liz Kendall is, well, I don't even need to finish the sentence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

This has to be one of the weakest labour contests I have seen in a while. Does not stem well for the future as an alternative to conservative

 

the only possible saving grace for Labour  is that Cameron will be standing down before the next GE (unless he does a Blair and breaks promises)  and that the conservative party will likely end up with either May or Osborne ...neither of whom will be that popular with the public at large

 

I suspect though that whoever Unite decide will win the labour contest will struggle to hold the party together and Labours future looks much bleaker than the conservatives

 

If they vote May as leader I think labour will win a bigger landslide than conservatives did in the recent election

 

She is vile 

 

 

The landslide that is a majority of 12?

 

he's probably talking more in terms of Ed was already measuring the curtains for number 10 landslide than actual numbers landslide

 

 

Fair enough, but that's not really got anything to do with the word 'landslide'. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

This has to be one of the weakest labour contests I have seen in a while. Does not stem well for the future as an alternative to conservative

 

the only possible saving grace for Labour  is that Cameron will be standing down before the next GE (unless he does a Blair and breaks promises)  and that the conservative party will likely end up with either May or Osborne ...neither of whom will be that popular with the public at large

 

I suspect though that whoever Unite decide will win the labour contest will struggle to hold the party together and Labours future looks much bleaker than the conservatives

 

If they vote May as leader I think labour will win a bigger landslide than conservatives did in the recent election

 

She is vile 

 

 

The landslide that is a majority of 12?

 

he's probably talking more in terms of Ed was already measuring the curtains for number 10 landslide than actual numbers landslide

 

 

Fair enough, but that's not really got anything to do with the word 'landslide'. 

 

maybe there was a geological phenomenon involving a wide range of ground movement in the garden at downing street  on election day as well  ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Burnham now pledging to scrap tuition fees. He's on the road to Damascus here, he'll be the full Tony Benn by the middle of next week

 

Burnham has launched his manifesto today, you can read it here:

 

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/558290fc01925b0184000001/attachments/original/1438791117/ANDY_BURNHAM_MANIFESTO.pdf?1438791117

 

It's a bit of a mixed bag. Some of the ideas in it are great - I like his stance on the NHS, helping people deal with the costs of care. My own family are experiencing this at the moment, and it's hard to see my grandfather torn between acknowledging he needs care for his wife and his financial concerns for his own future. In general I think mental health is quite neglected policy-wise and Burnham seems to have some good ideas in the area. 

 

On the other hand, I don't really think it's completely honest to say he favours re-nationalising the railways, what he favours is creating a taxpayer-backed company called National Rail to bid on tenders as they become available. Maybe this is more practical than Corbyn signing private rail companies into history with a swish of his pen, but it's a bit less pulse-racing and it would take a decade of PM Burnham before a significant chunk of the rail network were re-nationalised, even assuming 'National Rail' won all their bids. 

 

I don't know who I would vote for, if I had a vote. It would be Burnham or Corbyn though, Cooper seems to be campaigning without ideas and Liz Kendall is, well, I don't even need to finish the sentence. 

 

 

when it comes to the NHS and his spell in charge as Health minister , Burnham should just point beyond the crowds , shout "oh look an eagle " and then run and hide behind a curtain whilst everybody is looking the other way

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems Mr Corbyn thinks that Labour need to have a debate about revisiting Clause IV if he wins the leadership...

I think he's dead right about the public having an appetite to renationalise the railways, it would be a good move - if it can be run by decent management rather than militant union men.

As for opening up the coal mines (not so environmentally friendly!) and re nationalising the gas and electricity sectors he may be a little off the mark. Reform is certainly worth looking into properly but I don't think re nationalisation is a goer, not least because of estimated £185 billion price tag and the fact that a good chunk of the power sector is owned by EDF, the French national power company!

It's a debate worth having to see if any more practical proposals can be developed as a result, but I don't think cut and pasting 1973 to 2015 will work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all in the language used and the way the media choose to relay it.

 

He mentioned yesterday he'd like to look at why the post / royal mail has to be private and possibly row back on that one. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. On the news, this comment is then cut to Yvette Cooper suggesting Corbyn wants to go back to recreating British Leyland. He never said that at all.

 

I'd consider it a fairly sensible idea to have the basics in some form of state ownership or part ownership or joint responsibility.

 

Right now, we are heading towards all steel plants in the UK being in foreign ownership. What happens when Mr Tata decides to turn off the furnaces as it's cheaper in India? They don't get turned back on. But then that might not matter anyway, because the arab states and Russia where we get our gas might decide to turn off the supply anyway. But not to worry, if it's a Tuesday it'll be our turn to sail the aircraft carrier and if it's a Thursday the americans might lend us some aircraft for our pilots to fly.

 

I wouldn't consider myself particularly right wing. But I do happen to think 'defence' is important. For me, defence includes the ability to fire up a furnace, bash some steel and build a tank. It means being able to keep the lights on - without a Chinese nuclear facility at Hinckley. It means ensuring the UK can produce milk and is keeping the technology to keep water clean and affordable 'in house', not reliant on foreign companies being able to make a profit.

 

That's defence.

 

Defence is not drone attacks on Afghan weddings.

** Wild and sustained applause** 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Boris Johnson and Donald Trump is more likely.

Can you imagine that day... It's not worth thinking about is it? Horrifying.

 

I dont think Boris would be that bad to be honest

 

Have to say he has done a great job as  London mayor in my opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all in the language used and the way the media choose to relay it.

He mentioned yesterday he'd like to look at why the post / royal mail has to be private and possibly row back on that one. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. On the news, this comment is then cut to Yvette Cooper suggesting Corbyn wants to go back to recreating British Leyland. He never said that at all.

I'd consider it a fairly sensible idea to have the basics in some form of state ownership or part ownership or joint responsibility.

Right now, we are heading towards all steel plants in the UK being in foreign ownership. What happens when Mr Tata decides to turn off the furnaces as it's cheaper in India? They don't get turned back on. But then that might not matter anyway, because the arab states and Russia where we get our gas might decide to turn off the supply anyway. But not to worry, if it's a Tuesday it'll be our turn to sail the aircraft carrier and if it's a Thursday the americans might lend us some aircraft for our pilots to fly.

I wouldn't consider myself particularly right wing. But I do happen to think 'defence' is important. For me, defence includes the ability to fire up a furnace, bash some steel and build a tank. It means being able to keep the lights on - without a Chinese nuclear facility at Hinckley. It means ensuring the UK can produce milk and is keeping the technology to keep water clean and affordable 'in house', not reliant on foreign companies being able to make a profit.

That's defence.

Defence is not drone attacks on Afghan weddings.

** Wild and sustained applause**

The issue isn't with public ownership of Critical National Infrastructure, as Chris eloquently says above that is sensible and prudent. My concern is more about the ability of politicians and/or civil servants to competently manage it, because their pedigree of doing so is p*ss poor.

For the record our last tank factory was shut years ago. Good job the entire existing fleet isn't going to be obsolete in a very few years. Oh, it is? Bugger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think Boris would be that bad to be honest.

Have to say he has done a great job as  London mayor in my opinion.

 

Fortunately I'd just finished my cup of tea before reading that, Demitri ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record our last tank factory was shut years ago. Good job the entire existing fleet isn't going to be obsolete in a very few years. Oh, it is? Bugger.

 

It's a Global market now Awol, that's the important thing :mellow:

 

The Germans make a nice luxury Panzer, or maybe a Hyundai filled with gizmos?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For the record our last tank factory was shut years ago. Good job the entire existing fleet isn't going to be obsolete in a very few years. Oh, it is? Bugger.

 

It's a Global market now Awol, that's the important thing :mellow:

 

The Germans make a nice luxury Panzer, or maybe a Hyundai filled with gizmos?

 

 

I don't know about that but I definitely think KIA has very limited appeal when it comes to military vehicles. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â