Why will you be voting Labour?
Discussion
dazzztay said:
If the conservatives get in and things improve then i will gladly 'eat my words' - but i dont think things would be so much better with their mandate and daft buggers in power!
But if the Torys get in you won't ever think things have improved as they'll (hopefully) set about clearing Labours debt and things will be bleak (tax rises and cuts to public services). Think of Labour as the parent buying favour with their children by throwing sweets and money at them whilst the Conservatives are the ones who have to step to impose some discipline. Who's your favourite parent and who's doing you the most good?
Key said:
If the tories were proposing major changes that I thought were for the better I'd have no problem voting for them. I just don't see it.
The tories have also made it clear they plan to cut Scottish spending (where I live) quite drastically as well as cutting a multi billion £ contract that pays my wages.
So the tories will not be getting my vote, Labour still need to work for it though they are not guaranteed my vote.
I will bet you that whoever gets in will be forced to make similar cuts.The tories have also made it clear they plan to cut Scottish spending (where I live) quite drastically as well as cutting a multi billion £ contract that pays my wages.
So the tories will not be getting my vote, Labour still need to work for it though they are not guaranteed my vote.
Key said:
The tories have also made it clear they plan to cut Scottish spending (where I live) quite drastically as well as cutting a multi billion £ contract that pays my wages.
And what will that multi billion contract look like to you when the IMF have to bail us out under a Labour government? Rank selfishness, and why this country is fooked, just like the dumb Stavros' striking in Greece over the austerity cuts.Key said:
The tories have also made it clear they plan to cut Scottish spending (where I live) quite drastically
Who ever gets in power will have to cut spending across the UK, including Scotland, as a result of years of economic mismanagement by Gordon Brown. It is crazy to blame the people who have to fix the mess rather than the people who caused it.
Political Pain said:
Daztay, your view point is valid, but very selfish, you see no evil when you look at the impositions because you see a greater evil when you look at the whole terrorist/bad guy thing.
The selfishness comes from the fact that you are not considering that your fellow citizens see it as an imposition.
I see the terrorist threat and I see the basic freedoms threat, for me the latter exceeds the former hugely, the difference is that my position does not impinge on every single citizen around me, whereas your position does, you seek to impose on me something that every day has sinister overtones and has the potential for sinister outcomes. [There is some belief and some evidence too that 'terror laws' have effectively quelled opposition to fuel price protests]
This isn't supposition or conjecture, this is today, already happening in your presence, yet you propound that you don't see it.
Although i see your point, i dissagree with your statement. The selfishness comes from the fact that you are not considering that your fellow citizens see it as an imposition.
I see the terrorist threat and I see the basic freedoms threat, for me the latter exceeds the former hugely, the difference is that my position does not impinge on every single citizen around me, whereas your position does, you seek to impose on me something that every day has sinister overtones and has the potential for sinister outcomes. [There is some belief and some evidence too that 'terror laws' have effectively quelled opposition to fuel price protests]
This isn't supposition or conjecture, this is today, already happening in your presence, yet you propound that you don't see it.
Every topic anyone bases a decission to vote for on is right for that person or their beliefs; and wrong for the people opposing that topic or belief. It does not mean that every decission anyone makes is selfish - am i selfish for not supporting the green people by preferring nuclear power?
Key said:
The tories have also made it clear they plan to cut Scottish spending (where I live) quite drastically as well as cutting a multi billion £ contract that pays my wages.
The cut is coming or we face real trouble...So do you trust Labour who got us here and have simply delayed the medicine to get past the election or another party who say we start on day one?
Look at it this way, it will take 5 years of hell, by delaying it we add another year of gross expenditure, effectively adding 20% to the cuts when they come [100bn = 20bn by starting now or 120bn = 24bn by delaying] your job is at risk either way, but a greater risk and you have a government with a track record of caring for its own position more than that of its citizens [by delaying things 'til after the election] so both trust and probity is in serious doubt with labour in a way that simply isn't there with the Conservatives.
dazzztay said:
am i selfish for not supporting the green people by preferring nuclear power?
Actually, to a degree, that probably is selfish. Preferring the known down sides of nuclear power and heating my home to the potential detriment of others. I count myself in the same boat though!dazzztay said:
Political Pain said:
Daztay, your view point is valid, but very selfish, you see no evil when you look at the impositions because you see a greater evil when you look at the whole terrorist/bad guy thing.
The selfishness comes from the fact that you are not considering that your fellow citizens see it as an imposition.
I see the terrorist threat and I see the basic freedoms threat, for me the latter exceeds the former hugely, the difference is that my position does not impinge on every single citizen around me, whereas your position does, you seek to impose on me something that every day has sinister overtones and has the potential for sinister outcomes. [There is some belief and some evidence too that 'terror laws' have effectively quelled opposition to fuel price protests]
This isn't supposition or conjecture, this is today, already happening in your presence, yet you propound that you don't see it.
Although i see your point, i dissagree with your statement. The selfishness comes from the fact that you are not considering that your fellow citizens see it as an imposition.
I see the terrorist threat and I see the basic freedoms threat, for me the latter exceeds the former hugely, the difference is that my position does not impinge on every single citizen around me, whereas your position does, you seek to impose on me something that every day has sinister overtones and has the potential for sinister outcomes. [There is some belief and some evidence too that 'terror laws' have effectively quelled opposition to fuel price protests]
This isn't supposition or conjecture, this is today, already happening in your presence, yet you propound that you don't see it.
Every topic anyone bases a decission to vote for on is right for that person or their beliefs; and wrong for the people opposing that topic or belief. It does not mean that every decission anyone makes is selfish - am i selfish for not supporting the green people by preferring nuclear power?
But you are saying to me that you wish, through your own fear, to impose on me something that I fear far more than terrorists and that is oppression through government action.
Self-interest at the expense of anothers freedom is hard to define as anything but selfish, but I will try to frame my words in a kinder way in future.
In answer to your question, no that is not selfish, it is a choice that does not kerb the greens freedom, if your stance was to spy on the Greens in order to dissolve their protests then that would be selfish.
Perhaps you can see the difficulty in finding a word to replace selfish now, your stance is allowing me to be spied on and any dissent I may be given to make in the future could [and doubtless would] be open to similar dissolution.
I'll drag out a thesaurus and find a less bitter tasting word.
Political Pain said:
dazzztay said:
Political Pain said:
Daztay, your view point is valid, but very selfish, you see no evil when you look at the impositions because you see a greater evil when you look at the whole terrorist/bad guy thing.
The selfishness comes from the fact that you are not considering that your fellow citizens see it as an imposition.
I see the terrorist threat and I see the basic freedoms threat, for me the latter exceeds the former hugely, the difference is that my position does not impinge on every single citizen around me, whereas your position does, you seek to impose on me something that every day has sinister overtones and has the potential for sinister outcomes. [There is some belief and some evidence too that 'terror laws' have effectively quelled opposition to fuel price protests]
This isn't supposition or conjecture, this is today, already happening in your presence, yet you propound that you don't see it.
Although i see your point, i dissagree with your statement. The selfishness comes from the fact that you are not considering that your fellow citizens see it as an imposition.
I see the terrorist threat and I see the basic freedoms threat, for me the latter exceeds the former hugely, the difference is that my position does not impinge on every single citizen around me, whereas your position does, you seek to impose on me something that every day has sinister overtones and has the potential for sinister outcomes. [There is some belief and some evidence too that 'terror laws' have effectively quelled opposition to fuel price protests]
This isn't supposition or conjecture, this is today, already happening in your presence, yet you propound that you don't see it.
Every topic anyone bases a decission to vote for on is right for that person or their beliefs; and wrong for the people opposing that topic or belief. It does not mean that every decission anyone makes is selfish - am i selfish for not supporting the green people by preferring nuclear power?
But you are saying to me that you wish, through your own fear, to impose on me something that I fear far more than terrorists and that is oppression through government action.
Self-interest at the expense of anothers freedom is hard to define as anything but selfish, but I will try to frame my words in a kinder way in future.
In answer to your question, no that is not selfish, it is a choice that does not kerb the greens freedom, if your stance was to spy on the Greens in order to dissolve their protests then that would be selfish.
Perhaps you can see the difficulty in finding a word to replace selfish now, your stance is allowing me to be spied on and any dissent I may be given to make in the future could [and doubtless would] be open to similar dissolution.
I'll drag out a thesaurus and find a less bitter tasting word.
Its home time though and as much fun as this has been, family are more improtant in the evenings - might be on here for round 2 tomorrow!
Cheers
dazzztay said:
Political Pain said:
dazzztay said:
Political Pain said:
Daztay, your view point is valid, but very selfish, you see no evil when you look at the impositions because you see a greater evil when you look at the whole terrorist/bad guy thing.
The selfishness comes from the fact that you are not considering that your fellow citizens see it as an imposition.
I see the terrorist threat and I see the basic freedoms threat, for me the latter exceeds the former hugely, the difference is that my position does not impinge on every single citizen around me, whereas your position does, you seek to impose on me something that every day has sinister overtones and has the potential for sinister outcomes. [There is some belief and some evidence too that 'terror laws' have effectively quelled opposition to fuel price protests]
This isn't supposition or conjecture, this is today, already happening in your presence, yet you propound that you don't see it.
Although i see your point, i dissagree with your statement. The selfishness comes from the fact that you are not considering that your fellow citizens see it as an imposition.
I see the terrorist threat and I see the basic freedoms threat, for me the latter exceeds the former hugely, the difference is that my position does not impinge on every single citizen around me, whereas your position does, you seek to impose on me something that every day has sinister overtones and has the potential for sinister outcomes. [There is some belief and some evidence too that 'terror laws' have effectively quelled opposition to fuel price protests]
This isn't supposition or conjecture, this is today, already happening in your presence, yet you propound that you don't see it.
Every topic anyone bases a decission to vote for on is right for that person or their beliefs; and wrong for the people opposing that topic or belief. It does not mean that every decission anyone makes is selfish - am i selfish for not supporting the green people by preferring nuclear power?
But you are saying to me that you wish, through your own fear, to impose on me something that I fear far more than terrorists and that is oppression through government action.
Self-interest at the expense of anothers freedom is hard to define as anything but selfish, but I will try to frame my words in a kinder way in future.
In answer to your question, no that is not selfish, it is a choice that does not kerb the greens freedom, if your stance was to spy on the Greens in order to dissolve their protests then that would be selfish.
Perhaps you can see the difficulty in finding a word to replace selfish now, your stance is allowing me to be spied on and any dissent I may be given to make in the future could [and doubtless would] be open to similar dissolution.
I'll drag out a thesaurus and find a less bitter tasting word.
Its home time though and as much fun as this has been, family are more improtant in the evenings - might be on here for round 2 tomorrow!
Cheers
The NHS isn't bloody good because you say it is. It isn't bloody good, in fact it's far from it. It is a huge black hole of money and resources, which has been entirely mismanaged and misappropriated by your friends in Labour to make political points at the expense of patient care and control of NHS budgets. You can live in your dream world, where Gordon Brown is a blameless benevolent leader, but the rest of us have to live in a country, broken by 13 years of social engineering and laden with massive levels of debt that we don't want and didn't ask for.
If Labour win the election the cuts they make are going to be astonishingly hard. You will suffer as a consequence, make no doubt. The difference between Labour and Conservatives is that the Tories have a realistic plan to cut the deficit and get this country back on it's feet, not perfect but at least they will not throw money at big government rubbish that Labour have been doing for years. If Labour do win, and are supported by votes of people like you, then you should be ashamed of yourself, as you've sold us all down the river.
NoelWatson said:
dazzztay said:
Digga said:
elster said:
dazzztay said:
I think we have a bloody good NHS.
It is extremely poorly mismanaged and the amount of money spent on the irrelevant is beyond belief.- The sheers number of employees; Over 1.5 million. Only the Chinese People's Liberation Army, the Wal-Mart supermarket chain and the Indian Railways directly employ more people. How is this rational in a piss pot little island economy?
- The NHS accounts are so riddled with vagueries and innacuracies - with several billion 'unaccounted for' - that no single auditor is prepared to sign them off.
Had some discomfort in my stomach, went to my GP's in Nov 09. I didn't actually see my GP, I haven't actually seen him for years other than wandering around the surgery. I explained to Generic Doctor #312 my issue and at the start of Dec 09 I had blood tests and an Ultra Sound at the hospital. I was told they'd contact me with the results. By the end of March 2010 (still suffering discomfort in my stomach) I still hadn't heard from them so made another appintment to see 'my' GP. This time I saw Generic Doctor #420 where I proceeded to explain the problems I'd already told previous Generic Doctor. He said he'd refer me to the Gastroenterologist at the hospital. No mention of the previous blood tests or Ultra Sound results. A week later my GP's surgery phoned to say my forms were available for collection. The forms required for the NHS's 'Choose and Book' system. Just to reiterate that, it took them a week just to process some forms so I could make an appointment!
I arrive home, I go to the website and I follow the instructions to 'Choose' and 'Book' my appointment only to be told "Sorry, no appointments avilable, please try again later". When 'later'? Tomorrow? Next Week? Next Month? Next Year? Who knows, simply 'later'!
For two weeks I've been trying to book an appointment only to be told there are none but the fun doesn't end there, oh no, just to rub salt in the wounds, I'm now receiving letters from the NHS informing me "Our records show you haven't booked your appintment". Really? Your records show that? Do your f
king records also show you have no fking appointments? You useless bunch of fking s!Oh, wait, you said 'good' service.
Ok, head above the parapet.
I'll be voting labour purely because I think George Osborne will make a shocking chancellor.
Flame away................
(ETA I live in an extremely safe tory seat, so it makes bugger all difference who I vote for.)
I'll be voting labour purely because I think George Osborne will make a shocking chancellor.
Flame away................
(ETA I live in an extremely safe tory seat, so it makes bugger all difference who I vote for.)
Edited by Blue160 on Tuesday 27th April 18:25
Blue160 said:
Ok, head above the parapet.
I'll be voting labour purely because I think George Osborne will make a shocking chancellor.
Flame away................
(ETA I live in an extremely safe tory seat, so it makes bugger all difference who I vote for.)
On what basis can you judge Osborne to be a poor chancellor? Worse than Darling? Or more likely to be Ed Balls who will succeed him?I'll be voting labour purely because I think George Osborne will make a shocking chancellor.
Flame away................
(ETA I live in an extremely safe tory seat, so it makes bugger all difference who I vote for.)
Edited by Blue160 on Tuesday 27th April 18:25
968 said:
Blue160 said:
Ok, head above the parapet.
I'll be voting labour purely because I think George Osborne will make a shocking chancellor.
Flame away................
(ETA I live in an extremely safe tory seat, so it makes bugger all difference who I vote for.)
On what basis can you judge Osborne to be a poor chancellor? Worse than Darling? Or more likely to be Ed Balls who will succeed him?I'll be voting labour purely because I think George Osborne will make a shocking chancellor.
Flame away................
(ETA I live in an extremely safe tory seat, so it makes bugger all difference who I vote for.)
Edited by Blue160 on Tuesday 27th April 18:25
I see no way Brown can continue as PM after the election whatever happens, as he won't get the mandate he needs. I'm not crazy about some of the things Labour have done, but to me the current conservative front bench aren't an attractive alternative.
130R said:
The position of chancellor is vastly overrated, they don't decide anything on their own. What does Darling know about economics anyway? Probably fk all since he was a solicitor in his past life.
Brown instructs Darling about almost everything. I thought this was a widely agreed fact?k all since he was a solicitor in his past life.130R said:
The position of chancellor is vastly overrated, they don't decide anything on their own.
Hang on, if the chancellor is unimportant then why is the recession all Browns fault?130R said:
What does Darling know about economics anyway? Probably fk all since he was a solicitor in his past life.
I suspect Osborne knows fk all since he was a solicitor in his past life.k all, and he barely has a past life.
What a pack of wkers PH now attracts.
What's with the personal insults levelled at those wishing to vote labour?
Whatever their reasons, they do not deserve the totally unwarranted insults. Perhaps instead of childish baiting you could ask why and prompt some interesting debate, rather than the, sadly all too common, PH public humiliation of someone who has an idea that differs from the norm on here.
kers PH now attracts. What's with the personal insults levelled at those wishing to vote labour?
Whatever their reasons, they do not deserve the totally unwarranted insults. Perhaps instead of childish baiting you could ask why and prompt some interesting debate, rather than the, sadly all too common, PH public humiliation of someone who has an idea that differs from the norm on here.
dandarez said:
I live in Cameron's constituency but the moment he dropped the Referendum he lost my vote.
Danderez, I need to bring you up on this. At the time of the treaty being signed, the media jumped on Cameron for 'going back on his word'. But he didn't. He stated that he would hold a referendum in the event of the tories coming to power if the treaty had not been ratified.As soon as it was signed by the Czech Republic he wasn't able to fulfill his promise. The media still chose to tow the line that the tories had back-tracked without stating the facts.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff