Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

More pacts from the Labour Party jokers

nbrun13.jpg
"Look Gordon, there disappear your hopes of becoming Prime Minister..."

Our favourite political jokers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, have been busily spending the weekend denying accusations they run a "dual premiership". The Sunday People had the cheek to say there was a pact in place that Tony would resign in 2008, and Gorders would take over for two years, yackety schmackety blah blah blah... Click here for the story.

Am I the only one who feels like grabbing hold of Blair and saying "oh, if you're going to resign, just fuck off already. Half the country hates your guts. You've got nothing left to achieve, you've been a rubbish Prime Minister, go away and never appear in public life again...". To think Chameleon's coming up next... depressing times.

What do you think of this Blair/Brown business/bollocks?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«13456

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ok sg

    im happy with the minimum wage
    lowest inflation since the 60's
    they actualy banned anti personel mines
    winter fuel payment for old people

    those are the good ones i can think of
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    better the devil you know imo
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good things;
    - Brown gave independence to the Bank of England.
    - Er, that's it...

    Bad things;
    - He took Britain to war on the basis of lies.
    - The public sector payroll has rocketed.
    - Stealth taxes are going through the roof.
    - Public spending is out of control.
    - They still haven't got to grips with crime.
    - They've capitulated to Europe several times.
    - Standards in education are plummeting.
    - Council tax has risen 70% since 1997.
    - Married Couples Tax Allowance was abolished.
    - Transport in the UK is getting worse.
    - They're getting rid of our civil liberties.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SG wrote:
    Standards in education are plummeting.
    to about the levels they were when the tories were in power, overall standards have increased havnt they?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Good things;
    - Brown gave independence to the Bank of England.
    - Er, that's it...
    Don't forget minimum wage, removal of Section 28, civil partnerships, economic stability unheard of under Tory rule, an NHS that despite all the negative reporting from the usual quarters is slowly but surely improving, increased aid and debt cancellation for many Third World countries, increased opening hours, more tax credits and help for parents...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so mr s.g. whats the alternative? shall we vote in an insincere smarmy faced wanker with blue blood?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DEANO MAC wrote:
    so mr s.g. whats the alternative? shall we vote in an insincere smarmy faced wanker with blue blood?

    the duke of edinburgh cant stand for parliament can he?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Don't forget minimum wage, removal of Section 28, civil partnerships.
    I'm going to walk into a potential minefield here, but I'm still very uneasy about the removal of Section 28. I still wonder why the government did it. This is probably because I don't trust local education authorities.

    And by the way, you might like to bear in mind that Labour supported Section 28 when it was first proposed in the 1980s. Absolutely true.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote:
    the duke of edinburgh cant stand for parliament can he?
    :lol:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    I'm going to walk into a potential minefield here, but I'm still very uneasy about the removal of Section 28. I still wonder why the government did it. This is probably because I don't trust local education authorities.

    And by the way, you might like to bear in mind that Labour supported Section 28 when it was first proposed in the 1980s. Absolutely true.

    you can only learn by making mistakes and then realising you have made them, and then sort them out

    rather than tory, lets do this and not care
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I bet SG reads the Daily Mail.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I bet SG reads the Daily Mail.

    and the express
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    I'm going to walk into a potential minefield here, but I'm still very uneasy about the removal of Section 28. I still wonder why the government did it. This is probably because I don't trust local education authorities.
    Because it was a profoundly homophobic, completely pointless and plain evil piece of legislation.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Because it was a profoundly homophobic, completely pointless and plain evil piece of legislation.
    :yes: Section 28 was disgusting and lead to a lot of homophobic bullying. Also, New Labour brought in an act (I can't remember what) that means that public services cannot discriminate against homosexual, transgender and bisexual individuals.

    The irony is that a few years ago he didn't want Carol Ann Duffy to have the Poet Laureate because of her sexuality.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Section 28, was a paranoide piece of legislation, as if "promotion" of homosexuality is going to make anybody "turn gay".

    My mum had a couple of gay friends when I was growing up, and it certainly didnt make me feel that way inclided (oh behave)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wait, wait, wait...who was Carol Ann Duffy Again?

    Irregardless, how come it is ok for Labour to support one piece of policy then change its mind afew years later and be all liked for it, but when the Torries do it they are pandering for support. or how come there is the obligatory, the torries wont have changed despite so many years out of power, which was the only thing that changed labour from a socialist failure to a right wing success?

    I am just wondering.

    Now, lets remember, the only reason for Labours economic stability is a Global economy is holding steady, if there was to be even the slightest slump now, that would be it for Gordon Brown as been remembered as a good chancellor. He has over spent and borrowed to an extent even beyond what it was when Labour came to power has he not?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I bet SG reads the Daily Mail.
    I read a variety of newspapers, and that includes the Daily Mail.
    Aladdin wrote:
    Because it was a profoundly homophobic, completely pointless and plain evil piece of legislation.
    Which the Labour Party supported at the time. You were rather keen to gloss over that fact, weren't you?
    subject13 wrote:
    Now, lets remember, the only reason for Labours economic stability is a Global economy is holding steady, if there was to be even the slightest slump now, that would be it for Gordon Brown as been remembered as a good chancellor. He has over spent and borrowed to an extent even beyond what it was when Labour came to power has he not?
    In 1997, the economy was in fairly good shape. I do accept that public spending was a disaster, the Tories had completely messed it up. Brown made the decision to give independence to the Bank of England. This was a brilliant idea, I can't praise him enough for doing this. Now though, the economy is at risk because spending on public services is too high.

    Let's not forget that, for Gordon Brown, tax is a way of recruiting lots of people into useless public sector jobs (five-a-day co-ordinator, anyone?) who will always vote Labour because they're terrified the Tories would sack the lot of them. Of course, the Tories won't under a squidgy, wet liberal like David Chameleon.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Which the Labour Party supported at the time. You were rather keen to gloss over that fact, weren't you?
    They must have seen the error of their ways pretty early on, when after the legislation came to be it became apparent it was nothing more than ludicrous homophobic piece of garbage.

    The Tories though were still resisting moves to repel this abomination 2 years ago.

    Some things never change.

    And while some might see Cameron as a softly-softly liberal, let's remind ourselves that the Tories have chosen to pull out of the European Conservative Alliance (or whatever it might be called) and become allies with ultra right wingers, homophobes, bigots and semi-fascist MEPs.

    New Tories, New Danger.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    And while some might see Cameron as a softly-softly liberal, let's remind ourselves that the Tories have chosen to pull out of the European Conservative Alliance and become allies with ultra right wingers, homophobes, bigots and semi-fascist MEPs.
    Yes, but in your book, anyone whose views aren't completely Left-wing is some kind of lunatic who needs hospitalisation. :yeees:
    New Tories, New Danger.
    The same type of danger that New Labour embodies.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    IWhich the Labour Party supported at the time.

    And the liberals supported slavery in the 18th century, it dosnt have any barring on the fact its wrong.

    Im more inclined to believe that David Cameron is more right wing pretending to be moderate, then he is a squidgy wet liberal,
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Im more inclined to believe that David Cameron is more right wing pretending to be moderate, then he is a squidgy wet liberal,
    I'm beginning to suspect he isn't even that. He might be just some sort of robot that you can download policies onto.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    Yes, but in your book, anyone whose views aren't completely Left-wing is some kind of lunatic who needs hospitalisation. :yeees:
    No, not quite.

    I might not subscribe to the policies of, say, the CDU in Germany, but I wouldn't accuse them of being extremists and lunatics.

    But apparently even the likes of Spain's PP are not right wing enough for the Tories in Europe, choosing instead to abandon the European People's Party and seeking pacts with a rather disturbing collection of people.

    I do hope you see that as a worrying developement.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    But apparently even the likes of Spain's PP are not right wing enough for the Tories in Europe, choosing instead to abandon the European People's Party and seeking pacts with a rather disturbing collection of people. I do hope you see that as a worrying developement.
    Yes. Any "teaming-up", to put it like that, with fascist groups is bad news.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are we sure Labour supported Section 28 - because I can remember some of them pretty vocally opposing it (and it's repeal was a key part of its manifesto) in 1997 (and 1992)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:

    And by the way, you might like to bear in mind that Labour supported Section 28 when it was first proposed in the 1980s. Absolutely true.

    Did they?

    *sceptical face*
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    The same type of danger that New Labour embodies.

    Well, quite. Seeing as New Labour are carrying on with Thatcher's policies.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, quite. Seeing as New Labour are carrying on with Thatcher's policies.

    If only. They are in favour of a large state and privatisation at one and the same time. At least Thatcher realised that government is fucking useless at getting anything done.

    So we have the worst of both worlds.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    If only. They are in favour of a large state and privatisation at one and the same time. At least Thatcher realised that government is fucking useless at getting anything done.
    I'm a strong believer in a small state and low taxes. Less government interference in our daily lives. And the best way to help people out of poverty is to encourage them to earn, and let them keep more of their own money. Why left-wingers don't understand this is beyond me.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why left-wingers don't understand this is beyond me.

    Generally it's because they work in fields that no one would voluntarily pay for, so they need a big state to steal the money to pay their wages. It's a lot easier than growing up and getting a job someone wants them to do and is willing to pay for voluntarily.

    Remember, all political types hate who you are, what you want and your free will. They all love who you would become if you just obeyed them.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Generally it's because they work in fields that no one would voluntarily pay for, so they need a big state to steal the money to pay their wages. It's a lot easier than growing up and getting a job someone wants them to do and is willing to pay for voluntarily.
    Yes. Only lefties could come up with useless jobs like "five-a-day co-ordinators". People like these wouldn't survive five minutes running a real business. If you tried to set up a company, and there was so much bureaucracy involved, the company would go under within days. And only a far-left loonatic like Gordon Brown could use tax as a way to recruit loads of people into utterly pointless public sector jobs so they'll loyally vote Labour.
Sign In or Register to comment.