Vote Labour ...for the sake of the country !

[randyandy]

Be-Seen-Here wrote:

Your right there is no point arguing about what MIGHT have happened if x y
or z had been in power, especially when y said fuck all when it was introduced.

Policy introduced resulted in greedy bankers fucking everything up.

Not sure about half the pensioners on 90 quid a week don't even claim what their due point but and forgive me for being as tough as the bankers refusing loans at the moment who were so willing to give them to fuck things up that's mostly their fault but some of the organizations which help them need to have a look at themselves, if that is the case.

Your right about Gordon Brown NEVER being elected to be Prime Minister, it shouldn't have happened but it did.

[randyandy]

JRPornstar wrote:

> 'I suggest you look either my organization or another similar
> up and do as I
> said some posts earlier and employ them.' Which is?

Which is as relevant as you asking the question, IF you've read the above in full and are actually in business.

[jj]

randyandy wrote:
> Gordon Brown NEVER being elected to be Prime
> Minister, it shouldn't have happened but it did.

This reinforces my earlier point about the political class' contempt for
even the semblance of democracy.
OK, shit happens, leaders die or get overthrown; and the business
of govt. needs to go on smoothly [if it ever did !], but there has to
be legislation to force a popular mandate within 6 months of a
leadership change.
Chances of that happening? About nil.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]There's no point arguing about what MIGHT have happened if x y or z had been in power.[/quote]

Well, if you want people to make fair, sensible decisions come election time then you would want them to think about what the alternatives would do under such circumstances. It's natural.

!997 was before China and India really started to blossom; it was before the .com boom and bust era and it was before global instability and fear due to terrorism. It's a different world now, baby.

[quote]Gordon Brown decided to cream off 5 billion pounds per YEAR and create a "tax credit" system where people earning ?50,000 a year can get benefits and half the pensioners on 90 quid a week don't even claim what their due.[/quote]

An old neighbour of mine is on minimum wage with a wife and 3 kids. That 'tax credit' you're slagging off makes him ?30 a week better off than he would be on the dole. Under the Tories there was no minimum wage and he said he used to be ?10 a week worse off than if he'd have been on the dole (he only had 1 kid then). He was affectively paying ?10 a week for the privilege to work. THAT was Tory Britain for the working class.

As for the pensioners: Hasn't their money risen massively since '97? Did they get all those cold weather payments and the like in '97? Please...... Don't pensioners get about ?120 a week now? I know my nan gets a lot more than that, but she's 85 so it might be different. Anyway, she says pensioners are far better off now than at any other time in her life. She says any pensioner who moans about how much they're getting are just whiners who want a good hiding (she'd dish it out too). I'm pretty sure a single pensioner gets as much as a single mother on benefits who has a baby to feed. I can't be arsed to look it up so it might not be true but I'm sure someone told me once. That can't be right.

[quote]what's really gauling is the worst Prime Minister EVER is Gordon Brown and he's NEVER been elected, not even as Labour leader.[/quote]

Name me ONE PM that's been elected into power! Go on! Blair was never elected, nor Major, nor Thatcher......and on. We elect parties in the UK, not leaders. A party's policies don't change too much due to a change in PM, compared to Presidents of the USA. If you vote Tory next election then you vote the party in, not Cameron personally.

[jj]

Your last para's a bit disingenuous.
The leader has a greater or lesser effect on policies according to
his lights- but there IS a difference. Imagine if Alan Johnson or
a real left-winger got elected [and that's still not beyond the
bounds of possibility within the lifetime of this Parliament]....
I can't speak for the rest of the electorate but I do take into
consideration the personality and policies of a leader before
casting my vote.
It's all of a piece with the continuing general erosion of even the
semblance of democracy.

[Sam Slater]

I see your point but I wasn't making out that the personality of a leader is inconsequential. It's a contributing factor for some, sure. I was just stating a fact that we vote in parties, not leaders, and that is 100% accurate.

I think it was more disingenuous of BSH to complain that no one voted Brown in as PM when we never have voted for PMs or leaders. It's not as if GB grasped power undemocratically. He was just promoted to lead a party that was already in power and as voters we are aware of this before casting our vote. It happened before with Major and we accepted it.

If people want to start voting for leaders then they can choose to vote for a party that promises to change the system. I myself want to keep it as it is regardless of who's in power.

You know, as a voter that even if you vote Tory, solely on the basis of liking Cameron, that there's a chance you might get Hague down the line. If you don't like Hague then that's just tough. You took that gamble when you voted a party in on the basis of one person.

If I vote next time I will cast my vote on which party I feel has the best policies, with the personality of it's leader very much a secondary factor (it will be a factor, for sure). If they get in power and the leader changes within their term then I will vote according to those new circumstances. I certainly won't complain about autocracy.