Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?
Discussion
crankedup5 said:
b
hstewie said:
This was all over GBNews television broadcasting earlier today. The local mayor kicking off and trying to ban freedom of expression has given the Centre Right some useful publicity. Last year the National conservatism group held their conference in London, very near to Parliament. The conference was well attended and conducted with no issues at all.hstewie said:
Seems the U.K. is more open and transparent than Brussels local mayor, who is a socialist apparently.
And that's hard to argue with in this regard, this incident will be quoted from hereon in, closing political discourse down on a tissue of lies is never ever a good look.
I don't know anything about the mayor of Brussels, but based on this action I can't tell which side of the political debate he's on either.
Killboy said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
If you believe that teh other parties are not offering moon sticks, the interesting bias is all yours.
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. The tories tend to favour the rich end of the wealth spectrum, Labour tend to favour the I want something for nothing, and to be supported (and controlled) by the state end of the financial spectrum. Neither of which are any good.
Only when a government starts supporting those who have the temerity to want to go out, and do a days work for a days pay, will we find a government that looks after the people who `actually' support their country.
The current useless pair of parties, just support those parts of the country, where, they believe they can gain the most votes, to keep them in their well paid jobs as politicians..
heebeegeetee said:
Cranked is right, the mayor of Brussels proved to be a very useful idiot. Gave Farage a platform to say to the media "Thank goodness we have left the European Union".
And that's hard to argue with in this regard, this incident will be quoted from hereon in, closing political discourse down on a tissue of lies is never ever a good look.
I don't know anything about the mayor of Brussels, but based on this action I can't tell which side of the political debate he's on either.
But it was the European courts which forced the Mayor to allow it, which must be a real headscratcher for Farage and Co because their whole Brexit argument was about being controlled by unconstitutional European courts and not about the Mayor of Brussels! And that's hard to argue with in this regard, this incident will be quoted from hereon in, closing political discourse down on a tissue of lies is never ever a good look.
I don't know anything about the mayor of Brussels, but based on this action I can't tell which side of the political debate he's on either.
Condi said:
heebeegeetee said:
Cranked is right, the mayor of Brussels proved to be a very useful idiot. Gave Farage a platform to say to the media "Thank goodness we have left the European Union".
And that's hard to argue with in this regard, this incident will be quoted from hereon in, closing political discourse down on a tissue of lies is never ever a good look.
I don't know anything about the mayor of Brussels, but based on this action I can't tell which side of the political debate he's on either.
But it was the European courts which forced the Mayor to allow it, which must be a real headscratcher for Farage and Co because their whole Brexit argument was about being controlled by unconstitutional European courts and not about the Mayor of Brussels! And that's hard to argue with in this regard, this incident will be quoted from hereon in, closing political discourse down on a tissue of lies is never ever a good look.
I don't know anything about the mayor of Brussels, but based on this action I can't tell which side of the political debate he's on either.
Condi said:
heebeegeetee said:
Cranked is right, the mayor of Brussels proved to be a very useful idiot. Gave Farage a platform to say to the media "Thank goodness we have left the European Union".
And that's hard to argue with in this regard, this incident will be quoted from hereon in, closing political discourse down on a tissue of lies is never ever a good look.
I don't know anything about the mayor of Brussels, but based on this action I can't tell which side of the political debate he's on either.
But it was the European courts which forced the Mayor to allow it, which must be a real headscratcher for Farage and Co because their whole Brexit argument was about being controlled by unconstitutional European courts and not about the Mayor of Brussels! And that's hard to argue with in this regard, this incident will be quoted from hereon in, closing political discourse down on a tissue of lies is never ever a good look.
I don't know anything about the mayor of Brussels, but based on this action I can't tell which side of the political debate he's on either.
Nothing to do with the ECHR or ECJ.
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
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.
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. .
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.
He's still stuck at the bargaining phase from the sound of it.
Actions have consequences shocker.
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
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.
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.
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. .
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.
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. .
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
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
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.
Are you for real? bhstewie said:
hstewie 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. He's still stuck at the bargaining phase from the sound of it.
Actions have consequences shocker.
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
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
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.
Are you for real? 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
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.
Are you for real? 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
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.
Are you for real? 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 meantt. The NSDAP didn't 'sweep up both ends of the spectrum'.
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 s
t, thanks, corporal.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!! 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.
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 meantt. The NSDAP didn't 'sweep up both ends of the spectrum'.
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 s
t, thanks, corporal.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 s
t.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
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.
Are you for real? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff