Labour Leadership battle

[tobyjugg2]

I think it is a crucial issue if one challenges oneself to honestly and critically review your true opinion of who is 'least dishonest' in terms of delivering what they say.

 

In the doing what they say stakes, no matter whether I agree with what they say or not, I would place them:

 

SNP

(insert large gap)

Tories

(insert massive gap)

Labour

(insert further small gap)

LibDems

(take a trip around the moon)

UKIP

 

I have ignored the green party as I think going back to a romantic illusory golden age isn't a real option.

[unclebulgaria67]

Seconded with utmost enthusiasm.

 

Why spend 5 billion trying to repair Westminster and modernise it. It would be cheaper to build a new parliament elsewhere in the country, with it being cheaper to run, cheaper to house MPs and staff. They could to a cheaper repair on Westminster and turn it into a museum, which could earn money from tourists.

 

That would probably save at least 1 billion and you would have a better modern parliament.

[unclebulgaria67]

I think it is a crucial issue if one challenges oneself to honestly and critically review you true opinion of who is 'least dishonest' in terms of delivering what they say.

 

In the doing what they say stakes, no matter whether I agree with what they say or not, I would place them:

 

SNP

(insert large gap)

Tories

(insert massive gap)

Labour

(insert further small gap)

LibDems

(take a trip around the moon)

UKIP

 

I have ignored the green party as I think going back to a romantic illusory golden age isn't a real option.

 

My order

 

SNP

Labour

Tories

Lib Dems

UKIP

 

I trust Labour slightly more than the Tories, but not much more. I would vote SNP if they decided to expand to England. Perhaps SNP could start a sister party in England i.e English Democratic National Party. The aim to bring politics back to the communities in the regions of England and away from Westminster, so local people can decide.

 

What i do not like about the Tories is the obsession with markets and not believing public services can deliver for the public cheaper and better than private. I do not like private companies who make money from public services and do not always contribute full tax in the UK. For example water provision should never have been privatised. It is now owned by foreign companies and some of these export profits to cheaper tax countries.

[tobyjugg2]

What i do not like about the Tories is the obsession with markets and not believing public services can deliver for the public cheaper and better than private. I do not like private companies who make money from public services and do not always contribute full tax in the UK. For example water provision should never have been privatised. It is now owned by foreign companies and some of these export profits to cheaper tax countries.

 

Unclebulgaria,

The challenge is not your view of the merit of their policies, but whether the party does what they say.

And in your example, the Tories did and do basically what they say they will

[unclebulgaria67]

Unclebulgaria,

The challenge is not your view of the merit of their policies, but whether the party does what they say.

And in your example, the Tories did and do basically what they say they will

 

The Tories do things slightly different to what they say and don't always provide true reasons for policies. For example, NHS savings were not advised before the election and now announcements have made about closure of A&E units. More NHS services will be privatise.

[tobyjugg2]

The Tories do things slightly different to what they say and don't always provide true reasons for policies. For example, NHS savings were not advised before the election and now announcements have made about closure of A&E units. More NHS services will be privatise.

 

I agree that they all mislead, and some do what ordinary mortals like us would call lie, but the challenge is which party do you honestly and objectively believe does what they say more than others,

(whatever your views on their stated or actual policies)

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Tobyjug;

Your scientific survey (Post 26) of which political party is least dishonest based on a critical and honest challenge of your own opinions is not only not crucial, it is totally pointless.

 

You say that this crucial survey which challenged your own opinions is not based on whether you agree with what they say or not yet you choose to ignore the Greens completely because of your subjective opinion of what they say and nothing else.

 

You included UKIP in your shortlist but did not rate them at all. Does this mean that you don't place them on the same scale, or you've ran out of categories?

 

You compound this challenging review of your own subjective opinion by presuming in other posts that others should, or do already, accept your assessment criteria as gospel on the basis that one or two others say they agree with you. They give no evidence for doing so either.

 

Perhaps you could give examples of where the Green Party lied. More importantly, where the Labour Party lied, since this thread is supposed to be about their leadership contest.

Perhaps it might be helpful too if you could give some indication of which Party, if any, is the closest to your own views/beliefs.

 

Perhaps too, since you appear to be in favour of independents, you might also give an example of a governing body that consists of independents in charge and what you find so attractive about them.

 

Those few remarks are not meant as a personal attack on your opinions, which I accept you have a right to, they are my own honest and critical review of your stated opinions and their truthfulness or otherwise, which is what I presume you are inviting comment on since you regard them as so crucial.

[Conniff]

Tobyjug;

Your scientific survey (Post 26) of which political party is least dishonest based on a critical and honest challenge of your own opinions is not only not crucial, it is totally pointless.

 

You say that this crucial survey which challenged your own opinions is not based on whether you agree with what they say or not yet you choose to ignore the Greens completely because of your subjective opinion of what they say and nothing else.

 

You included UKIP in your shortlist but did not rate them at all. Does this mean that you don't place them on the same scale, or you've ran out of categories?

 

You compound this challenging review of your own subjective opinion by presuming in other posts that others should, or do already, accept your assessment criteria as gospel on the basis that one or two others say they agree with you. They give no evidence for doing so either.

 

Perhaps you could give examples of where the Green Party lied. More importantly, where the Labour Party lied, since this thread is supposed to be about their leadership contest.

Perhaps it might be helpful too if you could give some indication of which Party, if any, is the closest to your own views/beliefs.

 

Perhaps too, since you appear to be in favour of independents, you might also give an example of a governing body that consists of independents in charge and what you find so attractive about them.

 

Those few remarks are not meant as a personal attack on your opinions, which I accept you have a right to, they are my own honest and critical review of your stated opinions and their truthfulness or otherwise, which is what I presume you are inviting comment on since you regard them as so crucial.

 

Good heavens what a whinger and where does it say it's 'scientific'. Of course the greens were disregarded, some fat ugly oz woman who hasn't got a clue what she is talking about, promising 50 million houses and everyone get £100 per hour, and that was in the first month. No one believed her which is why only 1 got in.

[unclebulgaria67]

We have a broken democracy anyway. Very few politicians with any talent.

 

Why are we paying so much to career politicians, who did PPE, then joined a think tank or were a special advisor, before becoming an MP ?

 

If we had politicians with a track record of achievement for business or running large organisations, then we might not need as many MP's. I would rather pay say 200 people £200k a year, if they had 40 years of real world experience and could be more effective.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Good heavens what a whinger and where does it say it's 'scientific'. Of course the greens were disregarded, some fat ugly oz woman who hasn't got a clue what she is talking about, promising 50 million houses and everyone get £100 per hour, and that was in the first month. No one believed her which is why only 1 got in.

 

In using the term 'scientific' to describe Tobyjug's critical and honest analysis of the challenge he set himself I was being flippant. Sorry if you misunderstood, I thought it would have been seen as self-evident.

Leaving aside your own 'critical and honest' opinion of the size, looks, nationality, sex, of the individual you are referring to, you also appear to be at odds with your friend Tobyjug's crucial proviso; 'whatever your views on their stated or actual policies'.

[tobyjugg2]

In using the term 'scientific' to describe Tobyjug's critical and honest analysis of the challenge he set himself I was being flippant. Sorry if you misunderstood, I thought it would have been seen as self-evident.

Leaving aside your own 'critical and honest' opinion of the size, looks, nationality, sex, of the individual you are referring to, you also appear to be at odds with your friend Tobyjug's crucial proviso; 'whatever your views on their stated or actual policies'.

 

Jesus Wept.

I really couldn't read all that waffle - rare - as I normally try to no matter how much it sometimes seems like wading through cow dung.

 

We all misunderstand each other from time to time, but you seem to want to make some kind of abstract art form of misunderstanding.

Good fortune with that.

Edited July 15, 2015 by tobyjugg2
deleted pointless explanation part

[Lapsed Workaholic]

It comes as no surprise, it is as I expected, that you admit to being ill-equipped to answer for, or explain, your own waffle when challenged. It comes as no surprise either therefore for you to admit that you can't even read another point of view.

Resorting to hurling abuse rather that attempting to have a reasonably civilised discussion is invariably the charlatan's way out.

Not sure who gave you the right speak for everyone when you assert that 'we all misunderstand each other from time to time'. It was to confirm that I did not misunderstand that I asked for the clarification. Your failure to give that clarification confirms that I did not misunderstand and that what you wrote was indeed a load of politically illiterate gibberish.

I thought you started this thread for the purpose of having a reasonably civilised discussion or exchange of views on the Labour leadership contest. You deviated from that issue to focus on which Party, in your considered opinion, are the biggest liars.

You introduce the Tories at every opportunity, and at none, as being the least of the evils. Although how they should feature so prominently in this discussion eludes me.

You are wrong, I don't think I did misunderstand your motives.

[tobyjugg2]

We have a broken democracy anyway. Very few politicians with any talent.

 

Or perhaps just talents in the wrong areas to be of benefit to the voters.

 

Do you think a mass 'independent' candidate vote would make any difference, or that too many of them would end up joining one of the parties on the back of their success?

[Conniff]

Very few politicians with any talent.

 

Ian Duncan Smith, now there is a talented man. He knows what is pulling this country down and taking steps to erase them.

[tobyjugg2]

Ian Duncan Smith, now there is a talented man. He knows what is pulling this country down and taking steps to erase them.

 

LOL

Do you have the benefits changes with regard to more than 2 children in mind there conniff?

 

If so I would broadly agree, but with some qualifiers.

 

1. There needed to be changes reducing the 'family means benefits' culture some seem to make a way of life for them, for their children, and their children's children.

 

2. The Tories would have suffered a massive defeat if they had announced what they intended to do (as it would be for anyone) rather than hidden it.

 

3. Labour would NEVER be able to get those sort of changes through in ANY form. If they didn't implode, they would never be elected (Its unlikely anyone would). If they tried if after a majority election win, they would implode - and the Tories would probably vote against it with the Labour rebels.

 

4. Labour will not repeal these implementations in any real way. Its a done deal and Labour are undoubtedly breathing a sigh of relief - the ones with any brains anyway.

 

5. It only part of the problem and another much larger one is sorting out the MASSIVE Tax evading by big companies and the stinking rich..

Now if he tackles 5. in a real way, I would agree much more.

[determindator]

It comes as no surprise, it is as I expected, that you admit to being ill-equipped to answer for, or explain, your own waffle when challenged. It comes as no surprise either therefore for you to admit that you can't even read another point of view.

Resorting to hurling abuse rather that attempting to have a reasonably civilised discussion is invariably the charlatan's way out.

Not sure who gave you the right speak for everyone when you assert that 'we all misunderstand each other from time to time'. It was to confirm that I did not misunderstand that I asked for the clarification. Your failure to give that clarification confirms that I did not misunderstand and that what you wrote was indeed a load of politically illiterate gibberish.

I thought you started this thread for the purpose of having a reasonably civilised discussion or exchange of views on the Labour leadership contest. You deviated from that issue to focus on which Party, in your considered opinion, are the biggest liars.

You introduce the Tories at every opportunity, and at none, as being the least of the evils. Although how they should feature so prominently in this discussion eludes me.

You are wrong, I don't think I did misunderstand your motives.

 

Well done on your posts LW, you'd win my vote!

 

Have you ever thought of the front benches, give 'em a run for their money:madgrin:

[tobyjugg2]

LOL

Do you have the benefits changes with regard to more than 2 children in mind there conniff?

 

If so I would broadly agree, but with some qualifiers.

 

1. There needed to be changes reducing the 'family means benefits' culture some seem to make a way of life for them, for their children, and their children's children.

 

2. The Tories would have suffered a massive defeat if they had announced what they intended to do (as it would be for anyone) rather than hidden it.

 

3. Labour would NEVER be able to get those sort of changes through in ANY form. If they didn't implode, they would never be elected (Its unlikely anyone would). If they tried if after a majority election win, they would implode - and the Tories would probably vote against it with the Labour rebels.

 

4. Labour will not repeal these implementations in any real way. Its a done deal and Labour are undoubtedly breathing a sigh of relief - the ones with any brains anyway.

 

5. It only part of the problem and another much larger one is sorting out the MASSIVE Tax evading by big companies and the stinking rich..

Now if he tackles 5. in a real way, I would agree much more.

 

 

and to prove my point 3, we have yet to see regarding point 4

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/16/tory-welfare-bill-faces-w_0_n_7809658.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

[Conniff]

That proves the point that she has no real interest in the country and it's economic stability but just in herself getting the leadership.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Conniff

[tobyjugg2]

That proves the point that she has no really interest in the country and it's economic stability but just in herself getting the leadership.

 

I have absolutely no idea where you could reasonably get that opinion from conniff.

 

A lot of your comments seem somewhat of a stretch, but valid opinion from someone with a different core perspective - but this is one of those that is way beyond a stretch.

 

Have you been having private conversations with Lapsed and got fuddled?

 

Unless its because if Harriot Harman did lead the Labour Party - and the lefties didn't back-stab her - the Tories would probably never get in again ...

[Conniff]

If one minute you are saying one thing and then because you want your mates to vote you as leader, you change you mind for something completely different just on a political whim and not stick to your convictions you are a fraud, she is a fraud.

[citizenB]

Looks like someone is running scared of Jeremy Corbyn !!

 

 

A Labour pressure group is asking supporters of Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall to help each other to ensure left-winger Jeremy Corbyn doesn't win.

 

Full story HERE

[tobyjugg2]

If one minute you are saying one thing and then because you want your mates to vote you as leader, you change you mind for something completely different just on a political whim and not stick to your convictions you are a fraud, she is a fraud.

 

No, she is trying to mitigate unreasonable and damaging pressure from the left - its called politics.

Like the Tories implemented softer policies than they really wanted to in this (so far anyway) and the last parliaments

[tobyjugg2]

Looks like someone is running scared of Jeremy Corbyn !!

 

He's the only left left that makes sense. But I still think left, even Corbyn's left is not the answer yet.

 

... and is that a royal we there :

"After listening to party members, we entered the Labour leadership contest because of the shared belief that our Party needs to engage with its founding purpose: to fight injustice."

[tobyjugg2]

Ever Wonder why the Libs went with the Tories?

This is eye opening

http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/labour-lib-andrew-coalition

 

fair use excerpt to titillate interest

 

"What Labour was offering us was a weak coalition with a divided Labour Party; a coalition with no majority in the House of Commons, no clear policy platform, and no guarantee of a referendum on voting reform. We would have been stark staring mad to accept such a proposition."

 

and don't forget to read the other perspective ( very conspiracy centric)

http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/11/lib-dem-coalition-laws-labour

[Guest]

... in herself getting the leadership.

 

harman? other things aside, shes not in the leadership battle. or have i misread yr post