Would you change your vote if Labour had a stronger leader?

[MegaSteve]

No shame in voting tory in these parts...
Hanging offence if you don't in fact...

I do my very best to vote for the best person...
Irrespective of what colour rosette they have pinned to them...

Quite happy to vote tory in local elections and often have...

 

[Hobbit]

on an unrelated note, how many people do you think have bothered reading this discussion

Quite a few probably started then thought ' It's those two again, no point in reading any more'

I did.... but you lost me when you started comparing communism with the birth rate divided by Logan's run rate formula.

 

[Fish]

I did.... but you lost me when you started comparing communism with the birth rate divided by Logan's run rate formula.

I'm too young to remember Logans Run

 

[bluewolf]

I did.... but you lost me when you started comparing communism with the birth rate divided by Logan's run rate formula.

It's the same formula used to determine Scotland's funding

 

[Snelly]

I wonder if there would have been a violent protest outside 10 Downing Street ending in the defacement of a war memorial if Labour had won with a majority?

All those disgruntled Tories throwing traffic cones and smashing up public property? I doubt it.


The person that wrote on the war memorial is simply vile. I would like a five minute chat in private with them.

 

[c1973]

I wonder if there would have been a violent protest outside 10 Downing Street ending in the defacement of a war memorial if Labour had won with a majority?

All those disgruntled Tories throwing traffic cones and smashing up public property? I doubt it.


The person that wrote on the war memorial is simply vile. I would like a five minute chat in private with them.

Do you think they'd listen? Or maybe just slap you around a wee bit?



Don't think I can recall a reaction like that after an election. No reason at all to vandalise a war memorial.

 

[alexbrownmp]

I wonder if there would have been a violent protest outside 10 Downing Street ending in the defacement of a war memorial if Labour had won with a majority?

All those disgruntled Tories throwing traffic cones and smashing up public property? I doubt it.


The person that wrote on the war memorial is simply vile. I would like a five minute chat in private with them.

bringing you to the same level as them, meeting something you disapprove of with violence.

 

[Snelly]

bringing you to the same level as them, meeting something you disapprove of with violence.

What are you on about? I just want to talk to them, understand their feelings, give them a shoulder to cry on and work with them on a holistic approach to integrating them into the bosom of our society.

 

[Snelly]

[/B]


Do you think they'd listen? Or maybe just slap you around a wee bit?



Don't think I can recall a reaction like that after an election. No reason at all to vandalise a war memorial.

Why do the Scottish use the same word for small as they do for the waste liquid that comes out of the urethra? I have always wondered that?

 

[alexbrownmp]

What are you on about? I just want to talk to them, understand their feelings, give them a shoulder to cry on and work with them on a holistic approach to integrating them into the bosom of our society.

of course you do.

You are clearly not that civilized to sink to that level or you think you are being very clever and witty

 

[Ethan]

I think left wing warriors which seem in abundance on this site have a poor grip on reality. Most of them have probably never been really hard up and speak from their elevated armchairs as if they are the only people with morals and consider anyone with a different view as stupid, greedy and selfish!

Socialism did have a part to play in the past and did a great deal of good for working conditions, medical care, wages etc. In more advanced society it has much less of a part to play as society has moved on and abject poverty along with it's poor living conditions are no longer a forced way of life for the masses. As a rider to that please dont suggest that people smoking a few hundred cigarettes a week, drinking a couple of packs of super strong a night, watching Sky and eating a takeaway are living in poverty. What Socialism does now is to suppress enterprise and promote hatred for people who have worked to create wealth by their own hard work and determination, it rounds up all wealth and job creators and brands them as fat cats and greedy people who have no social morals. It wants to tax them disproportionally for their enterprise to prop up those who dont have the stomach to create wealth and jobs for others. The politics of envy.

Socialism just doesn't work, it has always been a failed experiment, just look at the USSR where people had no desire or way to improve their lives as hard work and determination never gave any rewards unless you were a member of the political class. No one owes people a nice life, it's there for them to achieve if they are prepared to grasp the day.

What a load of complete nonsense. For a start, the USSR is not a decent example. What about the largely socialist Scandinavian countries where there is plenty of entrepreneurship, excellent health and education and decent pensions for all?

The myth about job creators, trickle down economics, has been exploded. The exact opposite is true. The rich salt away the money they get in offshore accounts. Working people who get extra money put it back into the economy where it circulates, the so call multiplier effect. This is much better for the economy and helps raise standards for all. Plenty of these so called job creators are amoral fat cats. Many of them make their money through hostile takeovers in which they slash jobs, wages and conditions (efficiency savings).

There is plenty of poverty around, and the Daily Mail myths of welfare scroungers smoking, drinking and watching Sky all day are cheap hypocrisy from a paper that doesn't pay UK tax.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

What a load of complete nonsense. For a start, the USSR is not a decent example. What about the largely socialist Scandinavian countries where there is plenty of entrepreneurship, excellent health and education and decent pensions for all?

The myth about job creators, trickle down economics, has been exploded. The exact opposite is true. The rich salt away the money they get in offshore accounts. Working people who get extra money put it back into the economy where it circulates, the so call multiplier effect. This is much better for the economy and helps raise standards for all. Plenty of these so called job creators are amoral fat cats. Many of them make their money through hostile takeovers in which they slash jobs, wages and conditions (efficiency savings).

There is plenty of poverty around, and the Daily Mail myths of welfare scroungers smoking, drinking and watching Sky all day are cheap hypocrisy from a paper that doesn't pay UK tax.

Good post.
I think you speak for many UK citizens.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

What a load of complete nonsense. For a start, the USSR is not a decent example. What about the largely socialist Scandinavian countries where there is plenty of entrepreneurship, excellent health and education and decent pensions for all?

The myth about job creators, trickle down economics, has been exploded. The exact opposite is true. The rich salt away the money they get in offshore accounts. Working people who get extra money put it back into the economy where it circulates, the so call multiplier effect. This is much better for the economy and helps raise standards for all. Plenty of these so called job creators are amoral fat cats. Many of them make their money through hostile takeovers in which they slash jobs, wages and conditions (efficiency savings).

There is plenty of poverty around, and the Daily Mail myths of welfare scroungers smoking, drinking and watching Sky all day are cheap hypocrisy from a paper that doesn't pay UK tax.

So who creates the jobs for the working people?

Apparently it is OK to suggest that many of the job creators are "amoral fat cats" but there are no welfare scroungers.

As is usual the truth in each case lies somewhere in between.

 

[SocketRocket]

What a load of complete nonsense. For a start, the USSR is not a decent example. What about the largely socialist Scandinavian countries where there is plenty of entrepreneurship, excellent health and education and decent pensions for all?

The myth about job creators, trickle down economics, has been exploded. The exact opposite is true. The rich salt away the money they get in offshore accounts. Working people who get extra money put it back into the economy where it circulates, the so call multiplier effect. This is much better for the economy and helps raise standards for all. Plenty of these so called job creators are amoral fat cats. Many of them make their money through hostile takeovers in which they slash jobs, wages and conditions (efficiency savings).

There is plenty of poverty around, and the Daily Mail myths of welfare scroungers smoking, drinking and watching Sky all day are cheap hypocrisy from a paper that doesn't pay UK tax.

You seem to have a complete lack of reality when it comes business and what creates wealth in this country. You constantly harp on about the fat cats salting away the money, who do you think creates the majority of jobs? It's the small to medium enterprises, people that startup new business, put their homes on the line, take out loans and work their bits off to get up and running. Some large organisations are as you describe but not all of them and not even most, they employ many people who in turn pay a lot of tax into the system so it's incorrect to believe they salt everything away and dont contribute to the tax system.

There are indeed too many people that abuse the welfare system around and I think most people see it in their everyday lives, no one is saying all people on welfare are like this as that would be wrong.

Regarding the Scandinavian countries, they have many of their own large internationals that are models of free enterprise. They do tend have Social Democratic type systems but not the kind of piffle that was coming from the Labour party in this election. Their economies are quite different than ours but they have much smaller populations, they also pay levels of tax that people here would find hard to accept and get a great deal of State interference in their lives. It's not Utopia.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I would not be surprised if Ed Milliband turns out to be the last Labour PM.

 

[Imurg]

I would not be surprised if Ed Milliband turns out to be the last Labour PM.

Do you maybe, want to re-read that last statement.....

 

[c1973]

Why do the Scottish use the same word for small as they do for the waste liquid that comes out of the urethra? I have always wondered that?

Dunno what you mean, I thought the waste liquid was called pee.

 

[Foxholer]

I'm not clear what you are getting at here. Have you been drinking? if the population falls demand for goods and services fall with it, it's the way that market forces work, it's self regulating. It's only when the Nanny State wants to control our lives and the market that regulation becomes complicated.

While I certainly object to the Nanny State controlling my life, 'the market' is recognised as an area that requires regulation. And, arguably, it was insufficient - or inappropriate - regulation that allowed the most recent Banking Crisis!

Basically, there's a world of difference between 'market forces' and a 'free market'!

 

[Hobbit]

What a load of complete nonsense. For a start, the USSR is not a decent example. What about the largely socialist Scandinavian countries where there is plenty of entrepreneurship, excellent health and education and decent pensions for all?

The myth about job creators, trickle down economics, has been exploded. The exact opposite is true. The rich salt away the money they get in offshore accounts. Working people who get extra money put it back into the economy where it circulates, the so call multiplier effect. This is much better for the economy and helps raise standards for all. Plenty of these so called job creators are amoral fat cats. Many of them make their money through hostile takeovers in which they slash jobs, wages and conditions (efficiency savings).

There is plenty of poverty around, and the Daily Mail myths of welfare scroungers smoking, drinking and watching Sky all day are cheap hypocrisy from a paper that doesn't pay UK tax.

Hahahahahaha, oh my sides, you're killing me

I do an awful lot of travelling to Scandanavian countries, and have a great relationship with my colleagues over there... you sir are a joke if you think Scandanavian socialism works.... hilarious, absolutely hilarious. Tell us about the levels of tax in the Scandanavian countries, and the levels of state expenditure on benefits. Maybe you could even tell us about the cost of your average weekly food shopping.... must dash, I've just wet myself with laughter...

 

[Deleted member 18588]

While I certainly object to the Nanny State controlling my life, 'the market' is recognised as an area that requires regulation. And, arguably, it was insufficient - or inappropriate - regulation that allowed the most recent Banking Crisis!

Basically, there's a world of difference between 'market forces' and a 'free market'!

Largely agree with this.

Markets require regulating but is not Government's place to control those markets.

The recent problems in the Banking sector were IMO due to successive administrations of different political persuasions being in the thrall of the bankers and deregulating the sector. Not just in the UK but worldwide.

This attitude arose from the belief that developed economies did not require a manufacturing base and could be almost totally reliant upon the service industries such as Financial Services.