FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > UK needs an injection of socialism.
UK needs an injection of socialism.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
"I was watching question time and the first question was, does uk need an injection of socialism? With the rise of corbynism and shift in politics it is getting a very popular alternative with the younger ones as we are all getting bored with the torys, what is your view? I reckon it would work as corbyn is a modern day rocky balboa, a people champion "I agree. I watched phil hammond attack Corbyn and i thought just drolled on giving a negative 'they're a worse option than us' lecture. | |||
"I was watching question time and the first question was, does uk need an injection of socialism? With the rise of corbynism and shift in politics it is getting a very popular alternative with the younger ones as we are all getting bored with the torys, what is your view? I reckon it would work as corbyn is a modern day rocky balboa, a people champion
I agree. I watched phil hammond attack Corbyn and i thought just drolled on giving a negative 'they're a worse option than us' lecture. "A boring monotonous lecture. It looked more like an undertakers convention. All dour and dressed dark clothed for it too  | |||
"I was watching question time and the first question was, does uk need an injection of socialism? With the rise of corbynism and shift in politics it is getting a very popular alternative with the younger ones as we are all getting bored with the torys, what is your view? I reckon it would work as corbyn is a modern day rocky balboa, a people champion
I agree. I watched phil hammond attack Corbyn and i thought just drolled on giving a negative 'they're a worse option than us' lecture.
A boring monotonous lecture. It looked more like an undertakers convention. All dour and dressed dark clothed for it too "Yes was so dour it made me go to the wine chiller Things are changing not just here all over the world it’s a mess | |||
| |||
 | |||
"If jezza had any radical ideas about changing anything he can start there for me "Me too. If he has any I'd like to be told about em! | |||
"If jezza had any radical ideas about changing anything he can start there for me
Me too. If he has any I'd like to be told about em! "It would be radical if we had socially and environmentaly responsible capitalism.  | |||
"If jezza had any radical ideas about changing anything he can start there for me
Me too. If he has any I'd like to be told about em!
It would be radical if we had socially and environmentaly responsible capitalism. "The Greelaberative party | |||
| |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time?" While everyone else sees the financial prudence of the tories?... "So here are the facts. Overall deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £348 billion (average £58 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £ 720.1 billion (average £102.9 billion per year) Total Conservative overall deficits for the 13 years: £ 1068.1 billion (average £82.2 billion per year) - yes, over one trillion pounds in 13 years! Total Labour 1997/98 to 2009/10 overall deficits for the 13 years: £496.4 billion (average £38.2 billion per year). Current budget deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £222.5 billion (average £37.1 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £457.2 billion (average £65.3 billion per year) Total Conservative current budget deficits for the 13 years: £679.7 billion (average £52.3 billion per year) Total Labour current budget deficits for the 13 years: £171.8 billion (average £13.2 billion per year). Conclusion: The average annual overall deficit under Labour during this 26 year period is less than half that of Conservative governments, taken separately and together. The average annual current budget deficit under Conservative governments during this 26 year period is around four times as large as that of the Labour governments. The Major government's average current deficit was nearly 3 times the average of the Labour government. Moreover, the average Conservative Government annual deficit is almost double the size of today’s alleged Labour ‘bombshell’ - and the average Tory current budget deficit is also larger than the spurious 'bombshell'! In short, the Conservatives since 1991/92 have a track record of huge budget deficits that is unique in our non-wartime history." | |||
| |||
| |||
"Coryn is not a socialist he is a communist,big difference" Corbyn hasn't got the balls to be communist. How long would Corbyn last in Stalinist Russia? Maoist China, or Kimist NK? Not very fucking long at all. Communists are ruthless motherfuckers, Corbyn really, really isn't. | |||
"I'm going to keep telling people what I've been telling them for years!. The banking crises didn't end in 2008!!... As I said at the time about bailing them out, the ripples of it will go out and out and out and out, everything we've witnessed in the last ten years when you did down deep, you get echos of it." Agreed. Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, Macron, the slow but steady rise of individuals slipping into far left and far right collectives, all these were made possible largely in part due to not enough action being taken post-banking crisis. | |||
"Coryn is not a socialist he is a communist,big difference" Bollocks is he. I don't agree with him too much, but come on, can you see him ordering secret police to rough house people into gulags? I can't see it, I can see him ignoring pragmatic ideas, but he hasn't got the mental capacity for inhumanity to act those ideas out. Unless he is playing a several decade long game of 4D chess. | |||
"If jezza had any radical ideas about changing anything he can start there for me
Me too. If he has any I'd like to be told about em!
It would be radical if we had socially and environmentaly responsible capitalism. "This is impossible though as true capitalism can only exist with minimal regulations on the free market, deregulate and you inherently let corruption in and as such the labour force gets over exploited and people evade tax, this in turn makes the state and people less populous, and a less populous state is prone to only short term planning and over expansion, which leads to poor environmental stewardship. | |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time?" Really? Would you like to explain that please. Maybe give a justification for that statement while taking into consideration any outside forces that may have been totally beyond any British Governments control regardless of colour. "Coryn is not a socialist he is a communist,big difference" You sir, should really remove your head from your ideologically indoctrinated right-wing arse and examine the facts critically before opening your mouth to spew your fascist inspired shit. Firstly his name is Corbyn. Secondly he is championing a return to a mixed economy where utilities are state controlled assets are owned by the British state and run for the benefit of the British people, unlike the system where we have a mixed economy where utilities are owned by foreign powers and run for the benefit of the populations of foreign countries. Of course you can always reinsert your head up a tory arse and continue to pay EDF (Electricite de France) your power bill and in doing so subsidise French state. | |||
| |||
"Coryn is not a socialist he is a communist,big difference" This made me laugh. The media labels socialist as communist/marxist to scare them. Name the big difference between the three ideologies? | |||
| |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time?" It won't be any different. However it is maybe time the younger ones learned their own lessons. | |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time?" And what socialist government was that....i cant ever remember one ?  | |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time? And what socialist government was that....i cant ever remember one ? "Yes to be fair it was only watered down socialism, Still, it didn't take them long to devalue the pound and get the country in hock to the IMF though did it? Crisis!! What crisis? LOL. | |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time? And what socialist government was that....i cant ever remember one ?
Yes to be fair it was only watered down socialism,
Still, it didn't take them long to devalue the pound and get the country in hock to the IMF though did it?
Crisis!! What crisis? LOL."Like the pound is now you mean....and there's never ever been a truly socialist government in the UK.... | |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time? And what socialist government was that....i cant ever remember one ?
Yes to be fair it was only watered down socialism,
Still, it didn't take them long to devalue the pound and get the country in hock to the IMF though did it?
Crisis!! What crisis? LOL.
Like the pound is now you mean....and there's never ever been a truly socialist government in the UK.... "As I said "watered down" but it still bankrupted the country though. Truly socialist would be no different, just the end result would come a bit quicker. Name me one, just one, successful "truly" socialist country. | |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time? And what socialist government was that....i cant ever remember one ?
Yes to be fair it was only watered down socialism,
Still, it didn't take them long to devalue the pound and get the country in hock to the IMF though did it?
Crisis!! What crisis? LOL.
Like the pound is now you mean....and there's never ever been a truly socialist government in the UK....
As I said "watered down" but it still bankrupted the country though.
Truly socialist would be no different, just the end result would come a bit quicker.
Name me one, just one, successful "truly" socialist country."Did you read a post a bit further up this thread.....seems the semi - socialists do a tad better than the capitalists....as for other counties im not really bother...i only care about what affects us in this country tbh | |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time? And what socialist government was that....i cant ever remember one ?
Yes to be fair it was only watered down socialism,
Still, it didn't take them long to devalue the pound and get the country in hock to the IMF though did it?
Crisis!! What crisis? LOL.
Like the pound is now you mean....and there's never ever been a truly socialist government in the UK....
As I said "watered down" but it still bankrupted the country though.
Truly socialist would be no different, just the end result would come a bit quicker.
Name me one, just one, successful "truly" socialist country."I'll save you looking for it....a very good factual post While everyone else sees the financial prudence of the tories?... "So here are the facts. Overall deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £348 billion (average £58 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £ 720.1 billion (average £102.9 billion per year) Total Conservative overall deficits for the 13 years: £ 1068.1 billion (average £82.2 billion per year) - yes, over one trillion pounds in 13 years! Total Labour 1997/98 to 2009/10 overall deficits for the 13 years: £496.4 billion (average £38.2 billion per year). Current budget deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £222.5 billion (average £37.1 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £457.2 billion (average £65.3 billion per year) Total Conservative current budget deficits for the 13 years: £679.7 billion (average £52.3 billion per year) Total Labour current budget deficits for the 13 years: £171.8 billion (average £13.2 billion per year). Conclusion: The average annual overall deficit under Labour during this 26 year period is less than half that of Conservative governments, taken separately and together. The average annual current budget deficit under Conservative governments during this 26 year period is around four times as large as that of the Labour governments. The Major government's average current deficit was nearly 3 times the average of the Labour government. Moreover, the average Conservative Government annual deficit is almost double the size of today’s alleged Labour ‘bombshell’ - and the average Tory current budget deficit is also larger than the spurious 'bombshell'! In short, the Conservatives since 1991/92 have a track record of huge budget deficits that is unique in our non-wartime history." | |||
"Still, it didn't take them long to devalue the pound and get the country in hock to the IMF though did it? Crisis!! What crisis? LOL." And there was me thinking that the underlying reason we were in so much economic trouble was because we were a small and fading nation whose private businesses had failed to modernise after WW2 and were were desperately clinging on to the illusion of empire. Of course the oil crisis of 1973 when OPEC stopped selling oil to the USA, raised the price of crude by 400% and restricted production that caused a world economic recession had nothing to do with the hyper inflation of the mid to late 70's it was all socialism's fault same as the 2008 banking crisis and the recession that followed had nothing to do with US banks selling junk bonds on the world derivatives markets and was all new labours fault... | |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time? While everyone else sees the financial prudence of the tories?... "So here are the facts. Overall deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £348 billion (average £58 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £ 720.1 billion (average £102.9 billion per year) Total Conservative overall deficits for the 13 years: £ 1068.1 billion (average £82.2 billion per year) - yes, over one trillion pounds in 13 years! Total Labour 1997/98 to 2009/10 overall deficits for the 13 years: £496.4 billion (average £38.2 billion per year). Current budget deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £222.5 billion (average £37.1 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £457.2 billion (average £65.3 billion per year) Total Conservative current budget deficits for the 13 years: £679.7 billion (average £52.3 billion per year) Total Labour current budget deficits for the 13 years: £171.8 billion (average £13.2 billion per year). Conclusion: The average annual overall deficit under Labour during this 26 year period is less than half that of Conservative governments, taken separately and together. The average annual current budget deficit under Conservative governments during this 26 year period is around four times as large as that of the Labour governments. The Major government's average current deficit was nearly 3 times the average of the Labour government. Moreover, the average Conservative Government annual deficit is almost double the size of today’s alleged Labour ‘bombshell’ - and the average Tory current budget deficit is also larger than the spurious 'bombshell'! In short, the Conservatives since 1991/92 have a track record of huge budget deficits that is unique in our non-wartime history."" Just to add, PFI although beeen used by labour , the tories are taking the p with using PFI. It enriches the private sector tory chums, burdens the taxpayer and also because it's private, isn't mentioned or publicly listed on official lending records. Lovely eh? | |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time? And what socialist government was that....i cant ever remember one ? "Rather patronising we think there for we must be wrong because we are under 40 lol | |||
"If jezza had any radical ideas about changing anything he can start there for me
Me too. If he has any I'd like to be told about em!
It would be radical if we had socially and environmentaly responsible capitalism.
This is impossible though as true capitalism can only exist with minimal regulations on the free market, deregulate and you inherently let corruption in and as such the labour force gets over exploited and people evade tax, this in turn makes the state and people less populous, and a less populous state is prone to only short term planning and over expansion, which leads to poor environmental stewardship. "I think we need to look beyond capitalism and socialism to a different model.We seem fixated on these two options.Some form of holistic economics that factors in responsibility and resource management and sustainability. | |||
| |||
"If jezza had any radical ideas about changing anything he can start there for me
Me too. If he has any I'd like to be told about em!
It would be radical if we had socially and environmentaly responsible capitalism.
This is impossible though as true capitalism can only exist with minimal regulations on the free market, deregulate and you inherently let corruption in and as such the labour force gets over exploited and people evade tax, this in turn makes the state and people less populous, and a less populous state is prone to only short term planning and over expansion, which leads to poor environmental stewardship.
I think we need to look beyond capitalism and socialism to a different model.We seem fixated on these two options.Some form of holistic economics that factors in responsibility and resource management and sustainability."Big believer of the venus project | |||
"If jezza had any radical ideas about changing anything he can start there for me
Me too. If he has any I'd like to be told about em!
It would be radical if we had socially and environmentaly responsible capitalism.
This is impossible though as true capitalism can only exist with minimal regulations on the free market, deregulate and you inherently let corruption in and as such the labour force gets over exploited and people evade tax, this in turn makes the state and people less populous, and a less populous state is prone to only short term planning and over expansion, which leads to poor environmental stewardship.
I think we need to look beyond capitalism and socialism to a different model.We seem fixated on these two options.Some form of holistic economics that factors in responsibility and resource management and sustainability.
Big believer of the venus project "Yeah im aware of the venus project.Some great ideas.I never really grasped how it would all be implemented.It would require a monumental shift in society. | |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time? And what socialist government was that....i cant ever remember one ?
Rather patronising we think there for we must be wrong because we are under 40 lol"Still thinking when we had one...maybe you could expand on it LOL | |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time? And what socialist government was that....i cant ever remember one ?
Rather patronising we think there for we must be wrong because we are under 40 lol
Still thinking when we had one...maybe you could expand on it LOL" | |||
| |||
"If jezza had any radical ideas about changing anything he can start there for me
Me too. If he has any I'd like to be told about em!
It would be radical if we had socially and environmentaly responsible capitalism.
This is impossible though as true capitalism can only exist with minimal regulations on the free market, deregulate and you inherently let corruption in and as such the labour force gets over exploited and people evade tax, this in turn makes the state and people less populous, and a less populous state is prone to only short term planning and over expansion, which leads to poor environmental stewardship.
I think we need to look beyond capitalism and socialism to a different model.We seem fixated on these two options.Some form of holistic economics that factors in responsibility and resource management and sustainability."Socialism has worked, it just won't last. Chile brought power to the people, the farmers, became rich because of nationalisation. Sounds like a mix of Brexit and Corbyn haha. But socialism does not bode well with powerful capitalist countries. The USA have tried taking down socialism/communism from Cuba, Chile and recently Venezuela. So if we go full socialism and it works. Don't worry the USA will intervene and you right wingers will be happy the money will flow back to the powerful. So I agree a new model is needed. But we're in a rigged system. And getting out of it will be tough. | |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time? And what socialist government was that....i cant ever remember one ?
Rather patronising we think there for we must be wrong because we are under 40 lol
Still thinking when we had one...maybe you could expand on it LOL
"Though you try and forget it the wilson and callaghan shambles of 1975 -79 is what im on about | |||
"Though you try and forget it the wilson and callaghan shambles of 1975 -79 is what im on about " So according to you the GLOBAL recession of the late 70's was the fault of Labour and had nothing to do OPEC raising the price of crude oil by 400% in 73 and restricting production while raising prices annually from that point on throughout the 70's, in an effort to force the world to abandon Israel. A policy that continued until the USSR invaded Afghanistan. | |||
"Though you try and forget it the wilson and callaghan shambles of 1975 -79 is what im on about So according to you the GLOBAL recession of the late 70's was the fault of Labour and had nothing to do OPEC raising the price of crude oil by 400% in 73 and restricting production while raising prices annually from that point on throughout the 70's, in an effort to force the world to abandon Israel. A policy that continued until the USSR invaded Afghanistan." Affecting the price of oil. Sounds familiar... | |||
"Though you try and forget it the wilson and callaghan shambles of 1975 -79 is what im on about So according to you the GLOBAL recession of the late 70's was the fault of Labour and had nothing to do OPEC raising the price of crude oil by 400% in 73 and restricting production while raising prices annually from that point on throughout the 70's, in an effort to force the world to abandon Israel. A policy that continued until the USSR invaded Afghanistan." Do you mean the recession from 73-75. | |||
"Do you mean the recession from 73-75." Check your history, that recession was driven by the first oil crisis. However the stagnation of the world economy and world inflation was driven throughout the 70's by OPEC restricting oil production and inflating its cost. This continued until Iraq broke ranks in 81 and increased oil production to fund it's war against Iran and the USA decided to arm both the mujahideen and Iraq. Here is a link that will show you (graph at start of article) the price of crude at the time in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_Prices_Since_1861.svg | |||
| |||
"Do you mean the recession from 73-75. Check your history, that recession was driven by the first oil crisis. However the stagnation of the world economy and world inflation was driven throughout the 70's by OPEC restricting oil production and inflating its cost. This continued until Iraq broke ranks in 81 and increased oil production to fund it's war against Iran and the USA decided to arm both the mujahideen and Iraq. Here is a link that will show you (graph at start of article) the price of crude at the time in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_Prices_Since_1861.svg" don't let facts spoil his right wing wet dream fantasy dude | |||
"Do you mean the recession from 73-75. Check your history, that recession was driven by the first oil crisis. However the stagnation of the world economy and world inflation was driven throughout the 70's by OPEC restricting oil production and inflating its cost. This continued until Iraq broke ranks in 81 and increased oil production to fund it's war against Iran and the USA decided to arm both the mujahideen and Iraq. Here is a link that will show you (graph at start of article) the price of crude at the time in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_Prices_Since_1861.svg don't let facts spoil his right wing wet dream fantasy dude" | |||
| |||
"Ok so you turn to insults very adult behaviour not, by the way i actually sit in the middle votibg either way, but i ask you this, in my lifetime i have only ever really known one time of real hardship and that was as a kid in the late 70s when mum and dad couldnt afford new clothes for us, the only meat we got was in tins and holidays were camping in friends gardens and that was under a government with policies which pretty much make up corbyns manifesto , so why would i vote for him?"  | |||
"Ok so you turn to insults very adult behaviour not, by the way i actually sit in the middle votibg either way, but i ask you this, in my lifetime i have only ever really known one time of real hardship and that was as a kid in the late 70s when mum and dad couldnt afford new clothes for us, the only meat we got was in tins and holidays were camping in friends gardens and that was under a government with policies which pretty much make up corbyns manifesto , so why would i vote for him?" All kids grew up like that then  | |||
"Do you mean the recession from 73-75. Check your history, that recession was driven by the first oil crisis. However the stagnation of the world economy and world inflation was driven throughout the 70's by OPEC restricting oil production and inflating its cost. This continued until Iraq broke ranks in 81 and increased oil production to fund it's war against Iran and the USA decided to arm both the mujahideen and Iraq. Here is a link that will show you (graph at start of article) the price of crude at the time in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_Prices_Since_1861.svg" Of course the oil crisis was a significant factor. However I don't remember West Germany going cap in hand to the IMF. Maybe they put Bitburger in their tanks. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Labour governments always leave the economy in crisis and the record of socialism internationally is hardly a shining path. No, we do not need socialism; what we do need is socially responsible capitalism, particularly the exercise of control over vampire capitalism running amok, unchecked by governments." Wrong very wrong....and so short sighted....read this and you may have already read it but choose to ignore it While everyone else sees the financial prudence of the tories?... "So here are the facts. Overall deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £348 billion (average £58 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £ 720.1 billion (average £102.9 billion per year) Total Conservative overall deficits for the 13 years: £ 1068.1 billion (average £82.2 billion per year) - yes, over one trillion pounds in 13 years! Total Labour 1997/98 to 2009/10 overall deficits for the 13 years: £496.4 billion (average £38.2 billion per year). Current budget deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £222.5 billion (average £37.1 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £457.2 billion (average £65.3 billion per year) Total Conservative current budget deficits for the 13 years: £679.7 billion (average £52.3 billion per year) Total Labour current budget deficits for the 13 years: £171.8 billion (average £13.2 billion per year). Conclusion: The average annual overall deficit under Labour during this 26 year period is less than half that of Conservative governments, taken separately and together. The average annual current budget deficit under Conservative governments during this 26 year period is around four times as large as that of the Labour governments. The Major government's average current deficit was nearly 3 times the average of the Labour government. Moreover, the average Conservative Government annual deficit is almost double the size of today’s alleged Labour ‘bombshell’ - and the average Tory current budget deficit is also larger than the spurious 'bombshell'! In short, the Conservatives since 1991/92 have a track record of huge budget deficits that is unique in our non-wartime history." | |||
"Will a socialist UK survive outside of the EU?" Anyone... | |||
"Will a socialist UK survive outside of the EU? Anyone..." Why does everyone automatically assume that socialism is a handicap. The question should be will Britain fair better with a left wing (socialist) regulated mixed economy where utilities are owned and run for the benefit of Britain than with a right wing (tory) unregulated mixed economy where utilities are owned and run by foreign governments for the benefit of their populations? Because regardless of what those on the right believe we have a mixed economy and the conservatives have no problems with public ownership of our vital infrastructure provided it is not owned by us! In fact the tories have no problems signing 50 year contracts that give access to technology we paid for and developed as well as guaranteeing that the British people will pay massively over market prices for utilities supplied by foreign governments! So if anything, after a little consideration, the question should be: Can the country survive outside the EU without a socialist government? | |||
| |||
"How many succesful socialist countries exist at the moment? " There mostly mixed economies. China,Denmark,Finland and the Netherlands and Sweden and Norway. | |||
"How many succesful socialist countries exist at the moment? There mostly mixed economies. China,Denmark,Finland and the Netherlands and Sweden and Norway. "So socialists want a country like China? | |||
| |||
"How many succesful socialist countries exist at the moment? There mostly mixed economies. China,Denmark,Finland and the Netherlands and Sweden and Norway.
So socialists want a country like China?
"I'm guessing Norway or Sweden would be a better choice.However china lifted 1 billion humans out of poverty. That's no easy rabbit to pull out of the hat. | |||
"I don't understand the labour party. From what i read it's supposed to represent worker's interests. But from what i can tell about socialism, they want to tax me more to pay for people who want life handed to them. I don't get it." I don't think you have read there manifesto tbh | |||
| |||
"What i dont quite get is several of the people strongly supporting jc are also remainers sorry but for jc to implement his full manifesto he needs brexit so you cant have both which do you choose ?" Vote green. | |||
"What i dont quite get is several of the people strongly supporting jc are also remainers sorry but for jc to implement his full manifesto he needs brexit so you cant have both which do you choose ?" The cult of Jezza is entirely dependent on not paying very much attention on what he says, but rather projecting what you'd imagine he would say onto him. Thus, he enjoys great support from a demographic that's going to get turbofucked by brexit, while at the same time being actually for brexit. | |||
"What i dont quite get is several of the people strongly supporting jc are also remainers sorry but for jc to implement his full manifesto he needs brexit so you cant have both which do you choose ?" Well get this....strong remainers want the best for the country....brexit vote has happened most who voted to remain have moved on....like i have....but to say like you have that a socialist like JC cant handle it like the Tories are is just plain stupid....and for your info i voted at the last election for JC for many more reasons than just brexit as did millions of more people... Btw i'm still waiting on your answer on my reply showing you how much more the tories have borrowed than any so called socialist government have....or maybe you dont have an answer seen as you have blinkers on !!!! | |||
| |||
"injection? ... that's pointless ... what britain needs is a socialist enema to wash away the right wing turds that have ruined the country with their shit!" You must want to live in poverty and destroy your kids future then | |||
"Ok so you turn to insults very adult behaviour not, by the way i actually sit in the middle votibg either way, but i ask you this, in my lifetime i have only ever really known one time of real hardship and that was as a kid in the late 70s when mum and dad couldnt afford new clothes for us, the only meat we got was in tins and holidays were camping in friends gardens and that was under a government with policies which pretty much make up corbyns manifesto , so why would i vote for him? All kids grew up like that then "Rubbish | |||
"How many succesful socialist countries exist at the moment? " Sweden that's all folks,maybe some other scandanavian countries but they are socialist not communist like corbyn big differernce | |||
"Labour governments always leave the economy in crisis and the record of socialism internationally is hardly a shining path. No, we do not need socialism; what we do need is socially responsible capitalism, particularly the exercise of control over vampire capitalism running amok, unchecked by governments. Wrong very wrong....and so short sighted....read this and you may have already read it but choose to ignore it While everyone else sees the financial prudence of the tories?... "So here are the facts. Overall deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £348 billion (average £58 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £ 720.1 billion (average £102.9 billion per year) Total Conservative overall deficits for the 13 years: £ 1068.1 billion (average £82.2 billion per year) - yes, over one trillion pounds in 13 years! Total Labour 1997/98 to 2009/10 overall deficits for the 13 years: £496.4 billion (average £38.2 billion per year). Current budget deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £222.5 billion (average £37.1 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £457.2 billion (average £65.3 billion per year) Total Conservative current budget deficits for the 13 years: £679.7 billion (average £52.3 billion per year) Total Labour current budget deficits for the 13 years: £171.8 billion (average £13.2 billion per year). Conclusion: The average annual overall deficit under Labour during this 26 year period is less than half that of Conservative governments, taken separately and together. The average annual current budget deficit under Conservative governments during this 26 year period is around four times as large as that of the Labour governments. The Major government's average current deficit was nearly 3 times the average of the Labour government. Moreover, the average Conservative Government annual deficit is almost double the size of today’s alleged Labour ‘bombshell’ - and the average Tory current budget deficit is also larger than the spurious 'bombshell'! In short, the Conservatives since 1991/92 have a track record of huge budget deficits that is unique in our non-wartime history." " I made no reference to the abject deficiencies of the tories - I merely stated that every labour government since the sixties has left economic crisis in its wake. The incompetence of both has produced a Westminster debt mountain which, by itself, provides excellent incentive for Scotland to break free from this monstrous financial burden. The great union dividend, as often promoted by Malvoleo Broon - sharing and pooling resources. ie we'll enjoy your resources and you can share our debt mountain. | |||
"Labour governments always leave the economy in crisis and the record of socialism internationally is hardly a shining path. No, we do not need socialism; what we do need is socially responsible capitalism, particularly the exercise of control over vampire capitalism running amok, unchecked by governments. Wrong very wrong....and so short sighted....read this and you may have already read it but choose to ignore it While everyone else sees the financial prudence of the tories?... "So here are the facts. Overall deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £348 billion (average £58 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £ 720.1 billion (average £102.9 billion per year) Total Conservative overall deficits for the 13 years: £ 1068.1 billion (average £82.2 billion per year) - yes, over one trillion pounds in 13 years! Total Labour 1997/98 to 2009/10 overall deficits for the 13 years: £496.4 billion (average £38.2 billion per year). Current budget deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £222.5 billion (average £37.1 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £457.2 billion (average £65.3 billion per year) Total Conservative current budget deficits for the 13 years: £679.7 billion (average £52.3 billion per year) Total Labour current budget deficits for the 13 years: £171.8 billion (average £13.2 billion per year). Conclusion: The average annual overall deficit under Labour during this 26 year period is less than half that of Conservative governments, taken separately and together. The average annual current budget deficit under Conservative governments during this 26 year period is around four times as large as that of the Labour governments. The Major government's average current deficit was nearly 3 times the average of the Labour government. Moreover, the average Conservative Government annual deficit is almost double the size of today’s alleged Labour ‘bombshell’ - and the average Tory current budget deficit is also larger than the spurious 'bombshell'! In short, the Conservatives since 1991/92 have a track record of huge budget deficits that is unique in our non-wartime history." I made no reference to the abject deficiencies of the tories - I merely stated that every labour government since the sixties has left economic crisis in its wake. The incompetence of both has produced a Westminster debt mountain which, by itself, provides excellent incentive for Scotland to break free from this monstrous financial burden. The great union dividend, as often promoted by Malvoleo Broon - sharing and pooling resources. ie we'll enjoy your resources and you can share our debt mountain. " The above table proves your wrong....heres some advice....stop reading The Scum...Fail a other tory rags | |||
"I don't understand the labour party. From what i read it's supposed to represent worker's interests. But from what i can tell about socialism, they want to tax me more to pay for people who want life handed to them. I don't get it. I don't think you have read there manifesto tbh " Oh i thought socialism was all about the redistribution of wealth or something? | |||
"I don't understand the labour party. From what i read it's supposed to represent worker's interests. But from what i can tell about socialism, they want to tax me more to pay for people who want life handed to them. I don't get it. I don't think you have read there manifesto tbh Oh i thought socialism was all about the redistribution of wealth or something? " Thats capitalism where 99% of the all the wealth on earth ended up with 1% of the population. Its taken less than a century to redistribute it to the 1 %.In extremis you have 62 individuals who have as much wealth as the poorest half of the global population .Which is an improvement it used to be 330 people had as much wealth as 50% of the global population. Its definitely being redistributed | |||
"I don't understand the labour party. From what i read it's supposed to represent worker's interests. But from what i can tell about socialism, they want to tax me more to pay for people who want life handed to them. I don't get it. I don't think you have read there manifesto tbh Oh i thought socialism was all about the redistribution of wealth or something? " It is i believe....obviously you have problems understanding it | |||
"I don't understand the labour party. From what i read it's supposed to represent worker's interests. But from what i can tell about socialism, they want to tax me more to pay for people who want life handed to them. I don't get it. I don't think you have read there manifesto tbh Oh i thought socialism was all about the redistribution of wealth or something? It is i believe....obviously you have problems understanding it " I don't get how it works? There's some people who don't work, so i should pay for their cigarettes and sky box? | |||
"I don't understand the labour party. From what i read it's supposed to represent worker's interests. But from what i can tell about socialism, they want to tax me more to pay for people who want life handed to them. I don't get it. I don't think you have read there manifesto tbh Oh i thought socialism was all about the redistribution of wealth or something? It is i believe....obviously you have problems understanding it I don't get how it works? There's some people who don't work, so i should pay for their cigarettes and sky box?" no give them Netflix and roll ups. | |||
"I don't understand the labour party. From what i read it's supposed to represent worker's interests. But from what i can tell about socialism, they want to tax me more to pay for people who want life handed to them. I don't get it. I don't think you have read there manifesto tbh Oh i thought socialism was all about the redistribution of wealth or something? It is i believe....obviously you have problems understanding it I don't get how it works? There's some people who don't work, so i should pay for their cigarettes and sky box?" There can be many models. I may be wrong but will listen to other views. Well the extreme is everyone works and get equally paid. You could see ants or bees in a similar model. Each person has their place in society. Then there's the other extreme about giving people opportunities to climb up the ladder. Giving them education, providing a safety net if you lose out on a job i.e. benefits. In the end I see socialism as the safety net in a capitalist society. Whether something's is state owned or not I see as an economic model. In business we choose whether to build it our selves or outsource it. It's not left or right thing for me it's something else. | |||
"I don't understand the labour party. From what i read it's supposed to represent worker's interests. But from what i can tell about socialism, they want to tax me more to pay for people who want life handed to them. I don't get it. I don't think you have read there manifesto tbh Oh i thought socialism was all about the redistribution of wealth or something? It is i believe....obviously you have problems understanding it I don't get how it works? There's some people who don't work, so i should pay for their cigarettes and sky box? There can be many models. I may be wrong but will listen to other views. Well the extreme is everyone works and get equally paid. You could see ants or bees in a similar model. Each person has their place in society. Then there's the other extreme about giving people opportunities to climb up the ladder. Giving them education, providing a safety net if you lose out on a job i.e. benefits. In the end I see socialism as the safety net in a capitalist society. Whether something's is state owned or not I see as an economic model. In business we choose whether to build it our selves or outsource it. It's not left or right thing for me it's something else." Dutch coalition is led by a conservative party. Their tax is 40%+. So high tax is not usually a left right issue. | |||
"I don't understand the labour party. From what i read it's supposed to represent worker's interests. But from what i can tell about socialism, they want to tax me more to pay for people who want life handed to them. I don't get it. I don't think you have read there manifesto tbh Oh i thought socialism was all about the redistribution of wealth or something? It is i believe....obviously you have problems understanding it I don't get how it works? There's some people who don't work, so i should pay for their cigarettes and sky box? There can be many models. I may be wrong but will listen to other views. Well the extreme is everyone works and get equally paid. You could see ants or bees in a similar model. Each person has their place in society. Then there's the other extreme about giving people opportunities to climb up the ladder. Giving them education, providing a safety net if you lose out on a job i.e. benefits. In the end I see socialism as the safety net in a capitalist society. Whether something's is state owned or not I see as an economic model. In business we choose whether to build it our selves or outsource it. It's not left or right thing for me it's something else. Dutch coalition is led by a conservative party. Their tax is 40%+. So high tax is not usually a left right issue." Any others? | |||
"I don't understand the labour party. From what i read it's supposed to represent worker's interests. But from what i can tell about socialism, they want to tax me more to pay for people who want life handed to them. I don't get it. I don't think you have read there manifesto tbh Oh i thought socialism was all about the redistribution of wealth or something? It is i believe....obviously you have problems understanding it I don't get how it works? There's some people who don't work, so i should pay for their cigarettes and sky box? There can be many models. I may be wrong but will listen to other views. Well the extreme is everyone works and get equally paid. You could see ants or bees in a similar model. Each person has their place in society. Then there's the other extreme about giving people opportunities to climb up the ladder. Giving them education, providing a safety net if you lose out on a job i.e. benefits. In the end I see socialism as the safety net in a capitalist society. Whether something's is state owned or not I see as an economic model. In business we choose whether to build it our selves or outsource it. It's not left or right thing for me it's something else. Dutch coalition is led by a conservative party. Their tax is 40%+. So high tax is not usually a left right issue. Any others?" High tax? | |||
| |||
"Labour governments always leave the economy in crisis and the record of socialism internationally is hardly a shining path. No, we do not need socialism; what we do need is socially responsible capitalism, particularly the exercise of control over vampire capitalism running amok, unchecked by governments. Wrong very wrong....and so short sighted....read this and you may have already read it but choose to ignore it While everyone else sees the financial prudence of the tories?... "So here are the facts. Overall deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £348 billion (average £58 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £ 720.1 billion (average £102.9 billion per year) Total Conservative overall deficits for the 13 years: £ 1068.1 billion (average £82.2 billion per year) - yes, over one trillion pounds in 13 years! Total Labour 1997/98 to 2009/10 overall deficits for the 13 years: £496.4 billion (average £38.2 billion per year). Current budget deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £222.5 billion (average £37.1 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £457.2 billion (average £65.3 billion per year) Total Conservative current budget deficits for the 13 years: £679.7 billion (average £52.3 billion per year) Total Labour current budget deficits for the 13 years: £171.8 billion (average £13.2 billion per year). Conclusion: The average annual overall deficit under Labour during this 26 year period is less than half that of Conservative governments, taken separately and together. The average annual current budget deficit under Conservative governments during this 26 year period is around four times as large as that of the Labour governments. The Major government's average current deficit was nearly 3 times the average of the Labour government. Moreover, the average Conservative Government annual deficit is almost double the size of today’s alleged Labour ‘bombshell’ - and the average Tory current budget deficit is also larger than the spurious 'bombshell'! In short, the Conservatives since 1991/92 have a track record of huge budget deficits that is unique in our non-wartime history." I made no reference to the abject deficiencies of the tories - I merely stated that every labour government since the sixties has left economic crisis in its wake. The incompetence of both has produced a Westminster debt mountain which, by itself, provides excellent incentive for Scotland to break free from this monstrous financial burden. The great union dividend, as often promoted by Malvoleo Broon - sharing and pooling resources. ie we'll enjoy your resources and you can share our debt mountain. The above table proves your wrong....heres some advice....stop reading The Scum...Fail a other tory rags " The anser to this is two fold 1 in purely monetery terms the amount we borrow will always grow so of course any govt will borrow more than the last and secondly 2010-11 budget was a labour budget so take that 105m off the tories and add it to labour and actually as apercentage of gdp it has been going down year on year , is now back to a reasonable amount | |||
| |||
"I don't understand the labour party. From what i read it's supposed to represent worker's interests. But from what i can tell about socialism, they want to tax me more to pay for people who want life handed to them. I don't get it. I don't think you have read there manifesto tbh Oh i thought socialism was all about the redistribution of wealth or something? It is i believe....obviously you have problems understanding it I don't get how it works? There's some people who don't work, so i should pay for their cigarettes and sky box? There can be many models. I may be wrong but will listen to other views. Well the extreme is everyone works and get equally paid. You could see ants or bees in a similar model. Each person has their place in society. Then there's the other extreme about giving people opportunities to climb up the ladder. Giving them education, providing a safety net if you lose out on a job i.e. benefits. In the end I see socialism as the safety net in a capitalist society. Whether something's is state owned or not I see as an economic model. In business we choose whether to build it our selves or outsource it. It's not left or right thing for me it's something else. Dutch coalition is led by a conservative party. Their tax is 40%+. So high tax is not usually a left right issue. Any others? High tax? " Yes you said "high tax is not usually a left right issue" and used one country as evidence. I don't count one country as bucking the trend of the word "usually". | |||
| |||
"The balance does need redressing - social mobility has been decreasing and the wage gap increasing since the 80s. With the advent of the "Gig Economy", the current generation of 20 somethings has more in common with my Grandads generation than my parents generation. The waters are muddied for some people by the advent of cheap technology and the unique situation whereupon the previous generation had a better standard of living/more opportunities than the current one. If you want to know the direction that zero-hours contracts will take us, go and read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". People are distracted from in-work poverty by choosing to victimise the jobless. Something is very wrong when working single parents have to use food banks. " I'm not seeing the gig economy? | |||
"The balance does need redressing - social mobility has been decreasing and the wage gap increasing since the 80s. With the advent of the "Gig Economy", the current generation of 20 somethings has more in common with my Grandads generation than my parents generation. The waters are muddied for some people by the advent of cheap technology and the unique situation whereupon the previous generation had a better standard of living/more opportunities than the current one. If you want to know the direction that zero-hours contracts will take us, go and read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". People are distracted from in-work poverty by choosing to victimise the jobless. Something is very wrong when working single parents have to use food banks. I'm not seeing the gig economy?" It could be where you work. Lots of retail runs on zero-hours now. Agriculture relies extensively on agency staff who have no job security. Lots of careres have similar "time worked" contracts, whereby they "clock on" when they arrive at a clients house and have to "clock off" when they leave - the clients can be tens of miles apart. I know a couple of very good ones who had to quit simply because they couldn't afford to be one anymore, and carers being....caring, they worried extensively about their clients. The building trade is very casual too. | |||
"The balance does need redressing - social mobility has been decreasing and the wage gap increasing since the 80s. With the advent of the "Gig Economy", the current generation of 20 somethings has more in common with my Grandads generation than my parents generation. The waters are muddied for some people by the advent of cheap technology and the unique situation whereupon the previous generation had a better standard of living/more opportunities than the current one. If you want to know the direction that zero-hours contracts will take us, go and read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". People are distracted from in-work poverty by choosing to victimise the jobless. Something is very wrong when working single parents have to use food banks. I'm not seeing the gig economy? It could be where you work. Lots of retail runs on zero-hours now. Agriculture relies extensively on agency staff who have no job security. Lots of careres have similar "time worked" contracts, whereby they "clock on" when they arrive at a clients house and have to "clock off" when they leave - the clients can be tens of miles apart. I know a couple of very good ones who had to quit simply because they couldn't afford to be one anymore, and carers being....caring, they worried extensively about their clients. The building trade is very casual too. " I've worked for myself a couple of times since the turn of the century, but that's always been part of my industry. Nothing new. | |||
| |||
"The balance does need redressing - social mobility has been decreasing and the wage gap increasing since the 80s. With the advent of the "Gig Economy", the current generation of 20 somethings has more in common with my Grandads generation than my parents generation. The waters are muddied for some people by the advent of cheap technology and the unique situation whereupon the previous generation had a better standard of living/more opportunities than the current one. If you want to know the direction that zero-hours contracts will take us, go and read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". People are distracted from in-work poverty by choosing to victimise the jobless. Something is very wrong when working single parents have to use food banks. I'm not seeing the gig economy? It could be where you work. Lots of retail runs on zero-hours now. Agriculture relies extensively on agency staff who have no job security. Lots of careres have similar "time worked" contracts, whereby they "clock on" when they arrive at a clients house and have to "clock off" when they leave - the clients can be tens of miles apart. I know a couple of very good ones who had to quit simply because they couldn't afford to be one anymore, and carers being....caring, they worried extensively about their clients. The building trade is very casual too. I've worked for myself a couple of times since the turn of the century, but that's always been part of my industry. Nothing new. " I've worked for myself too, but always had a part time job alongside it. Oviously self-employment requires staty up capital. The part time jobs I've done have usually been entry level jobs within Agriculture. | |||
"The balance does need redressing - social mobility has been decreasing and the wage gap increasing since the 80s. With the advent of the "Gig Economy", the current generation of 20 somethings has more in common with my Grandads generation than my parents generation. The waters are muddied for some people by the advent of cheap technology and the unique situation whereupon the previous generation had a better standard of living/more opportunities than the current one. If you want to know the direction that zero-hours contracts will take us, go and read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". People are distracted from in-work poverty by choosing to victimise the jobless. Something is very wrong when working single parents have to use food banks. I'm not seeing the gig economy? It could be where you work. Lots of retail runs on zero-hours now. Agriculture relies extensively on agency staff who have no job security. Lots of careres have similar "time worked" contracts, whereby they "clock on" when they arrive at a clients house and have to "clock off" when they leave - the clients can be tens of miles apart. I know a couple of very good ones who had to quit simply because they couldn't afford to be one anymore, and carers being....caring, they worried extensively about their clients. The building trade is very casual too. I've worked for myself a couple of times since the turn of the century, but that's always been part of my industry. Nothing new. I've worked for myself too, but always had a part time job alongside it. Oviously self-employment requires staty up capital. The part time jobs I've done have usually been entry level jobs within Agriculture. " So it's nothing new, someone just stuck the word "gig" in it. | |||
 | |||
"Yes it is time to redress the balance. The working classes have suffered for the sins of the so-called professional bankers. It is time that wage rises were not for your manager but for you. Time that the poor were not vilified by the media for being sometimes feckless and always as spongers. Meanwhile the real spongers and con men the bankers have ripped us off for billions while paying themselves bonuses for doing what ? When Amazon. facebook type companies make multi million pound profits but pay little to no tax... Yes the tide has turned being told "We are all in it together" when it turned out it was always the poorest and least educated who were to pay the price ......No more ...let us see the MPs pensions being lowered to the rate of the lowest grade of civil servants. The directors of all companies restricted to a pay of no more than eight times the lowest paid in there employment. The end should be nigh for workers being forced onto zero hour contracts. A change is coming , you can sense the rise of discontent within the populace. "Then who would want to be an MP? Someone who's already wealthy? | |||
"The balance does need redressing - social mobility has been decreasing and the wage gap increasing since the 80s. With the advent of the "Gig Economy", the current generation of 20 somethings has more in common with my Grandads generation than my parents generation. The waters are muddied for some people by the advent of cheap technology and the unique situation whereupon the previous generation had a better standard of living/more opportunities than the current one. If you want to know the direction that zero-hours contracts will take us, go and read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". People are distracted from in-work poverty by choosing to victimise the jobless. Something is very wrong when working single parents have to use food banks. I'm not seeing the gig economy? It could be where you work. Lots of retail runs on zero-hours now. Agriculture relies extensively on agency staff who have no job security. Lots of careres have similar "time worked" contracts, whereby they "clock on" when they arrive at a clients house and have to "clock off" when they leave - the clients can be tens of miles apart. I know a couple of very good ones who had to quit simply because they couldn't afford to be one anymore, and carers being....caring, they worried extensively about their clients. The building trade is very casual too. I've worked for myself a couple of times since the turn of the century, but that's always been part of my industry. Nothing new. I've worked for myself too, but always had a part time job alongside it. Oviously self-employment requires staty up capital. The part time jobs I've done have usually been entry level jobs within Agriculture. So it's nothing new, someone just stuck the word "gig" in it." It's "new" in that zero-hours contracts are relatively recent. It's "old" insomuch as that is what happened before the postwar labour government. | |||
"Yes it is time to redress the balance. The working classes have suffered for the sins of the so-called professional bankers. It is time that wage rises were not for your manager but for you. Time that the poor were not vilified by the media for being sometimes feckless and always as spongers. Meanwhile the real spongers and con men the bankers have ripped us off for billions while paying themselves bonuses for doing what ? When Amazon. facebook type companies make multi million pound profits but pay little to no tax... Yes the tide has turned being told "We are all in it together" when it turned out it was always the poorest and least educated who were to pay the price ......No more ...let us see the MPs pensions being lowered to the rate of the lowest grade of civil servants. The directors of all companies restricted to a pay of no more than eight times the lowest paid in there employment. The end should be nigh for workers being forced onto zero hour contracts. A change is coming , you can sense the rise of discontent within the populace.
Then who would want to be an MP? Someone who's already wealthy? "Well lets start with someone who feels they can live on an MP's salary without any other gigs on the side. | |||
"The balance does need redressing - social mobility has been decreasing and the wage gap increasing since the 80s. With the advent of the "Gig Economy", the current generation of 20 somethings has more in common with my Grandads generation than my parents generation. The waters are muddied for some people by the advent of cheap technology and the unique situation whereupon the previous generation had a better standard of living/more opportunities than the current one. If you want to know the direction that zero-hours contracts will take us, go and read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". People are distracted from in-work poverty by choosing to victimise the jobless. Something is very wrong when working single parents have to use food banks. I'm not seeing the gig economy? It could be where you work. Lots of retail runs on zero-hours now. Agriculture relies extensively on agency staff who have no job security. Lots of careres have similar "time worked" contracts, whereby they "clock on" when they arrive at a clients house and have to "clock off" when they leave - the clients can be tens of miles apart. I know a couple of very good ones who had to quit simply because they couldn't afford to be one anymore, and carers being....caring, they worried extensively about their clients. The building trade is very casual too. I've worked for myself a couple of times since the turn of the century, but that's always been part of my industry. Nothing new. I've worked for myself too, but always had a part time job alongside it. Oviously self-employment requires staty up capital. The part time jobs I've done have usually been entry level jobs within Agriculture. So it's nothing new, someone just stuck the word "gig" in it. It's "new" in that zero-hours contracts are relatively recent. It's "old" insomuch as that is what happened before the postwar labour government. " So what's the issue with it? People work, they get paid. They dont work they find another job. So what? | |||
"Labour governments always leave the economy in crisis and the record of socialism internationally is hardly a shining path. No, we do not need socialism; what we do need is socially responsible capitalism, particularly the exercise of control over vampire capitalism running amok, unchecked by governments. Wrong very wrong....and so short sighted....read this and you may have already read it but choose to ignore it While everyone else sees the financial prudence of the tories?... "So here are the facts. Overall deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £348 billion (average £58 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £ 720.1 billion (average £102.9 billion per year) Total Conservative overall deficits for the 13 years: £ 1068.1 billion (average £82.2 billion per year) - yes, over one trillion pounds in 13 years! Total Labour 1997/98 to 2009/10 overall deficits for the 13 years: £496.4 billion (average £38.2 billion per year). Current budget deficits: Conservative 1991/92 to 1996/97 (6 years): £222.5 billion (average £37.1 billion per year) Conservative 2010/11 to 2016/17 (7 years): £457.2 billion (average £65.3 billion per year) Total Conservative current budget deficits for the 13 years: £679.7 billion (average £52.3 billion per year) Total Labour current budget deficits for the 13 years: £171.8 billion (average £13.2 billion per year). Conclusion: The average annual overall deficit under Labour during this 26 year period is less than half that of Conservative governments, taken separately and together. The average annual current budget deficit under Conservative governments during this 26 year period is around four times as large as that of the Labour governments. The Major government's average current deficit was nearly 3 times the average of the Labour government. Moreover, the average Conservative Government annual deficit is almost double the size of today’s alleged Labour ‘bombshell’ - and the average Tory current budget deficit is also larger than the spurious 'bombshell'! In short, the Conservatives since 1991/92 have a track record of huge budget deficits that is unique in our non-wartime history." I made no reference to the abject deficiencies of the tories - I merely stated that every labour government since the sixties has left economic crisis in its wake. The incompetence of both has produced a Westminster debt mountain which, by itself, provides excellent incentive for Scotland to break free from this monstrous financial burden. The great union dividend, as often promoted by Malvoleo Broon - sharing and pooling resources. ie we'll enjoy your resources and you can share our debt mountain. The above table proves your wrong....heres some advice....stop reading The Scum...Fail a other tory rags The anser to this is two fold 1 in purely monetery terms the amount we borrow will always grow so of course any govt will borrow more than the last and secondly 2010-11 budget was a labour budget so take that 105m off the tories and add it to labour and actually as apercentage of gdp it has been going down year on year , is now back to a reasonable amount " Those are figures i've not plucked out the air....there actual figures...you can do all the plucking out of the air you like....but there the figures....the Tories borrowed more money than any other socialist party ever in this country....but tbh i got the answer i thought i would from you | |||
"Yes it is time to redress the balance. The working classes have suffered for the sins of the so-called professional bankers. It is time that wage rises were not for your manager but for you. Time that the poor were not vilified by the media for being sometimes feckless and always as spongers. Meanwhile the real spongers and con men the bankers have ripped us off for billions while paying themselves bonuses for doing what ? When Amazon. facebook type companies make multi million pound profits but pay little to no tax... Yes the tide has turned being told "We are all in it together" when it turned out it was always the poorest and least educated who were to pay the price ......No more ...let us see the MPs pensions being lowered to the rate of the lowest grade of civil servants. The directors of all companies restricted to a pay of no more than eight times the lowest paid in there employment. The end should be nigh for workers being forced onto zero hour contracts. A change is coming , you can sense the rise of discontent within the populace.
Then who would want to be an MP? Someone who's already wealthy?
Well lets start with someone who feels they can live on an MP's salary without any other gigs on the side.
"The only change is that people think they are owed something, rather than work for it. They can barely afford their iphones..  | |||
| |||
"The balance does need redressing - social mobility has been decreasing and the wage gap increasing since the 80s. With the advent of the "Gig Economy", the current generation of 20 somethings has more in common with my Grandads generation than my parents generation. The waters are muddied for some people by the advent of cheap technology and the unique situation whereupon the previous generation had a better standard of living/more opportunities than the current one. If you want to know the direction that zero-hours contracts will take us, go and read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". People are distracted from in-work poverty by choosing to victimise the jobless. Something is very wrong when working single parents have to use food banks. I'm not seeing the gig economy? It could be where you work. Lots of retail runs on zero-hours now. Agriculture relies extensively on agency staff who have no job security. Lots of careres have similar "time worked" contracts, whereby they "clock on" when they arrive at a clients house and have to "clock off" when they leave - the clients can be tens of miles apart. I know a couple of very good ones who had to quit simply because they couldn't afford to be one anymore, and carers being....caring, they worried extensively about their clients. The building trade is very casual too. I've worked for myself a couple of times since the turn of the century, but that's always been part of my industry. Nothing new. I've worked for myself too, but always had a part time job alongside it. Oviously self-employment requires staty up capital. The part time jobs I've done have usually been entry level jobs within Agriculture. So it's nothing new, someone just stuck the word "gig" in it. It's "new" in that zero-hours contracts are relatively recent. It's "old" insomuch as that is what happened before the postwar labour government. So what's the issue with it? People work, they get paid. They dont work they find another job. So what? " The issue is that they are not contracted hours so they can't plan their lives. If work is a bit slack that week then they can be told not to come in and therefore not be paid. If their supervisor doesn't like them much he can give their hours to someone else. People can be rung late in the evening to be offered work in the morning, leaving them scrambling to find childcare or lose a days pay. Basically, no job security. This is not the same as being self-employed. It's your investment capital, your risk, your gamble - you chose to start a business (presumably after doing your market research). Your wages as a self-employed person pay you and your contributions, you don't need to give your employer a slice of your surplus-value. I would never do a self employed gig for less than £15/h, wheras zero-hours contract guy is on £7.50. | |||
"Yes it is time to redress the balance. The working classes have suffered for the sins of the so-called professional bankers. It is time that wage rises were not for your manager but for you. Time that the poor were not vilified by the media for being sometimes feckless and always as spongers. Meanwhile the real spongers and con men the bankers have ripped us off for billions while paying themselves bonuses for doing what ? When Amazon. facebook type companies make multi million pound profits but pay little to no tax... Yes the tide has turned being told "We are all in it together" when it turned out it was always the poorest and least educated who were to pay the price ......No more ...let us see the MPs pensions being lowered to the rate of the lowest grade of civil servants. The directors of all companies restricted to a pay of no more than eight times the lowest paid in there employment. The end should be nigh for workers being forced onto zero hour contracts. A change is coming , you can sense the rise of discontent within the populace.
Then who would want to be an MP? Someone who's already wealthy?
Well lets start with someone who feels they can live on an MP's salary without any other gigs on the side.
The only change is that people think they are owed something, rather than work for it. They can barely afford their iphones.. "How do you mean? You think that people with more money have somehow worked harder to get it? And again, cheap technology confounds the issue. You need a phone and e-mail to find work nowadays and you know it. | |||
 | |||
"Has any labour government ever been a success? " Depends if you think that having things like paid holiday, a health service, social security, a weekend etc are signs of success, really doesn't it? | |||
"Has any labour government ever been a success? " Has any government been a sucess for the majority of the people....you seem well trained at throwing in theses casual remarks | |||
"Has any labour government ever been a success? Depends if you think that having things like paid holiday, a health service, social security, a weekend etc are signs of success, really doesn't it?" So why aren't they in government? | |||
"The balance does need redressing - social mobility has been decreasing and the wage gap increasing since the 80s. With the advent of the "Gig Economy", the current generation of 20 somethings has more in common with my Grandads generation than my parents generation. The waters are muddied for some people by the advent of cheap technology and the unique situation whereupon the previous generation had a better standard of living/more opportunities than the current one. If you want to know the direction that zero-hours contracts will take us, go and read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". People are distracted from in-work poverty by choosing to victimise the jobless. Something is very wrong when working single parents have to use food banks. I'm not seeing the gig economy? It could be where you work. Lots of retail runs on zero-hours now. Agriculture relies extensively on agency staff who have no job security. Lots of careres have similar "time worked" contracts, whereby they "clock on" when they arrive at a clients house and have to "clock off" when they leave - the clients can be tens of miles apart. I know a couple of very good ones who had to quit simply because they couldn't afford to be one anymore, and carers being....caring, they worried extensively about their clients. The building trade is very casual too. I've worked for myself a couple of times since the turn of the century, but that's always been part of my industry. Nothing new. I've worked for myself too, but always had a part time job alongside it. Oviously self-employment requires staty up capital. The part time jobs I've done have usually been entry level jobs within Agriculture. So it's nothing new, someone just stuck the word "gig" in it. It's "new" in that zero-hours contracts are relatively recent. It's "old" insomuch as that is what happened before the postwar labour government. So what's the issue with it? People work, they get paid. They dont work they find another job. So what? The issue is that they are not contracted hours so they can't plan their lives. If work is a bit slack that week then they can be told not to come in and therefore not be paid. If their supervisor doesn't like them much he can give their hours to someone else. People can be rung late in the evening to be offered work in the morning, leaving them scrambling to find childcare or lose a days pay. Basically, no job security. This is not the same as being self-employed. It's your investment capital, your risk, your gamble - you chose to start a business (presumably after doing your market research). Your wages as a self-employed person pay you and your contributions, you don't need to give your employer a slice of your surplus-value. I would never do a self employed gig for less than £15/h, wheras zero-hours contract guy is on £7.50. " 7.50! Why would you stay in a job like that? Why wouldn't these people get a different job? | |||
| |||
| |||
"And, whilst I am not usually a Labour supporter, I think currently they are a step in the right direction, and hence I'll be happy to vote for them, even if their policies are liberal socialism at best. They do say that labour are the party of hope; and in that sense, I can't concur - I have no hope; I have no hope beccause the monumental shifts in gaining better conditions and societal improvements only come when the ruling classes are afraid of the electorate. After both world wars the goverment had, by necessity trained all young men of age in millitary tactics. European governments were petrified of the consequences of this as of....oooh, 1917... "Of course they're scared of the electorate. If they weren't we would never have had a referendum. | |||
"The balance does need redressing - social mobility has been decreasing and the wage gap increasing since the 80s. With the advent of the "Gig Economy", the current generation of 20 somethings has more in common with my Grandads generation than my parents generation. The waters are muddied for some people by the advent of cheap technology and the unique situation whereupon the previous generation had a better standard of living/more opportunities than the current one. If you want to know the direction that zero-hours contracts will take us, go and read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". People are distracted from in-work poverty by choosing to victimise the jobless. Something is very wrong when working single parents have to use food banks. I'm not seeing the gig economy? It could be where you work. Lots of retail runs on zero-hours now. Agriculture relies extensively on agency staff who have no job security. Lots of careres have similar "time worked" contracts, whereby they "clock on" when they arrive at a clients house and have to "clock off" when they leave - the clients can be tens of miles apart. I know a couple of very good ones who had to quit simply because they couldn't afford to be one anymore, and carers being....caring, they worried extensively about their clients. The building trade is very casual too. I've worked for myself a couple of times since the turn of the century, but that's always been part of my industry. Nothing new. I've worked for myself too, but always had a part time job alongside it. Oviously self-employment requires staty up capital. The part time jobs I've done have usually been entry level jobs within Agriculture. So it's nothing new, someone just stuck the word "gig" in it. It's "new" in that zero-hours contracts are relatively recent. It's "old" insomuch as that is what happened before the postwar labour government. So what's the issue with it? People work, they get paid. They dont work they find another job. So what? The issue is that they are not contracted hours so they can't plan their lives. If work is a bit slack that week then they can be told not to come in and therefore not be paid. If their supervisor doesn't like them much he can give their hours to someone else. People can be rung late in the evening to be offered work in the morning, leaving them scrambling to find childcare or lose a days pay. Basically, no job security. This is not the same as being self-employed. It's your investment capital, your risk, your gamble - you chose to start a business (presumably after doing your market research). Your wages as a self-employed person pay you and your contributions, you don't need to give your employer a slice of your surplus-value. I would never do a self employed gig for less than £15/h, wheras zero-hours contract guy is on £7.50. 7.50! Why would you stay in a job like that? Why wouldn't these people get a different job? " Because that is what is on offer. The company I currently work for seems to think it has done a very generous thing by increasing the wage for new starters/shop floor staff to £8.50.... | |||
"And, whilst I am not usually a Labour supporter, I think currently they are a step in the right direction, and hence I'll be happy to vote for them, even if their policies are liberal socialism at best. They do say that labour are the party of hope; and in that sense, I can't concur - I have no hope; I have no hope beccause the monumental shifts in gaining better conditions and societal improvements only come when the ruling classes are afraid of the electorate. After both world wars the goverment had, by necessity trained all young men of age in millitary tactics. European governments were petrified of the consequences of this as of....oooh, 1917...
Of course they're scared of the electorate. If they weren't we would never have had a referendum. "An EU one? THat had nothing to do with the fear of the electorate and everything to do with David Camerons ego. | |||
| |||
"And, whilst I am not usually a Labour supporter, I think currently they are a step in the right direction, and hence I'll be happy to vote for them, even if their policies are liberal socialism at best. They do say that labour are the party of hope; and in that sense, I can't concur - I have no hope; I have no hope beccause the monumental shifts in gaining better conditions and societal improvements only come when the ruling classes are afraid of the electorate. After both world wars the goverment had, by necessity trained all young men of age in millitary tactics. European governments were petrified of the consequences of this as of....oooh, 1917...
Of course they're scared of the electorate. If they weren't we would never have had a referendum.
An EU one? THat had nothing to do with the fear of the electorate and everything to do with David Camerons ego. "And losing votes to ukip... | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you " Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. | |||
"The balance does need redressing - social mobility has been decreasing and the wage gap increasing since the 80s. With the advent of the "Gig Economy", the current generation of 20 somethings has more in common with my Grandads generation than my parents generation. The waters are muddied for some people by the advent of cheap technology and the unique situation whereupon the previous generation had a better standard of living/more opportunities than the current one. If you want to know the direction that zero-hours contracts will take us, go and read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". People are distracted from in-work poverty by choosing to victimise the jobless. Something is very wrong when working single parents have to use food banks. I'm not seeing the gig economy? It could be where you work. Lots of retail runs on zero-hours now. Agriculture relies extensively on agency staff who have no job security. Lots of careres have similar "time worked" contracts, whereby they "clock on" when they arrive at a clients house and have to "clock off" when they leave - the clients can be tens of miles apart. I know a couple of very good ones who had to quit simply because they couldn't afford to be one anymore, and carers being....caring, they worried extensively about their clients. The building trade is very casual too. I've worked for myself a couple of times since the turn of the century, but that's always been part of my industry. Nothing new. I've worked for myself too, but always had a part time job alongside it. Oviously self-employment requires staty up capital. The part time jobs I've done have usually been entry level jobs within Agriculture. So it's nothing new, someone just stuck the word "gig" in it. It's "new" in that zero-hours contracts are relatively recent. It's "old" insomuch as that is what happened before the postwar labour government. So what's the issue with it? People work, they get paid. They dont work they find another job. So what? The issue is that they are not contracted hours so they can't plan their lives. If work is a bit slack that week then they can be told not to come in and therefore not be paid. If their supervisor doesn't like them much he can give their hours to someone else. People can be rung late in the evening to be offered work in the morning, leaving them scrambling to find childcare or lose a days pay. Basically, no job security. This is not the same as being self-employed. It's your investment capital, your risk, your gamble - you chose to start a business (presumably after doing your market research). Your wages as a self-employed person pay you and your contributions, you don't need to give your employer a slice of your surplus-value. I would never do a self employed gig for less than £15/h, wheras zero-hours contract guy is on £7.50. 7.50! Why would you stay in a job like that? Why wouldn't these people get a different job? Because that is what is on offer. The company I currently work for seems to think it has done a very generous thing by increasing the wage for new starters/shop floor staff to £8.50.... " So learn a trade. Cut grass. Paint walls. Put up shelves for old ladies. It all pays more.... | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. " Thats true...but tbh i think some people are also laughing at him not with him | |||
"The balance does need redressing - social mobility has been decreasing and the wage gap increasing since the 80s. With the advent of the "Gig Economy", the current generation of 20 somethings has more in common with my Grandads generation than my parents generation. The waters are muddied for some people by the advent of cheap technology and the unique situation whereupon the previous generation had a better standard of living/more opportunities than the current one. If you want to know the direction that zero-hours contracts will take us, go and read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". People are distracted from in-work poverty by choosing to victimise the jobless. Something is very wrong when working single parents have to use food banks. I'm not seeing the gig economy? It could be where you work. Lots of retail runs on zero-hours now. Agriculture relies extensively on agency staff who have no job security. Lots of careres have similar "time worked" contracts, whereby they "clock on" when they arrive at a clients house and have to "clock off" when they leave - the clients can be tens of miles apart. I know a couple of very good ones who had to quit simply because they couldn't afford to be one anymore, and carers being....caring, they worried extensively about their clients. The building trade is very casual too. I've worked for myself a couple of times since the turn of the century, but that's always been part of my industry. Nothing new. I've worked for myself too, but always had a part time job alongside it. Oviously self-employment requires staty up capital. The part time jobs I've done have usually been entry level jobs within Agriculture. So it's nothing new, someone just stuck the word "gig" in it. It's "new" in that zero-hours contracts are relatively recent. It's "old" insomuch as that is what happened before the postwar labour government. So what's the issue with it? People work, they get paid. They dont work they find another job. So what? The issue is that they are not contracted hours so they can't plan their lives. If work is a bit slack that week then they can be told not to come in and therefore not be paid. If their supervisor doesn't like them much he can give their hours to someone else. People can be rung late in the evening to be offered work in the morning, leaving them scrambling to find childcare or lose a days pay. Basically, no job security. This is not the same as being self-employed. It's your investment capital, your risk, your gamble - you chose to start a business (presumably after doing your market research). Your wages as a self-employed person pay you and your contributions, you don't need to give your employer a slice of your surplus-value. I would never do a self employed gig for less than £15/h, wheras zero-hours contract guy is on £7.50. 7.50! Why would you stay in a job like that? Why wouldn't these people get a different job? Because that is what is on offer. The company I currently work for seems to think it has done a very generous thing by increasing the wage for new starters/shop floor staff to £8.50.... So learn a trade. Cut grass. Paint walls. Put up shelves for old ladies. It all pays more...." All of those trades are very fickle indeed - so it's a trade off. Decorating is great when theres work about, cutting grass is a _retty good gig....in April to October... | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. " Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!".  smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse. | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Thats true...but tbh i think some people are also laughing at him not with him " ^perfect example^ | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse. "Gold plated on £7.50 ph...i think your the one coming over smug...are you a trojan horse ? | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Thats true...but tbh i think some people are also laughing at him not with him ^perfect example^" You have no clue at all with your attempted comedy | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse. "To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair. I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour. At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears. What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was. Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative. And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
Gold plated on £7.50 ph...i think your the one coming over smug...are you a trojan horse ?"Sorry, i didn't realise you were on that hourly rate. Nothing personal. | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs"But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify. | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify. "I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground. I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour. | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify.
I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground.
I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour. "And maybe the few million on zero hours contracts that are masking the unemployment figures in this country | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify.
I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground.
I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour. "I wish i could say the same. The message my colleagues and apprentices hear is. "I want to lower your standard of living". I heard a guy say this morning "Why would anyone who works and pays a mortgage vote labour?" What is the answer to that? Why would they gamble on their interest rates? They'd rather have no holiday pay and no sick than chance JC with the economy. | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify.
I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground.
I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour.
And maybe the few million on zero hours contracts that are masking the unemployment figures in this country "Surely if they're working they're employed. | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify.
I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground.
I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour.
And maybe the few million on zero hours contracts that are masking the unemployment figures in this country
Surely if they're working they're employed. "Technically but like it could be one day a week ... and there still eligible to claim top up benefits there for not classed as unemployed | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify.
I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground.
I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour.
I wish i could say the same. The message my colleagues and apprentices hear is. "I want to lower your standard of living". I heard a guy say this morning "Why would anyone who works and pays a mortgage vote labour?" What is the answer to that? Why would they gamble on their interest rates? They'd rather have no holiday pay and no sick than chance JC with the economy. "And yet they are happy with the Tories handling of it? The "mortgage" thing is telling though, having enough money to be able to afford a house is just a pipe dream to lots of younger people. I suppse Labour might also be reclaiming voters of my parents age, who will tell you that when they had their first mortgage, a house cost about 3-4 years salary. Now if it costs 10 years salary, you are lucky. | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify.
I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground.
I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour.
And maybe the few million on zero hours contracts that are masking the unemployment figures in this country
Surely if they're working they're employed.
Technically but like it could be one day a week ... and there still eligible to claim top up benefits there for not classed as unemployed "I had to go to manchester. London. The West country even Germany to follow the work through the naughties. I could have stayed at home and claimed benefits. But I'm not like that. If the job you want isn't on your doorstep. Move. | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify.
I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground.
I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour.
I wish i could say the same. The message my colleagues and apprentices hear is. "I want to lower your standard of living". I heard a guy say this morning "Why would anyone who works and pays a mortgage vote labour?" What is the answer to that? Why would they gamble on their interest rates? They'd rather have no holiday pay and no sick than chance JC with the economy.
And yet they are happy with the Tories handling of it?
The "mortgage" thing is telling though, having enough money to be able to afford a house is just a pipe dream to lots of younger people.
I suppse Labour might also be reclaiming voters of my parents age, who will tell you that when they had their first mortgage, a house cost about 3-4 years salary. Now if it costs 10 years salary, you are lucky. "People want stability. They don't believe JC will provide that. | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify.
I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground.
I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour.
And maybe the few million on zero hours contracts that are masking the unemployment figures in this country
Surely if they're working they're employed.
Technically but like it could be one day a week ... and there still eligible to claim top up benefits there for not classed as unemployed
I had to go to manchester. London. The West country even Germany to follow the work through the naughties. I could have stayed at home and claimed benefits. But I'm not like that. If the job you want isn't on your doorstep. Move. "Yeah the tories were in power then as well...they always have shit on the working people of this country | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify.
I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground.
I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour.
I wish i could say the same. The message my colleagues and apprentices hear is. "I want to lower your standard of living". I heard a guy say this morning "Why would anyone who works and pays a mortgage vote labour?" What is the answer to that? Why would they gamble on their interest rates? They'd rather have no holiday pay and no sick than chance JC with the economy.
And yet they are happy with the Tories handling of it?
The "mortgage" thing is telling though, having enough money to be able to afford a house is just a pipe dream to lots of younger people.
I suppse Labour might also be reclaiming voters of my parents age, who will tell you that when they had their first mortgage, a house cost about 3-4 years salary. Now if it costs 10 years salary, you are lucky.
People want stability. They don't believe JC will provide that. "I can understand where they are coming from, mostly because the canteen at work always has a copy of "the Express" and "The Sun". We don't have stability at the moment, the UK is now the slowest growing Economy in Europe. Was the banking crisis (and its after-effects, which are still being felt today) "stable"? What we have is a very low base rate, but this is because the Bank of England are desperatley trying to stimulate our Economy. What we have is instability and change as a consequence. What we need is change, but in the other direction. The European countries with the highest standard of living are mixed economies. | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify.
I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground.
I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour.
And maybe the few million on zero hours contracts that are masking the unemployment figures in this country
Surely if they're working they're employed.
Technically but like it could be one day a week ... and there still eligible to claim top up benefits there for not classed as unemployed
I had to go to manchester. London. The West country even Germany to follow the work through the naughties. I could have stayed at home and claimed benefits. But I'm not like that. If the job you want isn't on your doorstep. Move.
Yeah the tories were in power then as well...they always have shit on the working people of this country "I'm assuming you're calling new labour "tory" right? | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify.
I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground.
I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour.
And maybe the few million on zero hours contracts that are masking the unemployment figures in this country
Surely if they're working they're employed.
Technically but like it could be one day a week ... and there still eligible to claim top up benefits there for not classed as unemployed
I had to go to manchester. London. The West country even Germany to follow the work through the naughties. I could have stayed at home and claimed benefits. But I'm not like that. If the job you want isn't on your doorstep. Move.
Yeah the tories were in power then as well...they always have shit on the working people of this country
I'm assuming you're calling new labour "tory" right?"If he doesn't, I will. | |||
| |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify.
I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground.
I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour.
I wish i could say the same. The message my colleagues and apprentices hear is. "I want to lower your standard of living". I heard a guy say this morning "Why would anyone who works and pays a mortgage vote labour?" What is the answer to that? Why would they gamble on their interest rates? They'd rather have no holiday pay and no sick than chance JC with the economy.
And yet they are happy with the Tories handling of it?
The "mortgage" thing is telling though, having enough money to be able to afford a house is just a pipe dream to lots of younger people.
I suppse Labour might also be reclaiming voters of my parents age, who will tell you that when they had their first mortgage, a house cost about 3-4 years salary. Now if it costs 10 years salary, you are lucky.
People want stability. They don't believe JC will provide that.
I can understand where they are coming from, mostly because the canteen at work always has a copy of "the Express" and "The Sun". We don't have stability at the moment, the UK is now the slowest growing Economy in Europe. Was the banking crisis (and its after-effects, which are still being felt today) "stable"?
What we have is a very low base rate, but this is because the Bank of England are desperatley trying to stimulate our Economy.
What we have is instability and change as a consequence.
What we need is change, but in the other direction. The European countries with the highest standard of living are mixed economies. "I agree but we have a mixed economy,maybe not mixed correctly though | |||
"Jim i think tbh this guy is trolling you Yeah, I know Clems MO; but I think the questions he is asking are worth answering; bcause as amusing as he thinks he is being, lots of people think exactly like the person he is pretending to be. Bingo. Well almost, i dont think I'm amusing, i think its sad that my fellow labour and trade union supporters can come over so crass that they make me want to shout at JC "look what you've done, you've turned the working man against Labour!". smug socialists preaching socialism from their gold plated soap boxes. Nothing worse.
To be honest, I lay the blame for that at the feet of Tony Blair.
I felt utterly betrayed by "New" Labour.
At first, I was a bit unsure of JC, I felt that he was a bit too "open" and actually answered questions with the level of complexity he felt they had, rather than barking a soundbite at the camera. I didn't think he'd last because he was smeared so repeatedly by the press, but I think the undoing of that was that they wen't so far overboard, people stopped beieving the smears.
What he has done, to his credit, is offered Socialism to young people, who I feel didn't really know what it was.
Yes, none of the Labour party are true leftist radicals, but they are so much better than the alternative.
And things like this do make me want to hope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplY-KF2IHs
But who is voting for jc? Young what? Young students? Will they vote for him when they're earning? Doubt it. They'll have kids and a mortgage and want stability like everyone else. As a union rep i used to go down and see the apprentices to get them to join up. Now they don't want to know. Tory=stable. Jeremy Corbyn = champion of the student and the workshy. They do not identify.
I think that's the way that he has been smeared, yes. It does seem that democratic socialism is gaining...er.. momentum (if you'll forgive the term). JCs tactic was to target the disenfranchised youth and encourage them to vote rather than to abstain, which is a departure from the traditional squabble over the centre ground.
I know I see a lot of friends on scocial media getting behind labour, and although they are my age, and therefore possibly no longer the "youth" (although the average age of a tory voter is 60 something isn't it?). These are mostly tradespeople/skilled workers/labourers in the rural south of England and really not the people you'd expect to vote Labour.
And maybe the few million on zero hours contracts that are masking the unemployment figures in this country
Surely if they're working they're employed.
Technically but like it could be one day a week ... and there still eligible to claim top up benefits there for not classed as unemployed
I had to go to manchester. London. The West country even Germany to follow the work through the naughties. I could have stayed at home and claimed benefits. But I'm not like that. If the job you want isn't on your doorstep. Move.
Yeah the tories were in power then as well...they always have shit on the working people of this country
I'm assuming you're calling new labour "tory" right?"yeah i am... | |||
"If jezza had any radical ideas about changing anything he can start there for me
Me too. If he has any I'd like to be told about em!
It would be radical if we had socially and environmentaly responsible capitalism.
This is impossible though as true capitalism can only exist with minimal regulations on the free market, deregulate and you inherently let corruption in and as such the labour force gets over exploited and people evade tax, this in turn makes the state and people less populous, and a less populous state is prone to only short term planning and over expansion, which leads to poor environmental stewardship.
I think we need to look beyond capitalism and socialism to a different model.We seem fixated on these two options.Some form of holistic economics that factors in responsibility and resource management and sustainability.
Socialism has worked, it just won't last. Chile brought power to the people, the farmers, became rich because of nationalisation. Sounds like a mix of Brexit and Corbyn haha.
But socialism does not bode well with powerful capitalist countries. The USA have tried taking down socialism/communism from Cuba, Chile and recently Venezuela.
So if we go full socialism and it works. Don't worry the USA will intervene and you right wingers will be happy the money will flow back to the powerful.
So I agree a new model is needed. But we're in a rigged system. And getting out of it will be tough."
You are right, it is a rigged system with those in power using acts and statutes against us!! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Is this the kind of socialism Scottish Labour leadership candidate Anas Sarwar talks about? Advocating a £10 per hour minimum wage, his family firm has been advertising jobs at £7.50 per hour. His children also go to £8500 a year private school I have no problem with socialism but when JC talks of "the many not the few", it's sometimes hard to see which are which." Firstly, I don't see how you equate what Anas Sarwar family do to Labour policy. Secondly socialism does not dictate how an individual spends their money. I know some who claim to be socialist think that socialism should, but the fact remains it does not. Therefore if Anas Sarwar chooses to spend his money on educating his children not only do I say that is his choice, I commend him for investing in his children provided he is not removing funds from the state system to subsidise his children's education. Thirdly, although by the way you quote the £8500 pa that is not a lot for a private education. The school I attended now charges €4,450 per term for day students and €12,500 per term for 7 day boarders + €2,000 per term for non Irish residents EU citizens and a further €2,000 for books weekend accommodation and uniform, making a total of €16,500 per term (that's £15,000 a term). | |||
"Is this the kind of socialism Scottish Labour leadership candidate Anas Sarwar talks about? Advocating a £10 per hour minimum wage, his family firm has been advertising jobs at £7.50 per hour. His children also go to £8500 a year private school I have no problem with socialism but when JC talks of "the many not the few", it's sometimes hard to see which are which. Firstly, I don't see how you equate what Anas Sarwar family do to Labour policy. Secondly socialism does not dictate how an individual spends their money. I know some who claim to be socialist think that socialism should, but the fact remains it does not. Therefore if Anas Sarwar chooses to spend his money on educating his children not only do I say that is his choice, I commend him for investing in his children provided he is not removing funds from the state system to subsidise his children's education. Thirdly, although by the way you quote the £8500 pa that is not a lot for a private education. The school I attended now charges €4,450 per term for day students and €12,500 per term for 7 day boarders + €2,000 per term for non Irish residents EU citizens and a further €2,000 for books weekend accommodation and uniform, making a total of €16,500 per term (that's £15,000 a term)." I'm all for an element of socialism in society, but one of the problems I have, is that they say one thing and do another. If they were straight up and honest about their intentions, then I would give them a serious look. I know that this can be pointed at all political parties and beliefs, but I just need to rid myself of this unease I get with the Labour party. JC is intelligent and "gettable", and due to the cyclic nature of politics, it will be his turn next time round. | |||
"I'm all for an element of socialism in society, but one of the problems I have, is that they say one thing and do another. If they were straight up and honest about their intentions, then I would give them a serious look. I know that this can be pointed at all political parties and beliefs, but I just need to rid myself of this unease I get with the Labour party. JC is intelligent and "gettable", and due to the cyclic nature of politics, it will be his turn next time round. " Unlike the honest as the day is long tories who never break a promise (except for the promises they break immediately after they gain power). and funnily enough if you check you will find that Labour (even Blair) actually keep or attempt to keep their promises. | |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time? And what socialist government was that....i cant ever remember one ? ". There have just been repeats ad nauseam of right wing medias' mantras. | |||
| |||
"I will forgive youngsters for being enthusiastic about socialism however anyone over 40 should remember that the last time we had a truly socialist government, they bankrupted us in under three years , what makes people think it would be different this time? And what socialist government was that....i cant ever remember one ?
Wilson/Callaghan...... national strikes, 27% inflation, power cuts, begging to the IMF for a bail out.... I was in school but still remember it well.
Mountains of uncollected rubbish, morgues full of unburied bodies....
. There have just been repeats ad nauseam of right wing medias' mantras. " | |||
| |||
"Thought I would bump a socialism thread after having watched the clips from the DSA 2019 National Convention going viral. If you are on the fence perhaps check it out. " Stop it please I’m getting triggered | |||
"Thought I would bump a socialism thread after having watched the clips from the DSA 2019 National Convention going viral. If you are on the fence perhaps check it out. Stop it please I’m getting triggered " Sorry comrade I will stick to jazz hands. | |||
| |||
"I was watching question time and the first question was, does uk need an injection of socialism? With the rise of corbynism and shift in politics it is getting a very popular alternative with the younger ones as we are all getting bored with the torys, what is your view? I reckon it would work as corbyn is a modern day rocky balboa, a people champion "What bollocks. Corbyn is a dinosaur and we, all know what happened to them | |||
"I was watching question time and the first question was, does uk need an injection of socialism? With the rise of corbynism and shift in politics it is getting a very popular alternative with the younger ones as we are all getting bored with the torys, what is your view? I reckon it would work as corbyn is a modern day rocky balboa, a people champion "You like and want poverty then,Corbyn is not a socialist he is a left wing radical | |||
"I was watching question time and the first question was, does uk need an injection of socialism? With the rise of corbynism and shift in politics it is getting a very popular alternative with the younger ones as we are all getting bored with the torys, what is your view? I reckon it would work as corbyn is a modern day rocky balboa, a people champion You like and want poverty then,Corbyn is not a socialist he is a left wing radical"That sounds like most of the posters on here | |||
"Do you know.......... I really really wish Labour had won the election back in 2010 by a narrow majority too. Would love to have seen how they intended to fix the mess we were in back then. " Why ???? because the British electorate let them off the hook and allowed them to walk clean away from some of the hardest decisions, and now here we are 10 years later just as I thought with the truth and history being glossed over by the BBC and the left wing press as to how wonderful it was under Gordon and Tony and how the tories have run up such an awful debt mountain. I just wish we'd given them the chance to prove me wrong and for socialism to come up with a wonderful plan to get us out of the shit left by the banking crisis. | |||
| |||
| |||
"What is it with tory supporters? We have had 40 years of right wing politics (and moving further to the right all the time) and what has it given us? Rough sleepers in every town and city plus uncounted hidden homeless sofa surfing, an ever growing gap between the richest 1% and the rest of us. The banking crisis where merchant bankers get trillions in bailouts and still get multimillion bonus payout for fucking the world over while nurses get to rely on the charity of foodbanks to feed their families! And what do we hear from the right and the idiot working class who support them? You can't trust socialists! Only the tories know how to run the country! We need more right wing tory economic policies! Now lets look at what both sides have given us. Socialism (labour and the trade unions): 40 hour week, weekends off, universal free medical dental and optical treatment from the NHS (and of course the NHS itself), universal education, paid holidays, the right to compensation if your employer damages your health or body, universal legal representation, employment protection, a statutory retirement age and state pension and of course the social security system that provides . Now looking at the above what have the tories taken from us in the last 40 years? Well lets start with the NHS, your free optical care is gone as is your free dental care. Moving on to education, well free universal education is gone. How about access to legal services? Sorry no their gone too. Well how about your employment rights, sorry their a thing of the past. So how about your social security and pension rights? Well they are being dismantled as we speak. Maybe you think you still have employment rights, not really, just think about zero hours contracts and the whole gig economy. That is nothing more than an elaborate con to swindle you out of the last of your rights. So the bottom line is that the socialist system your/our great grandparents, grandparent and parents fought for has been thrown away because the tories sold us the Thatcher pup of 'greed is good' and so many are still clinging on to it! Wake up! We have a simple choice continue on our present course and return to a Dickensian Britain or admit we have all been conned by the CONservative tories (remember tory comes from the Irish for robber) and choose a different path. I think the one Jeremy Corybn is proposing we take is not perfect but at least it leads in the opposite direction to the one we are on now. " | |||
"State ownership of industry, banking, utilities and the whole economy has been tried before. . . It came under the banner National Socialism . . " Ooooh, er, Mister . . . "National socialism" is where the acronym NAZI is derived from. I'm not aware we ever had a Nazi programme, though the Mail and Express were keen supporters in the 1930s. | |||
| |||
"If jezza had any radical ideas about changing anything he can start there for me
Me too. If he has any I'd like to be told about em!
It would be radical if we had socially and environmentaly responsible capitalism. "the components exclude each other mutually  | |||
"State ownership of industry, banking, utilities and the whole economy has been tried before. . . It came under the banner National Socialism . . Ooooh, er, Mister . . . "National socialism" is where the acronym NAZI is derived from. I'm not aware we ever had a Nazi programme, though the Mail and Express were keen supporters in the 1930s. " 1930s! How about the 2010s! | |||
"Coryn is not a socialist he is a communist,big difference" and a bigger liar than bojo. If that's, your type of PM then God help us all. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Do you know.......... I really really wish Labour had won the election back in 2010 by a narrow majority too. Would love to have seen how they intended to fix the mess we were in back then. " The UK, with Labour leading, following the global financial crash of 2008, wasn't actually doing that badly. I head the conservatives referring to it this week as if it was a local recession, in isolation from the rest of the world where all was hunky dory  | |||
"The Nordic and Scandinavian social democracies model would be fine here. "Nordic? | |||
"Coryn is not a socialist he is a communist,big differenceand a bigger liar than bojo. If that's, your type of PM then God help us all. " What lies has he told? | |||
"I was watching question time and the first question was, does uk need an injection of socialism? With the rise of corbynism and shift in politics it is getting a very popular alternative with the younger ones as we are all getting bored with the torys, what is your view? I reckon it would work as corbyn is a modern day rocky balboa, a people champion "Corbyn is not the right man for the job. He’s toxic, like boris, but for other reasons. Can’t have either in power. We are all small c conservatives and small s socialists in real life. Anything to extreme on both sides and you’ll get huge backlash. People either want fiscally responsible socialism, or compassionate conservatism. Not hard socialism, not hard conservatism. | |||
