The idiot left-winger is trying to throw the election!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Bazzinho1977, Feb 15, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8515949.stm

    I mean it is one thing to start bleating on about co-operatives and workers rights - and ignoring the fact that the public sector workers would rip the place to pieces to make themselves richer.

    But to then suggest, after a global recession based on too many people believing they could own their own home, that RTB was a positive revolution?

    Madness
     
  2. 'Under Tory plans, employee-owned co-operatives would be able to decide on management structures, "innovate" to cut costs and improve the standard of service'
    In other words do the jobs of the managers, who are paid to do that bit.

    'and share any financial surpluses among the staff'
    This must be a mis-print.....

    Edited to add... This really shows up one of the key problems of politics today ie everyone is trying to be the same. Whatever happened to the good old days when the tories were tories and the labourites were neo-commies? You knew where you stood.

    Eveyone suffers from 'initiative-itis'. Just run the country properly without trying to be clever ffs.
     
  3. Didn't "call me Dave" once say he "admired Blair"? :?
     
  4. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    This is absolutely moronic. Where's a decent Tory party when you need one?
     
  5. Reminds me of a bit of rebranding in 1997 - 'New Labour', and we all know how well that worked out.
     
  6. because maggie won changed the political landscape so blair was following in her footsteps.
    people don't want radical ideas they want competant management "which is about as likely in westminster as drunk in mecca :D
     
  7. I would be genuinely interested if you would list the top five issues a decent tory party would address. It would help if you could say why you feel they would be vote winners, rather than scare away floating voters. Not a wind up a genuine request.
     
  8. I've been wondering the same thing. I've never felt I could trust Cameron - too Blairish - and some of the ideas being floated at the moment are frankly worrying. I really don't know how to vote at the General Election - I like my Conservative PPC and think he will be a genuinely hard-working MP, but the Conservatives as a whole are certainly 'least worst' rather than most favoured choice.

    I genuinely wish I could feel passionately about the Conservative Party, given my absolute (and well-earned) loathing of The Labour Party, but I can't. In all honesty, I worry about the future of the country in the hands of any of the parties touting for votes.
     
  9. Sounds like the Boy Osbourne has been taking the wrong Meds. We don't want another woolly minded, Pseudo-Marxist thinking coming from the Tory Party. Cameroony really wants to get a hard grip on his Shadow Cabinet.

    Osbourne sounds like he is more than a little confused..... maybe he should resign and let somebody in the Conservative Party into the post who knows what they are talking about.....

    Get a grip Dave..... you have only weeks to go before McBalloon b*ggers off into the Dumpster of History............ 8O
     
  10. Cameron is aping Blair who aped Hitler. Both Blair and Hitler used personal popularism as a means to party progression. Hitler was a great believer in giving the crown what it wanted. He had the Versailles Agreement to unite his audience, he had the the 'culprits' (whipping boys) to unite people against and, because he made a point of being all things to all men he was able to attract very diverse sections of the country. Blair had the sleaze of the Major incumbency to unite the country and polarise them and he used the same tactics of popularism and being all things to all men. Blair spelled out no major policies in the run up to the election, even his manifesto was a masterpiece of 'in the eye of the beholder interpretation' you could make of it what you wanted, there was plenty of everything in there for everyone and because the phraseology was so loose you could nearly always see a perceived advantage. He started his career not by fleshing out major policy but by packing No 10 with all the b, c & d list celebs he could talk into going there to give everyone the message, "I'm young and trendy and liked by the people you like so I must be great."
    Cameron should stand up for what he believes in and be a strong leader. Blair came out with that cock about going in to Iraq with or without the mandate because it makes him look charismatic and a strong leader ready to make the tough decisions and save the world rather than the weak publicity seeker who wanted to court the Americans and because he'd seen what the Falklands and GW1 did for the Tories and thought he'd get more of the same. Hard times need strong decisive leaders from the front not shallow publicity seekers or burned out prematurely senile puppets for corrupt disgraced ministers.
     
  11. To be honest, this doesnt sound like that bad an idea!

    I think it will have two main effects:

    1. Kill off middle managers.
    2. Improve productivity.

    Both of which are the bane of the modern Public sector.

    But of course, the detail is missing on how exactly it will work, and the detail is where this will succeed or fail.
     
  12. Look behind you. It's back in the 1960s where the party left it.
     
  13. I haven't thought this through, so it's a knee-jerk reaction. As a socialist, I think workers' co-operatives are a wonderful alternative to capitalist businesses, but my initial reactions are thus:

    1) So there is no question of the armed forces becoming workers' co-operatives?

    2) It might be a good idea for health services, but has the NHS not been fcuked up already by being tied into ridiculously expensive PFI contracts. Would the workers' co-operatives have to take on that ridiculous burden?

    EDIT: Have just (partially :roll: ) engaged brain and had a "flash of the blindingly obvious" that, instead of being publicly-owned (non profit-making), they are suggesting that, in addition to ones salary, the workers co-operative might be encouraged to try to make a profit from providing the service. :omfg: As if the PFI (Profit From Illness) was sufficiently scandalous. :omg:
     
  14. But by killing off middle managers they will end up with nurses being compliance and H&S officers instead of nursing. So simply replace one lot of middle managers with another.

    I have some experience of trying to rip out these "middle managers" and "interfering accountants". Most of them are working bloody hard doing difficult jobs but give a nice easy target.

    No amount of calling them a co-operative is going to protect these organisations from complying with relevant workplace legislation, for example.
     
  15. and the workers will start looking to recruit a layer below them to take on the jobs they don't like doing so then the original workers become............oh yes, middle managers.