Reform UK

[tangerine_sedge]

Pan Pan Pan said:

We have had labour, and tory governments since the last war, and neither have been any good for the working people of the UK.

You must have missed the bit where they set up the Welfare state, massively improved the housing stock, improved working conditions in every industry through various workplace acts, and ensured that everyone was eligible for holidays/sick pay/maternity pay/minimum pay and redundancy conditions and pay.

But other than that, what have the Romans governments done for the working man?

[hidetheelephants]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Killboy said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

If you believe that teh other parties are not offering moon sticks, the interesting bias is all yours.

Why do you constantly single out Labour (unbiasedly of course) but you can't actually seem to discuss anything they are proposing?

That is simple, I don't like the tories, but I absolutely loathe dishonest labour.
I am just pointing out. the ridiculous ways those who support labour, seem to believe they are better than the tories, when they factually are not. It is just a case of `their' anti tory bias coming to the fore.
We have had labour, and tory governments since the last war, and neither have been any good for the working people of the UK. .

This is ridiculous; You're dismissing the entirety of the postwar settlement as no good, you are an unserious person. The idea that the life of the average citizen and indeed the very poor has not vastly improved since 1939 is preposterous. What is true is that there is a perception of this being the first generation since then to be worse off than their parents, in some respects facts back up this perception. Rectifying that is a tall order, I don't know if a Labour govt will achieve it but I'm quite sure racist dogwhistle garbage like Rwanda isn't the way to do it.

[bitchstewie]

I think Pan Pan Pan is just one of a number of posters who now that the Conservatives have made themselves unelectable and he's faced with a Labour Government is now turning to the "they're all as bad" rhetoric.

He's still stuck at the bargaining phase from the sound of it.

Actions have consequences shocker.

[Pan Pan Pan]

tangerine_sedge said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

We have had labour, and tory governments since the last war, and neither have been any good for the working people of the UK.

You must have missed the bit where they set up the Welfare state, massively improved the housing stock, improved working conditions in every industry through various workplace acts, and ensured that everyone was eligible for holidays/sick pay/maternity pay/minimum pay and redundancy conditions and pay.

But other than that, what have the Romans governments done for the working man?

And you have just confirmed `your' blind bias towards labour.
You must have missed, who it was, who set up the industries you mention, in the first place, giving most of the rest of us the chance to earn a living, that few who support labour would ever set up.
The moment any one works hard to make a good living, labour are there, finding myriad new ways of taking taxes off those who work hard. Even their party name is dishonest, designed to make the hard of thinking believe that just because they `work', labour must be the party for them.
It does not matter whether a person is sweeping the factory floor, or is in the boardroom, directing the company. BOTH are `working' for a living.
The difference between where they are, is dependent on many factors including, intelligence, health, work ethic, and in many cases a willingness to risk their own wealth, to set the company up in the first place.
There wouldn't even be the welfare state, improved housing stock, a place where working conditions are improved, holidays, sick pay. maternity pay, and redundancy pay, if the businesses where people work had not been set up in the first place. Governments only take money it is the private sector that makes the money that everyone depends on.
Labour are the party of the shirker, not the worker.
The idea behind the welfare state was a good one, But it has been abused by so many, it is now often a joke, and poke in the eye for those who do work hard and who don't want be dependent on the state.
Those who don't work or work very little are doubly bad for the country, because not only do they take the most out of the state funds, they are also the ones who tend to contribute the least.

[Pan Pan Pan]

hidetheelephants said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Killboy said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

If you believe that teh other parties are not offering moon sticks, the interesting bias is all yours.

Why do you constantly single out Labour (unbiasedly of course) but you can't actually seem to discuss anything they are proposing?

That is simple, I don't like the tories, but I absolutely loathe dishonest labour.
I am just pointing out. the ridiculous ways those who support labour, seem to believe they are better than the tories, when they factually are not. It is just a case of `their' anti tory bias coming to the fore.
We have had labour, and tory governments since the last war, and neither have been any good for the working people of the UK. .

This is ridiculous; You're dismissing the entirety of the postwar settlement as no good, you are an unserious person. The idea that the life of the average citizen and indeed the very poor has not vastly improved since 1939 is preposterous. What is true is that there is a perception of this being the first generation since then to be worse off than their parents, in some respects facts back up this perception. Rectifying that is a tall order, I don't know if a Labour govt will achieve it but I'm quite sure racist dogwhistle garbage like Rwanda isn't the way to do it.

[Pan Pan Pan]

hidetheelephants said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Killboy said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

If you believe that teh other parties are not offering moon sticks, the interesting bias is all yours.

Why do you constantly single out Labour (unbiasedly of course) but you can't actually seem to discuss anything they are proposing?

That is simple, I don't like the tories, but I absolutely loathe dishonest labour.
I am just pointing out. the ridiculous ways those who support labour, seem to believe they are better than the tories, when they factually are not. It is just a case of `their' anti tory bias coming to the fore.
We have had labour, and tory governments since the last war, and neither have been any good for the working people of the UK. .

This is ridiculous; You're dismissing the entirety of the postwar settlement as no good, you are an unserious person. The idea that the life of the average citizen and indeed the very poor has not vastly improved since 1939 is preposterous. What is true is that there is a perception of this being the first generation since then to be worse off than their parents, in some respects facts back up this perception. Rectifying that is a tall order, I don't know if a Labour govt will achieve it but I'm quite sure racist dogwhistle garbage like Rwanda isn't the way to do it.

Who was saying the life of the average citizen and the very poor has not improved since 1939?. Not me. But all the improvements you refer to, had to be paid for, from somewhere.
The UK was virtually bankrupt after WW2.
The welfare state, and NHS was set up using American money from the Marshall plan (which has only just been paid back)
The latest generation are the first to have been affected by both Both the Covid pandemic shut down, and the war in Ukraine. Covid and the war in Ukraine, which were the most serious events to affect the UK (and many other countries) economies) since WW2.
Strange how many forget that the government paid many people to sit in their homes, for almost 9 months, Do you think doing that all came for free?
Since the price of EVERYTHING from food, products, services, to hospitals, schools, raw materials, and for manufacturing is affected by the price of fuel, why do you ignore the global effect that war in Ukraine, had on economies all over the world, and not just in the UK?

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Saturday 20th April 19:02

[Randy Winkman]

Pan Pan Pan said:

tangerine_sedge said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

We have had labour, and tory governments since the last war, and neither have been any good for the working people of the UK.

You must have missed the bit where they set up the Welfare state, massively improved the housing stock, improved working conditions in every industry through various workplace acts, and ensured that everyone was eligible for holidays/sick pay/maternity pay/minimum pay and redundancy conditions and pay.

But other than that, what have the Romans governments done for the working man?

And you have just confirmed `your' blind bias towards labour.
You must have missed, who it was, who set up the industries you mention, in the first place, giving most of the rest of us the chance to earn a living, that few who support labour would ever set up.
The moment any one works hard to make a good living, labour are there, finding myriad new ways of taking taxes off those who work hard. Even their party name is dishonest, designed to make the hard of thinking believe that just because they `work', labour must be the party for them.
It does not matter whether a person is sweeping the factory floor, or is in the boardroom, directing the company. BOTH are `working' for a living.
The difference between where they are, is dependent on many factors including, intelligence, health, work ethic, and in many cases a willingness to risk their own wealth, to set the company up in the first place.
There wouldn't even be the welfare state, improved housing stock, a place where working conditions are improved, holidays, sick pay. maternity pay, and redundancy pay, if the businesses where people work had not been set up in the first place. Governments only take money it is the private sector that makes the money that everyone depends on.
Labour are the party of the shirker, not the worker.
The idea behind the welfare state was a good one, But it has been abused by so many, it is now often a joke, and poke in the eye for those who do work hard and who don't want be dependent on the state.
Those who don't work or work very little are doubly bad for the country, because not only do they take the most out of the state funds, they are also the ones who tend to contribute the least.

Sorry to get personal but you are utterly ridiculous. "Blind bias"? Do you not see that's you? Are you for real?

[Pan Pan Pan]

bhstewie said:

I think Pan Pan Pan is just one of a number of posters who now that the Conservatives have made themselves unelectable and he's faced with a Labour Government is now turning to the "they're all as bad" rhetoric.

He's still stuck at the bargaining phase from the sound of it.

Actions have consequences shocker.

Wrong!. I couldn't stand Johnson, and never believed he would make a decent PM. And yes I once voted labour, however you seem to forget that even with a 150 seat majority, labour also made themselves unelectable. at the last GE.
It is precisely what labour and tory governments do., and have done, for at least the last 50 years
The truly sad ones, are those who cannot see past their red, or blue tinted glasses. They are the ones stuck in the tribal time warp, doomed to carry on voting labour, or tory, blindly (and insanely) and believing that `this' time it will be better. It never has. So the blind belief that it will be better with the next tory/ labour / tory / labour government gets in literally is just a case of blind hope, and clutching at non existent red or blue straws.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Tuesday 23 April 09:26

[Pan Pan Pan]

Randy Winkman said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

tangerine_sedge said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

We have had labour, and tory governments since the last war, and neither have been any good for the working people of the UK.

You must have missed the bit where they set up the Welfare state, massively improved the housing stock, improved working conditions in every industry through various workplace acts, and ensured that everyone was eligible for holidays/sick pay/maternity pay/minimum pay and redundancy conditions and pay.

But other than that, what have the Romans governments done for the working man?

And you have just confirmed `your' blind bias towards labour.
You must have missed, who it was, who set up the industries you mention, in the first place, giving most of the rest of us the chance to earn a living, that few who support labour would ever set up.
The moment any one works hard to make a good living, labour are there, finding myriad new ways of taking taxes off those who work hard. Even their party name is dishonest, designed to make the hard of thinking believe that just because they `work', labour must be the party for them.
It does not matter whether a person is sweeping the factory floor, or is in the boardroom, directing the company. BOTH are `working' for a living.
The difference between where they are, is dependent on many factors including, intelligence, health, work ethic, and in many cases a willingness to risk their own wealth, to set the company up in the first place.
There wouldn't even be the welfare state, improved housing stock, a place where working conditions are improved, holidays, sick pay. maternity pay, and redundancy pay, if the businesses where people work had not been set up in the first place. Governments only take money it is the private sector that makes the money that everyone depends on.
Labour are the party of the shirker, not the worker.
The idea behind the welfare state was a good one, But it has been abused by so many, it is now often a joke, and poke in the eye for those who do work hard and who don't want be dependent on the state.
Those who don't work or work very little are doubly bad for the country, because not only do they take the most out of the state funds, they are also the ones who tend to contribute the least.

Sorry to get personal but you are utterly ridiculous. "Blind bias"? Do you not see that's you? Are you for real?

Since it is you who seems happy to indulge in blind bias. Do you not see, that that, is the exact description of you too?

[smn159]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Randy Winkman said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

tangerine_sedge said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

We have had labour, and tory governments since the last war, and neither have been any good for the working people of the UK.

You must have missed the bit where they set up the Welfare state, massively improved the housing stock, improved working conditions in every industry through various workplace acts, and ensured that everyone was eligible for holidays/sick pay/maternity pay/minimum pay and redundancy conditions and pay.

But other than that, what have the Romans governments done for the working man?

And you have just confirmed `your' blind bias towards labour.
You must have missed, who it was, who set up the industries you mention, in the first place, giving most of the rest of us the chance to earn a living, that few who support labour would ever set up.
The moment any one works hard to make a good living, labour are there, finding myriad new ways of taking taxes off those who work hard. Even their party name is dishonest, designed to make the hard of thinking believe that just because they `work', labour must be the party for them.
It does not matter whether a person is sweeping the factory floor, or is in the boardroom, directing the company. BOTH are `working' for a living.
The difference between where they are, is dependent on many factors including, intelligence, health, work ethic, and in many cases a willingness to risk their own wealth, to set the company up in the first place.
There wouldn't even be the welfare state, improved housing stock, a place where working conditions are improved, holidays, sick pay. maternity pay, and redundancy pay, if the businesses where people work had not been set up in the first place. Governments only take money it is the private sector that makes the money that everyone depends on.
Labour are the party of the shirker, not the worker.
The idea behind the welfare state was a good one, But it has been abused by so many, it is now often a joke, and poke in the eye for those who do work hard and who don't want be dependent on the state.
Those who don't work or work very little are doubly bad for the country, because not only do they take the most out of the state funds, they are also the ones who tend to contribute the least.

Sorry to get personal but you are utterly ridiculous. "Blind bias"? Do you not see that's you? Are you for real?

Since it is you who seems happy to indulge in blind bias. Do you not see, that that, is the exact description of you too?

He's right though. Your posts are word salads of repeated slogans that you believe and probably have always believed and always will believe, impervious to any evidence.

[Pan Pan Pan]

smn159 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Randy Winkman said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

tangerine_sedge said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

We have had labour, and tory governments since the last war, and neither have been any good for the working people of the UK.

You must have missed the bit where they set up the Welfare state, massively improved the housing stock, improved working conditions in every industry through various workplace acts, and ensured that everyone was eligible for holidays/sick pay/maternity pay/minimum pay and redundancy conditions and pay.

But other than that, what have the Romans governments done for the working man?

And you have just confirmed `your' blind bias towards labour.
You must have missed, who it was, who set up the industries you mention, in the first place, giving most of the rest of us the chance to earn a living, that few who support labour would ever set up.
The moment any one works hard to make a good living, labour are there, finding myriad new ways of taking taxes off those who work hard. Even their party name is dishonest, designed to make the hard of thinking believe that just because they `work', labour must be the party for them.
It does not matter whether a person is sweeping the factory floor, or is in the boardroom, directing the company. BOTH are `working' for a living.
The difference between where they are, is dependent on many factors including, intelligence, health, work ethic, and in many cases a willingness to risk their own wealth, to set the company up in the first place.
There wouldn't even be the welfare state, improved housing stock, a place where working conditions are improved, holidays, sick pay. maternity pay, and redundancy pay, if the businesses where people work had not been set up in the first place. Governments only take money it is the private sector that makes the money that everyone depends on.
Labour are the party of the shirker, not the worker.
The idea behind the welfare state was a good one, But it has been abused by so many, it is now often a joke, and poke in the eye for those who do work hard and who don't want be dependent on the state.
Those who don't work or work very little are doubly bad for the country, because not only do they take the most out of the state funds, they are also the ones who tend to contribute the least.

Sorry to get personal but you are utterly ridiculous. "Blind bias"? Do you not see that's you? Are you for real?

Since it is you who seems happy to indulge in blind bias. Do you not see, that that, is the exact description of you too?

He's right though. Your posts are word salads of repeated slogans that you believe and probably have always believed and always will believe, impervious to any evidence.

And you are just another case in point. Just as the comments tthat those who support labour regurgitate, in support of their party, are based on rubbish put out by Starmer and Co and `you' are falling for it! Again!

[Oilchange]

2xChevrons said:

Don't. Talk. st.

The NSDAP didn't 'sweep up both ends of the spectrum'.

That was the intention, whether they voted for then Nazis isn’t what I meant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

‘The renaming of the German Worker's Party (DAP) to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) was partially driven by a desire to draw upon both left-wing and right-wing ideals, with "Socialist" and "Workers'" appealing to the left, and "National" and "German" appealing to the right.’


So I wasn’t talking st, thanks, corporal.

[biggbn]

Pan Pan Pan said:

And you have just confirmed `your' blind bias towards labour.
You must have missed, who it was, who set up the industries you mention, in the first place, giving most of the rest of us the chance to earn a living, that few who support labour would ever set up.
The moment any one works hard to make a good living, labour are there, finding myriad new ways of taking taxes off those who work hard. Even their party name is dishonest, designed to make the hard of thinking believe that just because they `work', labour must be the party for them.
It does not matter whether a person is sweeping the factory floor, or is in the boardroom, directing the company. BOTH are `working' for a living.
The difference between where they are, is dependent on many factors including, intelligence, health, work ethic, and in many cases a willingness to risk their own wealth, to set the company up in the first place.
There wouldn't even be the welfare state, improved housing stock, a place where working conditions are improved, holidays, sick pay. maternity pay, and redundancy pay, if the businesses where people work had not been set up in the first place. Governments only take money it is the private sector that makes the money that everyone depends on.
Labour are the party of the shirker, not the worker.
The idea behind the welfare state was a good one, But it has been abused by so many, it is now often a joke, and poke in the eye for those who do work hard and who don't want be dependent on the state.
Those who don't work or work very little are doubly bad for the country, because not only do they take the most out of the state funds, they are also the ones who tend to contribute the least.

I have posted some satirical material today, some of which was mistaken for real opinion. I cam see why. Keep on keeping on brother man. Power to the people!!

[captain_cynic]

Oilchange said:

2xChevrons said:

Don't. Talk. st.

The NSDAP didn't 'sweep up both ends of the spectrum'.

That was the intention, whether they voted for then Nazis isn’t what I meant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

‘The renaming of the German Worker's Party (DAP) to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) was partially driven by a desire to draw upon both left-wing and right-wing ideals, with "Socialist" and "Workers'" appealing to the left, and "National" and "German" appealing to the right.’


So I wasn’t talking st, thanks, corporal.

LoL,

It's obvious that you didn't even read your own link.

The first paragraph says they were pretty much exclusively far right before they became popular.

So you're definitely talking st.

[Randy Winkman]

Pan Pan Pan said:

smn159 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Randy Winkman said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

tangerine_sedge said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

We have had labour, and tory governments since the last war, and neither have been any good for the working people of the UK.

You must have missed the bit where they set up the Welfare state, massively improved the housing stock, improved working conditions in every industry through various workplace acts, and ensured that everyone was eligible for holidays/sick pay/maternity pay/minimum pay and redundancy conditions and pay.

But other than that, what have the Romans governments done for the working man?

And you have just confirmed `your' blind bias towards labour.
You must have missed, who it was, who set up the industries you mention, in the first place, giving most of the rest of us the chance to earn a living, that few who support labour would ever set up.
The moment any one works hard to make a good living, labour are there, finding myriad new ways of taking taxes off those who work hard. Even their party name is dishonest, designed to make the hard of thinking believe that just because they `work', labour must be the party for them.
It does not matter whether a person is sweeping the factory floor, or is in the boardroom, directing the company. BOTH are `working' for a living.
The difference between where they are, is dependent on many factors including, intelligence, health, work ethic, and in many cases a willingness to risk their own wealth, to set the company up in the first place.
There wouldn't even be the welfare state, improved housing stock, a place where working conditions are improved, holidays, sick pay. maternity pay, and redundancy pay, if the businesses where people work had not been set up in the first place. Governments only take money it is the private sector that makes the money that everyone depends on.
Labour are the party of the shirker, not the worker.
The idea behind the welfare state was a good one, But it has been abused by so many, it is now often a joke, and poke in the eye for those who do work hard and who don't want be dependent on the state.
Those who don't work or work very little are doubly bad for the country, because not only do they take the most out of the state funds, they are also the ones who tend to contribute the least.

Sorry to get personal but you are utterly ridiculous. "Blind bias"? Do you not see that's you? Are you for real?

Since it is you who seems happy to indulge in blind bias. Do you not see, that that, is the exact description of you too?

He's right though. Your posts are word salads of repeated slogans that you believe and probably have always believed and always will believe, impervious to any evidence.

And you are just another case in point. Just as the comments tthat those who support labour regurgitate, in support of their party, are based on rubbish put out by Starmer and Co and `you' are falling for it! Again!

I cant speak for anyone else but I certainly dont have "a party" and am not that optimistic about how Labour or SKS might perform. Not at all. But I just can't wait to get rid of the Tories.

[Oilchange]

captain_cynic said:

Oilchange said:

2xChevrons said:

Don't. Talk. st.

The NSDAP didn't 'sweep up both ends of the spectrum'.

That was the intention, whether they voted for then Nazis isn’t what I meant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

‘The renaming of the German Worker's Party (DAP) to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) was partially driven by a desire to draw upon both left-wing and right-wing ideals, with "Socialist" and "Workers'" appealing to the left, and "National" and "German" appealing to the right.’


So I wasn’t talking st, thanks, corporal.

LoL,

It's obvious that you didn't even read your own link.

The first paragraph says they were pretty much exclusively far right before they became popular.

So you're definitely talking st.

I didn't say they weren’t far right I said:
‘Even though Hitlers totalitarian party the ‘National Socialists’ swept up both ends of the spectrum to confuse the st out of any extremists…’

And I read it all thanks

[andyA700]

tangerine_sedge said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

We have had labour, and tory governments since the last war, and neither have been any good for the working people of the UK.

You must have missed the bit where they set up the Welfare state, massively improved the housing stock, improved working conditions in every industry through various workplace acts, and ensured that everyone was eligible for holidays/sick pay/maternity pay/minimum pay and redundancy conditions and pay.

But other than that, what have the Romans governments done for the working man?

I totally agree with your post, but that was "Old Labour", who were genuinely good and stood up for the poor and the working class. Unfortunately, everything changed for the worse, when Tony Blair (who I voted for) got in. He allied himself to the Neo Conservatives in the US, went along with Bush and co into the debacle which was Iraq, was involved in the MP's expenses scandal in 2008 (his financial records were shredded) and then handed the reins to Gordon Brown, who clearly hated the working class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parli...

[tangerine_sedge]

andyA700 said:

tangerine_sedge said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

We have had labour, and tory governments since the last war, and neither have been any good for the working people of the UK.

You must have missed the bit where they set up the Welfare state, massively improved the housing stock, improved working conditions in every industry through various workplace acts, and ensured that everyone was eligible for holidays/sick pay/maternity pay/minimum pay and redundancy conditions and pay.

But other than that, what have the Romans governments done for the working man?

I totally agree with your post, but that was "Old Labour", who were genuinely good and stood up for the poor and the working class. Unfortunately, everything changed for the worse, when Tony Blair (who I voted for) got in. He allied himself to the Neo Conservatives in the US, went along with Bush and co into the debacle which was Iraq, was involved in the MP's expenses scandal in 2008 (his financial records were shredded) and then handed the reins to Gordon Brown, who clearly hated the working class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parli...

Let's see what new-new-Labour end up being? BTW, I didn't vote for Blair, so it's your fault

Anyway, I posted that response due to PPPs absurd attempt at proclaiming "they're all the same" (obviously to imply that Reform will be different), when it's clear that conditions for the working person have significantly improved since WW2.

[Crippo]

Let’s be honest, it’s the Civil Servcie who are in charge and run the Country. If they don’t like what the Politians are doing they engineer them out. It’s next to impossible to fire them and next to that it’s impossible to get proper change. Brexit was a complete mistake for them but they did their best to make it as ineffectual as possible. The Bank of England, OBR and Captains of Industry are are extremely Pro immigration, so ending freedom of movement just forced them to open up to the rest of the World.
Nobody is addressing the Ponzi scheme that is our Pensions and Welfare state and this is why the aforementioned just want a larger and larger population. In truth I can’t see anyone standing for election on a Manifesto of addressing that, so population expansion and all the horror that brings is going to continue. The Tories and Labour are fully signed up to this so I couldn’t care less which one is in power. Everything I hate most about Labour has happened under the Conservatives…..Authoritarian Lockdown, workery, high taxes, running down the Military and probably loads of others I can’t be bothered to list. It will probably be even worse under Labour but none of them are going to reverse it.

So I really don’t care what Reform put in their Manifesto they are people most like me so I will vote for them.

[iphonedyou]

Crippo said:

So I really don’t care what Reform put in their Manifesto they are people most like me so I will vote for them.

That's one way of doing it, I guess.