Shameless labour

Flyboy152

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's why I used the word context in my post.

You stripped what the poster said of every shred of context, and used an absolute extreme. One very heart wrenching extreme which has absolutely naff all to do with what was posted, to try and gain the moral high ground.

It was quite clear he was referring to staying in a house which the person cannot afford, and actually owning said house without actually having paid for it.

If these kinds of responses are the general labour supporters real thoughts, and real arguments, then I'm glad I;m not associated. It's pure denial and really quite worrying extremes....with the ability to actually discussed thrown right out of the window. Try to be rational and you get accused of all sorts on yoru character.

The very fact that you said "didnt see any exclusion clauses" suggests anything anyone says that's not in line with the labour line, you will simply tear to pieces and completely rip any context to make your point. I also found that wording, rather depressing.

How many clauses should I be adding to the bottom of this post, if I don't wish for that sort of response you furnished the last poster with?

The sentence, "Why should someone have the right to something they cant pay for?" will haunt you for ever, hopefully.

Remember, Sed ibi gratia Dei es mei.

StevieJ

tattycath wrote: »

And let's face it they have a mountain to climb to get us in as much s$%t as labour always seem to manage when they make the decisions!!-

Another one with a selective memory when it comes to the Tories.

tattycath

StevieJ wrote: »

Another one with a selective memory when it comes to the Tories.

no doubt your memory of labour is not selective then and they were the good guys.....not

A._Badger

diable wrote: »

Tony was a Lawyer and an exclusive pupil at an exclusive school funny he sent his children to the same school that my children went to.

Yes, that would be the London Oratory School, would it? The exclusive grant maintained Roman Catholic seat of learning, which conveniently meant the little Blair darlings didn't have to go to a 'bog standard comprehensive' (Copyright Alistair Campbell).

Flyboy152

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL, he got owned on BBC breakfast too.

Explaining why growth flat lined, excluding snow:

Ed: The begining of the impact of the actual spending cuts this year
Sian: But there have been no spending cuts
Ed: *mumble* (releases an embarrased mirroring of what shes said, classic symptom of finding oneself screwed).
Sian: There was growth actually in the last quarter that we are talking about, there was growth in government spending
Ed: Sure, but
Sian: Of about 5% on the previous year
Ed: but but, in certain areas of construction in particular, you've had the building of schools cut....but the second thing which is more important (and moving on swiftly!)

....YAWN.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12283916

Oh, and this is what I said about Ed Balls only days ago:



http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=40452436&postcount=8

Check out his face in the interview. Smirking away while twisting the truth, sian corrects him, no smirking now, serious face on.

Moves swiftly on from the first point he's been rumbled on.....smirk smirk smirk.

He's so see through it's stupid. If anyone is going to tarnish labours own recovery, it's him and his wife.

Yes, I watched that too, but what Sian "Raving Tory" Williams failed to mention, was that the redundancies started in the summer of last year. The cuts had already been announced and local authorities had already sacked thousands of workers.

Flyboy152

DervProf wrote: »

They imply it by saying that the current government are cutting spending too deeply/too quickly. It's arguable that the cutbacks that have so far been announced aren't going to make much of a difference to the defecit. Labour make it sound like they were going to pay off the debt through economic growth, more than anything else. Hang on a second, didn't economic growth under the previous administration not come largely from increased spending ? Were Labour going to suddenly find a way to grow the economy through some other means than spending more than they earned ? It's a bit like a supermarket cashier with £20K of credit card debt saying "no need to cut back much on the CC spending, I`ll just get a better paid job". Yeah, right.

You will have to forgive my lack of perception, with the nuances of the implication, but please explain how you got from: "They imply it by saying that the current government are cutting spending too deeply/too quickly," to "For labour to say that they could have solved this problem with little or no pain?" I see nothing in that quote that even comes close to suggesting that they were implying that there would be no pain.

Flyboy152

A._Badger wrote: »

Let's take a look at what Tim Luckhurst thinks, shall we?

Who?

Luckhurst is Professor of Journalism at the University of Kent.

Tired old Rightie polemiist?

Well, not exactly. Luckhurst was once Parliamentary Press Officer for Donald Dewar MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, and for the Scottish Labour group of MPs at Westminster. In 1987 he stood as a Labour candidate.

Luckhurst's view?

"BBC journalists are aware of their duty to be impartial but they understand it intellectually not instinctively. While the BBC would never endorse one political party, its dominant attitudes are rigidly social democratic. Those values are so dominant that they are treated as virtues not opinions. It is why a BBC correspondent cried when Yassir Arafat died and a Today presenter referred to the Labour Party as “we”.

"These political prejudices are innate because too few BBC employees have ever experienced life in the free market and those who have are often refugees from it. The corporation grows its own managers in preference to recruiting from outside and advertises for staff in left-wing newspapers.

"The left-wing consensus can only change if the BBC reforms its selection procedures and eradicates a hierarchy that is modelled on the Civil Service."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/thunderer/article378573.ece

Still, I'm sure StevieJ knows better.

He obviously never came across Sian Williams and Charlie Stait.

Wookster

Flyboy152 wrote: »

The sentence, "Why should someone have the right to something they cant pay for?" will haunt you for ever, hopefully.

Remember, Sed ibi gratia Dei es mei.

Why on earth will that haunt anyone.

You ought to consider yourself dam lucky that you live in a country where there is a good safety net. Most of the world is not so lucky.

You probably think it is your god given right to have things you can't pay for. That'd be one of Labour's great legacies. No wander we're broke.

Flyboy152

Wookster wrote: »

Why on earth will that haunt anyone.

You ought to consider yourself dam lucky that you live in a country where there is a good safety net. Most of the world is not so lucky.

You probably think it is your god given right to have things you can't pay for. That'd be one of Labour's great legacies. No wander we're broke.

And if you bothered to read the exchange, you would have understood the crass and selfish attitude demonstrated by Graham_Devon. If you understood the nature of the so-called safety net you think you may have to rely on, you wouldn't be so quick to defend him.

StevieJ

Flyboy152 wrote: »

He obviously never came across Sian Williams and Charlie Stait.

Or their political editor who was once a National chairman of the Young Conservatives and nicknamed Blue Robbo at Oxford where he completed his Philosphy,Politics and Economics degree (that sounds familiar ).