In a world record attempt for longest ever post...
Originally Posted by
scotsboy
I know exactly what you mean Alan, kind of like asking everyone their opinon when really you are ot interested in what it is.
That is not at what I did at all. You are confusing disagreement for lack of interest. Surely the fact that I disagree so vociferously shows interest?
Originally Posted by
Gene Hunt
Alan you are 16. What you know about life could be written on a fly's ear in large print.
No doubt you will, in a few years, be one of these Labour candidates who think that they know it all after a few years at University. Your attitude smacks of the New Arbeit attitude of "I know better than you", tell you what, get a job, pay some tax and raise a family under a Blair Goverment and then come back and lecture others with significantly more life experience than you about things like racism, who they should vote for, Blair, the Iraq War etc etc.
I remember Blair getting into power, do you ?? .. or were you too busy finger painting ??
I am 17 actually the 16 in my username is a reference to my house number. In a few years I will still be at University (the course I am studying come September should last 5 years) with no intentions of standing to become an MP. And the Blair years were probably some of the best you ever experienced. I think the report (by professors from The London School of Economics) that I'm about to quote from is a very informative and interesting read - it is a look at Blair's legacy, ignoring the Iraq War which has clouded many peoples minds.
The following as a quote from a report conducted by professors of The London School of Economics
He transformed the economy
a) Blair achieved the most stable period of economic growth, high employment and low inflation for hundreds of years, in partnership with the Chancellor - the dynamic duo whose collaboration promoted the New Labour project, which they had forged together.
b) The minimum wage brought higher pay to many who would have languished in poverty, and without the damaging effects on employment predicted by right-wing economists.
c) Under Blair the British people have never had it so good, living longer, better fed, housed and cared for, and enjoying wide access to goods and services out of reach of earlier generations. Consumerism has triumphed over those who want producers, professionals, trades unions, paternalists and protectionists to dictate to citizens.
Conclusion
Blair ranks among the great prime ministers. He created the New Labour party as a party of government and has modernised the UK. There is still much to be done, but his achievements can be criticised only by nostalgic traditionalists who deplore modern society and hark back to the so-called good old days and ways.
This was just a small segment of the part written by George Jones, the Emeritus Professor of Government, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Britain has enjoyed 15 years of continuous growth combined with low inflation. The labour market has absorbed large number of new entrants, especially from the wave of migration from Eastern Europe, yet unemployment has remained at historically low levels. Even on the Achilles' Heel of productivity, Britain has narrowed the gap with her major competitors and kept up with the American productivity miracle.
So why does Labour have trouble converting these economic gains into the political currency of popularity? Leaving Iraq aside, forgetfulness, fiscal policy and fairness are the main reasons.
First, the public appears to now take economic prosperity for granted. People seem more likely to give credit for success to the Thatcher reforms, the Bank of England, to being outside the Euro or to cheap Chinese imports than to the government. With the exception of globalisation, however, these were policy choices of the government. Independence of the Bank was a bold and successful early move. Overall, Labour has accepted the importance of competitive markets and labour market flexibility for economic success.
Second, Labour has significantly raised tax as a share of nation income and spent the money on public services. 'Tax and spend' is exactly what socialist governments are supposed to do, of course, but unlike previous Labour governments neither Blair nor Brown have boasted about it. Nor have they over-spent in the early years of power only to be forced by circumstances to cut back and increase taxes in later years (most notoriously in 1976 when Dennis Healey had to turn to the International Monetary Fund). The government's problem is that the public expects greater improvements in hospitals, schools and policing from their tax pounds than they have seen. It also remains to be seen if the increased length and complexity of the tax system (coupled with more labour market regulation) could undermine long-term growth.
Third, unlike the 1980s the long growth period has not been accompanied by rapidly growing inequality. There have been a panoply of redistributive policies such as the National Minimum Wage and tax credits for the low paid have reduced poverty, especially for working families. But although inequality at the bottom half of the pay scale has narrowed, inequality at the top has continued to widen. On the Left, this has lead for pressures for more aggressively re-distribution.
Blair leaves behind an economy in better shape than any previous Labour leader. But will the voters give the chancellor, the man who has overseen the current prosperity the benefit of the doubt when the next recession comes? At the moment it looks unlikely.
This was written by John Van Reenen, the director of the Centre for Economic Performance and Professor of Economics, London School of Economics
The whole report can be found at:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/ERD/pressAndIn...irsLegacy.aspx
So you may have more life experience, but that doesn't seem to include a memory.
Originally Posted by
_Ju_
No Alan, that is where you are absolutely wrong. You are treating your vote like a bet on the right horse to win.
No, I'm not. I am talking about votes for small parties, like UKIP, BNP, SNP, Green, etc. These parties are not parties we want in charge in Westminster. They do not have the depth of policy to do this - and they are, in fact, mainly one policy parties, like No to the EU, Get rid of all the non-white people, Not nationwide so really have no right to be in charge of Britain, Stop destroying the ozone. You get the idea.
Originally Posted by
joxville
Try re-reading your original post young man. You asked who we would vote for and to post a comment saying why we chose that party, nowhere did it say we would be attacked for whichever party we chose. You then chose to attack me for saying I may vote BNP by saying I'm a disgrace to humanity. I then explained why I might vote for them, which you further chose to attack. We all have the right to vote how we see fit and we all have the right to defend ourselves when attacked, I exercised that right. When you get to my age you'll perhaps understand my disillusionment with mainstream political parties. I find it laughable that someone who claims to have greater intelligence and wit than me should feel the need to resort to petty name calling to back up their argument! I'll excuse that for the moment because you're young and have a lot to learn about life. In future, don't start a poll like this then make judgements on someone's character, someone you don't know, just because their vote doesn't agree with whatever result you are looking for.
For the record, I have somewhere in the region of 200 books about Hitler, the Nazi's, The Holocaust and the death camps and know it absolutely did happen.
BTW, the correct spelling is loony.
Rights. You are always talking about them. You have the right to defend yourself, and I also have the right to attack you. And in my original post I didn't need to say that I would disagree with you - that should have been a given. If you don't want your comments to be questioned, then you shouldn't really post your comments then, should you? And from memory, I don't think I ever claimed to have a greater intelligence than you, I said that you did not have the intelligence or wit to support your article, you don't need to put words in my mouth.
And will people please stop saying that I started this poll so that people would agree with me. Would a Labour really have started a poll just now so they can see that people agree with them? Of course bloody not. Note, bloody is not an expletive. And I will continue to judge people who vote BNP. There is no reason for a non-racist to vote for the BNP. If you are voting for a party simply for protest, vote Green or MRLP or the Christian Party for christ sake, not BNP. And what makes this worse is that you obviously know about the holocaust, yet will vote for a party with members who actively deny that it happened. It simply doesn't make sense.
Originally Posted by
_Ju_
Law of physics- the pedulum will never again be as far far over as it was at the start.
Assuming you let it go, and didn't push it...
Originally Posted by
Rheghead
Lets play wait and see if the Tories will have a different approach to the whole thing. I suspect they won't seeing as they want big tax cuts. Where will the hypocrisy lay then?
This really has nothing to do with the rest of this post. Anywho, I agree.
I shall be telling this with a sigh, somewhere ages and ages hence. Two roads diverged in a wood, and I — I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference. - Robert Frost
Dichotomy anyone?
Bookmarks