Labour Party Supporters

[ska_mna]

[Si1]

Someone give him a nudge, the needle's stuck.

I like RK - I disgaree with him mostly but he has a real intellect and candidly means what he says as far as i can tell, not a shill

[Caveat Mortgagor]

him: yes, lots of people out of work, not like this under labour [knowing smirk]

(me – didn't know where to start without being rude.)

You're probably wasting your time, but.......

a basic premise of the role of a governments economic policy is to both encourage wealth creation and allow wealth distribution. Even the lefty will agree that.

For 13 years we had a government that concentrated on wealth distribution and creating wealth got overlooked. Indded the effects of distribution made it harder for creators.

Thats why we employed hundreds of thousands of unnecessary public sector workers, paid benefits to all an sundry earning as much as £60k a year and chucked bucket loads of cash at our political classes to line their pockets.

Meanwhile british businesses (and employees) struggled to pay the increasing bill to the exchequor so the bill has been left for future generations.

The question is...... should we now try and concentrate on wealth creation and ease off the re-distribution (of money we dont have)?

She will no doubt tell you of the unquestioned social benefit of the public sector workers; she may also mention the private sector businesses that supply to public sector. The truth is though, we cannot have them if we cannot afford them!

And particularly after 13 years of largesse, being told 'we cannot afford it' is something the left leaning public sector workers dont want to swallow.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Caveat Mortgagor

[Rain'ard]

He's a funny Labour supporter if he can find a positive resulting from Blair and Brown. I thought they were bigger Tories than the Tories. anyway he's just telling our SI that you can have nightmares as well as dreams.

[plummet expert]

I was lectured by a primary school teacher in that sort of patronising way they do, when they think it is so obvious what they are saying – teaching by example.

Conversation:

him: lot of people out of work (knowing I am a tory supporter)

me: yes, the economy is very hard right now

him: yes, lots of people out of work, not like this under labour [knowing smirk]

(me – didn't know where to start without being rude, like unemployment is the not only consideration in the economy? Like the unemployment of the early 80s was followed by the biggest economic boom in 100 years? What about interest rates on govt bonds? The deficit? Out of control govt spending? The Greek crisis? But oh no, if you say that you're a nasty tory. So I kept quiet.)

You might consider this. Until 2010, NO labour administration in the history of the Labour movement EVER left office with lower unemployment than they inherited. Mr Brown only avoided continuing the tradition narrowly and as a result of the biggest govt borrowing in history, with the lowest interest rate for 300 years. Also as a result of himself inheriting a reasonably benign economic upswing already in place by 1995-7 and then ruined by overspending after 1999 arranged by Brown himself.

[ska_mna]

For 13 years we had a government that concentrated on wealth distribution and creating wealth got overlooked. Indded the effects of distribution made it harder for creators.

I'd probably disagree with that. They thought they'd found the golden faucet of wealth creation (finance) and spent accordingly. Their biggest mistake (as has been the mistake of most governments of the West of all political colours) was to put all their faith in the financial industry as biggest driver of wealth creation. Whether they were complicit or just plain ignorant is the question. I think the latter is possibly more likely and indeed more scary; pure incompetence and lack of long term economic nous. I mean if you truly saw all those tax bills coming in from the fantastic finance industry you'd possibly start spending like there was no tomorrow too.... whoohoo we're rich!!

[South Lorne]

What is it with so many teachers? That's exactly how they are.

..they have never left school...never grown up ...forever they are arrogant teenagers....

[roadtoruin]

Military coup? Electoral fraud? No wait, 3 landslide election victories

Not my fault, gov'ner, too young

If 42% can be considered a landslide. Not that labour's 'landslide' was any more democratic than that, but just sayin'...

[Austin Allegro]

Of all the teachers that I have had, many were 'good teachers' in the sense that they could instil knowledge mechanically, but only one or two were genuine 'liberal educators' in the sense that they were able to consider things from different perspectives and transcend whatever dogma was fashionable at the time.

It's part of the wider problem of the liberal/left's domination of culture in the west; indeed I would say state school teachers are a kind of high priesthood of liberal/left dogma. The basic problem is this: the liberal left have discovered a kind of political perpetual-motion machine. They can be incredibly reactionary and conservative but at the same time be convinced that they are 'progressive' and 'the nice party'. Right wingers know their policies are unpopular and tough and have to defend them via analysis and argument; the left generally seem incapable of this, in my experience. Just weeks after the Coalition took power, the left were attacking 'tory cuts' as if it had nothing to do with 13 years of their own policies. None so blind as those that cannot see.

[PopGun]

Resolute Labour supporters are the same as staunch right wing Tories and die hard liberals, i.e. thick as pig $hit.

[Badlad1967]

Resolute Labour supporters are the same as staunch right wing Tories and die hard liberals, i.e. thick as pig $hit.

Yep - I agree with this to a point - although I feel it is more ingrained with Labour supporters. Almost like a religion. Puking out the bits they like to make a point while conveniently ignoring the "other" facts.......

[Timak]

Anyone who "supports" a political party like they do a football team is generally a bit stupid.

Anyone who thinks there is any significant difference between the political parties or that the political class acts in the interest of normal people is also a bit stupid.

[Caveat Mortgagor]

I'd probably disagree with that. They thought they'd found the golden faucet of wealth creation (finance) and spent accordingly. Their biggest mistake (as has been the mistake of most governments of the West of all political colours) was to put all their faith in the financial industry as biggest driver of wealth creation. Whether they were complicit or just plain ignorant is the question. I think the latter is possibly more likely and indeed more scary; pure incompetence and lack of long term economic nous. I mean if you truly saw all those tax bills coming in from the fantastic finance industry you'd possibly start spending like there was no tomorrow too.... whoohoo we're rich!!

You made the same mistake they did.

Its not wealth creation. It re-distribution. From future to now. From proles to Banksters. From young to the boomers.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Caveat Mortgagor

[Maynardgravy]

Anyone who "supports" a political party like they do a football team is generally a bit stupid.

Anyone who thinks there is any significant difference between the political parties or that the political class acts in the interest of normal people is also a bit stupid.

Yes... I have no shame in admitting that I voted Blair in. I was duped into thinking they had a fairer society in mind. I haven't voted since. Those people on here though that consider themselves 'Tory' want to consider what life would be like without the old union-backed labour movement at all.

Of course most would have perished up chimneys in infancy.

[winkie]

whilst at the same time earning twice what those that DO earn

...there are some very good teachers, and some not so good....but as they say if you are on to a good thing, stick with it whether you are good at it or not...imo only the good teachers should be teaching...the not so good cause far more harm than good.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

Labour party supporters.....

are as cretinous as tory party supporters, they share a common ground in myopia to the debt/credit/economic cycle but whilst that myopia exists both parties are sound in as much as they have a voting foundation and thats all you need in such a comediacally undemocratic system* as the UK

*which can only reflect on the quality of voter

mmmm beer.....mmmm blue......mmmm red.... mmmm orange.......mmm green...... mmmm peuce with a hint of lilac

Edited October 20, 2011 by Tamara De Lempicka

[the shaping machine]

You might consider this. Until 2010, NO labour administration in the history of the Labour movement EVER left office with lower unemployment than they inherited.

Are you sure about the "until 2010" bit?

This graph suggests their record continues :-

unemployment

Edited October 20, 2011 by the shaping machine

[ska_mna]

You made the same mistake they did.

Its not wealth creation. It re-distribution. From future to now. From proles to Banksters. From young to the boomers.

Yup!

[South Lorne]

Resolute Labour supporters are the same as staunch right wing Tories and die hard liberals, i.e. thick as pig $hit.

...yes..I suppose it's an extremist's excuse....although they don't know it....

[200p]

There are gentlemen, and there are politicians.

Alastair Darling (Labour) is one of the few gentlemen at the Houses of Parliament who came out and told the truth, well against the main party view, that the recession "would only last 6 months", back in 2008. Quote; "The worst financial crisis in 60 years." Daniel Hannan (Conservative), and Nigel Farage (UKIP), I'll add to the list.

[South Lorne]

There are gentlemen, and there are politicians.

Alastair Darling (Labour) is one of the few gentlemen at the Houses of Parliament who came out and told the truth, well against the main party view, that the recession "would only last 6 months", back in 2008. Quote; "The worst financial crisis in 60 years." Daniel Hannan (Conservative), and Nigel Farage (UKIP), I'll add to the list.

..although he is a sour old bat ..think Vince is in this bucket....

[PopGun]

Yep - I agree with this to a point - although I feel it is more ingrained with Labour supporters. Almost like a religion. Puking out the bits they like to make a point while conveniently ignoring the "other" facts.......

Pretty much sums them all up if you ask me.

[Rare Bear]

My bro is a rabid lefty, there's just no point entering a discussion about anything political. Just walk away.

"Logical argument will not change the mind of someone who did not use it to form their opinion in the first place"

Its just like what someone said about religion, 'Don't argue with a man who's hot religion because he knows he's right'.

[ska_mna]

Its just like what someone said about religion, 'Don't argue with a man who's hot religion because he knows he's right'.

Yes, I think the religion point has nailed it. Equally true of either "side" too. No point in arguing with many of them.

In my opinion, the ideal "path" is one that mixes the best bits of both "sides" and jettisons the rest.

EDIT TO ADD: This is also the reason why I would favour a more proportional system, and why I was mortified when AV got rejected earlier this year.

Edited October 21, 2011 by ska_mna

[Rare Bear]

But how do they know to become teachers in theforst place? Its uncanny.

Well when I was at school in the 60s I used to wonder what would happen the ones who were too stupid to get to university and too lazy to get a job, No degree required for basic teaching then. They went to teacher training collage.

As an aside, I went to a Catolic school in NI. We were force fed languages, the place was awash with language teachers. My mother explained it thus. 'Anyone can teach a language if they have a BA. Anyone can get a BA if they work, no intelligence required. So all these priests study a language, get a BA and do a short course on teaching hey presto instant French teacher. They teach in a church run school and their salary from the ministry goes straight to diocesan funds They get £3 a week pocket money. If they have say a car it has been bought by their family.' Don't forget this was the 60s, the £3 was true although they did live in the school so it was pocket money.