Re: Is Labour close to being finished forever? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:37 am  

Ajw71 wrote: Nice try to turn the thread around to the conservatives, but I think you will find the headlines are being made by your party. Nevermind, if the unions stop funding you I'm sure a few champagne socialists will thrown some money your way. £20,000? Seriously. How much was the budget deficit your lot left behind in 2008. Slightly more I believe. Hello! Just so you don't forget. And incidentally, in your subjective opinion, are you really, really so stupid as to keep recycling the myth that Labour caused the record deficit? Of course, that might explain why you cannot answer direct questions.

Ajw71 wrote: Nice try to turn the thread around to the conservatives, but I think you will find the headlines are being made by your party. Nevermind, if the unions stop funding you I'm sure a few champagne socialists will thrown some money your way. £20,000? Seriously. How much was the budget deficit your lot left behind in 2008. Slightly more I believe. Hello! Just so you don't forget. And incidentally, in your subjective opinion, are you really, really so stupid as to keep recycling the myth that Labour caused the record deficit? Of course, that might explain why you cannot answer direct questions.

Re: Is Labour close to being finished forever? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:38 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

Nice try to turn the thread around to the conservatives, but I think you will find the headlines are being made by your party. Nevermind, if the unions stop funding you I'm sure a few champagne socialists will thrown some money your way.

£20,000? Seriously. How much was the budget deficit your lot left behind in 2008. Slightly more I believe.

As I said earlier, there is absolutely zero chance of Labour severing links with the trades unions.

The trades unions may contribute towards Labour funding but trades unions are overseen by democratically elected members and certainly not all of them contribute to Labour. Now compare that with the funding the tories receive. CCO and individual MPs have received £millions from bankers, tax-avoiding businessmen and even more shadowy organisations. Cameron was hosting £250k a pop kitchen suppers at No. 10 and even now hosts policy meetings where indivuals and organisations can buy influence.

So Labour get £5 millions from Unite, Tories get £5 millions from Michael Ashcroft and £ millions more from bankers. I can't remember when a trade union received £ billions of government support.

Re: Is Labour close to being finished forever? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:11 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

As I said earlier, there is absolutely zero chance of Labour severing links with the trades unions.

The trades unions may contribute towards Labour funding but trades unions are overseen by democratically elected members and certainly not all of them contribute to Labour. Now compare that with the funding the tories receive. CCO and individual MPs have received £millions from bankers, tax-avoiding businessmen and even more shadowy organisations. Cameron was hosting £250k a pop kitchen suppers at No. 10 and even now hosts policy meetings where indivuals and organisations can buy influence.

So Labour get £5 millions from Unite, Tories get £5 millions from Michael Ashcroft and £ millions more from bankers. I can't remember when a trade union received £ billions of government support.

But why are Labour always so bad at making their case to the public? Why are they always so defensive? Why don't they attack the Tories on this issue? Why do they have 2 Eds as their leaders? Apparently, only 1 in 5 of the electorate think Ed M would make a credible / decent PM. Ed B seems to be generally distrusted and disliked on a personal level. Until they get rid of those 2 they WILL NOT get elected. Even with only a couple of years until an election they should kick 'em out. They are hopeless in my opinion.

Re: Is Labour close to being finished forever? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:42 pm  

Dally wrote:

But why are Labour always so bad at making their case to the public? Why are they always so defensive? Why don't they attack the Tories on this issue? Why do they have 2 Eds as their leaders? Apparently, only 1 in 5 of the electorate think Ed M would make a credible / decent PM. Ed B seems to be generally distrusted and disliked on a personal level. Until they get rid of those 2 they WILL NOT get elected. Even with only a couple of years until an election they should kick 'em out. They are hopeless in my opinion.

Any suggestions for your new Labour Party leadership?

Re: Is Labour close to being finished forever? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:47 pm  

Mintball wrote: :WAVE: Hello! Just so you don't forget. And incidentally, in your subjective opinion, are you really, really so stupid as to keep recycling the myth that Labour caused the record deficit? Of course, that might explain why you cannot answer direct questions. Unfortunately there are many supporters of the Tory party who not only recycle the myth but have recycled it and heard it stated so many times that they actually believe it to be true - starting with actual real life Ministers in public office who really should know better.

Mintball wrote: :WAVE: Hello! Just so you don't forget. And incidentally, in your subjective opinion, are you really, really so stupid as to keep recycling the myth that Labour caused the record deficit? Of course, that might explain why you cannot answer direct questions. Unfortunately there are many supporters of the Tory party who not only recycle the myth but have recycled it and heard it stated so many times that they actually believe it to be true - starting with actual real life Ministers in public office who really should know better.

Re: Is Labour close to being finished forever? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:16 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

Any suggestions for your new Labour Party leadership?

Let me guess ... Justin Welby?

Re: Is Labour close to being finished forever? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:03 pm  

Dally wrote:

But why are Labour always so bad at making their case to the public? ...

It's not the entire story, but a biased and largely dishonourable media hardly helps.

Re: Is Labour close to being finished forever? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:10 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Unfortunately there are many supporters of the Tory party who not only recycle the myth but have recycled it and heard it stated so many times that they actually believe it to be true - starting with actual real life Ministers in public office who really should know better.

That's deliberate and will get worse as we near 2015. Now Linton Crosby is in charge, the tories will use every method of subterfuge and dirty trick they know. On this morning's Sunday Politics Brillo asked Chris Graylig about UKIP, Grayling responded with a load of bollox about how Labour can't be trusted because Len McCluskey is pulling their strings. Even when Neill tried to rein him in, his Labour/Unions diatribe continued, to the point where everyone appeared to have forgotten the original question. So be prepared for nearly two years of "it's all Labour's fault"

Re: Is Labour close to being finished forever? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:59 pm  

Dally wrote:

But why are Labour always so bad at making their case to the public? Why are they always so defensive? Why don't they attack the Tories on this issue? Why do they have 2 Eds as their leaders? Apparently, only 1 in 5 of the electorate think Ed M would make a credible / decent PM. Ed B seems to be generally distrusted and disliked on a personal level. Until they get rid of those 2 they WILL NOT get elected. Even with only a couple of years until an election they should kick 'em out. They are hopeless in my opinion.

The Labour party is crap. During my lifetime it has always been crap apart from when Tony Blair was leader. Briefly under John Smith they were getting it together too, but they were still a cautious party of opposing the Tories rather than really striking out and having a good vision for society which is what they had under Blair.

They would have had it again if David Miliband had been leader but they liked the fact Ed posed as 'standing to the left of David' but he hasn't really stood for anything at all. To be honest Ed Balls would be a more forceful leader that would stand for something, but yes it would be too left wing for the non Labour member public to really get excited, and he is also a character that falls out with people and makes enemies too quickly, so they would be back to where they were with Brown.

If not David Miliband then Alastair Darling would be a good leader.

But even with Ed Miliband in charge and the party being in dire straits, why are the Tories still behind? Why couldn't they win an overall majority last time against Gordon Brown of all people. Do you think the party of Thatcher or even Major, would be reliant on the Lib Dems to give them a majority against the Labour party in its current state?

Re: Is Labour close to being finished forever? : Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:07 am  

Mintball wrote: It's not the entire story, but a biased and largely dishonourable media hardly helps. Like this sensationalist, over-dramatic crap from Trevor Kavanagh? Unite is a Mafia society Oh the irony, coming from a cheerleader of the transparently philanthropic organisation that is News International. Please note Kavanagh's capitalisation of "militant"

Mintball wrote: It's not the entire story, but a biased and largely dishonourable media hardly helps. Like this sensationalist, over-dramatic crap from Trevor Kavanagh? Unite is a Mafia society Oh the irony, coming from a cheerleader of the transparently philanthropic organisation that is News International. Please note Kavanagh's capitalisation of "militant"