Panorama - the Farage Factor

[Gwylan]

“The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.

Which is what I said.

that line of thought would indicate (for example) that he would have been in favour of Thatcher’s policy selling off council houses to the predominantly working classes in the 70s and 80s as long as they did not become landlords. We know the answer to that don’t we?

My guess is that he would be against it because it would be the sale of public property but I'm no Marxist and am not totally au fait with all his works. I do remember doing an essay on the differences between Marxism and anarchism at uni and some things stick

And to make it clear, I accept that Marx's ultimate vision was that there would be no need for private property as it would be owned by the proletariat, but that vision didn't mean the confiscation of existing property

My understanding is that they had country retreat in Oxfordshire.................do you think this is a media myth? Its never been denied by the Milibands.

No, his mother did, one that she bought independently (she did have private money from her parents) and completely separately from her husband.. The days when a husband owned his wife, goods and chattel are thankfully over

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I mean, a Marxist, owning property...........la propriete c'est le vol!

Proudhon was an anarchist.

Edit: Ah, I see [MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION] got there first. Carry on!

 

[cunning fergus]

Which is what I said.



My guess is that he would be against it because it would be the sale of public property but I'm no Marxist and am not totally au fait with all his works. I do remember doing an essay on the differences between Marxism and anarchism at uni and some things stick

And to make it clear, I accept that Marx's ultimate vision was that there would be no need for private property as it would be owned by the proletariat, but that vision didn't mean the confiscation of existing property



No, his mother did, one that she bought independently (she did have private money from her parents) and completely separately from her husband.. The days when a husband owned his wife, goods and chattel are thankfully over

No, I don’t think you did…………………..entertaining exchange though this is.

As far as I am concerned Marxist doctrine means that “private property” is anything from which a value or income cannot be derived, like your clothes and your own food (bearing in mind that consumerism was not even a concept when Marx was alive).

These kinds of items are not the private property of the bourgeois to which Marx refers, as he means realisable property like gold, shares, land and buildings as this type private property has a value that the individual can derive income/money that would not be socialised (ergo its possession is theft from the workers).

This dynamic concerning property and ownership (in my understanding) cuts across marxism and anarchism (and anarcho-syndicalism) which is that you expropriate the assets of any value from the bourgeois (or the wealthy classes) by revolution, violent or otherwise for the purposes of socialising it for the workers. I am pretty sure Marxists and anarchists advocate expropriation…………..Proudhon’s statement is the purest form of that intent.

So, for Miliband’s old man to purchase a private property from which he has derived significant value from which his family has since avoided taxes, runs a coach and horses through his marxist credentials, you may not think so, but come the revolution frankly those houses in Primrose Hill and elsewhere will be the first to go under the torch.

As for his missus inheriting wealth from her parents to purchase more property in rural Oxfordshire, do me a favour……………..are we saying he was so committed to his marxist values he married a rich capitalist bird?

 

[cunning fergus]

Proudhon was an anarchist.

Edit: Ah, I see [MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION] got there first. Carry on!

Yeah I know.................trouble is these days, Marxists and Anarchists are not what they once were.

Some Anarchists sue the police, some Marxists have a dalience in the housng market.

Its like a metaphor for New Labour.

 

[Diego Napier]

No, I don’t think you did…………………..entertaining exchange though this is.

As far as I am concerned Marxist doctrine means that “private property” is anything from which a value or income cannot be derived, like your clothes and your own food (bearing in mind that consumerism was not even a concept when Marx was alive).

These kinds of items are not the private property of the bourgeois to which Marx refers, as he means realisable property like gold, shares, land and buildings as this type private property has a value that the individual can derive income/money that would not be socialised (ergo its possession is theft from the workers).

This dynamic concerning property and ownership (in my understanding) cuts across marxism and anarchism (and anarcho-syndicalism) which is that you expropriate the assets of any value from the bourgeois (or the wealthy classes) by revolution, violent or otherwise for the purposes of socialising it for the workers. I am pretty sure Marxists and anarchists advocate expropriation…………..Proudhon’s statement is the purest form of that intent.

So, for Miliband’s old man to purchase a private property from which he has derived significant value from which his family has since avoided taxes, runs a coach and horses through his marxist credentials, you may not think so, but come the revolution frankly those houses in Primrose Hill and elsewhere will be the first to go under the torch.

As for his missus inheriting wealth from her parents to purchase more property in rural Oxfordshire, do me a favour……………..are we saying he was so committed to his marxist values he married a rich capitalist bird?

In your eagerness to win your argument you tend to run down blind alley detail and miss a few simple real world realities. Both Milliband's and Cameron's parents have/may have owned multiple properties however, broadly speaking, the former is guided by set of principles that would deliver a redistribution of wealth whereas the latter, apart from a few sops for the hoi palloi, is totally wedded to protecting the status quo. The fact that Milliband's Dad was a Marxist yet owned property is not, as you're implying, a paradox in fact it is almost axiomatic in a capitalistic society; who would drive serious social change in the UK? It would be the haves of course not the have nots. In much the same way, I don't need to sell all my possessions and travel abroad and give my money to the poor if I believe that it is wrong that people are allowed to starve in other countries. Change is effected in more affective ways.

 

[cunning fergus]

In your eagerness to win your argument you tend to run down blind alley detail and miss a few simple real world realities. Both Milliband's and Cameron's parents have/may have owned multiple properties however, broadly speaking, the former is guided by set of principles that would deliver a redistribution of wealth whereas the latter, apart from a few sops for the hoi palloi, is totally wedded to protecting the status quo. The fact that Milliband's Dad was a Marxist yet owned property is not, as you're implying, a paradox in fact it is almost axiomatic in a capitalistic society; who would drive serious social change in the UK? It would be the haves of course not the have nots. In much the same way, I don't need to sell all my possessions and travel abroad and give my money to the poor if I believe that it is wrong that people are allowed to starve in other countries. Change is effected in more affective ways.

Nice try, what is axiomatic is that politicians like Miliband are just an equal part of the establishment as their tory peers; they are the bourgeois and will do nothing to change the status quo.

I rail against their rank hypocrisy because its an insult to the working class that multi millionaire wet wipes like Miliband have the neck to think that they can represent the interests of the working class.

Like the Milibands both got to Corpus Christi Oxford, both became MPs, both became cabinet ministers, both became leaders elect.........without their "Marxist" old mans patronage and influence.

You think I am wrong?

Go tell the Scottish electorate..........

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Fail to believe anyone can watch this and still want to vote for UKIP. Far from being 'anti-establishment' and transparent, Farage is as corrupt as they come - and his attendance and voting record in Europe is appalling. How anyone can have faith in someone who never even bothers to turn up when he supposed to be representing his constituents is beyond me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04lxvrd/panorama-the-farage-factor

ask him
regards
DR

 

[Diego Napier]

Nice try, what is axiomatic is that politicians like Miliband are just an equal part of the establishment as their tory peers; they are the bourgeois and will do nothing to change the status quo.

I rail against their rank hypocrisy because its an insult to the working class that multi millionaire wet wipes like Miliband have the neck to think that they can represent the interests of the working class.

Like the Milibands both got to Corpus Christi Oxford, both became MPs, both became cabinet ministers, both became leaders elect.........without their "Marxist" old mans patronage and influence.

You think I am wrong?

Go tell the Scottish electorate..........

Yep, missing the point again with your sneering opening words followed by the indulgence of your melodramatic second stanza. Do you take an admiring, even preening, self appreciative sideways glance at yourself in the mirror whilst putting me in my place by delivering such glittering, withering ripostes? Patronising cant.

You are wrong; "champagne socialists" are the best hope that the underprivileged in this country have for change. Your dismissive manner, denigration of wealthy socialists and fervid defence of capitalist vested interest throws up a flimsy, diaphanous veil through which can clearly be seen the ardent fires of an ugly, angry jealousy.

 

[cunning fergus]

Yep, missing the point again with your sneering opening words followed by the indulgence of your melodramatic second stanza. Do you take an admiring, even preening, self appreciative sideways glance at yourself in the mirror whilst putting me in my place by delivering such glittering, withering ripostes? Patronising cant.

You are wrong; "champagne socialists" are the best hope that the underprivileged in this country have for change. Your dismissive manner, denigration of wealthy socialists and fervid defence of capitalist vested interest throws up a flimsy, diaphanous veil through which can clearly be seen the ardent fires of an ugly, angry jealousy.

Nice one, try playing the ball not the man.

I am not wrong at all, Labour's collapse in Scotland and in other parts of the UK is symptomatic of the working class deserting the party that should (and did historically) represent their interests. Sure, this is not binary issue, however the dislocation between the public school educated, wealthy socialists and their constituents is a key aspect to this trend.

The Labour Party's contempt for local candidates in favour of other influential non local candidates is a case in point; I was in Liverpool recently and the disillusionment there people had with an MP like Luciana Berger was palpable.

Luciana Berger and her like are not the best hope for the underprivileged in this country, they are totemic of the contempt that "champagne socialists" have for the poor and powerless.

It's not "jealousy" here, it's despair.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

You are wrong; "champagne socialists" are the best hope that the underprivileged in this country have for change. Your dismissive manner, denigration of wealthy socialists and fervid defence of capitalist vested interest throws up a flimsy, diaphanous veil through which can clearly be seen the ardent fires of an ugly, angry jealousy.

You clearly don't understand how ' the Establishment ' works in this country. There is an unseen power base behind the public face of politics. These individuals, colloquially referred to as the ' men in grey suits ' control our affairs. The politicians cannot make any radical changes because they are not allowed to. It is a cabal of high standing, of gravitas, of experience and of influence. It is there to ensure that the interests of the main groups..i.e financial, judicial/legal and civil service are protected. They work to ensure that they help each other. It is a lodge of the highest order. They maintain the status quo, which has been around for a very long time. They have no interest in the ' underprivileged ' only themselves and their peer group.
Your so called ' champagne socialists ' are just puppets of the state. Faceless and powerless. They have about as much chance of changing things as you and I and that amounts to precisely zero. The Establishment is called that because it is established. It is rock-solid, unbreakable and the divisions in our society are there for a reason.
Ask yourself why certain high street banks were propped up out of the public purse, when every man, woman and child in the street could see that they were bankrupt, both fiscally and morally. Ask yourself why there has been an open-door immigration policy for almost twenty years. Ask yourself why an organisation like the EU. so corrupt that its accounts have not been signed off for more than a decade, is allowed to carry out its day to day affairs, with no accountability, yet can dictate a lot of what individual countries can or can't do. Ask your yourself why billions are poured into overseas territories for little or no ( apparent ) return. Ask yourself why anti-semitism and racism is abhorred on the streets in the form of the BNP whilst it has been actively practised at the highest levels for 150+ years.

The only thing that you and I can hope for is a local MP who works tirelessly in their constituency and rights a few wrongs and stops power-mad councillors and local bureaucracy running wild. Beyond that, there ain't nothing gonna change.

 

[Diego Napier]

You clearly don't understand how ' the Establishment ' works in this country. There is an unseen power base behind the public face of politics. These individuals, colloquially referred to as the ' men in grey suits ' control our affairs. The politicians cannot make any radical changes because they are not allowed to. It is a cabal of high standing, of gravitas, of experience and of influence. It is there to ensure that the interests of the main groups..i.e financial, judicial/legal and civil service are protected. They work to ensure that they help each other. It is a lodge of the highest order. They maintain the status quo, which has been around for a very long time. They have no interest in the ' underprivileged ' only themselves and their peer group.
Your so called ' champagne socialists ' are just puppets of the state. Faceless and powerless. They have about as much chance of changing things as you and I and that amounts to precisely zero. The Establishment is called that because it is established. It is rock-solid, unbreakable and the divisions in our society are there for a reason.
Ask yourself why certain high street banks were propped up out of the public purse, when every man, woman and child in the street could see that they were bankrupt, both fiscally and morally. Ask yourself why there has been an open-door immigration policy for almost twenty years. Ask yourself why an organisation like the EU. so corrupt that its accounts have not been signed off for more than a decade, is allowed to carry out its day to day affairs, with no accountability, yet can dictate a lot of what individual countries can or can't do. Ask your yourself why billions are poured into overseas territories for little or no ( apparent ) return. Ask yourself why anti-semitism and racism is abhorred on the streets in the form of the BNP whilst it has been actively practised at the highest levels for 150+ years.

The only thing that you and I can hope for is a local MP who works tirelessly in their constituency and rights a few wrongs and stops power-mad councillors and local bureaucracy running wild. Beyond that, there ain't nothing gonna change.

I do understand how the establishment works in every country in the Western world, some more securely than others. My point is, and I'll repeat it, the best hope for change lies with wealthy individuals who believe in social reform rather than those who feel no moral or intellectual need for change. Without that hope the future looks pretty bleak.

 

[cunning fergus]

I do understand how the establishment works in every country in the Western world, some more securely than others. My point is, and I'll repeat it, the best hope for change lies with wealthy individuals who believe in social reform rather than those who feel no moral or intellectual need for change. Without that hope the future looks pretty bleak.

So, how did they get on with that first time round?

This is the same group that were in control for north of 12 years up to 2010, and we know they got a lot of things wrong...................becuase they keep apologising for it?

These wealthy reformers, your Lucianas', your Harriets, your Tristrams' your Edwards' took this country to the brink with their largesse, and how did the poor and powerless fair during this time?

They imported millions of people to compete with them at the bottom of the pay scale..............reducing their income. That is a fact, even Edward and Yvette say so.

If those tens of thousands of migrants crossing the Med were, judges, journalists, politicians and teachers the draw bridge would soon be pulled up....................but they are not so its que se ra for the poor.

 

[Captain Sensible]

He is anti, the European Soviet, He flatly refuses to take part in minor European debates due to the expense to the tax payer. He attends the compulsory voting forums and takes the generous day payments to "repatriate" the money back to the UK.. This money is split between a national charity and ukip coffers, which is against EU regulations. The EU has yet to suspend him over this. Good on him!

Repatriate it into his pocket!!

 

[Diego Napier]

So, how did they get on with that first time round?

This is the same group that were in control for north of 12 years up to 2010, and we know they got a lot of things wrong...................becuase they keep apologising for it?

These wealthy reformers, your Lucianas', your Harriets, your Tristrams' your Edwards' took this country to the brink with their largesse, and how did the poor and powerless fair during this time?

They imported millions of people to compete with them at the bottom of the pay scale..............reducing their income. That is a fact, even Edward and Yvette say so.

If those tens of thousands of migrants crossing the Med were, judges, journalists, politicians and teachers the draw bridge would soon be pulled up....................but they are not so its que se ra for the poor.

I'll try and unpick your scatter gun post, ignore the liberal sprinkling of faintly hysterical hyperbole and focus on the inaccuracies.

You seem to live in a binary world of good (=Tory) and bad (=Labour) and can't get past the idea that wealthy people can have socialist ideals. I know there are blemishes on both parties but see less warts on the socialists.

If you chose to believe that the Blairite labour government was stuffed with wealthy reformers then you are wrong, the government comprised all social strata (unlike the present posh boys clique) and sprinkling your post with upper/middle class names doesn't change the fact. If they admit that they got some things wrong, is that a bad thing? I know of course it would be anathema to the ruling elite which you so doggedly defend. Oh sorry, they wouldn't get anything wrong.

Took the country to the brink? I said that I'd ignore your embellishments but really, what do you mean? War? Economic ruin? No, either suggestion is asinine, what do you mean?

The poor and powerless fared well under those labour governments. Overall poverty declined during that period, child and pensioner poverty decreased markedly. In addition, the educational achievement gap between children from deprived backgrounds and their peers narrowed significantly. What was less successful was the war on inequality, probably as a result of kow-towing to the wealthy (e.g. Mandleson's "I don't care how rich people are as long as they pay their taxes" although, knowing just how entrenched their power is, that statement probably said more about his resignation to the inevitable than it did about his ability to act).

Immigration during that period included many people who were not at the bottom of the pay scale and the country has benefited from their professional skills and continues to attract them. There were many people who entered the country at the bottom of the pay scale but that did not have the effect of reducing incomes. There were many who came without any skills and some in the Labour party have held their hands up and admitted it was wrong to allow such an inflow. When the tories came to power they promising to reduce net immigration from 250,000 per annum to less than 100,000. Five years later, net immigration is nudging 300,000. Where's the apology? Oh of course, Cameron didn't get it wrong, he just, well, well he just didn't. Are the current government importing millions of people to compete with those at the bottom of the pay scale?

You've lost me with your final sentence; is that an indictment of the EU or the current government or the the labour party when they were last in power? Is it sorrow for those who lose their lives or the poor of the UK?

 

[alfredmizen]

In your eagerness to win your argument you tend to run down blind alley detail and miss a few simple real world realities. Both Milliband's and Cameron's parents have/may have owned multiple properties however, broadly speaking, the former is guided by set of principles that would deliver a redistribution of OTHER PEOPLESwealth whereas the latter, apart from a few sops for the hoi palloi, is totally wedded to protecting the status quo. The fact that Milliband's Dad was a Marxist yet owned property is not, as you're implying, a paradox in fact it is almost axiomatic in a capitalistic society; who would drive serious social change in the UK? It would be the haves of course not the have nots. In much the same way, I don't need to sell all my possessions and travel abroad and give my money to the poor if I believe that it is wrong that people are allowed to starve in other countries. Change is effected in more affective ways.

You only have to look at his inheritance tax shenanigans .

 

[alfredmizen]

So, how did they get on with that first time round?

This is the same group that were in control for north of 12 years up to 2010, and we know they got a lot of things wrong...................becuase they keep apologising for it?

These wealthy reformers, your Lucianas', your Harriets, your Tristrams' your Edwards' took this country to the brink with their largesse, and how did the poor and powerless fair during this time?

They imported millions of people to compete with them at the bottom of the pay scale..............reducing their income. That is a fact, even Edward and Yvette say so.

If those tens of thousands of migrants crossing the Med were, judges, journalists, politicians and teachers the draw bridge would soon be pulled up....................but they are not so its que se ra for the poor.

so, so true.

 

[larus]

Idiot.
His daughter is making her own decision, yet because she has the audacity to select a party who you don't agree with, you have the moral superiority to imply that he's failed as a father. Too many on here don't really consider the policies of parties, but are blinded to the socialist/conservatist position, as that's all they know.

People led like you are pathetic. UKIP is about 13-14% of the electorate. Labour is about 2.5 times greater, so not exactly a huge difference in popularity.

 

[cunning fergus]

I'll try and unpick your scatter gun post, ignore the liberal sprinkling of faintly hysterical hyperbole and focus on the inaccuracies.

You seem to live in a binary world of good (=Tory) and bad (=Labour) and can't get past the idea that wealthy people can have socialist ideals. I know there are blemishes on both parties but see less warts on the socialists.

If you chose to believe that the Blairite labour government was stuffed with wealthy reformers then you are wrong, the government comprised all social strata (unlike the present posh boys clique) and sprinkling your post with upper/middle class names doesn't change the fact. If they admit that they got some things wrong, is that a bad thing? I know of course it would be anathema to the ruling elite which you so doggedly defend. Oh sorry, they wouldn't get anything wrong.

Took the country to the brink? I said that I'd ignore your embellishments but really, what do you mean? War? Economic ruin? No, either suggestion is asinine, what do you mean?

The poor and powerless fared well under those labour governments. Overall poverty declined during that period, child and pensioner poverty decreased markedly. In addition, the educational achievement gap between children from deprived backgrounds and their peers narrowed significantly. What was less successful was the war on inequality, probably as a result of kow-towing to the wealthy (e.g. Mandleson's "I don't care how rich people are as long as they pay their taxes" although, knowing just how entrenched their power is, that statement probably said more about his resignation to the inevitable than it did about his ability to act).

Immigration during that period included many people who were not at the bottom of the pay scale and the country has benefited from their professional skills and continues to attract them. There were many people who entered the country at the bottom of the pay scale but that did not have the effect of reducing incomes. There were many who came without any skills and some in the Labour party have held their hands up and admitted it was wrong to allow such an inflow. When the tories came to power they promising to reduce net immigration from 250,000 per annum to less than 100,000. Five years later, net immigration is nudging 300,000. Where's the apology? Oh of course, Cameron didn't get it wrong, he just, well, well he just didn't. Are the current government importing millions of people to compete with those at the bottom of the pay scale?

You've lost me with your final sentence; is that an indictment of the EU or the current government or the the labour party when they were last in power? Is it sorrow for those who lose their lives or the poor of the UK?

Bloody hell you……………….you think I am a Tory?

Exactly why do you think the polls indicate that Labour will get the same seats as the Tories in Scotland…………….what is your considered view?

As for the blather about people benefitting from immigration, you are flogging a dead horse that has already bolted.

The irony for you as a Labour fan is is you evidently support the free labour market environment, which is what we had and continue to have for the last 12 years, and yet you only see the benefits. You don’t think that an over-supply of labour plays any part in the cost of living crisis or zero hour contracts?. Tell me Margaret what political party is it that ideologically would support free markets like this? You think I am wrong…………..in Yvette’s own words:

Ms Cooper admitted that Labour "got things wrong on immigration", including failing to have transitional controls after EU expansion in 2004 to let in a swath of Eastern European states. But she claimed the Government was having a "worst of all worlds", in which illegal immigration was allegedly getting worse, businesses were unable to access the skills they need and thousands of fee-paying foreign students were being deterred from going to British universities.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...ore-immigrants-who-commit-crimes-9250676.html

In Ed’s own words:

Mr Miliband said a Labour government would set up a 100-strong police and Home Office enforcement unit to prosecute those seeking to exploit migrants with poor housing and low pay which, he said, depressed wages for others. There would be a cap on immigrants coming to the UK from outside the EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...ion-it-is-not-prejudiced-to-be-concerned.html

The best apology of the lot though is from Yvette’s husband, y'know the one who wants to run the country's finances:

"The banking crisis was a disaster," he said. "All around the world the banks behaved irresponsibly, but regulation wasn't tough enough. We were part of that. I'm sorry for that mistake, I deeply, deeply regret it."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/26/ed-balls-sorry-labour-failures


Yeah, we will be so much better with this lot back in…………………fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice………….

 

[Diego Napier]

Bloody hell you……………….you think I am a Tory?

Exactly why do you think the polls indicate that Labour will get the same seats as the Tories in Scotland…………….what is your considered view?

As for the blather about people benefitting from immigration, you are flogging a dead horse that has already bolted.

The irony for you as a Labour fan is is you evidently support the free labour market environment, which is what we had and continue to have for the last 12 years, and yet you only see the benefits. You don’t think that an over-supply of labour plays any part in the cost of living crisis or zero hour contracts?. Tell me Margaret what political party is it that ideologically would support free markets like this? You think I am wrong…………..in Yvette’s own words:

Ms Cooper admitted that Labour "got things wrong on immigration", including failing to have transitional controls after EU expansion in 2004 to let in a swath of Eastern European states. But she claimed the Government was having a "worst of all worlds", in which illegal immigration was allegedly getting worse, businesses were unable to access the skills they need and thousands of fee-paying foreign students were being deterred from going to British universities.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...ore-immigrants-who-commit-crimes-9250676.html

In Ed’s own words:

Mr Miliband said a Labour government would set up a 100-strong police and Home Office enforcement unit to prosecute those seeking to exploit migrants with poor housing and low pay which, he said, depressed wages for others. There would be a cap on immigrants coming to the UK from outside the EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...ion-it-is-not-prejudiced-to-be-concerned.html

The best apology of the lot though is from Yvette’s husband, y'know the one who wants to run the country's finances:

"The banking crisis was a disaster," he said. "All around the world the banks behaved irresponsibly, but regulation wasn't tough enough. We were part of that. I'm sorry for that mistake, I deeply, deeply regret it."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/26/ed-balls-sorry-labour-failures


Yeah, we will be so much better with this lot back in…………………fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice………….

Good Grief, you're so inflated with your own sense of indignation and importance that you can't read and understand what I posted. I'll repeat "I know there are blemishes on both parties but see less warts on the socialists." Why do you feel the need to state "you only see the benefits"?

You've conveniently ignored my response to your lies about both the composition of the Labour government and the fate of the poor and powerless during their administration.

I also posted "There were many who came without any skills and some in the Labour party have held their hands up and admitted it was wrong to allow such an inflow." but that didn't stop you posting Milliband & Cooper's exact quotes in reply. Why on earth would you do that? What is the point?

You conclude with another quote that proves what? It was a worldwide banking disaster. Who would have provided better stewardship? The tories wanted less regulation; who else would provide a better leadership?

It is my opinion that for the overall good of the country we would be better off with this lot back in.

The combination of your selective responses and ignorance of the points I've made shows up your shabby case in a rather desperate light.

 

[cunning fergus]

Good Grief, you're so inflated with your own sense of indignation and importance that you can't read and understand what I posted. I'll repeat "I know there are blemishes on both parties but see less warts on the socialists." Why do you feel the need to state "you only see the benefits"?

You've conveniently ignored my response to your lies about both the composition of the Labour government and the fate of the poor and powerless during their administration.

I also posted "There were many who came without any skills and some in the Labour party have held their hands up and admitted it was wrong to allow such an inflow." but that didn't stop you posting Milliband & Cooper's exact quotes in reply. Why on earth would you do that? What is the point?

You conclude with another quote that proves what? It was a worldwide banking disaster. Who would have provided better stewardship? The tories wanted less regulation; who else would provide a better leadership?

It is my opinion that for the overall good of the country we would be better off with this lot back in.

The combination of your selective responses and ignorance of the points I've made shows up your shabby case in a rather desperate light.

How's that opinion of yours holding up today?

Labour have only themselves to blame for their collapse in Scotland, and that dynamic has its own affect in England and Wales.

They took their core electorate for granted, and having opened the door to devolution in the 90s and that arrogant decision could well fracture the UK and leave us in England with a tory administration forever.

They are wankers, a new party for the working class party is needed.