Are labour voters the worst losers in the history of the world?

Seagull on the wing · May 13, 2015

ROSM said:
Go on, tell me that story again about those nasty unions in the past who slagged you off for crossing a picket line. I never tire of hearing that one, just to help all us poor lefties to understand your viewpoint once again

Thanks in advance, ever yours, The prosecco socialist

Yes, The left like to hear the truth...then deny it ever happened (by the way,they didn't just slag me off,they gave my car the works, slashed the tyres and keyed the doors....nice people union men.
Well at least you bucked the trend,a post from a leftie without being abusive...things are looking up...not everybody is into todays angry generation,the left like to voice their opinion,which of course they are entitled too,but then go mad when someone with a different point of view gives their opinion.
At the election,people voted for the right to govern,Tories won...now please get on with life and prepare for another in 5 years time.
Thank you.

Nibble · May 13, 2015

I don't think I'm being a sore loser ( I don't vote labour anyway) but it concerns me that at this stage in the 21st century we are still voting in outdated, cruel, uncaring governments like the Tories. Something is seriously, seriously wrong.

Ernest · May 13, 2015

London Irish said:
Maybe they should rename themselves the Workers Party?

They could even call themselves 'NEW LABOUR'

Nibble · May 13, 2015

The only reason I can imagine is the Baby boomers looking out for themselves again.
The baby boomer generation had the best of everything, they are spoilt really so not their fault. They got the freedoms of winning a war without having to fight, very affordable, decent housing, an amazing welfare system, the dawn of foreign travel, sexual revolution, cultural revolution, drugs revolution, the benefits of immigration without the overcrowding, old fashioned values but with new technology, jobs for life, healthcare, pensions, no real austerity, cheap loans. I mean they really did have everything. They are the most well provided for, well cared for generation the world has or will ever see. Why would they want change?

beefypigeon · May 13, 2015

Nibble said:
I don't think I'm being a sore loser ( I don't vote labour anyway) but it concerns me that at this stage in the 21st century we are still voting in outdated, cruel, uncaring governments like the Tories. Something is seriously, seriously wrong.

This. It's not just the people who voted Labour that are concerned... It's the 63% of people who didn't vote Tory! The lack of compassion is deeply worrying.

sten_super · May 13, 2015

Nibble said:
I don't think I'm being a sore loser ( I don't vote labour anyway) but it concerns me that at this stage in the 21st century we are still voting in outdated, cruel, uncaring governments like the Tories. Something is seriously, seriously wrong.

While I didn't vote for them, at least the Tories put most of their intentions (even the undesirable ones) in their manifesto. People can't complain that "we didn't vote for this" when they repeal the Human Rights Act, or cut funding for social services, or massively curtail civil liberties.

I didn't vote for either of the big two, and there is a real problem that neither really presented a decent vision for the future of the country. Labour may have been better for the NHS and social care in the short term (as they'd have probably provided more funds for it) but the system does need reform to be able to deal with the substantial increase in demand from the aging population. Similarly, as movement of labour and businesses internationally becomes increasingly easy, there needs to be a frank and honest discussion about 'optimal' (either socially or revenue-maximising) tax rates. And neither had any sensible policies to deal with the ongoing housing crisis. Instead they chose to deal with the population like simpletons, campaigning largely negatively ("at least we're not as bad as that shower of shit") and being big on bluster, short on policy.

There is far too much vested interest in the existing political system. At the risk of sounding like [MENTION=7]Mustafa[/MENTION], we need something substantial to change in the hope that then there can be a sensible discussion about these issues. The most realistic (and sensible) might be widespread electoral reform, moving towards proportional representation and doing away with the confrontational governance structure that we have at the moment, leading to a much more unified approach to governing and a narrower policy focus.

Triggaaar · May 13, 2015

W.C. said:
You're assuming I am a supporter of the Labour party as it is and was during the Blair/Brown years. I'm not.

I'm just saying there's no point in blaming the tories when the opposition are no better. Maybe you think the opposition are better, because this isn't the Bliar/Brown years, but I don't think they can hide behind that defence. If either party felt the press needed changing, then they should chance it.

And anyway, my point is about the newspaper media. Don't you agree it's ridiculous that one man can donate money to one party then use his paper to tell his readers to vote for that party? You're always going to have papers with political leanings but where we've got to is crazy.

I think they should look at changing the press, but on that small point, no, I don't think that bit is the problem. Murdoch was supporting the tories with or without the donation, and I don't see what difference it makes between him then giving a donation or tv personality Alan Sugar giving it.

ThePompousPaladin · May 13, 2015

BigGully said:
It seems to me the usual suspects are backtracking .....

Drew ..... 'There may be arguments to increase some benefits'

The PompousPaladin ... 'its not necessarily about the amount each benefit is worth'

Not one single example, not one.

Its not glib when mentioning the disadvantaged or vulnerable, I am just trying to ascertain who these are and if the government is supporting them how most people would wish.

Still not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse. You've been given 2 examples.

Could you consider what has caused the rise in food banks?

Also i disagree with your obviously untrue statement and flawed logic that most people want this. Think about that logical point before you reply.

Nibble · May 13, 2015

What you have to consider is not just the few who take advantage of the benefit system but those thousands who through myriad reasons are basically incapable of organising their own lives, cannot fill out forms, do not mentally understand what is required of them.
I know someone who used to be an outreach worker. She would visit people with mental health problems, help them with paperwork, ensure they made appointments etc. one guy was so broke he was eating dry cat food. She went through his paperwork and he didn't realise in his bank he had money he didn't understand he was receiving.
One lady was basically kept prisoner in her flat by her boyfriend, hence couldn't get to signings etc and was destitute as they cut her benefits off. These things are shockingly common.
The outreach workers are now axed and these poor souls have been forgotten. But hey, looks good for the stats eh!

WonderingSoton · May 13, 2015

Uncle Spielberg said:
To be fair a party that puts forward Ed Milliband and Ed Balls as the future of this Country deserves everything they get

This!

It makes me laugh these past days when an upset leftie talks about PR, they get very upset when I suggest that a PR election would have given them a Tory/UKIP alliance.

The same arguments they peddle about only 35% ish voting for the Tory government could be applied to just about any majority government in our modern history. Yes even Labour, shock horror.. 67% of the electorate voting in this election was a decent turnout by modern standards and we have a multi party system that means whoever wins, Labour or Tory, is very unlikely to have gained more than 50% of the voting electorate.

I would welcome some debate about PR, absolutely, I think as we head towards an increasingly multi party system it could become more relevant. The way the left are currently putting forward that argument however is mightily ironic.

yxee · May 13, 2015

Nibble said:
I don't think I'm being a sore loser ( I don't vote labour anyway) but it concerns me that at this stage in the 21st century we are still voting in outdated, cruel, uncaring governments like the Tories. Something is seriously, seriously wrong.

beefypigeon said:
This. It's not just the people who voted Labour that are concerned... It's the 63% of people who didn't vote Tory! The lack of compassion is deeply worrying.

Why is it automatically a given that there is no compassion? In my eyes this view - and the stigmatism associated with it - is nonsense.

Smirko · May 13, 2015

glasfryn said:
tories get less that 35% of the vote ............................yet we have another 5 years

Bitter

glasfryn · May 13, 2015

Smirko said:
Bitter

no sorry I don't drink now ..........but was partial to a decent pint of mild
Oh my how in hell did you manage to squeeze the one word out

BigGully · May 13, 2015

ThePompousPaladin said:
Still not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse. You've been given 2 examples.

Could you consider what has caused the rise in food banks?

Also i disagree with your obviously untrue statement and flawed logic that most people want this. Think about that logical point before you reply.

Food banks serve a purpose for those that are hungry, to some extent it is totally irrelevant why they might be hungry, whether they have spunked their benefits on heroine or champagne and each are genuinely hungry then each should freely access any food-banks, well if it was my food bank anyway.

But it neednt follow that it is an indication of poverty or that their benefits are not at a liveable level, it shouldnt be confused with nasty Tories or feckless Socialists, its a side issue serving a genuine need for some people.

Beyond the complexities of homelessness you can if you wish clearly state an example of how someone within the benefit system might then need the added benefit of using a food bank ?

Bold Seagull · May 13, 2015

How do you search for the user post count on a thread!?

Would reveal perhaps who the worst losers / winners / shit stirrers are.

drew · May 13, 2015

BigGully said:
It seems to me the usual suspects are backtracking .....

Drew ..... 'There may be arguments to increase some benefits'

The PompousPaladin ... 'its not necessarily about the amount each benefit is worth'

Not one single example, not one.

Its not glib when mentioning the disadvantaged or vulnerable, I am just trying to ascertain who these are and if the government is supporting them how most people would wish.

I'm starting to see your problem. You can't read and then comprehend what you are reading.

Where am I back tracking?

You are selective about what you comment on and ignore the rest of my post which was far more pertinent.

BigGully · May 13, 2015

drew said:
I'm starting to see your problem. You can't read and then comprehend what you are reading.

Where am I back tracking?

You are selective about what you comment on and ignore the rest of my post which was far more pertinent.

You are quite right, I didnt read your post as I should have, your point regarding where exactly the tax cuts will land, I cannot know.

My original post was in response to DaveinSouthampton who painted a picture of total despair, there is inevitable hardships for some, but in most cases the dynamic is far more complex than financial.

No one has as yet offered up an example based on current benefits rates where it drives people to the utter despair that DiS alludes too.

Gregory2Smith1 · May 13, 2015

beefypigeon said:
This. It's not just the people who voted Labour that are concerned... It's the 63% of people who didn't vote Tory! The lack of compassion is deeply worrying.

a bit of a flawed argument that one

at Tony Blair's height of popularity in the 1997 election which he won by a "landslide" he only recieved 43% of the votes,meaning 57% didn't vote for him

ROSM · May 13, 2015

Gregory2 said:
a bit of a flawed argument that one

at Tony Blair's height of popularity in the 1997 election which he won by a "landslide" he only recieved 43% of the votes,meaning 57% didn't vote for him

I thought 40% was the magic number that infers legitimacy?

ThePompousPaladin · May 13, 2015

BigGully said:
Food banks serve a purpose for those that are hungry, to some extent it is totally irrelevant why they might be hungry, whether they have spunked their benefits on heroine or champagne and each are genuinely hungry then each should freely access any food-banks, well if it was my food bank anyway.

But it neednt follow that it is an indication of poverty or that their benefits are not at a liveable level, it shouldnt be confused with nasty Tories or feckless Socialists, its a side issue serving a genuine need for some people.

Beyond the complexities of homelessness you can if you wish clearly state an example of how someone within the benefit system might then need the added benefit of using a food bank ?

Ah, well i'm still not sure if your obtuseness comes from a blinkered mindset, or it is deliberate trolling.

However...

I think many people that use food banks have had their benefits withdrawn or cut. David has cited an example of this, the fact that you have continued to ignore this fact doesn't bode well for a good outcome to this conversation.

Your apparent presumption that they have 'spunked' their money shows a sheltered or naive attitude, at best you are making assumptions. Do you know anyone that uses a food bank? Again David has provided an example that you continue to conveniently ignore.

At least you have the good sense to not follow up on your flawed logic from earlier posts, maybe there is hope for you! (that most of the country supports what has been going on in the benefit system).

You still seem to be swerving the point of benefit withdrawal. Which seems to be another gaping logical hole in your argument. I would argue that benefit withdrawal is part of the current system, it's been used by the coalition as a rather broad club, that has admittedly pushed more into work but also caught out many vulnerable too.

Don't get me wrong, benefits i think are at a level where people can survive, if only just, and as an underclass. Of course there are examples where the system is abused, but there are more examples of where those in need aren't getting the support they need. Again (to labour the point) David has cited examples that you ignore.

Perhaps i am missing something, could you expand as to why you desire the examples to be current benefits claimants.

I would ask you again to consider why the use of food banks have risen over the last 5 years, and whether benefit withdrawal has had an impact on this.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Are labour voters the worst losers in the history of the world?

New member

New member

Stupid IDIOT

New member

Well-known member

Brain Surgeon

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

cleaning up cat sick

Well-known member

strong and stable with me, or...

Drew

Well-known member

J'les aurai!

Well-known member

New member

Share this page