Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
Zod said:
gruffalo said:
You forgot the Wilson government, they didn't do too well either.
Labour can't do economics.
it's not so much that, but that they simply don't care, so long as they can build up the union-dominated public sector and the numbers dependent on government for employment, benefits or both.Labour can't do economics.
They only believe (quite rightly as it happens) that `someone' `somewhere' has more money than they have, and they want to get their hands on it. They also don`t care how those with more money than them, acquired that money, They just want to get their hands on it.
There are indeed the idle rich, but these are relatively small in number as a percentage of the population. Most of the rich make their money by taking risks in starting businesses and being either luckier / cleverer than the next. But this is how life works
and has done so since we first became upright apes.
A persons position in life, and income, is more a matter of a combination of intelligence, health, attitude / willingness to work, for a living (and of course luck) than anything else. If it was not, we would all be billionaire brain surgeons, airline
pilots, pop stars etc. but we are not.
In this country it makes no matter how low a person starts out from, if they have the intelligence, health, and willingness to work they can make a good (even an outstanding)living for themselves.(and pay their taxes)
The problem group, are those (rich or poor) who want the good lifestyle, but don't, or don't want to contribute to the country, or do the work needed to achieve it. The irony is that the `majority' of these tend to be `labour' voters. with their `others have got more than me and I want it' approach, rather than an `others have I got more than me, and I will work hard to get to that position too, outlook.
The average labour voter votes labour, because they don't look at the overall position.
They whinge about the cuts and the austerity measures. But that is the equivalent of blaming the doctor (tories) for giving them some nasty medicine, when they should really be blaming those who gave them the even nastier disease (which the medicine is for) in the first place (labour)
A Labour voter would say, "I want to take that away from him".
Saddle bum said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Zod said:
gruffalo said:
You forgot the Wilson government, they didn't do too well either.
Labour can't do economics.
it's not so much that, but that they simply don't care, so long as they can build up the union-dominated public sector and the numbers dependent on government for employment, benefits or both.Labour can't do economics.
They only believe (quite rightly as it happens) that `someone' `somewhere' has more money than they have, and they want to get their hands on it. They also don`t care how those with more money than them, acquired that money, They just want to get their hands on it.
There are indeed the idle rich, but these are relatively small in number as a percentage of the population. Most of the rich make their money by taking risks in starting businesses and being either luckier / cleverer than the next. But this is how life works
and has done so since we first became upright apes.
A persons position in life, and income, is more a matter of a combination of intelligence, health, attitude / willingness to work, for a living (and of course luck) than anything else. If it was not, we would all be billionaire brain surgeons, airline
pilots, pop stars etc. but we are not.
In this country it makes no matter how low a person starts out from, if they have the intelligence, health, and willingness to work they can make a good (even an outstanding)living for themselves.(and pay their taxes)
The problem group, are those (rich or poor) who want the good lifestyle, but don't, or don't want to contribute to the country, or do the work needed to achieve it. The irony is that the `majority' of these tend to be `labour' voters. with their `others have got more than me and I want it' approach, rather than an `others have I got more than me, and I will work hard to get to that position too, outlook.
The average labour voter votes labour, because they don't look at the overall position.
They whinge about the cuts and the austerity measures. But that is the equivalent of blaming the doctor (tories) for giving them some nasty medicine, when they should really be blaming those who gave them the even nastier disease (which the medicine is for) in the first place (labour)
A Labour voter would say, "I want to take that away from him".
She's going to take it to spunk up the wall faster than Bill on an intern's blue dress.
Just say no, don't vote spunker.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: If you're going to quote her you should probably do it in context to be fair 
"Many of you are well enough off that...the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."It's no better, both parts are envyist and/or nanny pinkostate. Still deluded, she's a true spunkophile as long as it's other people's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FdbH4rN9b4
Miliband must be pretty desperate to go over to Russell Brand's house in the middle of the night to offer him an interview.
Miliband must be pretty desperate to go over to Russell Brand's house in the middle of the night to offer him an interview.
Edited by BlackLabel on Tuesday 28th April 18:18
johnxjsc1985 said:
williamp said:
Glad Ed Milliband supporting the german car industry with a 5 series. If only we had a car industry he could support..
I hope somebody reminds him when he goes to the midlands ,Coventry perhaps.P5Nij said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
williamp said:
Glad Ed Milliband supporting the german car industry with a 5 series. If only we had a car industry he could support..
I hope somebody reminds him when he goes to the midlands ,Coventry perhaps.
Watched an episode of Bear Grylls `The Island' the other day, and it was a fairly a fairly good metaphor for society.
They `all' needed to work at surviving
There was one bloke, who understood the position they were in, and started to work to improve it.
There were a larger group, who were prepared to graft, but needed a bit of leadership
to ensure they acquired enough resource to survive.
Finally there was one bloke who sat on the beach all day cleaning the sand from between his toes with a toothbrush. but still expected to share the resources (water, shelter, food etc, that the others had assembled.
Guess which one epitomises the average labour supporter?
They `all' needed to work at surviving
There was one bloke, who understood the position they were in, and started to work to improve it.
There were a larger group, who were prepared to graft, but needed a bit of leadership
to ensure they acquired enough resource to survive.
Finally there was one bloke who sat on the beach all day cleaning the sand from between his toes with a toothbrush. but still expected to share the resources (water, shelter, food etc, that the others had assembled.
Guess which one epitomises the average labour supporter?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff