Campaign to get Labour out of office

#1
I was reading the posts on here and it seems that a whole lot of you guys (and gals) would really love to get rid of labour (particularly Bliar and his cronnies)!!!

Anyway, would it be against this sites principles to begin a campaign to get labour and Bliar out of power??

As long as we kept it political (no slotting MP's!!! :twisted: ) im pretty sure that nothing bad will come of it? (IE no charge of treason!)

anyway, im pretty sure there would be a large number of people who would be more than willing to start it up and put in the ground work.

What do you guys think??

Agent smith

PS, i reckon some of you guys should run for MP as already trust you more than 99% of the elected scum!!
 
#3
Agent smith, you must be crazy. The only real life alternative to labour is the tories. Good god man, have you been asleep? Would you let that crowd of hilariously incompetent self abusers in again? Yes labour are a bunch of twats, yes they have largely betrayed their principles and yes they do wind the Army up something chronic. But just have a look at the alternative. The Tories are purely and simply the party for and of business and privelige. If you are a rich man, with no social concience, vote for them. If you aren't, don't.
 
#4
Thatll be me voting Tory then. :wink:

At least if the Tories got a crack at the whip, it'll take them a few years to really feck things up to the extent of this bunch of dung trumpets have. And at least the govnt will actually be working for the good of the country, not just using the UK as a PR exercise for the colonial simian lovers across the pond.
 
#6
Agent smith, you must be crazy. The only real life alternative to labour is the tories. Good god man, have you been asleep? Would you let that crowd of hilariously incompetent self abusers in again? Yes labour are a bunch of ****, yes they have largely betrayed their principles and yes they do wind the Army up something chronic. But just have a look at the alternative. The Tories are purely and simply the party for and of business and privelige. If you are a rich man, with no social concience, vote for them. If you aren't, don't.
Well, i think i would still prefer them to the sh1t pile that is labour and their principles.

At least the tories had the interest of the country at heart (unlike the labour scum who seem to want to take it up the @ss from europe).

They stand for liberty, independence, the right to choose, minimal interfernece from the govenrment (if that is possible) and the peoples right to live their lives as they see fit!! (Oh yeah and tend to be far better in supporting the forces, althought they too have made booobooos!!) :(

LordFlashheart summed it up perfectly!!!!

Thatll be me voting Tory then. Wink

At least if the Tories got a crack at the whip, it'll take them a few years to really feck things up to the extent of this bunch of dung trumpets have. And at least the govnt will actually be working for the good of the country, not just using the UK as a PR exercise for the colonial simian lovers across the pond.

Lets just say, that whilst the tories are nowhere near perfect, they are a darn sight better than labour (who seem to want to drag down everyone into the same gutter!!). At least the tories believe that people who excel or work hard should be allowed to succeed rahter than be held back with the rest of society (such as bloody giro sucking chavs and druggies!!!)

Rant over

Agent smith!!!

PS Im just so depressed cos i can see labour getting back into power just through that type of apathy (Oh we can possibly vote for the tories!! they are the riches party!! and we are good old working clsaa!!)

Guess what, labour dont represent the working class!! They only represent their own interest (job promotion, pension, gratuities etcc!!!)

RANT REALLY OVER!!!
:)
 
#7
I'd like to paraphrase 'Platoon' for you...

Sheyit! It's all politics man, politics. The Labour man's always gonna sh#t on the army man. Always has, always will!

Next time someone with a rosette knocks at my door, I'm going to do a 'Misery', and stuff him in a locked room until he writes an ending I actually like. Tossers.
 
#8
very true!!

agent smith
 
#9
good definition of socialism:

everyone does a fair share of the work, everyone gets a fair share of the rewards.

(orwell - paraphrased)

quote from Lenin:

He who shall not work ((note - shall not, not can not)) shall not eat.

I agree with youabout the subsidising of layabouts. As a tory, you have to do a complicated bit of mental gymnastics to say its bad to feed lazy poor people who have never done a stroke of work, but OK to inherit a fortune and pi$$ it up your whole life through.
As a lefty (not necessessarsserily a labour supporter) you can just refer back to Lenins line; work or starve. That seems fine to me. Granted, that's not where labour are at though.

I don't think Labour as they are incarnated right now could be accused of punishing those who excel or work hard. It's not as if there are high rates of tax for the rich, is it?

But that, for us Reds, is part of the problem. You said it - labour don't represent the working class. I'm damn sure I don't know who they DO represent. But the tories are the enemy. They do not have the interests of anyone at heart. Mainly cos they don't have hearts, they have a diseased ball of pulsating black slime instead. And they smell.
 
#10
If the Labour Party is so hung up on cost cutting and saving then why on earth do they give money to long term jobless layabouts for which they get zero return from. Surely cutting out these refuse will save billions?
 
#11
Steamywindow said:
I don't think Labour as they are incarnated right now could be accused of punishing those who excel or work hard. It's not as if there are high rates of tax for the rich, is it?
41% not high? (40% income + 1% NI) And then you pay 17.5% on the 59p you had left when you spend it, giving you 49.7p left, or a total of 51.3% tax. And that's if you don't spend it on booze, fags or petrol. Sheesh! What right do they have to more of a pound that you earn than you do?

I also know of quite a few self-employed people who make lots of money. But, if they've made over a certain amount in any given tax year, they fall foul of a whole raft of Gordon's business taxes, and it becomes no longer worth their while to work for peanuts. So, they go on holiday for the rest of the year. Way to encourage people to be productive, guys! :roll:
 
#12
Dead right. There's 1500 jobs advertised in my local rag today. Can't find a job? My arrse. Get packing xmas pressies for my kids, on night shift, at £4.50 an hour, or starve. Easy choice chavvy boys.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#13
Speedy said:
If the Labour Party is so hung up on cost cutting and saving then why on earth do they give money to long term jobless layabouts for which they get zero return from. Surely cutting out these refuse will save billions?
Possibly because these h**ns they subsidise will vote them in again ?
 
#14
Steamy,

As a fully reformed member of the working class, you can k*ss my arrse.

Socialism was created by rich cn*ts to keep the workers in line.

Capitalism is the way for those who have or come from nothing to overcome their background and move beyond their current status.

Where the hell has socialism EVER created a better life for individuals?
 
#15
Plastic Yank said:
Steamy,

As a fully reformed member of the working class, you can k*ss my arrse.

Socialism was created by rich cn*ts to keep the workers in line.

Capitalism is the way for those who have or come from nothing to overcome their background and move beyond their current status.

Where the hell has socialism EVER created a better life for individuals?
PY, how very true. And may I say, very deep in political thought. Certainly not your average 'man on the street's' view.

It has been proved time and time again that socialism is against the fundamental basics of human nature. If you could make a system where everyone works the same for the same it might one day work. But while 'eveyone is equal, but some are more equal than others' still applies capitalism is the only system that rewards good ideas, good management and the calculated taking of risks. There are plenty of poor, working class people who have worked themselves out of the gutter. If not for themselves then at least for their offspring.
 
#16
Plastic yank:

where?

UK

When?

1946 onwards with the welfare state, founded on socialist principles. Education, health etc. for everyone. Huge improvement in life chances for the poor, with (for example) university for the first time open to people based on ability rather than cash. Great for the country, as we start to get a meritocracy.

How funded? Taking money from rich people, most of whom had inherited it rather than worked for it.

Theres your question answered. Now, about this bizarre notion that 'socialism was invented to keep the workers in line'.

Are you on acid? You couldn't be more wrong if you'd been on the all-arms being wrong course and come top.
 
#17
Pity that there isn't another Maggie waiting in the wings. The trouble with getting rid of Bliar and his cronies is that there is no real alternative yet. Mind you if people are now voting for the LDs things must real desperate.
 
#18
There's nothing wrong with campaigning against the liars in power at the moment - I will be looking to lend a hand and I would encourage all Service personnel and their relations to spread the word and actively endorse an opposition party, drawing on the shambles in Iraq, the lies and the cutbacks as appropriate.

This does not necessarily mean voting Tory. Vote tactically in your area - Lib Dem, Tory, SNP, other - particularly where local single issues are involved.

Also, the aim is not necessarily to return the Tories to power. If Liabour get enough of a kicking they will ditch Bliar as a vote-loser. If Bliar goes, then TCH goes etc. Excellent!!! :twisted: :twisted:

Finally, the resulting Parliament will hopefully be mor erepresentative - ie. without a large majority, so "they" will have to listen more closely.

An example (yet again) of TCH's mendacity, in case anyone thinks I'm being *oh* so naughty by advocating a political stance for Armed Forces personnel:

On the Today programme after the war TCH gave two explanations to John Humphrys as to where WMDs might be and why they weren't used.

Firstly he said:

the reason that we haven't found WMDs are, is...are, Saddam had so much notice, so much warning, prior warning of our...er, invasion, that he had plenty of time to dismantle these weapons and, um, bury them in remote parts of the country.
When challenged as to why the weapons hadn't been used if Saddam had so much notice, he changed his story:

...and had so little warning of our attack that he was unable to organise the use of these weapons.
And finally, when reminded of the exchange a year later he said, shrugging his shoulders and laughing:

Hey - I'm a lawyer!
Perhaps it is appropriate that TCH was not seen near the Cenotaph this weekend...but what was Bliar doing there?
 
#19
Steamywindow said:
1946 onwards with the welfare state, founded on socialist principles. Education, health etc. for everyone. Huge improvement in life chances for the poor, with (for example) university for the first time open to people based on ability rather than cash. Great for the country, as we start to get a meritocracy.
If everything you said was as true as you think life would be great. The welfare state, as thrust forward as an example to the rest of the world is a great idea but sadly one of the worst health systems in Europe. Everyone may be able to get health care for free but you can only get health care without having to wait longer than is prudent if you go private. In Germany for example where everyone has to have health insurance even if it is paid by the social system, a long wait is classed as two weeks, not the 6 months that seems to be common in the UK.

Why do the rest of Europe not rate the qualifications that are awarded in the UK? Up until University level education the British qualifications are treated as worthless. There must be a reason for that.

As for Universities being 'for the first time' open for the 'poor' as well as the 'rich', they have always taken a large proportion of student from all backgrounds, including waiving the fees required for some students who would otherwise be unable to attend university. But if your socialist ideas are so strong, why do you think it is fair to turn away educated rich kids from university in order to fill them with a set quota of less able students.... just because of their background?

The argument was should there be a campain to get Blair and his pathetic mob out of power. You should be for that even if the only reason is that Blair, his cabinet and his politics has moved so far right that it has left the Torys to their left. Even if you are not of that view you have to see that using the education and health system in the UK as arguments in his defence is somewhat flawed.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top