|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 24, 2019 11:50:17 GMT
Understood - I think. What you are saying, is governments don’t own the means of production, but they set the regulations that govern how they work. This separation of state and industry is critical (and, of course, is counter to Marx). It also explains why the economies of Bolivia and Venezuela have performed so differently. Venezuela went full on socialist, privatising pretty much everything including the oil industries which subsequently collapsed due to catastrophic mismanagement as Chavez appointed incompetent friends to run the oil companies who ran them into the ground. Yep, pretty much. I think something where some industries are state owned and provided for all is the perfect place to aim at this point. Hence why I'm such a fan of most of Sanders' and Corbyn's proposals. I don't think free-market, unregulated capitalism as it is has very long left to be honest. Too many people are being left behind by it, and there's only so much longer people will be distracted from the real issue. It's my opinion that the obvious next step is to concentrate less on growth and more on human welfare. There is nowhere on earth, as far as I am aware, that practices unregulated capitalism. There are of course degrees of regulations. What you are missing is the principle reason behind capitalism’s success and “classic” socialism’s failure: competition. Competition drives innovation which results in progress. Of course, this needs regulation. But, the problem with socialism, is there is no competition which leads to stagnation. This is something the EU passionately believes in - albeit as part of a massive protectionist racket. This is why Corbyn is, or rather was, so opposed to it. Take for example the nationalisation of broadband. The EU will not allow it. That is if we are in the EU.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 11:51:54 GMT
Good to see the Labour front bench are all singing from the same hymn sheet - that didn't take long to undermine Jezza's apparent position did it ? John McDonnell won't remain neutral in second Brexit referendum, despite Jeremy Corbyn stance link
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 11:59:01 GMT
Good to see the Labour front bench are all singing from the same hymn sheet - that didn't take long to undermine Jezza's apparent position did it ? John McDonnell won't remain neutral in second Brexit referendum, despite Jeremy Corbyn stance linkNot really undermining is it? Corbyn's stance is his own as PM, he's not said the cabinet can't campaign either way.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 12:05:05 GMT
Yep, pretty much. I think something where some industries are state owned and provided for all is the perfect place to aim at this point. Hence why I'm such a fan of most of Sanders' and Corbyn's proposals. I don't think free-market, unregulated capitalism as it is has very long left to be honest. Too many people are being left behind by it, and there's only so much longer people will be distracted from the real issue. It's my opinion that the obvious next step is to concentrate less on growth and more on human welfare. There is nowhere on earth, as far as I am aware, that practices unregulated capitalism. There are of course degrees of regulations. What you are missing is the principle reason behind capitalism’s success and “classic” socialism’s failure: competition. Competition drives innovation which results in progress. Of course, this needs regulation. But, the problem with socialism, is there is no competition which leads to stagnation. This is something the EU passionately believes in - albeit as part of a massive protectionist racket. This is why Corbyn is, or rather was, so opposed to it. Take for example the nationalisation of broadband. The EU will not allow it. That is if we are in the EU. The EU will allow it, that's not illegal under EU law. You can absolutely have competition within socialism. I agree with that for communism, but hence why it'll never be achieved. Socialism, especially in its modern application, is mostly ensuring that the people are in a position to contribute to a capitalist society by not allowing such huge levels of inequality that many cannot afford to survive or live good lives.
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Nov 24, 2019 12:05:28 GMT
Really looking bleak for Labour.
Latest calculus suggests Tory majority of 48. I suspect that will be on the lower side as well.
Northerners flocking from Labour to Tory in their droves.
Never thought I'd see the day.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Nov 24, 2019 12:09:12 GMT
Good to see the Labour front bench are all singing from the same hymn sheet - that didn't take long to undermine Jezza's apparent position did it ? John McDonnell won't remain neutral in second Brexit referendum, despite Jeremy Corbyn stance linkI told you before corbyn made his announcement that I thought Labour would allow there MPS to campaign which ever way they wanted. Corbyn has made his decision to stay neutral he's not backed down from his position or changed what he said so how is this unravelling he didn't commit the whole party to stay neutral just him so that he can implement which ever way the referendum go's. then the remain side cant say he's betrayed them or the leave side say hes a remainer he would do that. It is the only way to unite both sides post referendum if you have a pm that is neutral
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Nov 24, 2019 12:17:11 GMT
Really looking bleak for Labour. Latest calculus suggests Tory majority of 48. I suspect that will be on the lower side as well. Northerners flocking from Labour to Tory in their droves. Never thought I'd see the day. Last election the tories had a projected majority of 200+ and we all know what happened !! you also have to take into account tactical voting and regional differences. If the lib dem vote collapses as it seems to be then there leave voters would switch in areas where labour is the challenger or where they have a slim majority as they would see it as there only chance to stop brexit with a peoples vote. You would also see in lib dem target seats where they are the second party last time the labour supporters voting for them as they cant stand Johnson!!
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Nov 24, 2019 12:18:47 GMT
Not with me. The franchising system is not fit for purpose- even the Tories now accept this. Franchising has brought about the shambolic fares system, the legal empire who sit there all day taking their expensive cut deciding who was to blame for a train being late and apportioning delay compensation. The franchising system has seen the failure of GNER, National Express and Virgin East Coast on one route alone. Rail privatisation, far from reducing union strength has simply empowered them to pick off the operators one-by-one- see South West Trains and the never-ending RMT dispute.
Franchising sees ineffective cascade of train fleets- try the nonsensical situation of nearly-new trains coming off lease to sit in store to be replaced by new trains while 30+ year-old fleets are kept running elsewhere. The cost of those trains sitting in the siding ultimately comes back on the fare payer / tax payer.
Rail privatisation made a lot of people very rich and the only ones who think it's a resounding success and does not need reform are those who do nicely from it.
The problems with franchising recently is companies have bid too much and havent got the passengers to make their money back. The delay compensation thing unless it has changed in the 20 years since I left you are just wrong on, its a quite straightforward process if the train breaks down the company operating the train pays for the minutes delay and subsequent delays it causes to other company services, if its track / signalling problems network rail pay to the train operating companies, the invoices used to come with those for access charges and electeicity usage each month, no lawyers involved. On the fleets, they are all owned by rolling stock companies none of them receive taxpayer funding, think the trains arent all interchangeable either because of different size and length platforms in some instances. The people who did the best out of privatisation were the employees check out driver salaries pre and immediately post privatisation, nationalisation sounds great in principle but you would soon find the profits disappear as salaries are driven up and inefficiencies creep in and then it becomes at the mercy of short term management decisions are made on political basis rather than what is the correct long term action.
I'm not sure how many worked in Delay Attribution 20 years ago but I believe the last figure I saw was over 200. That excludes the TOC's themselves. You say it's a simple process but you only have to open the PDF on the front of the DAB site www.delayattributionboard.co.uk/ to read that the "record of the top 20 outstanding disputes (by age and size) has been produced" and recognise the bureaucracy generated by franchising and the disconnect between those who run trains and the infrastructure provider.
Keith Williams , appointed by the Tories to look at the broken rail franchising system that they created, said at the Transport Select Committee hearing on 28th October that "the DFT is likely to have a much more strategic role" as he proposes a national body in the public sector.
The train fleets owned by the Rosco's who 20+ tears ago benefitted from the single biggest licence to print money of the botched Tory privatisation. Anyway times move on and Angel trains will indeed take a hit next year for the £215 million Class 707 fleet being put into storage at 2 years' old to be replaced by more new trains. The tax payer takes no direct hit, but you would be naïve to not recognise that every ROSCO is now factoring into its costings for future contracts the fact that no longer does a train represent a reliable income stream for 30+years . That cost will ultimately be passed onto the tax or fare payer. The fleets are indeed less easy to cascade to other routes because the multiple TOC's have ordered fleets bespoke for their own requirements.
Jobs as train drivers attract excellent salaries these days and receive thousands of applications - that is because the unions have picked off the TOC's one-by-one - see the looming Tyne & Wear Metro drivers dispute.
Against this backdrop LNER, the state-owned operator of the East coast route is doing pretty well , and was the operator who prompted the overturning of the ridiculous announcement by the Rail Delivery Group that Interrail passes would no longer be accepted by Britain's train operators.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Nov 24, 2019 12:44:19 GMT
Why was there a coup if it was working so well ?, is there a reason why so few countries have adopted a genuine Marxist approach ?, seems strange that so few have taken it on as a political principal. I don't know enough to say why really, there has been talk of foreign intervening because of large stores of Lithium owned by Bolivia, but again, I don't know enough. The Bolivian economy grew at twice the Latin American average, they built an incredible amount of infrastructure and hugely reduced extreme poverty and income inequality. It worked wonders. It's not been put in place much for much the same reasons as capitalism has issues, people use it an an excuse to get what they want rather than what the ideology represents. Tends to lend itself to nationalist despots, hence why in the modern day Marxist principles tend to be slightly watered down into a more market-based Socialism. But Marx saw that. His entire principle was that nations would inevitably transition into socialism as the workers grew unhappy at the capitalist classes hoarding wealth, and eventually this would transition further into near-communism. So it's fine in principal but doesn't work in practice ? a very good reason for not implementing it then we can do with out nationalist despots if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 24, 2019 12:44:35 GMT
This has been around for ages Cummings isn't a Tory, he is a brexiteer once brexit is secured I dont think he will stick around. Whilst you might be right about him thinking he is much smarter than everyone else, all he is saying is people dont trust politicians they dont keep their promises so we have too, despite all that was against him he still delivered a win for leave. I will be also interested to find out in time how much of the leaving misinformation about Boris and him was designed to force a misstep by remain / bring the matter to a head because as it seems to be turning out the Benn act was a masterstroke for leave, of course it is possible they just got lucky with the likes of Letwin / Grieve egged on by Bercow thinking they could do as they wished. Smug, smarmy, shitebag. Further evidence... I give you smug but I just see someone having a laugh at a journo having a nightmare and giving him a taste of what they happily dish out if you cant quote the cost in the second paragraph on page 32 only its quite a significant date Labour activist Lewis doesnt know, he is joining the BBC soon with him and Faisal therw will be a 24/7 propaganda pro Tory stories I am sure.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 12:54:24 GMT
I don't know enough to say why really, there has been talk of foreign intervening because of large stores of Lithium owned by Bolivia, but again, I don't know enough. The Bolivian economy grew at twice the Latin American average, they built an incredible amount of infrastructure and hugely reduced extreme poverty and income inequality. It worked wonders. It's not been put in place much for much the same reasons as capitalism has issues, people use it an an excuse to get what they want rather than what the ideology represents. Tends to lend itself to nationalist despots, hence why in the modern day Marxist principles tend to be slightly watered down into a more market-based Socialism. But Marx saw that. His entire principle was that nations would inevitably transition into socialism as the workers grew unhappy at the capitalist classes hoarding wealth, and eventually this would transition further into near-communism. So it's fine in principal but doesn't work in practice ? a very good reason for not implementing it then we can do with out nationalist despots if you ask me. Not necessarily, no. Capitalism is the same, has good principles but leads to the deaths of many innocents when in practice because greed can often take over. Hence why I advocate a move to the newer democratic socialism of Sanders, Corbyn etc. now.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Nov 24, 2019 13:05:16 GMT
So it's fine in principal but doesn't work in practice ? a very good reason for not implementing it then we can do with out nationalist despots if you ask me. Not necessarily, no. Capitalism is the same, has good principles but leads to the deaths of many innocents when in practice because greed can often take over. Hence why I advocate a move to the newer democratic socialism of Sanders, Corbyn etc. now. W There is just as much greed and corruption in socialist systems
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 13:23:53 GMT
Not necessarily, no. Capitalism is the same, has good principles but leads to the deaths of many innocents when in practice because greed can often take over. Hence why I advocate a move to the newer democratic socialism of Sanders, Corbyn etc. now. W There is just as much greed and corruption in socialist systems Agreed. I'm not saying there isn't. I believe in the principles of modern socialism more than capitalism. And since greed won't be eradicated, ill vote based on principle.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 24, 2019 13:29:13 GMT
The problems with franchising recently is companies have bid too much and havent got the passengers to make their money back. The delay compensation thing unless it has changed in the 20 years since I left you are just wrong on, its a quite straightforward process if the train breaks down the company operating the train pays for the minutes delay and subsequent delays it causes to other company services, if its track / signalling problems network rail pay to the train operating companies, the invoices used to come with those for access charges and electeicity usage each month, no lawyers involved. On the fleets, they are all owned by rolling stock companies none of them receive taxpayer funding, think the trains arent all interchangeable either because of different size and length platforms in some instances. The people who did the best out of privatisation were the employees check out driver salaries pre and immediately post privatisation, nationalisation sounds great in principle but you would soon find the profits disappear as salaries are driven up and inefficiencies creep in and then it becomes at the mercy of short term management decisions are made on political basis rather than what is the correct long term action.
I'm not sure how many worked in Delay Attribution 20 years ago but I believe the last figure I saw was over 200. That excludes the TOC's themselves. You say it's a simple process but you only have to open the PDF on the front of the DAB site www.delayattributionboard.co.uk/ to read that the "record of the top 20 outstanding disputes (by age and size) has been produced" and recognise the bureaucracy generated by franchising and the disconnect between those who run trains and the infrastructure provider.
Keith Williams , appointed by the Tories to look at the broken rail franchising system that they created, said at the Transport Select Committee hearing on 28th October that "the DFT is likely to have a much more strategic role" as he proposes a national body in the public sector.
The train fleets owned by the Rosco's who 20+ tears ago benefitted from the single biggest licence to print money of the botched Tory privatisation. Anyway times move on and Angel trains will indeed take a hit next year for the £215 million Class 707 fleet being put into storage at 2 years' old to be replaced by more new trains. The tax payer takes no direct hit, but you would be naïve to not recognise that every ROSCO is now factoring into its costings for future contracts the fact that no longer does a train represent a reliable income stream for 30+years . That cost will ultimately be passed onto the tax or fare payer. The fleets are indeed less easy to cascade to other routes because the multiple TOC's have ordered fleets bespoke for their own requirements.
Jobs as train drivers attract excellent salaries these days and receive thousands of applications - that is because the unions have picked off the TOC's one-by-one - see the looming Tyne & Wear Metro drivers dispute.
Against this backdrop LNER, the state-owned operator of the East coast route is doing pretty well , and was the operator who prompted the overturning of the ridiculous announcement by the Rail Delivery Group that Interrail passes would no longer be accepted by Britain's train operators.
I can only speak of my experience from working in finance for a freight company, pre privatisation the four companies had 7-8 dealing with minutes delay this shrank to 2-3 by the end, Network rail I doubt was much different. 200 sounds alot but if you divide it by the number of TOCs and regions and take into account the number of trains it does not seem excessive. I am sure there are disputes because not all delays are as simple as the train breaks down or signalling fails, things like did the overhead lines damage the train or the train damage the overhead lines but this doesnt disappear without franchises as any nationalised lines would still be run as separate business units. Rosco's made a fortune I agree even the cleaners at Porterbrook walked away with £30k, rolling stock was valued too cheaply and they didnt think through the capital allowances that came with them that helped to reduce taxable profits. On the 707's I will try and find an article from the evening standard a year or so back I remember reading as I often end up on one from waterloo to richmond on the day or two a week I go to the office but from memory they were saying it was almost a good thing as TOC's were finding it cheaper because of interest rates to buy their own and there were some new entrants like pension funds who were setting up companies / lending to TOCs. With drivers as companies have sought to cut costs they have reduced the number of spare drivers which also cuts supply so there is less scope to hire drivers from other companies now. Equally these disputes will not decrease under government management see how Tfl operates the threats of strikes with the government getting blamed is a very useful negotiating tactic and soon those profits disappear.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 24, 2019 13:31:39 GMT
Yep, pretty much. I think something where some industries are state owned and provided for all is the perfect place to aim at this point. Hence why I'm such a fan of most of Sanders' and Corbyn's proposals. I don't think free-market, unregulated capitalism as it is has very long left to be honest. Too many people are being left behind by it, and there's only so much longer people will be distracted from the real issue. It's my opinion that the obvious next step is to concentrate less on growth and more on human welfare. There is nowhere on earth, as far as I am aware, that practices unregulated capitalism. There are of course degrees of regulations. What you are missing is the principle reason behind capitalism’s success and “classic” socialism’s failure: competition. Competition drives innovation which results in progress. Of course, this needs regulation. But, the problem with socialism, is there is no competition which leads to stagnation. This is something the EU passionately believes in - albeit as part of a massive protectionist racket. This is why Corbyn is, or rather was, so opposed to it. Take for example the nationalisation of broadband. The EU will not allow it. That is if we are in the EU. Hence why just getting out of the Eu should be his number one aim. His passion. Because it’s the cornerstone of his policies
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Nov 24, 2019 13:33:37 GMT
Good to see the Labour front bench are all singing from the same hymn sheet - that didn't take long to undermine Jezza's apparent position did it ? John McDonnell won't remain neutral in second Brexit referendum, despite Jeremy Corbyn stance linkI told you before corbyn made his announcement that I thought Labour would allow there MPS to campaign which ever way they wanted. Corbyn has made his decision to stay neutral he's not backed down from his position or changed what he said so how is this unravelling he didn't commit the whole party to stay neutral just him so that he can implement which ever way the referendum go's. then the remain side cant say he's betrayed them or the leave side say hes a remainer he would do that. It is the only way to unite both sides post referendum if you have a pm that is neutral He's campaigned his whole political career against the EU now all of a sudden he's neutral he's a nailed on hypocrite that's what he is.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Nov 24, 2019 13:36:59 GMT
So it's fine in principal but doesn't work in practice ? a very good reason for not implementing it then we can do with out nationalist despots if you ask me. Not necessarily, no. Capitalism is the same, has good principles but leads to the deaths of many innocents when in practice because greed can often take over. Hence why I advocate a move to the newer democratic socialism of Sanders, Corbyn etc. now. How does that explain why there are so many capitalist countries and so few if any that follow the Marxist doctrine ?, that alone would suggest that Marxism is poor when put into practice or is most of the world wrong ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 13:48:20 GMT
Not necessarily, no. Capitalism is the same, has good principles but leads to the deaths of many innocents when in practice because greed can often take over. Hence why I advocate a move to the newer democratic socialism of Sanders, Corbyn etc. now. How does that explain why there are so many capitalist countries and so few if any that follow the Marxist doctrine ?, that alone would suggest that Marxism is poor when put into practice or is most of the world wrong ? Does 'well most people do it' count as a valuable argument for something being right? A few hundred years ago there were 'so many countries that hadn't abolished slavery', obviously that wasn't right. My feeling is that capitalism is the dominant force because it is the best way for the richest to stay rich while still keeping the poorer fairly well subdued. They grew to a point where they wouldn't accept the old 'god given right to be rich' system anymore and needed to believe they could get rich themselves.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Nov 24, 2019 14:25:39 GMT
How does that explain why there are so many capitalist countries and so few if any that follow the Marxist doctrine ?, that alone would suggest that Marxism is poor when put into practice or is most of the world wrong ? Does 'well most people do it' count as a valuable argument for something being right? A few hundred years ago there were 'so many countries that hadn't abolished slavery', obviously that wasn't right. My feeling is that capitalism is the dominant force because it is the best way for the richest to stay rich while still keeping the poorer fairly well subdued. They grew to a point where they wouldn't accept the old 'god given right to be rich' system anymore and needed to believe they could get rich themselves. It's a better indication than why most people don't do it is it not, there is obviously a reason why hardly any country follows Marxist doctrine, maybe the followers of Marx doctrine are an indication as to why no one follows it after all, Lennin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Castro and Pol Pot are hardly good role models to promote unless mass murder and social oppression are your thing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 14:36:26 GMT
How does that explain why there are so many capitalist countries and so few if any that follow the Marxist doctrine ?, that alone would suggest that Marxism is poor when put into practice or is most of the world wrong ? Does 'well most people do it' count as a valuable argument for something being right? A few hundred years ago there were 'so many countries that hadn't abolished slavery', obviously that wasn't right. My feeling is that capitalism is the dominant force because it is the best way for the richest to stay rich while still keeping the poorer fairly well subdued. They grew to a point where they wouldn't accept the old 'god given right to be rich' system anymore and needed to believe they could get rich themselves. Debating with crapslinger who doesn’t know the difference between democratic socialism and Marxism is like playing chess with a pigeon. It’s futile.....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 14:36:34 GMT
Does 'well most people do it' count as a valuable argument for something being right? A few hundred years ago there were 'so many countries that hadn't abolished slavery', obviously that wasn't right. My feeling is that capitalism is the dominant force because it is the best way for the richest to stay rich while still keeping the poorer fairly well subdued. They grew to a point where they wouldn't accept the old 'god given right to be rich' system anymore and needed to believe they could get rich themselves. It's a better indication than why most people don't do it is it not, there is obviously a reason why hardly any country follows Marxist doctrine, maybe the followers of Marx doctrine are an indication as to why no one follows it after all, Lennin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Castro and Pol Pot are hardly good role models to promote unless mass murder and social oppression are your thing. Is it? Since when is 'most people do it' an indication of morals? Followers of capitalism have similar issues, if you pick the worst out as you've done above. Besides the fact that 3 of those did not really follow any Marxist doctrine, they consolidated solely their own power and nothing else. And again, I don't believe in Marxism as it was being implemented now. I think democratic socialism is what will reform our current capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 14:57:28 GMT
Really looking bleak for Labour. Latest calculus suggests Tory majority of 48. I suspect that will be on the lower side as well. Northerners flocking from Labour to Tory in their droves. Never thought I'd see the day. I honestly can’t understand why anyone outside of the top 5% of earners would vote Tory, especially those in the North of the country, it makes no sense whatsoever. They’ll get their Brexit, and they’ll get royally fucked in the process too. BJ and his cronies are only in it for themselves, never in my life have I seen a UK prime minister who gave less of a shit about the people and his actions than this clown, he’s a liar.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Nov 24, 2019 14:59:30 GMT
It's a better indication than why most people don't do it is it not, there is obviously a reason why hardly any country follows Marxist doctrine, maybe the followers of Marx doctrine are an indication as to why no one follows it after all, Lennin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Castro and Pol Pot are hardly good role models to promote unless mass murder and social oppression are your thing. Is it? Since when is 'most people do it' an indication of morals? Followers of capitalism have similar issues, if you pick the worst out as you've done above. Besides the fact that 3 of those did not really follow any Marxist doctrine, they consolidated solely their own power and nothing else. And again, I don't believe in Marxism as it was being implemented now. I think democratic socialism is what will reform our current capitalism. I see so you are not a supporter of Marxism at all we got there in the end.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Nov 24, 2019 15:00:36 GMT
Really looking bleak for Labour. Latest calculus suggests Tory majority of 48. I suspect that will be on the lower side as well. Northerners flocking from Labour to Tory in their droves. Never thought I'd see the day. I honestly can’t understand why anyone outside of the top 5% of earners would vote Tory, especially those in the North of the country, it makes no sense whatsoever. They’ll get their Brexit, and they’ll get royally fucked in the process too. BJ and his cronies are only in it for themselves, never in my life have I seen a UK prime minister who gave less of a shit about the people and his actions than this clown, he’s a liar. I trump you with a Tony Bliar
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 15:10:58 GMT
I honestly can’t understand why anyone outside of the top 5% of earners would vote Tory, especially those in the North of the country, it makes no sense whatsoever. They’ll get their Brexit, and they’ll get royally fucked in the process too. BJ and his cronies are only in it for themselves, never in my life have I seen a UK prime minister who gave less of a shit about the people and his actions than this clown, he’s a liar. I trump you with a Tony Bliar Tony Blair was a liar too, but Boris takes it to a whole new level. I think TB had the people’s interests at heart and aimed for a fairly central government, but the lies around Iraq to appease the USA killed both him and the Labour Party. Blair should be in jail, but I’d still trust him more than BJ.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 24, 2019 15:20:27 GMT
I trump you with a Tony Bliar Tony Blair was a liar too, but Boris takes it to a whole new level. I think TB had the people’s interests at heart and aimed for a fairly central government, but the lies around Iraq to appease the USA killed both him and the Labour Party. Blair should be in jail, but I’d still trust him more than BJ. Is it April 1st?
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 24, 2019 15:24:32 GMT
Really looking bleak for Labour. Latest calculus suggests Tory majority of 48. I suspect that will be on the lower side as well. Northerners flocking from Labour to Tory in their droves. Never thought I'd see the day. Last election the tories had a projected majority of 200+ and we all know what happened !! you also have to take into account tactical voting and regional differences. If the lib dem vote collapses as it seems to be then there leave voters would switch in areas where labour is the challenger or where they have a slim majority as they would see it as there only chance to stop brexit with a peoples vote. You would also see in lib dem target seats where they are the second party last time the labour supporters voting for them as they cant stand Johnson!! Don't forget there will be a certain amount of remain voters Who would rather leave the European union than face a Jeremy Corbyn government
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Nov 24, 2019 15:38:06 GMT
I trump you with a Tony Bliar Tony Blair was a liar too, but Boris takes it to a whole new level. I think TB had the people’s interests at heart and aimed for a fairly central government, but the lies around Iraq to appease the USA killed both him and the Labour Party. Blair should be in jail, but I’d still trust him more than BJ. Tony Bliar who opened the floodgates to mass uncontrolled immigration, Tony Bliar who signed the European constitution giving away many of our rights to the EU, Tony Bliar who took us into an illegal war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and gave rise to the birth of ISIS, that Tony Bliar who you trust more than Boris Johnson
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 15:45:37 GMT
Tony Blair was a liar too, but Boris takes it to a whole new level. I think TB had the people’s interests at heart and aimed for a fairly central government, but the lies around Iraq to appease the USA killed both him and the Labour Party. Blair should be in jail, but I’d still trust him more than BJ. Tony Bliar who opened the floodgates to mass uncontrolled immigration, Tony Bliar who signed the European constitution giving away many of our rights to the EU, Tony Bliar who took us into an illegal war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and gave rise to the birth of ISIS, that Tony Bliar who you trust more than Boris Johnson Yes, that Tony Blair. A complete cunt of a man, but I fear BJ will do far worse given the chance, I wouldn’t trust him with anything.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 24, 2019 15:59:08 GMT
Tony Bliar who opened the floodgates to mass uncontrolled immigration, Tony Bliar who signed the European constitution giving away many of our rights to the EU, Tony Bliar who took us into an illegal war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and gave rise to the birth of ISIS, that Tony Bliar who you trust more than Boris Johnson Yes, that Tony Blair. A complete cunt of a man, but I fear BJ will do far worse given the chance, I wouldn’t trust him with anything. Yes alot of current Labour supporters now disown Blair, the longest serving Labour PM since the war wasn't he? I don't know if I trust Boris on BREXIT, how has he deceived you since July? What in particular do you think that he will do that means that he will lie to you.... it's a given from the left of course that every and ANY Tory leader will" underfund the NHS, let down the workers and betray the 'disadvantaged'"?
|
|