Jump to content

General Election


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 813
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Proof positive that if you vote Tory, you're a scab.

 

Tory Toffs.

 

Yawn- I'm getting a bit fed up of Tory posh bashing. Where did the last Labour leader to win a general election go to school (oh and where did the last Tory)? Where did Ed Balls (and his missus) go to school? The Labour candidate in Durham is Roberta Blackman-Woods (really lower class that name)- just one of the rank and file labour politicans I'm familiar with. Yes so Cameron is very posh (and his wife is even posher), but he didn't start his campaign speech with I'm upper-middle class (inicdentally he is- the upper class are the landed gentry he isn't entitled to a seat in the house of lords- personally I prefer the class I-VI ranking not upper, middle, lower), unlike Gordon Brown. Yes, he is a member of the Bullingdon club and called Osborn "oik" because he went to an cheaper public school, but that doesn't stop Darth Mandelson from sucking up to other members to gain some funding.

 

Vote for whoever you want- I'm voting for neither of them- but please don't vote Labour just because they aren't as posh as the Tories when that is simply not entirely true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn- I'm getting a bit fed up of Tory posh bashing. Where did the last Labour leader to win a general election go to school (oh and where did the last Tory)? Where did Ed Balls (and his missus) go to school? The Labour candidate in Durham is Roberta Blackman-Woods (really lower class that name)- just one of the rank and file labour politicans I'm familiar with. Yes so Cameron is very posh (and his wife is even posher), but he didn't start his campaign speech with I'm upper-middle class (inicdentally he is- the upper class are the landed gentry he isn't entitled to a seat in the house of lords- personally I prefer the class I-VI ranking not upper, middle, lower), unlike Gordon Brown. Yes, he is a member of the Bullingdon club and called Osborn "oik" because he went to an cheaper public school, but that doesn't stop Darth Mandelson from sucking up to other members to gain some funding.

 

Vote for whoever you want- I'm voting for neither of them- but please don't vote Labour just because they aren't as posh as the Tories when that is simply not entirely true.

I agree completely with this. Osbourne in particular gets stick because he comes across as very public school, well he went to the boys part of the same school Harriet Harman went to, the only difference is he hasn’t had elocution lessons to help him pretend he is something he is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn- I'm getting a bit fed up of Tory posh bashing. Where did the last Labour leader to win a general election go to school (oh and where did the last Tory)? Where did Ed Balls (and his missus) go to school? The Labour candidate in Durham is Roberta Blackman-Woods (really lower class that name)- just one of the rank and file labour politicans I'm familiar with. Yes so Cameron is very posh (and his wife is even posher), but he didn't start his campaign speech with I'm upper-middle class (inicdentally he is- the upper class are the landed gentry he isn't entitled to a seat in the house of lords- personally I prefer the class I-VI ranking not upper, middle, lower), unlike Gordon Brown. Yes, he is a member of the Bullingdon club and called Osborn "oik" because he went to an cheaper public school, but that doesn't stop Darth Mandelson from sucking up to other members to gain some funding.

 

Vote for whoever you want- I'm voting for neither of them- but please don't vote Labour just because they aren't as posh as the Tories when that is simply not entirely true.

 

Why don't you try checking the facts before mouthing off? Roberta Blackman-Woods has a double-barrelled name because she added her married name to her maiden name, as was the fashion in some period of lefty feminism. Which makes you a goon. I am so annoyed that you couldn't be arsed to find that out - I'm off for a cigarette and a couple of valium but it might take me literally weeks to calm down after that slice of ignorance.

 

It's not about how posh people are, it's about who their policies favour. Labour policies favour people on middle and average incomes, Tory policies favour the few at the top. The choice is simple. Vote Tory and poshos get what they want for the next five years, vote Labour and get reasonably fair policies for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you try checking the facts before mouthing off? Roberta Blackman-Woods has a double-barrelled name because she added her married name to her maiden name, as was the fashion in some period of lefty feminism. Which makes you a goon. I am so annoyed that you couldn't be arsed to find that out - I'm off for a cigarette and a couple of valium but it might take me literally weeks to calm down after that slice of ignorance.

 

It's not about how posh people are, it's about who their policies favour. Labour policies favour people on middle and average incomes, Tory policies favour the few at the top. The choice is simple. Vote Tory and poshos get what they want for the next five years, vote Labour and get reasonably fair policies for all.

 

Even so the name Roberta Woods is really lower class isn't it? She is obviously quite posh (I've heard her speak) and my other points, which you skim by as they don't fit your narrow minded views that the Tories are posh, you don't cover. Incidentally having looked it up she changed her name not because it was fashionable, but because there was already a female MP with the surname Woods and she didn't want any confusion and this was in 2004/5. How this makes me a goon I do not know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about how posh people are, it's about who their policies favour. Labour policies favour people on middle and average incomes, Tory policies favour the few at the top. The choice is simple. Vote Tory and poshos get what they want for the next five years, vote Labour and get reasonably fair policies for all.

Actually, raising employee NI contributions hits those on lower incomes disproportionately hard, as do raises on beer, cider and fag tax, fuel duty, etc etc etc. And everyone with half a brain knows that it’s the middle classes who get the most benefit out of the education and health services, and the million extra people who have government jobs (many of them very well paid) thanks to Gordy at the expense of those in the private sector’s taxes are doing OK too. But no, cry about toffs, that’s the important thing isn’t it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even so the name Roberta Woods is really lower class isn't it? She is obviously quite posh (I've heard her speak) and my other points, which you skim by as they don't fit your narrow minded views that the Tories are posh, you don't cover. Incidentally having looked it up she changed her name not because it was fashionable, but because there was already a female MP with the surname Woods and she didn't want any confusion and this was in 2004/5. How this makes me a goon I do not know?

 

I just said I don't care about the Tories or anyone else being posh. I just said that what matters is who is favoured by one set of policies or another. I just wrote it a few minutes ago. I really really did. Vote Tory and the toffs get what they want. Vote Labour for fairer policies all round. Jesus wept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour policies favour people on middle and average incomes

So, I'll ask the question again: how come the poverty gap has widened in the last 13 years?

 

vote Labour and get reasonably fair policies for all.

That's what Blair said in 1997, 2001 and 2005, and it's what Brown said when he took over as PM in 2007.

 

Promised four times, failed to deliver four times. Why should anyone believe it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I'll ask the question again: how come the poverty gap has widened in the last 13 years?

 

 

That's what Blair said in 1997, 2001 and 2005, and it's what Brown said when he took over as PM in 2007.

 

Promised four times, failed to deliver four times. Why should anyone believe it now?

 

According the National Equality Panel, who published a report into the equality gap in January:

 

The report concludes that some of the biggest inequalities opened up in the 1980s under Conservative rule. But it also argues that the government has failed to plug the gulf that existed between the poorest and richest in society in the 1980s. "Over the most recent decade, earnings inequality has narrowed a little and income inequality has stabilised on some measures, but the large inequality growth of the 1980s has not been reversed," it states.

 

Poverty Gap Linky

 

It does go on to say that labour have tried to plug the gap but most of the schemes tried seem to not have been successful. The question on my lips however is, will the Conservatives be any better and indeed will they try?

 

 

Edited by jimsleftfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote from OAFC0000 link from Johnhari.com, it states that Cameron will cut taxes that will benefit the toffs and "to pay for this, he will slash programmes for the middle and the skint, like the Child Trust Fund, SureStart and state schools".

 

The report by the National Equality Panel in my above post "highlights the importance of early years policies in making sure that children from poor backgrounds have the skills needed to start school successfully. It also called for more to be done to reduce child poverty and improve the staying-on rates after 16 for children from the poorest homes. " According the Independent.

 

Tories View:

 

The Tories' Equalities spokeswoman Theresa May said: "It is unbelievable that Labour thinks it can claim to be the party of aspiration when its failure to tackle the causes of poverty have let down so many lives. We cannot go on like this. We need a change from Labour's failed one-dimensional approach to tackling poverty and inequality. Conservatives will tackle the causes of poverty and inequality – not just the symptoms through radical policies to address educational failure, family breakdown and worklessness."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I'll ask the question again: how come the poverty gap has widened in the last 13 years?

 

 

That's what Blair said in 1997, 2001 and 2005, and it's what Brown said when he took over as PM in 2007.

 

Promised four times, failed to deliver four times. Why should anyone believe it now?

 

What's the poverty gap when it's at home? Do you mean wealth inequality? If so, I can tell you that it would have been a lot worse had the Tories been in in the last 13 years. A shed load worse. When they were in power, they let hundreds of thousands of businesses go to the wall in THREE (not one) recessions. First it was the heavy industry, then the Lawson boom, then small businesses. What does millions on the dole do for the poverty gap (whatever that is) or for wealth inequality? What do hundreds of thousands of home repossessions a year do for inequality? Sometimes things not being as bad as they could have been is an achievement. How ungrateful can you get?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does millions on the dole do for the poverty gap (whatever that is) or for wealth inequality? What do hundreds of thousands of home repossessions a year do for inequality?

MAybe we should ask Gordon, it's him that has lead us to the state where not only has the headline unemployment figure is rising and likely to continue to go up, but that is after he has created over a million make-believe jobs paid for on borrowed money and masked millions more on sickness benefit and other statistical scams. And repossessions are at all time record levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great little website if you havent already seen it - tells you what your vote is actually worth... and how pointless voting for certain parties is in your constituency...

 

Voterpower

 

Interesting stuff... my vote is actually worth 0.240 of a vote... :(

 

0.042 :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MAybe we should ask Gordon, it's him that has lead us to the state where not only has the headline unemployment figure is rising and likely to continue to go up, but that is after he has created over a million make-believe jobs paid for on borrowed money and masked millions more on sickness benefit and other statistical scams. And repossessions are at all time record levels.

 

Higher than the early 90s when the base rate was 15 per cent? Show me. More than a million make-believe jobs? Show me. The Tories hid more people from the official figures than Labour has - that's why unemployment went up slightly when they first came into power in 1997 (and also why crime figures went through the roof).

 

Headline unemployment? Is that the same as the official figures, the latest of which showed a decline in unemployment?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great little website if you havent already seen it - tells you what your vote is actually worth... and how pointless voting for certain parties is in your constituency...

 

Voterpower

 

Interesting stuff... my vote is actually worth 0.240 of a vote... :(

 

Hmmmm 0.016 fanbloody tastic

 

 

Edit: better than where I used to live 0.010

Edited by jimsleftfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Tulsehill's best argument in favour of voting Labour is to offer some conjecture that another 13 years under the Tories might have been worse.

 

13 years of Labour government has failed to address the widening gap between rich and poor, failed to lift anywhere near the promised number of poor children above the poverty line, and comprehensively failed to deliver its promises of greater opportunity and social mobility.

 

That is no kind of record upon which to ask for another term. The self styled party of the people has failed the people. New Labour has proved, through its track record of the past 13 years, that it no longer serves the northern working class.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MAybe we should ask Gordon, it's him that has lead us to the state where not only has the headline unemployment figure is rising and likely to continue to go up, but that is after he has created over a million make-believe jobs paid for on borrowed money and masked millions more on sickness benefit and other statistical scams. And repossessions are at all time record levels.

 

This is from the latest House of Commons research paper.

 

"The Office for National Statistics uses the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition of unemployment as the headline measure of unemployment. In the UK this is obtained from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

 

ILO unemployment in November 2009 to January 2010 was 2,449,000 (7.8% of all economically active) – down by 33,000 from the previous quarter (UK, seasonally adjusted)."

 

I might have read that wrong, but I'm sure it states that headline unemployment is down on the previous quarter. Why do you make stuff up like that?

 

Luckily, it states elsewhere that:

 

"ILO unemployment fell by 33,000 to 2.45 million during the three months ending in January 2010. However, compared with a year ago unemployment was 0.38 million higher."

 

Here's some more stats to encourage you to stop making stuff up.

 

"Manufacturing production recorded its first year-on-year increase in output in January (0.2%) since March 2008.

 

GDP expanded by 0.4% in Q4 2009 compared with Q3 2009. This was the first increase since Q1 2008. Growth in the year to Q4 2009 was -3.1%, compared with -5.3% in the year to Q3 2009.

 

In the year to February, CPI inflation fell to 3.0%, from 3.5% in January. Downward pressure came mainly from average gas bills being lower than a year ago."

 

So now that you know the truth, are you going to vote for the macro-economic success story?

 

VOTE LABOUR

Edited by 24hoursfromtulsehill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Tulsehill's best argument in favour of voting Labour is to offer some conjecture that another 13 years under the Tories might have been worse.

 

13 years of Labour government has failed to address the widening gap between rich and poor, failed to lift anywhere near the promised number of poor children above the poverty line, and comprehensively failed to deliver its promises of greater opportunity and social mobility.

 

That is no kind of record upon which to ask for another term. The self styled party of the people has failed the people. New Labour has proved, through its track record of the past 13 years, that it no longer serves the northern working class.

 

I'm finding this quite interesting, it appears the Lib Dem line in "Labour areas" is to attack the government record. In "tory areas" I bet it is to attack the tory policy defecations where possible after the total absence of substance from Camoron.

 

Probably not a bad tactic and to be fair the only one they can use. Just bugs me that philosophically the Lib-dems are closer aligned to the Labour party yet will help deliver a tory government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

0.330 - it is actually wrong. Warrington South is a key seat for the Torys with the long standing labour lady exiting and Tory support growing.

 

It is all a bit of bollox really. People say oh I dont get a say... Well you do, but the rest of the people want something different... Get over it :) Its called democracy :lol: The funniest thing is, if everyone who thought this actually voted the result would no doubt be very different :lol:

Edited by oafc0000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now success is measured by managing to improve a selection of statistics compared with the worst depths of the recession.

 

A recession that was deeper and longer in the UK than anywhere else in Europe due to the cumulative effect of 13 years of economic mismanagement by Gordon Brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...