Answer: "5 more years of Gordon Brown"

abaxas

^
|

Badly written, but to the point.

Linton

abaxas wrote: »

Take a look at the 'economically inactive' numbers and weep.

I did (look but not weep)

February-April 1997 - 37.4%
Nov-Jan 2010 - 36.9%

Your point was ????

ukcarper

abaxas wrote: »

Agreed, I have a good example of this last year.

I pulled a muscle in my shoulder so went to see the doctor. Here is a list of appointments.

1 x X ray
1 x cardiologist (he was as confused as me)
1 x psyio, about 9 months after when I was already healed.
1 x follow up appointment to ask QOF questions.

But is that the fault of NHS or your particular doctor

The_White_Horse

abaxas wrote: »

^
|

Badly written, but to the point.

its not that badly written. to be honest, it was double the length and much better, but i lost it and lost the will to rewrite it. then 20 minutes passed by and i had the urge to say something but couldn't be bothered to write it all out again beautifully.

the sentiment remains - labour are incompetent hypocritical filth.

peterg1965

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

All Labour have done recently is nick Tory ideas, so of course the Conservatives are going to keep most of their powder dry until the Scottish Tw@ has the guts to stand for re-election.

Sorry to be picky...'HE' has never been elected as PM.

peterg1965

Linton wrote: »

I did (look but not weep)

February-April 1997 - 37.4%
Nov-Jan 2010 - 36.9%

Your point was ????

The general point was that the way unemployment is measured now has absolutely no similarity to the way it was measured during the Tory years. Its like comparing chalk and cheese - another way of the 'honourable' Labour members utilising the illusionary smoke and mirrors to ensure that the electorate continue to be kept like mushrooms - ie. kept in the dark and fed on s@@t.

Graham_Devon

LizEstelle wrote: »

There you go, Camertoff. Answering your riddles is hardly the stuff of rocket science.

Why do you feel the need to make up names for Cameron?

Serious question. It's not only you, but a lot of labour supporters seem to thrive on making up silly names etc. Gideon, Camertoff etc etc.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to make up names for Cameron?

Serious question. It's not only you, but a lot of labour supporters seem to thrive on making up silly names etc. Gideon, Camertoff etc etc.

Mind you I think "Mandy" is the most suited nick name for a politician ever.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Mind you I think "Mandy" is the most suited nick name for a politician ever.

I've seen mandleslime before now. Seen broon. Clown. But pop over to discussion time and theres just thread after thread of name calling from labour supporters, with no real discussion to offer, just toff this, toff that. Threads started with this stuff, with no real point.

It seems to detract from actual discussion.

One of the favourties from the labour camp was to go on about Thatcher years. I guess what with Darling saying labour would do worse, they have lost that now, thank god, as it never actually created, or answered any discssion, same as all this toff name calling.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

One of the favourties from the labour camp was to go on about Thatcher years. .

I agree on that.

One thing I can never work out is why do people support political parts like football clubs?

Yes the conservatives have made mistakes in the past but that has no bearing on virtually all of their party now as they have all gone.
And if they did think about what they were saying that they voted the conservatives out because of what they had done they should now be doing the same to labour.
But no... It's put a red rosette on and bang on about something that happend 20 years ago!!!
People who do think like that are the politically brain washed and will never be turned from their desired party no matter what they do.(fools)