Kevin Carr's Gloves 3900 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Aye, he's coming across as the thick one here So you also think the Labour Government is beyond reproach and not worthy of criticism? Who's making assumptions now? I was just laughing at you calling him thick as a diversionary tactic for not being able to answer his points tbh. I keep out of this sort of shit because it's not really my thing and I don't understand much beyond the basics. I do find the input of the likes of Chez enlightening though. You're clearly just repeating rhetoric however. As evidenced by your refusal to answer the questions you're being asked. You're out of your depth but won't admit it imo. He didn't ask me any questions he is stating his position on the assumption that I am a tory. I don't agree with his point that the labour government were totally blameless and the repo 103 order was done through the UK due to our lack of regulation which they couldn't do in the US. I don't agree that that has nothing to do with government regulation policies but he didn't ask me about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Regarding the global economic crisis, I'd say it's roughly 10% luck, 11% skill, 13% dedicated power of will, 20% pleasure, 30% pain, and a hundred percent reason to blame Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3900 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I didnt see that, those posts i just wrote take a few minutes to compose. And as for butting in, its been me prompting the debate with questions, i'm not butting into anything here. Anyway, you're angry at RBS but RBS's problem was buying fixed-income securities with a triple A rating that were in fact junk. Thats the cause of the issue, if GB did some dodgy deal with Goodwin then GB is a cunt. Thats not helping us understand what Labour did to cause us to have to implement huge spending cuts across the public sector today. The huge spending cuts are up for debate depending on your standpoint about how best to bolster the economy or feed the deficit. However Millibands recent statements about economic realism suggest that the Labour Party may be changing their tack on how to spend out of a recession. I would also throw into the mix the whole dependency on a service economy and then the willingness to enable companies to move said service jobs offshore. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/dec/06/politics.money http://www.out-law.com/page-4277 http://www.cwu.org/union-disbelief-as-hewitt-has-no-problem-with-off-shoring.html?archive_page=4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Aye, he's coming across as the thick one here So you also think the Labour Government is beyond reproach and not worthy of criticism? Who's making assumptions now? I was just laughing at you calling him thick as a diversionary tactic for not being able to answer his points tbh. I keep out of this sort of shit because it's not really my thing and I don't understand much beyond the basics. I do find the input of the likes of Chez enlightening though. You're clearly just repeating rhetoric however. As evidenced by your refusal to answer the questions you're being asked. You're out of your depth but won't admit it imo. He didn't ask me any questions He did like, thicko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3900 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Aye, he's coming across as the thick one here So you also think the Labour Government is beyond reproach and not worthy of criticism? Who's making assumptions now? I was just laughing at you calling him thick as a diversionary tactic for not being able to answer his points tbh. I keep out of this sort of shit because it's not really my thing and I don't understand much beyond the basics. I do find the input of the likes of Chez enlightening though. You're clearly just repeating rhetoric however. As evidenced by your refusal to answer the questions you're being asked. You're out of your depth but won't admit it imo. He didn't ask me any questions He did like, thicko. Fuck you prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Hey, that was original. You should use it in your stand-up routine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleeToonFan 1 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Keynesian is ghey . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4389 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Slight digression but I've also always wanted to ask a Tory revisionist (not KCG obviously) what particular piece of legislation passed by Labour "opened the flood gates" for immigration because I think it's bullshit. All of the Eastern Europeans given as one example are a result of the Maastricht treaty as far as I'm aware signed by you know who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Aye, he's coming across as the thick one here So you also think the Labour Government is beyond reproach and not worthy of criticism? Who's making assumptions now? I was just laughing at you calling him thick as a diversionary tactic for not being able to answer his points tbh. I keep out of this sort of shit because it's not really my thing and I don't understand much beyond the basics. I do find the input of the likes of Chez enlightening though. You're clearly just repeating rhetoric however. As evidenced by your refusal to answer the questions you're being asked. You're out of your depth but won't admit it imo. He didn't ask me any questions he is stating his position on the assumption that I am a tory. I don't agree with his point that the labour government were totally blameless and the repo 103 order was done through the UK due to our lack of regulation which they couldn't do in the US. I don't agree that that has nothing to do with government regulation policies but he didn't ask me about it. No i'm not, i asked what Labour did, you replied, i put perspective on the points you made whilst not accepting they accounted for an explanation of what Labour did to create the deficit and the need for austerity. I have not stated that Labour were totally blameless, i am asking people to articulate what they mean by 'its Labour's fault'. What proportion of the total debt comes from the bailout? What proportion of the total debt comes from Labour spending? Where did this Labour spending go at the time? What proportion of the deficit is structural? What proportion fiscal? What drives the cost of servicing the deficit? What Labour policies are linked to these core issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Arguing about the difference between tory and labour is like so 1982. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 My point is beyond politics. As ever its about the dominance of narratives over facts. The socialisation of media should mitigate against this but many people prefer to seek out echo chambers rather than challenge their preconceptions. [/parky] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 My point is beyond politics. As ever its about the dominance of narratives over facts. The socialisation of media should mitigate against this but many people prefer to seek out echo chambers rather than challenge their preconceptions. [/parky] Class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 New YouGuv poll in the Times has the Conservatives 5 points ahead of Labour! This surely must be the final nail in Red Ed's coffin. Are there any Labour people on here who think he should stay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44971 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Can't understand why he was ever elected leader. He's an utterly unimpressive man. How he was supposed to inspire anyone to vote for Labour is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4389 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Accepting the cuts with a whimper means there's no point to being opposition imo - there is a lot of anger out there which will build as more things close so not at least showing empathy is madness. Two things are needed - a new leader and a law that anyone like CT who thinks the current mess was wholly down to the last government should be banned from voting (or just shot). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 Can't understand why he was ever elected leader. He's an utterly unimpressive man. How he was supposed to inspire anyone to vote for Labour is beyond me. Because he pandered to the unions. His own MP's didnt want him. Bizarre system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 Accepting the cuts with a whimper means there's no point to being opposition imo - there is a lot of anger out there which will build as more things close so not at least showing empathy is madness. Two things are needed - a new leader and a law that anyone like CT who thinks the current mess was wholly down to the last government should be banned from voting (or just shot). In fairness Labour tried the "we wouldnt cut that" line for the last 18 months and the general public, while watching the rest of the world collapse, didnt buy it. As much as nobody likes it, the majority still accept this sort of thing has to be done. Of course the Labour big wigs now realise this but unfortunately it is all too late to save Ed or for that matter balls imo. When parties have been in a while in takes them a long time to really accept loss of office. The first few years are always a put out sort of huff. No way were Labour ever likely to recover quickly and they should have played the long game instead. The problem they now have is how they swap Millibands, tactfully. Anyway, nice to hear from you again. Have you been to see the Iron Lady yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) Can't understand why he was ever elected leader. He's an utterly unimpressive man. How he was supposed to inspire anyone to vote for Labour is beyond me. You're right. Whereas David Milliband, the inspirational Marxist sex-god, will have me sprinting out naked into the street, hurriedly scrambling for an election booth. Edited January 22, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4389 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Accepting the cuts with a whimper means there's no point to being opposition imo - there is a lot of anger out there which will build as more things close so not at least showing empathy is madness. Two things are needed - a new leader and a law that anyone like CT who thinks the current mess was wholly down to the last government should be banned from voting (or just shot). In fairness Labour tried the "we wouldnt cut that" line for the last 18 months and the general public, while watching the rest of the world collapse, didnt buy it. As much as nobody likes it, the majority still accept this sort of thing has to be done. Of course the Labour big wigs now realise this but unfortunately it is all too late to save Ed or for that matter balls imo. When parties have been in a while in takes them a long time to really accept loss of office. The first few years are always a put out sort of huff. No way were Labour ever likely to recover quickly and they should have played the long game instead. The problem they now have is how they swap Millibands, tactfully. Anyway, nice to hear from you again. Have you been to see the Iron Lady yet? the austerity shit is destroying europe which is holding the uk back further - it's a disaster. you're probably right on the mourning period but at the very least they should be standing up for those being shit on by the cunts. there will be enough attempted rewrites of history when the bitch dies - I don't see the point in a preview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------GDP after Thatcher GDP before Thatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 He seems like a nice bloke Red Ed, he's just really not leadership material. Ed Balls is a friggin nightmare as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6682 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 He seems like a nice bloke Red Ed, he's just really not leadership material. Ed Balls is a friggin nightmare as well. Aye, the wrong Milliband was chosen for definite. I bet some of the Unions are fucking kicking themselves. As you said he seems like a decent bloke but to me seems a bit too softly, softly for being a political leader. Trouble is, I can't see anyone sticking out who would be leadership material at this point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4389 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 My view was that David Milliband would have been too tainted by his membership of the government to do well now. I think as others have said Ed is a Hague/Duncan-Smith/Howard type character who will probably lose next time leaving David to take over - at least that's probably his plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Should have put Harman in charge. Nice safe pair of hands for the wilderness years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.403f4a475ac3bb53997c2626c09ef800.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now