Labours Economic Policy U Turn !

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Labours Economic Policy U Turn !

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

DanH SW2 13 Oct 15 2.12pm
Willo's met his match.
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH

SW2 13 Oct 15 2.12pm

Willo's met his match.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 13 Oct 15 2.20pm
It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power. They've just undone a lie. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 13 Oct 15 2.20pm

It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power.

They've just undone a lie.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle 13 Oct 15 2.26pm
Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power. They've just undone a lie. I don't think everyone was convinced by the rhetoric that Labour is predestined to overspend. It would have been better if the shadow chancellor had made his initial qualifications more overt but overall this is a reasonable move.
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

13 Oct 15 2.26pm

Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm

It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power.

They've just undone a lie.

I don't think everyone was convinced by the rhetoric that Labour is predestined to overspend. It would have been better if the shadow chancellor had made his initial qualifications more overt but overall this is a reasonable move.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 13 Oct 15 2.35pm
Quote Red-Blue-Yellow at 13 Oct 2015 2.08pm Quote dannyh at 13 Oct 2015 1.03pm Wow just wow, that is the longest most bizzare answer to a question I've ever read. I take it back you not Rick from the young ones. You are Chairman Mao. Stop it with the compliments Think of me as somebody with a Politics Degree, a jaundiced view of conservative and neo-liberal politics and politicians, a recogniser of crypto-fascist corporate influence masquerading as 'economic neccessity'....or for the hard of reading...A DIED IN THE WOOL SOCIALIST. Not a self-serving Union minion, not a looney left idealist, just someone who, after 60yrs on this Earth, sees the alternatives available to a properly enfranchised citizenry. From Each According To Their Ability - To Each According To Their Need. Simple....the Credo not achieving it. That's harder. That's what the whole purpose of the Labour Party is. To fight for the Fairest Possible Society. Erm ! You're an idealist. After 60 years, you might have realised that most don't share your egalitarian outlook, especially when it applies to themselves. We all know corporations run the world chief. Globalisation is an extension of trade that has been going on for thousands of years. I don't like it any more than you but the world is actually better off, although it might not always seem that way. Greed is an ugly thing and it leads to a lot of unnecessary problems but in financial terms the World never had it better. It is weird how some of you socialists support large scale immigration and open borders. How does that fit in your anti corporate world ?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

13 Oct 15 2.35pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Quote Red-Blue-Yellow at 13 Oct 2015 2.08pm

Quote dannyh at 13 Oct 2015 1.03pm

Wow just wow, that is the longest most bizzare answer to a question I've ever read. I take it back you not Rick from the young ones.

You are Chairman Mao.

Stop it with the compliments

Think of me as somebody with a Politics Degree, a jaundiced view of conservative and neo-liberal politics and politicians, a recogniser of crypto-fascist corporate influence masquerading as 'economic neccessity'....or for the hard of reading...A DIED IN THE WOOL SOCIALIST. Not a self-serving Union minion, not a looney left idealist, just someone who, after 60yrs on this Earth, sees the alternatives available to a properly enfranchised citizenry.

From Each According To Their Ability - To Each According To Their Need.

Simple....the Credo not achieving it. That's harder. That's what the whole purpose of the Labour Party is.
To fight for the Fairest Possible Society.

Erm ! You're an idealist.

After 60 years, you might have realised that most don't share your egalitarian outlook, especially when it applies to themselves.

We all know corporations run the world chief.
Globalisation is an extension of trade that has been going on for thousands of years.
I don't like it any more than you but the world is actually better off, although it might not always seem that way.

Greed is an ugly thing and it leads to a lot of unnecessary problems but in financial terms the World never had it better.
It is weird how some of you socialists support large scale immigration and open borders. How does that fit in your anti corporate world ?

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 13 Oct 15 2.47pm
Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 12.53pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 13 Oct 2015 12.42pm Quote Red-Blue-Yellow at 13 Oct 2015 11.50am What's all the fuss about? Firstly, the Conservative 'surplus' pledge is a nothing more than a legitimisation device to get yet more draconian pieces of 'social engineering' through Parliament. It is also a mean spirited target which enables the 'Out' camp to point at the money going to Europe as a cause rather than effect of our econmic impotence. A couple of right-wingers in the party don't like it? Didums has lost his dummy.... A purge of these faux-Tory careerist MP's is the best thing that could happen....toddle off to another party if socialism is that unpalatable. Diane Abbott...Ha Ha....she's just a better camouflaged self-centered careerist who's really not as 'left' as sh'd like us to believe. Obviously the re-birth of a proper Labour Party based on Socialist Values is going to be messy. Once they put the Blairites out of harms way - whether by de-selection or by imposing discipline - then a consesus policy porfolio can be followed. Untill then, every issue will be devisive, every debate will drive away some careerist hanger-on or closit Tory. Nobody should expect this to be anything other than a barely concealed internal civil-war but there is no room in Corbyn's Labour for anybody who is not willing to dump the post-Thatcher emphasis on Corporate interest in favour of a re-statement of political purpose as champions of the oppressed, the dispossessed and the exploited in our society. Make no mistake, the oppressed, the dispossessed and the exploited make up a very large segment of British society and one that is continually growing thanks to Osborne and chums. The Tories are a grand recruiting sargeant for Labour. What a lot of tosh. Firstly, the Tory aim is to reduce the burden on the state from people working and still eligible for benefit of one sort or another. This situation only encourages employers to pay less at tax payers expense. Secondly. The idea that you can keep increasing minimum wage and not cause unemployment is insane. Where is that money coming from ? What is this social engineering of which you speak ? There is no ground swell of discontent. This is just the usual tired old nonsense that you always hear when the Conservatives are in power. The tiny minority of hard line lefties get all upset and throw their dummy out of the pram. Probably paid for with benefits. Where were you all at the election ? This is untrue, as there is by definition always a groundswell of discontent. The argument is whether it is of a signifigant size to have any political impact. Given that a third of the country did not vote during the GE it would appear that there is a sizable portion of the country that is disengaged from politics. If that discontent can be effectivley harnessed is the question. I think the attempts by the tories to force poor people out of london qualifies as social engineering, and should be the focus of more discussion within the public domain. None of this has any substance. There is always a significant number of the electorate who don't vote. You like to think that they will all turn out and vote Labour at the next election. Good luck with that. People leaving London are probably doing so because market forces are driving up prices. Successive governments have failed to provide sufficient new housing thus sustaining the housing price boom. Not especially the fault of this government. Blair and Brown had years to do something about it. There is also white flight of course.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

13 Oct 15 2.47pm

Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 12.53pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 13 Oct 2015 12.42pm

Quote Red-Blue-Yellow at 13 Oct 2015 11.50am

What's all the fuss about?

Firstly, the Conservative 'surplus' pledge is a nothing more than a legitimisation device to get yet more draconian pieces of 'social engineering' through Parliament. It is also a mean spirited target which enables the 'Out' camp to point at the money going to Europe as a cause rather than effect of our econmic impotence.

A couple of right-wingers in the party don't like it?
Didums has lost his dummy....
A purge of these faux-Tory careerist MP's is the best thing that could happen....toddle off to another party if socialism is that unpalatable.

Diane Abbott...Ha Ha....she's just a better camouflaged self-centered careerist who's really not as 'left' as sh'd like us to believe.

Obviously the re-birth of a proper Labour Party based on Socialist Values is going to be messy. Once they put the Blairites out of harms way - whether by de-selection or by imposing discipline - then a consesus policy porfolio can be followed. Untill then, every issue will be devisive, every debate will drive away some careerist hanger-on or closit Tory.

Nobody should expect this to be anything other than a barely concealed internal civil-war but there is no room in Corbyn's Labour for anybody who is not willing to dump the post-Thatcher emphasis on Corporate interest in favour of a re-statement of political purpose as champions of the oppressed, the dispossessed and the exploited in our society.

Make no mistake, the oppressed, the dispossessed and the exploited make up a very large segment of British society and one that is continually growing thanks to Osborne and chums.

The Tories are a grand recruiting sargeant for Labour.

What a lot of tosh.

Firstly, the Tory aim is to reduce the burden on the state from people working and still eligible for benefit of one sort or another. This situation only encourages employers to pay less at tax payers expense.
Secondly. The idea that you can keep increasing minimum wage and not cause unemployment is insane. Where is that money coming from ?

What is this social engineering of which you speak ?

There is no ground swell of discontent. This is just the usual tired old nonsense that you always hear when the Conservatives are in power. The tiny minority of hard line lefties get all upset and throw their dummy out of the pram. Probably paid for with benefits.

Where were you all at the election ?

This is untrue, as there is by definition always a groundswell of discontent. The argument is whether it is of a signifigant size to have any political impact. Given that a third of the country did not vote during the GE it would appear that there is a sizable portion of the country that is disengaged from politics. If that discontent can be effectivley harnessed is the question.

I think the attempts by the tories to force poor people out of london qualifies as social engineering, and should be the focus of more discussion within the public domain.

None of this has any substance.

There is always a significant number of the electorate who don't vote. You like to think that they will all turn out and vote Labour at the next election. Good luck with that.

People leaving London are probably doing so because market forces are driving up prices. Successive governments have failed to provide sufficient new housing thus sustaining the housing price boom. Not especially the fault of this government. Blair and Brown had years to do something about it. There is also white flight of course.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 13 Oct 15 2.48pm
Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 2.26pm Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power. They've just undone a lie. I don't think everyone was convinced by the rhetoric that Labour is predestined to overspend. It would have been better if the shadow chancellor had made his initial qualifications more overt but overall this is a reasonable move. Only those who don't see that spending what you don't have is overspending. This u turn effectively admits that they'll always do this, but they've actually only done it to try and regain some favour with the jocks who have defected from them to SNP. Also because it doesn't matter which way they vote as the Conservatives have an overall majority, so they will win the vote tomorrow. So obviously they think it looks better to their supporters to oppose the Conservatives no matter what. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 13 Oct 15 2.48pm

Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 2.26pm

Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm

It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power.

They've just undone a lie.

I don't think everyone was convinced by the rhetoric that Labour is predestined to overspend. It would have been better if the shadow chancellor had made his initial qualifications more overt but overall this is a reasonable move.

Only those who don't see that spending what you don't have is overspending. This u turn effectively admits that they'll always do this, but they've actually only done it to try and regain some favour with the jocks who have defected from them to SNP.

Also because it doesn't matter which way they vote as the Conservatives have an overall majority, so they will win the vote tomorrow. So obviously they think it looks better to their supporters to oppose the Conservatives no matter what.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

oldcodger 13 Oct 15 3.11pm
The party is a bit of a headless chicken of late. It will be interesting to see what the politiical landscape looks like by next election.
Alert a moderator to this post

oldcodger

13 Oct 15 3.11pm

The party is a bit of a headless chicken of late. It will be interesting to see what the politiical landscape looks like by next election.

Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle 13 Oct 15 3.23pm
Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.48pm Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 2.26pm Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power. They've just undone a lie. I don't think everyone was convinced by the rhetoric that Labour is predestined to overspend. It would have been better if the shadow chancellor had made his initial qualifications more overt but overall this is a reasonable move. Only those who don't see that spending what you don't have is overspending. This u turn effectively admits that they'll always do this, but they've actually only done it to try and regain some favour with the jocks who have defected from them to SNP. Also because it doesn't matter which way they vote as the Conservatives have an overall majority, so they will win the vote tomorrow. So obviously they think it looks better to their supporters to oppose the Conservatives no matter what. As i said, i don't think everyone is convinced by the rhetoric that labour is predestined to overspend and i don't think this issue will change anybodies mind. As i pointed out, his initial agreement was qualified and so there has been no u-turn but i still don't understand why he didn't make more of the qualifications so that he could head off a situation such as this. I agree it clearly plays better to labour supporters to oppose the tories on this.
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

13 Oct 15 3.23pm

Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.48pm

Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 2.26pm

Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm

It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power.

They've just undone a lie.

As i said, i don't think everyone is convinced by the rhetoric that labour is predestined to overspend and i don't think this issue will change anybodies mind.
As i pointed out, his initial agreement was qualified and so there has been no u-turn but i still don't understand why he didn't make more of the qualifications so that he could head off a situation such as this. I agree it clearly plays better to labour supporters to oppose the tories on this.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 13 Oct 15 3.53pm
Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 3.23pm Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.48pm Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 2.26pm Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power. They've just undone a lie. I don't think everyone was convinced by the rhetoric that Labour is predestined to overspend. It would have been better if the shadow chancellor had made his initial qualifications more overt but overall this is a reasonable move. Only those who don't see that spending what you don't have is overspending. This u turn effectively admits that they'll always do this, but they've actually only done it to try and regain some favour with the jocks who have defected from them to SNP. Also because it doesn't matter which way they vote as the Conservatives have an overall majority, so they will win the vote tomorrow. So obviously they think it looks better to their supporters to oppose the Conservatives no matter what. As i said, i don't think everyone is convinced by the rhetoric that labour is predestined to overspend and i don't think this issue will change anybodies mind. As i pointed out, his initial agreement was qualified and so there has been no u-turn but i still don't understand why he didn't make more of the qualifications so that he could head off a situation such as this. I agree it clearly plays better to labour supporters to oppose the tories on this. He said himself "I changed my mind" so it's definitely a u turn It's not rhetoric to say Labour overspend. They do. They had a chance to show that they weren't predestined to with tomorrows vote, but they've gone back to form and basically admitted they will do again given the chance. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 13 Oct 15 3.53pm

Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 3.23pm

Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.48pm

Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 2.26pm

Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm

It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power.

They've just undone a lie.

He said himself "I changed my mind" so it's definitely a u turn

It's not rhetoric to say Labour overspend. They do. They had a chance to show that they weren't predestined to with tomorrows vote, but they've gone back to form and basically admitted they will do again given the chance.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 13 Oct 15 3.55pm
Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 3.23pm Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.48pm Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 2.26pm Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power. They've just undone a lie. I don't think everyone was convinced by the rhetoric that Labour is predestined to overspend. It would have been better if the shadow chancellor had made his initial qualifications more overt but overall this is a reasonable move. Only those who don't see that spending what you don't have is overspending. This u turn effectively admits that they'll always do this, but they've actually only done it to try and regain some favour with the jocks who have defected from them to SNP. Also because it doesn't matter which way they vote as the Conservatives have an overall majority, so they will win the vote tomorrow. So obviously they think it looks better to their supporters to oppose the Conservatives no matter what. As i said, i don't think everyone is convinced by the rhetoric that labour is predestined to overspend and i don't think this issue will change anybodies mind. As i pointed out, his initial agreement was qualified and so there has been no u-turn but i still don't understand why he didn't make more of the qualifications so that he could head off a situation such as this. I agree it clearly plays better to labour supporters to oppose the tories on this. If they didn't borrow and overspend then it would be the first Labour government ever not to do so. Even the socialist shining glory that is the NHS was created on borrowed money. We only recently paid it off. But let's be serious for a minute. Do you really believe that party politics is worth a bean these days ? You have seen that promises made in manifestos are broken without blinking. It is the politics of saying what people want to hear. The global economy dictates policy more and more. There will be a bun fight for floating voters at the next election and Corbyn's election by a lot of rabid lefties will guarantee that middle England will desert Labour in their droves, That is the reality.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

13 Oct 15 3.55pm

Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 3.23pm

Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.48pm

Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 2.26pm

Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm

It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power.

They've just undone a lie.

If they didn't borrow and overspend then it would be the first Labour government ever not to do so.

Even the socialist shining glory that is the NHS was created on borrowed money. We only recently paid it off.
But let's be serious for a minute.

Do you really believe that party politics is worth a bean these days ? You have seen that promises made in manifestos are broken without blinking. It is the politics of saying what people want to hear. The global economy dictates policy more and more.

There will be a bun fight for floating voters at the next election and Corbyn's election by a lot of rabid lefties will guarantee that middle England will desert Labour in their droves, That is the reality.

Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle 13 Oct 15 4.17pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 13 Oct 2015 3.55pm Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 3.23pm Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.48pm Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 2.26pm Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power. They've just undone a lie. I don't think everyone was convinced by the rhetoric that Labour is predestined to overspend. It would have been better if the shadow chancellor had made his initial qualifications more overt but overall this is a reasonable move. Only those who don't see that spending what you don't have is overspending. This u turn effectively admits that they'll always do this, but they've actually only done it to try and regain some favour with the jocks who have defected from them to SNP. Also because it doesn't matter which way they vote as the Conservatives have an overall majority, so they will win the vote tomorrow. So obviously they think it looks better to their supporters to oppose the Conservatives no matter what. As i said, i don't think everyone is convinced by the rhetoric that labour is predestined to overspend and i don't think this issue will change anybodies mind. As i pointed out, his initial agreement was qualified and so there has been no u-turn but i still don't understand why he didn't make more of the qualifications so that he could head off a situation such as this. I agree it clearly plays better to labour supporters to oppose the tories on this. If they didn't borrow and overspend then it would be the first Labour government ever not to do so. Even the socialist shining glory that is the NHS was created on borrowed money. We only recently paid it off. But let's be serious for a minute. Do you really believe that party politics is worth a bean these days ? You have seen that promises made in manifestos are broken without blinking. It is the politics of saying what people want to hear. The global economy dictates policy more and more. There will be a bun fight for floating voters at the next election and Corbyn's election by a lot of rabid lefties will guarantee that middle England will desert Labour in their droves, That is the reality. I have to say i disagree. I think Corbyns challenge and his oppurtunity is if he can galvanise the 1/3 of the population who didn't vote during the GE. He has already shown a talent for politicising people who have become turned off by modern plastic politics and if he could achieve this he would be on his way. If being the operative word. With regard to party politics and the tradition of breaking promises, it is again both Corbyns challenge and opportunity. He has made speeches about changing the politics of this country and it will be interesting to see if he can do it.
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

13 Oct 15 4.17pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 13 Oct 2015 3.55pm

Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 3.23pm

Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.48pm

Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 2.26pm

Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm

It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power.

They've just undone a lie.

If they didn't borrow and overspend then it would be the first Labour government ever not to do so.

Even the socialist shining glory that is the NHS was created on borrowed money. We only recently paid it off.
But let's be serious for a minute.

I have to say i disagree. I think Corbyns challenge and his oppurtunity is if he can galvanise the 1/3 of the population who didn't vote during the GE. He has already shown a talent for politicising people who have become turned off by modern plastic politics and if he could achieve this he would be on his way. If being the operative word.

With regard to party politics and the tradition of breaking promises, it is again both Corbyns challenge and opportunity. He has made speeches about changing the politics of this country and it will be interesting to see if he can do it.

Alert a moderator to this post

oldcodger 13 Oct 15 4.28pm
Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 4.17pm Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 13 Oct 2015 3.55pm Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 3.23pm Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.48pm Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 2.26pm Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power. They've just undone a lie. I don't think everyone was convinced by the rhetoric that Labour is predestined to overspend. It would have been better if the shadow chancellor had made his initial qualifications more overt but overall this is a reasonable move. Only those who don't see that spending what you don't have is overspending. This u turn effectively admits that they'll always do this, but they've actually only done it to try and regain some favour with the jocks who have defected from them to SNP. Also because it doesn't matter which way they vote as the Conservatives have an overall majority, so they will win the vote tomorrow. So obviously they think it looks better to their supporters to oppose the Conservatives no matter what. As i said, i don't think everyone is convinced by the rhetoric that labour is predestined to overspend and i don't think this issue will change anybodies mind. As i pointed out, his initial agreement was qualified and so there has been no u-turn but i still don't understand why he didn't make more of the qualifications so that he could head off a situation such as this. I agree it clearly plays better to labour supporters to oppose the tories on this. If they didn't borrow and overspend then it would be the first Labour government ever not to do so. Even the socialist shining glory that is the NHS was created on borrowed money. We only recently paid it off. But let's be serious for a minute. Do you really believe that party politics is worth a bean these days ? You have seen that promises made in manifestos are broken without blinking. It is the politics of saying what people want to hear. The global economy dictates policy more and more. There will be a bun fight for floating voters at the next election and Corbyn's election by a lot of rabid lefties will guarantee that middle England will desert Labour in their droves, That is the reality. I have to say i disagree. I think Corbyns challenge and his oppurtunity is if he can galvanise the 1/3 of the population who didn't vote during the GE. He has already shown a talent for politicising people who have become turned off by modern plastic politics and if he could achieve this he would be on his way. If being the operative word. With regard to party politics and the tradition of breaking promises, it is again both Corbyns challenge and opportunity. He has made speeches about changing the politics of this country and it will be interesting to see if he can do it. Who knows, maybe he can ride out this current storm and a lot of stuff thrown at him, like the bin laden 'tragedy' comment is a complete and purposeful misinterpretation of what he said. He lives in age though where people are used to plastic politicians giving non answers and despite saying they want different, they don't. He gives too many straight honest answers and it creates problems for him and his party - like the 'would you press the button' stuff. If you can't get your party behind you, then you can't lead. I give him two years tops.
Alert a moderator to this post

oldcodger

13 Oct 15 4.28pm

Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 4.17pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 13 Oct 2015 3.55pm

Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 3.23pm

Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.48pm

Quote ghosteagle at 13 Oct 2015 2.26pm

Quote Stuk at 13 Oct 2015 2.20pm

It really doesn't matter. As if anyone believed Labour would curb their spending if they got back in power.

They've just undone a lie.

If they didn't borrow and overspend then it would be the first Labour government ever not to do so.

Even the socialist shining glory that is the NHS was created on borrowed money. We only recently paid it off.
But let's be serious for a minute.

Who knows, maybe he can ride out this current storm and a lot of stuff thrown at him, like the bin laden 'tragedy' comment is a complete and purposeful misinterpretation of what he said. He lives in age though where people are used to plastic politicians giving non answers and despite saying they want different, they don't. He gives too many straight honest answers and it creates problems for him and his party - like the 'would you press the button' stuff. If you can't get your party behind you, then you can't lead. I give him two years tops.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Labours Economic Policy U Turn !

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors