Watching the two camps form within the Labour Party however is highly amusing. Was watching Have I Got News For You yesterday and Sarah Pascoe made a hilarious remark RE the two sides of labour giving themselves The Apprentice style team names I wonder if Corbyn will make it to the next general election or if he will be replaced before then?
Happier than I am with labour, yes. And that is my final comment, as I will not change your mind and talking politics only ends up with arguments.
Fair enough understand you don't want an argument. I always find it incredible that when I find people (in all walks of life) who are happy with a government who have doubled the national debt, killed thousands of vulnerable people, increased immigration, lied about things like tax credits, overseen the slowest economic recovery in our history, lost our triple aaa rating, failed to meet the majority of their pre election aims - Including being the greenest government ever Seen the gap between rich and poor widen to the widest since Victorian times Seen the public sector shrink to its smallest since the 30s Pissed off the majority of teachers leading to strikes Pissed off majority of public sector workers leading to strikes Pissed off majority of doctors leading to biggest strikes in decades. Seen biggest attacks on our democracy in a generation. These things scare the hell out of me and really worry me, yet some people seem pleased with them...
Don't get me started on public service workers, especially teachers, who demand an above inflation pay rise each year, whilst earning a very good salary, whilst private sector workers who bring money into the country do not get pay rises. (Note - not nurses or police) Also who got us into debt? Who sold the gold reserves? Who allowed a generation to think they can take without giving? Who allowed people earning 50k plus to 'earn' tax credits? Why should people on benefits 'earn' more disposable income than someone who works 38 hrs + to provide for their family?
I'm sorry none of that is actually correct. Public sector workers (I should know I'm one) have gotten a .5% pay rise in England in the last 5 years. That is so far under inflation it's ridiculous. The same with nurses as well. Public sector workers have had a pay freeze for years. labour haven't been in power for over 5 years. The debt has increased dramatically since the torys got in. The economy hasn't recovered at all, with reports that we could be heading for a second recession in a few years, after our double dip recession, thanks to the failed austerity plan. But if you truly believe labour caused the global recession that put us into debt and has continued to plunge us deeper into debt 5 years after power. Then why would you trust a party that not only didn't object to blairs actions but wanted to go further and increase deregulation- which could have made the banking crisis worse in this country. Where are your figures in regards to people on benefits disposable income? I must say I haven't seen any but judging by the amount of people committing suicide or dying because the can't afford the heating or keep their medicine cold, then it sounds like. Daily mail scare story.
The only part that I deem answerable is the last bit, which I have replied to you before about. We should help those who cannot help themselves. Their should be no-one in this country who cannot survive. Fullstop. So, stop wasting money on the pikeys.
But your quite happy with the Tory government when much less than not giving help to those who can't help themselves, they are forcing them to work till they die! Also never understood the attitude that someone on the dole is a scrounge or a pickey. As you or me could easily lose our jobs tomorrow, indeed for lots this is a reality. Then these people naturally have no choice but to sign on until they can find a job. I've worked hard all my life, since I was 16 but I had to sign on when I came out of uni, despite having previously worked 3 jobs at the same time. I didn't suddenly become a lazy layabout because I was desperate enough to sign on, and it was only luck that I managed to get a job. But still I can see I'm not going to convince you. I'm just astounded by this attitude of the current situation.
I have never taken any money from unemployment, but appreciate situations change. I do believe that we should help those whom have for whatever reason, are unable to help themselves. However the Blair government taught a whole generation of wanting what they can't afford. Of taking rather than giving. Of thinking they can take tax paying money and earn more than if they did a hard days work. My grandparents taught me otherwise. Maybe others should do the same for their children / grandchildren? I try to teach my daughters that every pound they spend means something. Maybe labour should too.
Funny from where i came from it was always thatcher who took whole communities and areas of the country full of hard working people and destroyed their livelihoods snd left them with no work, transferrable skills, routes/funding to retraining while all the money moved to the south east. Leaving millions on the dole and wales as a poorer country than albania and the 2nd poorest region in europe. It took two generations and billions in european funding for us to recover. I totally agree that there are benefit scroungers out there and that imo it is disgusting when you hear that people are better off working part time than full time because of tax credits. But to say that hard working people are better off now is laughable, especially in a time of refuced social mobility, extortionate living costs and mortgages and less job security is a weird thing to say. Why arent you asking "... Every pound they spend should mean something. Maybe the tories should too "?
Refusing to accept election results has now become the norm for politicians and activists almost to the point of denial
This is utter nonsense. You've completely bought into the Tory Worker v Shirkers bullshit. Iain Duncan Smith is moaning about the disabled not "living independently from the state" while living on his in-laws' subsidised farm. They've claimed €1,517,535 from the EU over ten years and more from the UK, too. The ****ing Queen claimed £686,000 for her Sandrigham estate. She clearly needs it. The media are demonising a small number of arseholes who are costing the taxpayer a pittance in comparison to much bigger, richer arseholes. They're happy to point you towards a very small minority of scroungers, so that you don't look at the far worse scroungers at the top. If you want to start clamping down on those that have been a drain on the economy, then why haven't those that caused the banking crisis been jailed? They not only ****ed everything up for a whole generation, but they bet on it happening and made vast amounts from it. Why haven't they been held accountable? No, it's much easier to go after a few idiots on the dole.
Labour's ****wits only do democracy when it suits them @ The Magic Man. You hit it on the head when you said we should help those that are unable to help themselves. Nobody else should see a penny of my hard earned wages unless I choose to use it to pay for a product or service of my choice. As for our RAF bombing those highly populated oil fields in an effort to reduce Daesh's funding stream - we hear all this hand wringing piffle from the lily livered pacifists, but no practical alternatives that might help damage Daesh. They are probably waiting for that great leader and statesman Corbyn to find some public chat group to make yet another decision he can hide behind, rather than step up and actually be accountable for some original thought of his own. Corbyn: Less bottle than AFC at the tail end of a season.
Ok - if you say so. I would love to see you break down my comments point by point and show how they are "factually incorrect" & "morally bankrupt". This should be fun
I'm not buying either side's rhetoric on Syria. Bombing isn't going to be enough, but something does need to be done about the situation. Military intervention appears to be the only sensible solution, but there's no long-term planning going into this. Blow up some of their financial assets? Damaging to the area in the event that Daesh get removed and probably won't harm them in the short-term. They've been financed and armed already in order to get them to this point, which is the real issue. Who's paying for all of this and what are we doing about it? I think that we all know the answer to both questions.
OK - It is currently the Tory's who are attacking our democracy by removing our workers rights (Trade Unions Bill), attacking the Human Rights Bill, removing up to 1 in 5 registered voters off the electoral roll (with a high majority anticipated to come from inner cities and low income backgrounds) then after this they will redraw the constituency boundaries to give more Tory MPs. They are going to increase the number of Tory Lords in the House of Lords (after slagging off the House of Lords a few months ago). They have plans to restrict the amount of funds that smaller parties can raise, and that parties can raise through charities and trade unions, but leave the amounts that can be raised from corporations and millionaires untouched - hugely favouring the Tories. With regards to your comment on 'those that can help themselves' - we are currently in the midst of a crisis were there are so many people that can't help themselves, who are them thrown off Benefit's by the ATOS Fit to Work scheme that tens of thousands have killed themselves and homelessness has risen by 60% (or hadn't you noticed all the homeless people in your town/city centre?) - to idly dismiss this horrendous plight is shocking! When/how/why do you think we are going to bomb any oil fields? It is us and our allies who are buying and coveting this oil for ****sake. They are going to be aiming for (as they've said repeatedly) for ISIS members, who are (surprise, surprise) hiding somewhere in civilian population centres - the bombings from the Russians and French have already caused hundreds and thousands of casualties/injuries from what I have read. We have been bombing ISIS in Iraq where we have injured/killed huge numbers of civilians, and when we bombed Libya we committed many war crimes - bombed hospitals, towns and schools and killed thousands. While one of the big aims is to fix the Kirkuk-Baniyas oil pipeline, so that oil can start flowing from the ME to the Mediterranean ships again. - Saying we are bombing oilfields is factually incorrect. Saying pacifists (as if that is a bad thing) are only hand-wringing is a bit ridiculous, as between a third and a half of the population didn't want to bomb Syria, and have been presenting sensible options that won't make the situation worse - ie kill thousands of Syrian civilians, turn a whole country against us, leading to increased radicalisation, higher recruitment for ISIS and increased numbers of refugees heading to the crowded Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and surrounding countries as well as heading to Europe - which considering the rise in fascism in Europe - is only going to lead to rising tensions. Good call with 'doing something' - great solution, just like Blair's solution in Iraq and Afghanistan - at least they are nice peaceful countries now... oops! - I find the wish to repeat the war crimes of Iraq and Libya morally repugnant Corbyn's plan on the other hand is to engage all sides - Russia, USA, France, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Assad and corner ISIS from all sides, cut off their supply, cut off their oil sales, cut off their funding and their ability to resupply and then send in the UN troops to sweep up the leaders. But of course, this involves countries losing a significant amount of money in oil and weapon sales from ISIS. Funny that you call a man who has stood up for his principles (anti-apartheid, equal rights for everyone, anti-racist, LGBT, helping to find a peaceful resolution to the Troubles, honest politics ect) yet seemingly support a weathervane like Cameron who lies through his teeth with every breath he takes. Says more about you than Corbyn I'm afraid
To be fair to Old Faithful, all of the coverage I have seen in the media of our air strikes in Syria since we voted to extend our action into Syria, have been on ISIS oil fields. So what he was saying was factually correct according to basically every media outlet I've seen.
