election banter

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 21 Apr 2005, 04:19

Just felt I had to share this...

You know much has been made of local candidate's not including Tony Blair's picture on their election material? Well I got my Labour leaflet through the door today. Not only is there no Tony, but there is a double page spread of our esteemed MP with Gordy Brown.

josh fg · Post by **josh fg** » 21 Apr 2005, 04:24

Good hopefully after the election we will see the back of that caniving liying poodel faced war mungering fcukwit who is your MP by the way?

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 21 Apr 2005, 04:32

David Hamilton (Labour) He will be anyway. In Scotland the constituences have been tossed about so the town I live in is now going to move back into Midlothian (It's own county) from being with the borders for 8 years, who've had a Liberal. I don't have any personal hatred towards Hamilton, but my town is fairly Liberal compared to the rest of Midlothian (bit of a labour heartland.) Plus, the Liberals got a swing of about 40% or something to win a local by-election in Feb (and that was in a Labour safe seat.) I think Labour will get it, although I think the Liberals will leapfrog the SNP here and give Labour quite a scare

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 21 Apr 2005, 05:02

Election banter.

Howard is going to get battered. He cant make anything stick and he's getting desperate already - changing policy mid-campaign is typically untrustworthy action from the Tories....

Come on Tony.

J · Post by J » 21 Apr 2005, 05:04

that sounds so gay payne, "come on tonie."

sort it out.

i couldnt really care less to be honest, Bliars a lying c*nt the war proved that.

Howard just aint got it neither, and also from his time in goivernment has been proved to be a lying c*nt.

so one liar or another.

some frikkin choice.

Slapsie Maxie · Post by **Slapsie Maxie** » 21 Apr 2005, 05:06

Looking like a 6 pt lead for Labour. Would give them a majority of about 90seats

The Tories are unelectable and it looks like the Lib Dems will gain an extra 3-5 seats.

So, to all intents and purposes, same as you were folks. What a choice, a liar, a monster and a nitwit.

Ho Hum. No wonder the turnout is expected to be one of the lowest on record

Slapsie

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 21 Apr 2005, 05:16

J wrote:that sounds so gay payne, "come on tonie."

sort it out.

i couldnt really care less to be honest, Bliars a lying c*nt the war proved that.

Howard just aint got it neither, and also from his time in goivernment has been proved to be a lying c*nt.

so one liar or another.

some frikkin choice.

Ooh Prime Minister....

That'll do SEBASTIAN!!!

I maintain Blair is a genuine, decent bloke who made a decision with good intentions regarding the War.

And I think his 8 years in charge have been some of the healthiest for this country both economically, socially and ethicly. Sure they've made mistakes,, sure they've wasted some investment.

But they're making ethical investment in Education and Health, and we have a vibrant economy, low inflation, full employment......oh we;'ve been here before.....

Clearly, I'm not going to win you lot over.....

But Howard.....refer to my other thread.....

J · Post by J » 21 Apr 2005, 05:28

HAHA it did sound a bit that way.

if you believe that about the war mate you are far too naive or blinded by bias.

still each to their own, i do agree the country isnt in a bad state at present though I do fell the economy is gonna go tits up in the next year if we arent careful, signs of recession are there. Slowing housing markets, rising interest rates, big firms in trouble. (rover)...it could be an interesting year for the economy.

my message would be dont get fornicating smug if you get elected again.

as someone said earlier howard is just unelectable though it says enough that a staunch Tory tabloid this morning came out backing Blair.

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 21 Apr 2005, 05:39

J wrote:HAHA it did sound a bit that way.

if you believe that about the war mate you are far too naive or blinded by bias.

still each to their own, i do agree the country isnt in a bad state at present though I do fell the economy is gonna go tits up in the next year if we arent careful, signs of recession are there. Slowing housing markets, rising interest rates, big firms in trouble. (rover)...it could be an interesting year for the economy.

my message would be dont get fornicating smug if you get elected again.

as someone said earlier howard is just unelectable though it says enough that a staunch Tory tabloid this morning came out backing Blair.

The economy will continue to perform well, the housing market platueau will only last 18 months, and remember we had 2 capitulations under the TORIES, with repossessions everywhere following two fleeting summers of boom in another wise gloomy decade.

The markets will also pick up again when they realise Brown will be Chancellor for another two years minimum. Personally, I think Blair wants to 10 years in the top job before stepping down. Gving Brown free reign from 2007 and two years before the next election.

But he cant say that because it would cause unrest in some, uncertainty in others and for all his critics, I still think Blair is popular with huge swathes of the population.

They might not be the ones who make the most noise, but they're still voters.

As for the SUN, typical tory rag - i.e. they cant even show LOYALTY to their principles, they just HAVE to be seen to BACK the winner.

And they're all ANTI-WAR now but only the Mirror stood up and was counted at the time.

Equally, if anyone thinks the TORIES wouldn't have towed the line and gone to war wth the same evidence and international pressure then they're deluded.

J · Post by J » 21 Apr 2005, 05:42

thewy may well have done but they also may well have waited for UN blessing which is frankly what should have happened.

i also dont think using the mirror as a bastian of principle is very wise, peirs morgan was also a lying fornicate and that got exposed.

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 21 Apr 2005, 05:56

I'm not holding them up as any bastian, but they were the ONLY one's who opposed the war at the time.

Now of course its fashionable.

Gotta go.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2005, 06:25

DavidPayne wrote:Election banter.

Howard is going to get battered. He cant make anything stick and he's getting desperate already - changing policy mid-campaign is typically untrustworthy action from the Tories....

Come on Tony.

If I was on fire, and Michael Howard came over with a bucket of water, I wouldn't trust him even then. The man is one of the most cynical politicians around, pandering to fear and loathing of immigrants, gypsies and damn the consequences in a desperate plea to get into power. He's a dangerous man.

I'm tempted to vote for the Liberal democrats, because a lot of their policies make sense to me, but it feels a wasted vote. The problem is as well it depends what area you are in.

The way it's divided up into boroughs means you don't really have much choice about your vote if you want to prevent someone getting in.

I'm hoping that the Tories do really badly, and that the lib dems do better. I'm hoping the Tory party crumbles into dust along with the the repellent middle-englanders they pander to.

I was sitting at work the other day, and the woman who works opposite me, who is about 60, was saying "I'm voting conservative, I don't want that man in power"

"Why?" I asked her.

"I just don't like him" The only policy which she could name of the tories pertained to Gypsies, who she didn't like because they made a mess on Mitcham common.

This woman works in a hospital, 70% of our clinical staff in our department are asians. She said something along the lines of "Why are they all coming here, why aren't they giving the jobs to English people."

Because you stupid daft bitch, there's a shortage of NHS dentists, there aren't enough coming through medical school, and most of the ones born here go straight into private practice.

Similarly, when the production of letters was given over to a 3rd party who get them typed in India for peanuts and make a massive profit, she said "It's not right, they are taking our jobs, who let them do it"

Daft old pudendum, it's the health service which initiated it, she talks as if these people in India all decided en masse to diddle people out of their jobs.

Yes, this delightful old lady who works in a supposedly 'equal opportunities' environment, where half of all the staff there are afro-carribean or Asian, thinks "Enoch powell was right, give England back to the English."

These are the people the tories appeal to, mean, ignorant and spiteful people who like to blame anyone but themselves for their shortcomings.

Death to the conservative party and all it stands for. I shit on the face of Michael Howard, he's a fornicating loathsome reptile.

J · Post by J » 21 Apr 2005, 06:32

an argument could be made James that by you stereotyping middle England, as you call it that you are actually as biased and stupid as the person you are criticising.

while i agree with alot you say here, you are going overboard.

whether you like it or not people are entitled to vote for whom they like and to criticise them on mass and compare them all, to some ignorant bitch you work with is quite frankly insulting to those who "live" in middle England.

my fathers a miners son, who has voted labour all his life, the fact that he lives in midlde england both finanancially, logistically and demograpgically does not make him reprehensible,

your are so far left you are bordering on communism mate and thats been proved it doesnt work.

You are creating a mass sterotype that doesnt exist otherwise the tories would walk the election.

your view here is just as bad as the woman you are criticising in some ways.

Sweet P · Post by **Sweet P** » 21 Apr 2005, 06:38

Bloody politics they are all dickheads so it dosn't matter who you vote for.

J · Post by J » 21 Apr 2005, 06:39

Ben Keilty wrote:Bloody politics they are all dickheads so it dosn't matter who you vote for.

EXACTLY.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2005, 06:42

J wrote:an argument could be made James that by you stereotyping middle England, as you call it that you are actually as biased and stupid as the person you are criticising.

while i agree with alot you say here, you are going overboard.

whether you like it or not people are entitled to vote for whom they like and to criticise them on mass and compare them all, to some ignorant bitch you work with is quite frankly insulting to those who "live" in middle England.

my fathers a miners son, who has voted labour all his life, the fact that he lives in midlde england both finanancially, logistically and demograpgically does not make him reprehensible,

your are so far left you are bordering on communism mate and thats been proved it doesnt work.

You are creating a mass sterotype that doesnt exist otherwise the tories would walk the election.

your view here is just as bad as the woman you are criticising in some ways.

Middle England isn't a place mate, it's a state of mind. I'm not talking about any particular region of the country, I'm referring to people who hark back to some supposed 'golden age' and have antiquated notions of what it means to be English, and who despise anything which lies outside of that.

and I am not a frigging communist, and I never worked at blockbusters either.

J · Post by J » 21 Apr 2005, 06:44

I KNOW THAT YOU DUNCE.

read my post again.

middle england actually by steroetypical reckoining is white middle class people living on a comfortable income.

doesnt mean they are all raging thatcherites as you imply.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2005, 06:44

Ben Keilty wrote:Bloody politics they are all dickheads so it dosn't matter who you vote for.

Tell that to anyone from any mining or steelworks community around the country, or anyone born and raised in liverpool. I think they would disagree.

J · Post by J » 21 Apr 2005, 06:49

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Ben Keilty wrote:Bloody politics they are all dickheads so it dosn't matter who you vote for.
Tell that to anyone from any mining or steelworks community around the country, or anyone born and raised in liverpool. I think they would disagree.

so you believe we would stilll have steelworks and all that secondary industry if labour had of got in during the 80s

fornicate me can you imagine what a cock up kinnock would have made of it.

delusional.

by the way i have no tory or labour leaning, i just find it amusing when people are blatently one or the other how clouded their judgement becomes on such issues.

Now if you could find me a copy of 1984 in the bargain bin on DVD dear comarade i'd most appreciate it

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2005, 07:00

I believe that it would have been handled a lot better and more sympathetically. They just closed down the pits lock stock and barrell and sold them off to private enterprise for peanuts, just like we've seen with the railways. Made a few people multi-millionnaires, whilst destroying an entire way of life for thousands of people.

I'm sure it could have been handled better. Part of the reason that Thatcher did it, was to break the back of the unions for all time, which she to an extent did. I know unions are very unfashionable, but the principle that workers are protected isn't a bad thing, it doesn't appeal to corporations because they like a 'flexible workforce' in other words, people who do what they are told and work for peanuts and can be discarded when they aren't needed or the companies profits aren't enough to satisfy the shareholders.

I'd love to have had a union looking out for me when I was treated like dirt in the games industry, having the goalposts moved on the project I worked on, working 70 hours a week including weekends, no overtime paid, verbal abuse from my boss, no bonus' forthcoming despite promises, having my job title changed, etc etc. As it was, the only recourse in law was a lengthy tribunal which I, like most people couldn't be bothered with. Think anyone would get treated like that with a union behind them?

Whether or not our industrial base would be in better shape, who knows, but I will bet there would be plenty of towns in the North of England which would be better off because they would have been handled less brutally.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2005, 07:06

God I am a communist aren't I?

J · Post by J » 21 Apr 2005, 07:07

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I believe that it would have been handled a lot better and more sympathetically. They just closed down the pits lock stock and barrell and sold them off to private enterprise for peanuts, just like we've seen with the railways. Made a few people multi-millionnaires, whilst destroying

Whether or not our industrial base would be in better shape, who knows, but I will bet there would be plenty of towns in the North of England which would be better off because they would have been handled less brutally.

no just very left mate thats ok but....
you are talking shit mate.
they didnt just close the pits down like that, it was being scaled down since the late 60's.
That was the way it was reported sure, but it was a wound down cos its uneconomical to get the coal out of the ground mate, compared to importing it from places like Poland. The same will happen with the oil industry once it becomes time but that wont be a burden on the state cos it is already private business.

It was also linked to the fall of heavy industry in this country, steelworks shipyards and manfacturing, and the rise in concern of pollution. Whether you like ti or not it was toime to make a shift and there is no easy way of doing that.

really if you are going to use examples you should be more informed mate, my old man worked for British Coal mate though this whole period if you want some more info on it let me know.

J · Post by J » 21 Apr 2005, 07:10

sorry if it seems im giving you a hard time but i do like a good old debate.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Apr 2005, 07:10

Well, maybe you have me there. However, there's no denying that it was badly handled, and that there were plenty of people who got rich.

I've heard arguments on both sides about just how uneconomic the pits were. Some of them have since been bought by miners co-operatives and are turning a tidy profit.

J · Post by J » 21 Apr 2005, 07:11

jamesmcdonnell wrote:. However, there's no denying that it was badly handled, and that there were plenty of people who got rich.

.

i agree with you there mate.