Posted by Dave on Tuesday Jun 05, 12:12
Okay, so some of the Labour supporters on this site and myself including acknowledge that Leech isn't the most effective of MP's. However, I am still angry enough with Labour of the issue of Iraq to continue voting for them, along with many others who post on here. My questions to the Labour supporters is this; How will you stop ex-labour supporters from voting Lib Dem?
+ tags coming soon
( 518 Comments )
Mike
Tuesday Jun 05, 13:22
john leech IS an effective MP.
Keith Bradley failed to oppose one Labour blunder after another: Post offices closing all over his constituency, Metrolink not built, tuition fee lies, and arrogant complacency when doctors voiced their fears in the Christie review.
Does anyone really think a Labour backbench sheep will stand up to the Labour Council selling off part of Marie Louise Gardens for example? Or the threat to axe staff at Southern Cemetery, averted only when staff approached john who made the issue public?
two years have gone by but still Labour don't realise why they really lost.
Labour Supporter
Tuesday Jun 05, 13:24
We can't "stop" anyone from voting for who they like. If you will not contemplate voting Labour because the Labour Government made a mistake in 2003 and that mistake is not recoverable. If this is the case then tehre is nothing we can do to "stop" you voting for the Lib dems. Oddly enough though they did actually vote to send the troops to Iraq (and Afghanistan before that).
If however you think that the Government is to be judged on its broad performance then i think that it is widely acknowledged that this Labour Governement has done muchthat it can be proud of. Low interest rates, low mortgage rates, high employment, stable economy, assistance for penioners and working families. Trade union rights, better maternity/paternity legislation, action on cghild poverty unprecedented in the rest of Europe and the developed world, taking a leading role on ending world debt and freeing up trade to African nations, civil partnerships, anti discrimination legislation, action on anti social behanviour, a real attempt to regenerate poor neighbourhoods, banning hunting with dogs, massive investment in health and eduction particulalry pre school education and so on and so on.
On a local level Manchester Labour Council has been pro-active in creating Manchester as a city with a world class repuation in art, sport and design. We punch way above our weight nationally and internationally. The Labour Council promoted the Commonwealth games (Lib dems voted against), they led a fantastic city centre regeneration after the bomb (lib dems opposed this most of the time). The council is also dealing seriously with our deprived neighbourhoods, takes the lead on skills and employment development for Manchester residents , takes a tough line of anti social behaviour (opposed by the Lib dems again). and so on and so on.
Labour Supporter
Tuesday Jun 05, 13:27
Ah welcome back Leech's attack dogs!!
Mike- don't just repeat Leech's lies about Southern Cemetery. Please try and present the truth. If you don't I will. If you don't know the truth i suggest you ask leech. he will probably tell you to temper your remarks as he was caught out lying and probably doesn't want the issue raised again. The cemetery was never closing. He knew it but he repeated the lie that it was. Please try and be more careful in future.
Mike
Tuesday Jun 05, 13:35
John Leech never said Southern Cemetery was closing. You said he said it. He didn't. Closing the office and axing its staff was considered by the Council. it didn't happen, thanks mostly to the public outcry that would never have happened if the area was represented by a Labour poodle MP who owed more to his council mates than to his local residents.
And Lib Dems "oppose Town centre regeneration" ? "Opposed the commonwealth Games" ???! Come off it. Nobody believes these lies.
It is however true that Labour's Council has slashed Manchester's Adult Education service, and presides over one of the worst education authorities in the Country. Labour's Councillors in charge of education have had 10 years of government and decades of Town Hall Control. Thanks to their failures and incompetence, Manchester's kids have poor life prospects.
Mike
Tuesday Jun 05, 13:41
Manchester's Labour party is in the pay of property developers. They've taken at least £29,000 from Opal, Crosby and Ask developments to pay for leaflets and their "campaigns." At least residents know their 34 Lib Dem Councillors and MP aren't in hock with the construction industry, building on every postage-stamp-sized plot of land across our city.
And don't even get started on Green spaces. A new primary school in Heaton Park? The concrete carbuncle in Piccadilly? Selling off allotments such as cypress street and edge lane? Selling off land in Marie Louise gardens for more flats?
Labour are so out of touch they even wanted us to pay to park in OUR city centre 8am-midnight seven days a week.
Thankfully there are 34 Councillors and an MP who have minds of their own, unlike the Labour sheep.
Greg
Tuesday Jun 05, 13:46
Mike - I would be careful about who you accuse who of being "in the pay" of who.
The Liberal Democrats did refuse to support the Commonwealth Games in the council chamber. Thats a fact. No amout of Fib dem spin will explain that one away.
Given that your MP is signing Macdonalds campaign EDMs whilst getting hospitality off them I would be careful about the stones you are throwing towards that glasshouse.
Mike
Tuesday Jun 05, 13:48
Thanks to Manchester's Labour Councillors, the City Council opposes the Sustainable Communities Bill, and supports ID cards. How bizarre is that! Thankfully John Leech has is the right way round - he supports the Sustainable Communities bill and opposes pointless ID cards.
Mike
Tuesday Jun 05, 13:52
Manchester Labour party took £29,000 from property developers to pay for their leaflets. That's a fact.
As for the 2002 Ganes, you'll find that when a funding shortfall was uncovered in early 2002, the Lib Dems were 100% behind the Government putting its London-biased hand in pocket to cover as much of the shortfall as possible.
Mike
Tuesday Jun 05, 13:58
Dear Greg/ Labour Supporter, If the Council is so great, how come roads and pavements all over Manchester are in such a mess?
Labour Supporter
Tuesday Jun 05, 14:03
Mike - "John Leech never said Southern Cemetery was closing.."
Manchester Lib dem Website 17th October 2006 "John Leech has hailed the decision of the Council to rule out the office closure....
"
Stop taking us for idiots.
Perhaps you can tell us about the Sustainable Communities Bill and how it will directly benefit Manchester residents. also you could perhaps explain how it will add value to work already being done by the council and the government. It's not enough to go round saying you support things that sound nice like "sustainable" and "communities" and "bills". Anyone can do that. its easy. You have to tell us what it is, what difference it would make and who is going to pay for it. Your last council budget differed in total from Labour's budget for Manchester by less that half of 1 percent. You are an oppositionist protest vote. When you try to get serious you unravel.
Oh by the way John Leech and hios cronies took £23000 off an old lady to pay for their leaflets.
Also the reason you know who gave what to who is because a Labour Government introduced legislation to make it illegal not to. Oh and before you get on you high horse I recall that your party took millions off some property developer.
Labour Supporter
Tuesday Jun 05, 14:04
Mike - "John Leech never said Southern Cemetery was closing.."
Manchester Lib dem Website 17th October 2006 "John Leech has hailed the decision of the Council to rule out the office closure....
"
Stop taking us for idiots.
Perhaps you can tell us about the Sustainable Communities Bill and how it will directly benefit Manchester residents. also you could perhaps explain how it will add value to work already being done by the council and the government. It's not enough to go round saying you support things that sound nice like "sustainable" and "communities" and "bills". Anyone can do that. its easy. You have to tell us what it is, what difference it would make and who is going to pay for it. Your last council budget differed in total from Labour's budget for Manchester by less that half of 1 percent. You are an oppositionist protest vote. When you try to get serious you unravel.
Oh by the way John Leech and hios cronies took £23000 off an old lady to pay for their leaflets.
Also the reason you know who gave what to who is because a Labour Government introduced legislation to make it illegal not to. Oh and before you get on your high horse I recall that your party took millions off some property developer.
Labour Supporter
Tuesday Jun 05, 14:04
Mike - "John Leech never said Southern Cemetery was closing.."
Manchester Lib dem Website 17th October 2006 "John Leech has hailed the decision of the Council to rule out the office closure....
"
Stop taking us for idiots.
Perhaps you can tell us about the Sustainable Communities Bill and how it will directly benefit Manchester residents. also you could perhaps explain how it will add value to work already being done by the council and the government. It's not enough to go round saying you support things that sound nice like "sustainable" and "communities" and "bills". Anyone can do that. its easy. You have to tell us what it is, what difference it would make and who is going to pay for it. Your last council budget differed in total from Labour's budget for Manchester by less that half of 1 percent. You are an oppositionist protest vote. When you try to get serious you unravel.
Oh by the way John Leech and hios cronies took £23000 off an old lady to pay for their leaflets.
Also the reason you know who gave what to who is because a Labour Government introduced legislation to make it illegal not to. Oh and before you get on your high horse I recall that your party took millions off some property developer.
Labour Supporter
Tuesday Jun 05, 14:04
Sorry about the repeated post. Not sure whu that happens
Dave
Tuesday Jun 05, 14:05
Stop taking us for idiots! Three times?!
Dave
Tuesday Jun 05, 14:11
Like I have stated many times, I would first of all like to see the Labour Cabinet make a very public and sincere apology for the mistakes made in Iraq (to my knowledge only Harriet Harman has made an apology from the cabinet, during BBC's Question Time). I would then want them to work out a way of pulling out of Iraq, and committing themselves to pulling out of Iraq, with a time scale!
I would also want them to stop the proposed plan of introducing ID cards.
Then and only then would I want to reconsider voting for Labour/Lib Dems
Alan
Tuesday Jun 05, 14:51
Dave, at last a sensible and constructive posting. Lets hope the postings give some good answers as opposed to just criticising the opposition.
Alan
Tuesday Jun 05, 14:57
Labour Supporter - you seem to have read and digested the Labour website quite intently. That's not what waivering supporters are looking for. Anyone can read Labours top 100 achievements on their website. Lets start discussing this properly.
Dave - in relation to Iraq, whether or not you believe our actions to be right or wrong, I think it would be irresponsible to withdraw until the situation over there has stabilised. I agree that there should be a time table but I don't think that the timetable should be rushed in order to appease people who demand an immediate withdrawl. As for apologies, I don't believe that is necessary, if every government/ MP/ Minister was to apologise for everything that certain people deem to be wrong then we'd be here a very long time!
Dave
Tuesday Jun 05, 15:15
Thanks Alan for taking time out to give a sensible and constructive reply. If only more Labour supporters were like you!
I don't expect an immediate withdrawl, however, don't think we can stay there on an open ended timescale - but surely we can say, "such and such a date and we are out". And in that time scale we try and get UN peace keepers in or somthing onlong those lines (before anyone has ago at my idea, I am not a military adviser, it is the process that I am concerned with here, not the specific solution). If peace comes before that date, we withdraw, if Iraq is still experiencing civial war by the withdraw date, we still withdraw.
The one thing I disagree with you Alan, is that this war saw the biggest protests known to the UK - the government should apologise. Admittedly, when David Blunkett apologised for his affairs, only the Daily Mail cared. I agree that MP's/Government shouldn't apologise for every minor mistake, but can you call the situation in Iraq small?
Alan
Tuesday Jun 05, 17:03
Dave, no I don't think it's a small thing but at the end of the day if Tony Blair stood up and said sorry would that really make you vote for them again? It's like Thatcher saying sorry for 11 years of battering the country; you still wouldn't vote for her again!
As for UN peace keepers, it would be nice if we could trust the UN to do a sensible job. Look at Bosnia, rules of engagement were that you couldn't shoot someone ven if they were taking pot shots in the street at innocent civilians; so what is the point of them being there?? Again I go back to the point that the rights or wrongs of the campaign are now insignificat, the fact is that we are there and we shouldn't do half a job. I would like to see all our troops back and out of the firing line as much as the next man but militray decisions shouldn't be made on the back of public opinion. We should ensure that before we withdraw the infrastructure is solid and if that takes another 10 years then so be it. If we can achieve it by next week then that would be great. What we shouldn't do is cut and run.
Alan
Tuesday Jun 05, 17:37
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKCOL54617120070605
Labour Supporter
Tuesday Jun 05, 17:40
I didn't read any website, Labour or otherwise actually. they are the achievements of a Labour Government and a Labour. I haven't heard anyone deny any of them. Though no doubt that is the cue for the Lib Dem rottweilers from 8 Gawsworth to put in an appearance.
hats the magic formula then to get wavering Labour supporters (or as I like to call them, Lib dems) to vote Labour?
Dave
Tuesday Jun 05, 20:51
Alan, what about Vietnam? I think public opinion was right in that war, but just look at how long it went on before America said enough is enough. How many Iraqi's, British, American and the allies have to be killed before we pull out?
I don't think we should compare Thatcher mistakes with that of Blair. They may be similar in so many ways, but I really don't think it makes a difference.
If Blair/Brown change their Home and Foreign Policies and apologise, then yes I really would go back to voting Labour.
The best way I can summerise is that I feel that I have fallen out with a long friend over something that they have done. If it was the case of being friends, I would be happy to forgive them if they made amends, but I don't see this happening at the moment.
sedgelypark
Tuesday Jun 05, 22:04
Sorry I haven't been on for a while but I've been moving house and offline...but I'm back McLeech.
Has anyone noticed we are about to have a change of PM and there was a report in the Sunday Times that senior military figures have briefed Brown about getting the troops out in an orderly fashion so maybe former Labour voters will get their wish soon so they can come home.
Mike, how do you respond to the latest fib lies peddled during the last election when they lied to voters that Manchester was going to go to fortnightly bin collections. The trouble was it has never even been discussed or on the agenda. The Fibs are utterly without shame. Come On Mike, justify that lie like you're trying to justify the lies about Southern Cemetary.
Interestingly on the subjects of bins and Fib Dem rubbish it seems Bolton council went to fortnightly collection when the Fibs were busy ruining that council before the voters woke up and threw them out.
Mike, any thoughts on the mess the Fibs in Liverpool are making of the capital of culture. A massive defecit and the revamp of the iconic Neptune theatre not even started. Compare that to the Games or Manchester International Festival which is peeing all over Liverpool's feeble efforts to regenerate their city. That's what happens when the Fibs get power...chaos.
sedgelypark
Tuesday Jun 05, 22:15
I have another addition to my McLeech stalking.
I was out knocking out in Chorlton and we happened to come across Mr Ankers (the W is silent) and the boy wonder with some other geeks.
Anyway, our knocking out kept overlapping with the Fibs. So we stopped to listen to McLeech's doorstep patter.
It's worth noting that there was four of us who are all massively experienced campaigners with serious Labour MPs and we couldn't help but collapse with laughter at McLeech's pathetic patter. He didn't even mention he was the local MP in amongst his banal witterings. Probably didn't wany any more case work he couldn't handle
My mate has worked for loads of MPs and was shocked at McLeech's casual garb...t-shirt and beige jeans. He said 'I'd never let my MPs out like that it looks really amateurish.' And he was right. He looked really sad but how useless he was on the doorstep amused us no end.
Interestingly I met Lucy Powell for the first time in the committee rooms and I was very impressed. Very poised, knew the patch, rallied the troops and could string a sentence together. She will wipe the floor with McLeech. Very strong candidate.
Alan
Wednesday Jun 06, 12:39
Labour Supporter - I've voted for Labour over the past 10 years without even having to think about it. It's not so much what they have done anymore, it's about what they're going to do, perhaps you can talk about that in depth?? I reject the statement that waivering Labour voters are 'Lib Dems' because I'm certainly not and never will be.
Dave - in relation to your comment about Vietnam, granted, it was a pointless war that cost many lives and achieved absolutely nothing. Public opinion was absolutely right. However, I feel that you are missing my point so I'll stress it again. The rights and wrongs of the initial invasion, are for this point, irrelevant. It is essential that before we leave Iraq we ensure that there is a stable infrastructure, both economic and political, to ensure that Iraqi authorities can manage independently of Western intervention. When this is achieved, we should withdraw immediately. I think that the British forces are making real in roads into achieveing this due to good strategy and ultimately as a result of good training and leadership.
If the alliance pulled out of Iraq now then it would result in complete chaos and a civil war would ensue. What needs to be taken into account is that the media only show us what they want us to see, they only print stories that sell and often they omit the positives that have occurred since the invasion.
My brother has just returned from a 6 month term in Iraq and whilst I won't divulge his account of being out there on a public forum; what is happening out there, certainly from a British perspective, is alot more positive than the media make out and I believe that this should be taken into account also.
John Holliker
Wednesday Jun 06, 16:57
The name calling and bickering simply doesn't move the debate forward. It's just self-perpeuating drivel. Patently, both sides are 'guilty' bedfellows on a local and national basis, so much that they could trade insults until this server blows. Big yawn. The name calling masks any 'good' you do for this area. Maybe that's deliberate.
Come the next election, do I vote for the MP who so unequivocally lied on the Christie Hospital, or the party who took us blindly into a futile war which has fuelled world instability, simply because its leader was loved up over Boss Hogg's younger brother?
Lucy Powell has every chance of getting this seat if she simply distances herself from the gobs and losers. It's a team game chaps. You're the annoying kid in the playground who wants to keep the ball and badly show off new tricks, only to trip up in the first tackle.
And as for Mr Leech? Well, the McDonalds episode suggests the clumsy failings of a naive, and not-for-parliament politician. Fine, he's here and there (and rightly so) backing community campaigns, but methinks he's a bawler and not an influencer. I don't see much change in this area under his command. When Bradley was around, we had new schools and money for the doctors surgery. You saw a tangible sign of having an MP, not a sh*t-load of patronising nonsense through your door 2-3 weeks before an election.
(NB: to newsletter editors. I know it's a bin. You don't need your candidate to point to it.)
Dave's asked a rational question aimed at anyone interested in a healthy, respectful, witty debate. If you want to bicker, why not pick up your handbags and have it out...maybe outside The Christie Hospital.
You could be guaranteed of a pathetically slow police response and a ride home on a slow, stinky, clapped-out bus with some 14 year olds from the local high school smoking a spliff. (Christ, I've turned into Peter H)
Alan's right on Iraq. Stable doors and all that, but it's a heinous, precedent-setting war, the real motive for which remainds blindly. But you don't abandon ship and let the carnage proper begin.
Sedgeley Park and co. If this sort of attitude/aproach prevails on the doorsteps you knock (but why don't Labour ever knock on mine?), maybe a tour of duty in another Trafford (where your expertise would undoubtedly turn the seat red) would be in Labour's best interests.
Mike. Your party is pathetically short of substance, moral conviction and weeks when they don't piggyback on non-political community efforts. Oh..and Yasmin Zazala. Is it true that she was last seen doing summer season with The Krankies in Skegness?
peter h
Wednesday Jun 06, 20:26
nice to see a bit of passionate debate for a change.
But I can't let labour supporter get away unscathed with all his claims.
Low Interest rates? Worldwide phenomenon. Not a result of labour policies. And it'll go haywire in the next few years.
Low mortgage rates? Not the point. Look at house price rises under Labour. A disaster which will eventually tip hundreds of thousands of people into serious debt as interest rates rise. Brown could have prevented that by controlling mortgage lending, but didn't have the wit or balls .
High employment? Look at the mix of jobs on offer out there now. Not so clever.
Stable economy? On the surface. But at what price? The country is massively in debt. The average individual debt in UK is double the European average. Public utilities and national resources have been sold off to foreign interests. PFIs are financial time bombs. Private Equity is ripping into and will destroy public companies, and remove directors from public scrutiny.
Assistance for pensioners? Are you joking?. Who refused to tie wages to pensions then?
Assistance to working families? House prices force both parents to work, so the mother can't stay home with kids
Trade Union Rights? Really? Labour's restored what thatcher took away, has it?
Ending world debt? So how come the vulture funds are using UK law ?
Civil partnerships? How come a long term couple living together unmarried don't have the same rights then?
Action on antisocial behaviour? Do you mean the fact that UK has 20% of all the world's CCTV cameras, and the largest prison population in Europe?
Banning hunting with dogs? There's more hunting with dogs now than before the legislation, because it is unenforcable.
massive investment in health? And what did they do with it?
Obviously, they have achievements too, but we are about to get as PM a chancellor who oversaw all the above, and if you think he's put this country in good financial shape, you're just plain wrong. Brown's claims to financial prudence is all smoke and mirrors.
Greg
Thursday Jun 07, 09:05
"Who refused to tie pensions to wages then" - well err.. the Lib dems for a start. Or is that one of those "thats the national Lib dems , we are a federal party so we have our own policies here in this region/town/street/person.
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 09:08
Perhaps you would like to tell us how the Libs Dems would have fared the last 10 years then. What you would have done different. Can I just remind you that when you are asked this in manchester youi produce a budget that is 99.5% the same as the one Labour produces. You are a protest group, a franchise. You are not a serious political party. It is fair enough to criticise what others have done, and to be fair you have raised that to an art form. So for example your suggestion that Brown should have controlled mortgage lending. How exactly would a "liberal" democrat Chancellor force independent private sector non- government building societies to not lend so many mortagages? I am keen to hear this one.
Alan
Thursday Jun 07, 10:38
Labour Supporter, firstly just because some one disagrees with you doesn't automatically make them a Lib Dem as you seem to be implying. Secondly,you seem to be turning this into a 'my party is better than your party' debate. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how the Lib Dems would have fared in Government because they have never been in Government and hopefully never will.
The debate needs to be focussed around the fact that yes, Labour have done some good things but they have also neglected other things. At present they are squeezing the middle classes (please excuse the term as I don't like to label people like that, it's just easier for the sake of this discussion). I'm 27 years old and work my a*se off, earn a good wage, I'm not in debt (apart from my student loan) and I can't get a house of my own because I can't afford it!! I have to drive alot with work and with every month brings a new way to penalise the driver, to squeeze more money out of them! It's outrageous! If you want to improve the environment then hike up taxes on air travel being as they are one of the major polluters, not on the poor bas*ard who has to drive to work because public transport is both ineffective, insufficient, dirty and expensive!
Dave
Thursday Jun 07, 11:44
Or better still, when will the Labour government put pressure on Bus and Train operators to improve the services that they offer at the same time reducing the price of a ticket? I am so glad I bought my house in 1999 on the Merseybank estate, as I doubt now that I would of been able to afford a house. I am glad that I no longer work in the NHS as Labour have screwed that up to, especially the salaries!
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 11:46
So that's the problem decsibed then. When do we move on to the bit where you propose a solution to these problems.
My issue is not with people who disagree with me but with people who confine themselves to pointing out what is wrong but don't propose a solution. And not just some simplistic solution that anyone can agree with but a practical one that is workable and can command the support of enough people for it to be implemented. For example, your proposal to tax air travel (which is already taxed by the way). How do you make that fair to people who are on a lower income who fly to go on their hols. An airline tax is regressive in that it does not take account of useage or ability to pay. May be then you answer is to tax frequent flyers more. This tends to be business travel. Business will then complain and campaign against you. if you persist they will pass on the increased costs to their customers. This is in effect a regressive tax on their customers, many of whom will be people on lower incomes. You could argfue then that we tax their profits instead.Then they will take their business elsweher to a country which they see as more business friendly. This will cause job losses and more people on lower incomes. And so on. A bit simplistic I know but the point I am trying to make is that there are hardly ever any policies which are free and universally popular. Government and politics is about making choices and coming to tough decisions. It's not about describing the problem. I don't like traffic congestion and I don't like paying extra taxes. What policy have you got in mind for me?
Trying to have a sensible discussion whilst teh Lib Dem attack dogs appear to be sleeping. They'll be here soon though snarling and growling.
Dave
Thursday Jun 07, 12:01
Bring public transport back into public owndership, therefore reducing comptetion in private sector, where corners are cut (dirty old bus stock etc). Stop out of town developments for shopping, leisure etc, which puts pressure on car use, instead regenerate run down inner city areas. Force car companies to convert new cars into LPG and other "greener fuels" just like they introduced unleaded and catalitic convertors. Are just some quick ideas. I am sure their are many more, and to my knowledge they are not Lib Dem or Labour policy ideas.
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 12:44
Dave- without commentin on the merits of the policies, some of which I agree with , imagine you are now in Government.
Nationalisation was hugely unpopular so bringing public transport back into public ownership would be poklitcially contentious and could cost you the election (or at least your majority). Also it would be massively expensive unless you are taling about nationalisation without comepensation for the current ownere of the assets ( a policy which is probably as mad as it is unfair). So you need to either put up taxes or borrow more money. Neither of them are vote winners. Plus there is also the argument that not all public transport has ever been in state control. and when it is in state control who runs it, civil servants in whitehall? another vote winner. For more taxes and civil servants Vote Dave!!
Stop out of town developments. How? ban them. People like them. Voters like them? People love going to the Trafford Centre. Lots don't I agree but millions do. are you going to deny people the right to spend their money where they like. Shop where Dave tells you!! Vote dave. Your time in Govenment is hanging by a thread.
"Force car companies" to convert new cars to LPG. What if they don't want to be forced. What if they take their businesses to somewhere where they aren't forced to do this. Massive Job Losses - Vote Dave!! You are down to single figures mate.
I don't advocate a regualtion free zone for business by any means and there are legislative routes we xcan take if there is politcial will, but there also has to be a realstic consenus to force people to do things. many years ago it would have been seen as impossible for a government to ban people from smoking in pubs. But a consensus has grown, fuelled by education and "propaganda" which now allows that to happen. Yes your ideas are "quick", but how do you implement them whwn there are so many differnet and conflictin views and opinions in society. oppostion parties don't need to answer this question but governments do. Which is why governing is difficult ( for any serious party) and opposition is easy.
My previous question, I don't like congestion charging and I don't like paying more tax. What poicy can you offer me?
Hope you are taking this in the spirit it is meant. I am trying to enageg seriously about the issues that this borad seems to treat lightly sometimes.
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 12:52
I meant I don't like congestion and I don't like extra taxes.
Also apols for the spelling. No time really to edit posts.
Dave
Thursday Jun 07, 12:58
Car companies changed to unleaded, why not LPG! And lets face it they (the management) might moan behind closed doors, but how many car companies nowadays are keen to be green? Honda is one example. They just need a little nudge to move quicker.
Yes, chav's love the Trafford Centre, but a lot of people are genuinely concerned about urban neglect, post offices shutting, corner shops disappearing, and high streets becoming cloned. If we introduce massive predestrianized zones, better incentives for taking empty shops etc and don't allow planning permission for out of town etc, that will have a positive impact enviromentally, and socially!
When it comes to taxes, I would be happy to spend a penny more per pound if I knew it was going to be spent improving the enviroment that I lived in, the health care services, education etc. Not very popular I acknowledge, but it is better than so called stealth taxes that Labour are obessed with.
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 13:06
"chav's love the Trafford Centre" - I'll think you'll find ordinary working people of all ages, races and types love the Trafford centre. I'm afraid since you can't resist arrogant sneering at people who aren't like you then I am going to bail out of this engagement. I incidentally have spent many years working in urban renewal in Moss side/ Hulme / East manchester and other parts of the country both in a paid and volutary capacity. People with attitudes to ordinary people like you make me sick quite honestly.
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 13:08
Oh by the way Dave, You are correct. You're not a Lib Dem, you're a Tory.
Alan
Thursday Jun 07, 13:28
So we're suggesting that air traffic shouldn't be taxed further so that people on lower incomes can go on holiday??? Thats the biggest load of bol*ocks I've ever heard!. Instead we tax the motorist??!! There was a day when people who couldn't afford to go on holiday made do with a break in the UK, why should I have to subsidise air travel, because that's in effect what it boils down to, so that people who might not be able to afford it otherwise, can go on holiday! In addition to pay as you drive, they now introduce a ridiculous congestion charge for Manchester... to include the M60!!!! If we had an underground system identical to London's then I'd be all for it... but we don't and we won't. And quite frankly if you think I'm going to sit on two busses every morning that are never on time, will increase my journey into work by in excess of an hour, and sit next to some guy who wants to give me his life story, or even worse a group of kids on a sugar high then you're sadly mistaken. It's not about the environment it's about squeezing more money out of people who actually have the nouse to get off their backsides and work for a living!!! And if that sounds Tory then so be it!
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 13:47
Is there anyone on this site who isn't a snob?
Of course there are problems with public transport and of course people have to make choices and take responisbility for themselves and of course some people shoyuld behave better in public but I find your patronising, b*gger the poor and the disadvantaged attitude disgusting.
So are you suggesting that our taxation policy shouldn't worry if it means that only wealthy affluent people can holiday abroad. For god's sake man get a grip. Are you sure you were ever a Labour voter. You sound like some mad colonel blimp tory. Listen to yourself.
Dave
Thursday Jun 07, 14:06
http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/manifesto/manf13.htm
Actually, I knew the policies that I posted above weren't Labour or Lid Dem, they actually were from the BNP manifesto! Always like to know what the enemy are up to!
I go to the Trafford Centre, the chav's comment was tongue in cheek.
Alan
Thursday Jun 07, 14:10
No mate, you listen to yourself!! People have no choice but to drive, but people have a choice as to whether or not they go on holiday! Why should drivers be taxed to the hilt and air travel not, purely so that people can go on holiday!! It's ridiculous! It's all well and good saying 'of course there are problems with public transport' but that doesn't help the driver when they are suddenly given a choice of paying taxes worth more than their car is worth or getting inadequate public transport!. If anything is going to bash the poor then it's that, I would hazard a guess that even families on low incomes drive... or is it just their two weeks holiday that you're concerned about!
And my comments in relation to subsidising people who can't be bothered to get a job; I was not talking about low income families I was talking about the people who go to the DSS every week and collect their money off the state then pi*s it up the wall,of the people who are claiming disability allowance when there is nothing bloody wrong with them etc.
Labour has become stagnant, it's back stabbed the best leader it's ever had and quite frankly ever will have and has undemocratically replaced him with a guy who's got about as much charisma as John Leech!
If Labour stand a chance at the next election then they need to stop taking middle class Britain for a ride, they've pushed it far enough and if they don't stop then people like myself will return to the Conservatives!
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 14:33
..Dave - Oh! sorry the old " I was only joking " defence. Don't buy it mate!
Alan - "DSS" - " Disability allowance". Your Daily Mail random nutter letter generator is out of date. Oh and "return to the Conservatives" speaks volumes.
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 14:35
Oh and by the way Dave, perhaps a less controversial source than the BNP for your comedy, tongue in cheek material in future.
Alan
Thursday Jun 07, 14:39
Firstly, I don't read the Daily Mail, I read the Times.
Secondly, respond to my comments
Thirdly, get a life
Dave
Thursday Jun 07, 14:51
This is really starting to sound scarey for me! I think I am finding myself agreeing with Alan. Labour Supporter, I am starting to think that you are really Thomas Graham! Not seen the owner of this site post in at least a year. And I've never seen him and you post on the same thread! lol
Dave
Thursday Jun 07, 14:53
my humour wasn't for sale in the first place by the way Greg/LS/Whoever you are.
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 14:55
Ok I will respond to your comments if not to your arrogant rudeness.
Even poor people are entitled to holidays. Or is it just the rich?
Yes poor people drive cars but with much less frequncy than wealthier people. They can't afford them! Gedditt!!
Thats why so many of these people that you so despise use public transport. Public transport in this country is predminatly buses and buses are predominatly used by people who don't have cars, people who don't have cars usually are in that position becasue they can't afford them . there isn't a group of people vreated in a factory by the government whose sole purpose is to torment you and your "middle class" mates. You really are off the beam. Honestly you are.
You drive a car because public transport is crap. Well I'm gonna take your line and say that i don't like people who drive cars, smelly, polluting, dangerous, (the cars not the drivers....though come to think of it!!) so I want them taxed to the hilt so that i can have better , nore, more efficient buses. What's wrong with argument in your world.
The very idea that New Labour is "taking middle class Britain for a ride" is berdering on the insane.
Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that the governments sole intention these past 10 years has been to whip every penny out of you middle class people and give it to the underserving poor. Well on a fairly basisc level why don't poor people have lots more money then. they are better off in many ways that true but to listen to you and your Daily Mail type fulminations you would think that the poor are living the life of Riley. You really do need to get out more.
Your scrounging, undeserving poor has been the refrian of the tory right ever since the welfare
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 14:57
Again apols for the spelling. and the last sentence should have the words "welfare state was created" on the end of it.
Alan
Thursday Jun 07, 15:00
Dave, it's definately not Thomas Graham he's a decent guy who speaks reasoned sense
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 15:04
You are begining to agree with Alan, Dave, because you do agree.
You blame the poor for their predicament and you think govenrnment is about easy-peasy choices that only enlightened geniuses like you have the wit to make. The rest of us who are trying to balance conflicting views and do the right thing are just idiots, chavs, poor, east manchester dwellers, dolites, benefit scrungers,warmongers or whatever.
I believe the Labour Party and the Labour Government is trying to tackle these tough issues as best it can. I think the Lib Dems are a joke and the Tories are a menace. What do you believe?
Alan
Thursday Jun 07, 15:07
LS, you really have got the wrong impression of me and I hope that Dave and Peter will back that up. I don't despise low income families. My family are all from working class and I'm proud of it. They've worked hard all their lives and they've prospered. My Dad went from maintainance man at his firm to a senior project manager; my mum has gone from ambulance driver to Deputy Head of a very good school. Alot of the time my Nan and Grandad didn't have enough money to put food on the table and went without so don't try and second guess me pal!!!
As for taxing motorists to provide better busses. Is that bus going to get me to Bristol at 7am when I have a meeting... no, is it going to get me to Birmingham when I have a meeting .. no. If I work late and leave the office at 8.30pm am I going to be back in time to watch The Apprentice.... no!! When it's pi**ing down with rain and I'm wearing a suit is this magical bus going to pick me up from my door step... no!
You are a prime example of what Labour has become!
Dave
Thursday Jun 07, 15:20
Personally, I think that the British Isles have such diversity that it is a great holiday destination. I have't been abroad now for several years as I am now learning to appreciate places a little more local. When I worked in Stockport, I often caught the bus to work from Chorlton. Quite enjoyed the chance to read my newspaper (since we are on that topic, I switch between the Guardian and the Independent). However, in my current job, I have to rely on the car, occassionally I catch the train!
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 15:25
Don't call me pal in that patronising manner. And don't try and second guess me either. What you say about you and your family if great . So why the attitude to those less well off now. You think they are the "undeserving poor" do you?
I've no idea what you are talking about with regards to the bus. I too have to get all over the region and occasionally the country for work. I usually do it by car for a whole range of reasons but if you want to get to Bristol at 7 am then get the train. I do journeys to get to places at that time quite often and so do loads of my mates. Whats up with you?
Also we have this invention called an umbrella which I can recommend for keeping the rain off.
Alan
Thursday Jun 07, 15:25
I catch the train if I'm going to London but only for business and not pleasure. Why?? Because it costs in excess of £280 for a day return?? Hmm, the cars looking more and more appealing!
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 15:27
is great not if great
Alan
Thursday Jun 07, 15:28
Train to Bristol from Manchester... bad idea, especially if I need to be there for 7. That would be two trains in total and lets not forget the taxi to the station and from... or lets go crazy and say a bus!! That would mean I would probably have to leave at 1-2am to get there in time, if not early. By car... just under 3 hours! I don't have a problem with people who are less well off, what I do have a problem with is subsidising their holiday!
Alan
Thursday Jun 07, 15:29
LS you don't have to keep correcting your spelling we get the idea.. if I did that then the whole BB would be full of me posting to correct my spelling.
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 15:30
I go to London on the train for work about twice a month and I have never paid more than £59 quid and often as little as £25. try www.thetrainline.co.uk and book two singles. Some restirctions on time of travel but not too bad. If you find it more appealing to travel to London by car there is soemthing wrong with you.
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 15:32
You're not subsidising the holidays of the poor, you're subsidisng the holidays of the rich and the poor until you get your way and then it will be just the rich.
Can't you arrange your meetings so that you can arrive later than 7am? You don't work nights after all.
Dave
Thursday Jun 07, 15:43
Those prices are avialable but in very limited amounts. I travel to London for conferences and training events. I think the cheapest I have had is £79 return, plus tube train fares/taxi fares. Usually due to the "commuter" train to London is so expensive (£280+) and due to those prices, it is cheaper to stay over night.
Alan
Thursday Jun 07, 15:47
LS, you're absolutely right, I've got a meeting in London at the end of this month and have just paid, or the company has just paid, £59 for them. But if I need to be there for 8,9, or 10 then it's classed as peak time and then the company pays £280. That's no exageration, I was horrified to the point where I almost didn't book it regardless of who paid.
As for rearranging the 7am meetings, luckily these are rare but if you ned to meet with senior managers or directors then you have to fit in with their schedules and if it's 7am or 7pm then that's the time.
Furthermore I take back my comment on preferrably driving to London, I did that once and nearly broke down in tears it was that stressful and experience!
Alan
Thursday Jun 07, 15:48
Incidentally LS, how do you know I don't work nights??
Dave
Thursday Jun 07, 15:51
Alan he knows all about you... what with Labour and their love for CCTV, ID Cards, etc etc
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 15:57
because if you worked nights you#'d be in bed now!. So you see dave no need for smarta*se comments really.
I thought you'd approve of ID cars. We could give them to the porr and track which off licenses they are frequenting to get the ale to p*ss up the wall. and as for CCTV. We could have them everywhere to check where people are shopping in case it's somewhere you disagree with. "Chav in trafford centre sector alert!! detain, reprogramme and release in twee city centre street"!!
Alan
Thursday Jun 07, 16:01
That's a very good point I would be!
Alan
Thursday Jun 07, 16:03
Whatsmore, your plan to track the poor wouldn't work.. last I heard we would all have to pay £90 for them.. surely they wouldn't be able to afford it. Still, maybe we could tax the motorist some more and they could have it for free along with a discounted holiday for good measure!
Dave
Thursday Jun 07, 16:24
You dragging on the Chav comment really does make me think that I need to stop having a sense of humour! Mind you Labour beat that out of me sometime ago.
No I don't agree with ID Cards, as you can see on the previous thread when me an Alan discussed the issue.
Dave
Thursday Jun 07, 16:52
http://www.fmft.net/archives/piggy%20bank/speed%20cameras.bmp
Thought you might like this link Alan
peter h
Thursday Jun 07, 20:07
Personally, I'd agree with most of what Labour Supporter said, if it were true.
But much of it isn't.
He makes a big song and dance about ordinary , less well-off people.
Quite right. A lot of us come from there. I'm from a mining village, for instance.
Trouble is, the Labour government has forgotten its roots.
Under Labour, the gap between rich and poor has exploded. Why? WHatever happened from each according to his means, to each according to his needs?
Under labour, house prices have gone beyond the reach of the low paid. Why?
Why can't my daughter and her partner afford a house? Why can't Alan?
Under Labour, public transport has either become crap, or it's priced out of their reach. OK, so you can get a return ticket to London for £59 if you travel at crap times and book 10 years in advance. I can drive there, I can fly there, I can pay £280 for a ticket. But Low paid people can't do it. Why? We have the dearest trains in EUROPE. Why? Why can't an ordinary Manchester family of 4 have a day out in London tomorrow if the faqncy takes them?
My son will soon go to uni. No problem. I'll finance him. My neighbour's kid will have to go into debt. Why? Abd why not if he lives in Scotland?
My friend's daughter wants to do an MA, but her mum's a single parent on Old Moat. So she won't do it because she's scared of the debt. Under Labour. WHY?
I need an operation on my arm. I'll pay for it and choose time and place. On NHS I'd wait for months - same surgeon. WHY? Why can't Joe ordinary get it too under Labour?
Point is , Labour Supporter, that your party is supposed to be the party that looks after the less well off. And it lets them down time after time after time. I KNOW it does some good things.
But when it's being run by upper middle class barristers who send their sons to private school, then they don't begin to understand ordinary people. Because they don't know any ordinary bloody people.
I'm quite sure that you yourself have dedicated your life to ordinary people and good for you, but don't try kidding me that this Labour party shares your commitment, because it doesnt.
When even Private Equity bankers turn round and say the tax system is unfairly weighted towards the rich, as happened yesterday, then you KNOW that there is something sick in the Labour party.
And that is why I for one walked away from them in disgust. Iraq was the catalyst, but the prostitution of Labour values was the underlying reason. The time Blair sat down and got friendly with a warmongering corrupt neo-fascist US administration was for me and many others a moment of despairing disbelief.
Truth is that Labour decided years ago that it can only retain power by appeasing the middle classes and the rich , and it's been prepared to sacrifice the aspirations of the poor to do that. Under Labour, social mobility is getting harder and harder, ans underclasses are devloping. Admittedly that is a normal tendency inj a capitalist society, but Labour should be fighting against it, not pandering to it to hang on to power.
Remember,. Margaret Thatcher regards New Labour as her finest achievement.
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 07, 20:21
Jeez one of you accuses of us of appeasing the middle classes another of you accuses us of taking the middle classes for a ride. I thought you Lib Dems were all over the place but bloody hell. Do you blame the government for rising house prices and the fact that people like you use the private health sector using doctors and resources that have been provided by the public purse just because you can afford it. You prepared to inance your neighbour through university. More to the poit is he prepared to finance your son because thats what he was doing before tuition fees. Do you seriously think that this Labour Government has developed an underclass. jesus Christ where have you been living for the last 30 years.
Steve- Chorlton
Friday Jun 08, 00:33
"I need an operation on my arm. I'll pay for it and choose time and place. On NHS I'd wait for months - same surgeon. WHY? Why can't Joe ordinary get it too under Labour?"
Have you any idea the idiocy of this statement? Joe Ordinary can't get it because the surgeon is treating you. We paid for his training but you are paying for his time so he is attending to you not Joe ordinary.
Alan
Friday Jun 08, 09:02
I have to agree with Peter I'm afraid, from very recent experience this is absolutely true!
Some one I know had skin cancer and they went to the NHS and it was determined that they needed to be operated on urgently to stop the spread. The specialist (as one was needed) was not available on the NHS for 6 months. However, the very same surgeon had the cheek to turn around and say for a £1,000 consultancy fee he'd see her the next day.
I hate private health care with a passion and would refuse to use it. Doctors need to make a choice they are either private or they are public, in my mind they shouldn't be both.
Alan
Friday Jun 08, 09:03
Sorry that was meant to read I have to agree with STEVE!
peter h
Friday Jun 08, 23:41
What planet do you live on Steve? I'm saying that SHOULDN'T happen. Berk.
It doesn't happen because of me. It happens because the NHS isn't good enough, which is Labour's repsonsibility.
Peter H
Friday Jun 08, 23:51
And, Labour Supporter, I'm not a Lib Dem, I'm a socialist. Remember them? Heard of them, in fact? I seem to recall your beloved leader doesn't much care for the term?
I don't vote pro lib dem, I vote against the travesty that Labour has become.
It's letting down the very people who need it most. And YES there is an underclass developing whilst Labour is in power, and upward mobility is getting harder, not easier, under Labour. Pensioners are being left behind under Labour. Civil Liberties are disappearing under Labour. National assets are being sold off under Labour. The gap between rich and poor is growing under Labour. Directors' pay rose 22% in the Last byear under Labour, whilst the nurses got 2%. UNDER LABOUR.
Labour Supporter
Saturday Jun 09, 18:23
the taxpayers doesn'tpay for directors but it does pay for nurses.how much should they get. There pay has rised by 24% since 1997. What do you reckon? 75%? 100%. And how much more tax are you prepared to pay? I'm not saying that nursesaren't worth more money. it's not my decision to say that. its the ay review board and they% What do you say oh policy guru. And how do you know anyone agrees with you. I might remind you that this Labour govt is in power because the electorate voted for them. So you might be in a monority. Considered that possibility in your Daily Mail, hell in a hand cart, simple world of quacky duck policies?
By the way you libs dems/trots whatever are good at asking questions. What about answering one. I don't like congestion and I don't like new taxes. What policy have you got for me?
Dave
Sunday Jun 10, 10:46
Remember only 28% of the eligable voters voted Labour!
Labour Supporter
Sunday Jun 10, 13:30
Stilm more than who voted for anyone else
Martin
Sunday Jun 10, 15:35
Dave: How can you make your judgement about John Leech at the header of this article when you no longer live in the constituency?
How do you now know what work he does for local people?
BTW, I hope you're settling in to your new place. :)
peter h
Sunday Jun 10, 22:46
Oh, I see Labour supporter. The increasing gap between rich and poor has nothing to do with the Labour government, eh? Not their problem , eh?
As for the daily mail, thnaks for the suggestion, but I'll leave New Labour to read that. It is Tony Blair's favourite paper, after all.
You don't like congestion? Ask your government to do something about it. They don't have the balls , though, do they?
YOu don't like new taxes? Odd, given the number your government has introduced.
There IS actually an antidote to new taxes - collect the existing ones effectively. If the wholesale avoidance and evasion of current taxes, and the rampant black economy, were properly tackled, the tax take would rise dramntacially. Of course, that takes effective government and a Chancellor with the will to do it.
And, in case your maths isn't up to it, if 28% of the lectorate voted for Labour, 72% either didn't vote Labour or didnt vote at all. Labour is the minority, mate
Alan
Monday Jun 11, 07:39
Labour Supporter, how old are you because my nephew could speak more sense than your last couple of postings and he's 9!!
I find it extrodinarily ironic that you say you don't like new taxes!!?? As Peter pointed out, this government has implemented more stealth taxes than any government before. As for congestion, I don't like it either, but given the choice of being stuck in my air conditioned car with a pack of cigs and a bit of Aerosmith playing or sat on a bus I think you know which one I'd choose.
As for your strange comment about director pay and nurses pay, I think you have missed the point. I imagine, although I wouldn't like to second guess, that Peter was suggesting that since direectors are paying themselves stupid amounts of money (which incidentally I don't have a problem with) then they should be paying a higher rate (50%/60%) tax on their extra earnings. In turn this could be used, amongst other things, to contribute to higher nurses salaries.
As for your comments relating to how much they should increase by then 100% would be great because they do a very good job in very difficult circumstances. Additionally I don't think we should forget policemen, paramedics, armed forces and fire crews who also get paid a pittance for what are very dangerous jobs.
I also believe that in addition to tackling those who avoid tax there should be a huge shake up of the benefit system and more checks put in place. The current system is a farce and allows for people to take advantage and claim, unchecked, when they have no entitlement.
Dave
Monday Jun 11, 08:41
Martin, I might not live in the area anymore, but I do believe I should be accountable for someone I helped put into power. I still speak to friends and ex-neighbours of mine in the Merseybank and West Didsbury area. I also read the news, and find out information by reading your posts and that of others here.
I don't live and never have lived in Sedgefield, yet I take an interest also in Tony Blair!
Dave
Monday Jun 11, 08:43
By the way, forgot to mention, life up here is great. The original job that I moved up here for, didn't work out quite like I hoped, but I soon found a new job. The house is great, views are brilliant. No pollution for my little un to be breathing in, no sirens or police helicopters flying over head all night, schools are much better, interestingly, the local hospital is under threat and the local MP (who happens to be Lib Dem) campaigns hard to keep it open, lots of protest marches etc
Alan
Monday Jun 11, 09:16
Does your MP actually take part in the protest marches or just turn up for a photo op??
Dave
Monday Jun 11, 09:49
No for once, he (Tim Farron) seems to be actually very pro-active. He does seem to have genuine respect from people from a wide political spectrum. He was noted in 2005 for unseating Tim Collins who was in the Tory Shadow Cabinet for Secetary of State for Education.
Tim Farron was a local councillor, but gave up that postion to concentrate on his role of MP.
bob
Monday Jun 11, 10:19
"Tim Farron was a local councillor, but gave up that postion to concentrate on his role of MP. "
mmmmmmmmmmm..... now thers a thought!
Labour Supporter
Monday Jun 11, 10:23
Ok one more time without the personal abuse.
I am a voter and imagine you are the government (come on Lib Dems.. try hard.. you can do it!)
I don't like congestion and I am averse to more taxes. What policy can you offer me?
Oh and by the way the electoral system is the one we all operate under and Labour got more seats than any other party so I am not, MATE, in the minority. Rather self evideently I am in the majority. Duh!!
Alan
Monday Jun 11, 10:45
LS, look at the previous posts!!!!!
Averse to more taxes....
1. Higher tax on higher incomes
2. A shake up of the benefits system
3. Effective collection of taxes
Congestion...
1. Reduction in street crime and anti social behaviour so kids can safely walk to school.
2. Improve public transport
3. Reduce the cost of using trains
4. Higher taxes on air travel and 'non- green' companies to pay for the above.
5. Regulate and charge the companies who dig up the roads every five minutes.
6. Companies to incentivise car share.
7. Open up the hard shoulder as a fourth lane (as they do in Coventry) during busy / rush hour periods.
8. Prohibit wagon drivers from moving outside of the inside lane during rush hour periods.
As for your comments about minority/ majority. You don't make sense. Yes they do have the most seats but not the majority vote of the country as a whole!!
Dave
Monday Jun 11, 10:48
http://www.libdems.org.uk/media/documents/policies/PP75%20Fairer%20Simpler%20Greener.pdf
Yeah come on Lib Dems, whoever you are. Explain your tax policies as I don't understand a word of it all.
Steve
Monday Jun 11, 11:44
But Alan..
at what level is hogher income?
what does shake up mean?
effective collection as opposed to what? You think the government is wilfully failing to collect as much tax as it can?
As for you comments on congestion I would think that most of these are being done to some degree or other and it hasn't had any impact on peoples propensity to use their cars.
Alan
Monday Jun 11, 12:10
Steve, with regards the effective collection of tax I was pointing out to LS what Peter had said previously so I direct you to him for an answer.
'Shake up' means effective measures to ensure that people claiming disability allowance, 'job seekers allowance (as it's laughingly called) who are not entitled to it are caught, stopped and punished.
With regards what level higher income is, I guess thats an open question. I would suggest that city workers who take home £20 million plus bonuses in addition to their basic salary, should be charged 60% tax on anything over 1 million. I base this on bonus only, their actual basic salary should remain the same.
In relation to your comments on congestion most of them are not being done. I would suggest that half the congestion or slow moving traffic on motorways is due to unecessary roadworks or wagons overtaking each other.
Alan
Monday Jun 11, 12:15
Sorry, further point. I thought we were talking about congestion, not pollution therefore it doesn't matter how many cars are on the road
Dave
Monday Jun 11, 12:37
Why the hell does anyone need a salary of £20 million? They should be taxed even higher than you suggest Alan.
Steve
Monday Jun 11, 13:08
You would suggest that they are not being done. I would suggest that they are. The basis of political discourse I would suggest. You saying things doesn't make them so by the way. Have you any evidence for you slightly barmy assertion that road congestion (most of which is concentrated in urban areas is caused by unnecessary roadworks (whatever they are) and lorries overtaking each other. Incidentally we are talking about congestion and that is relted to precisiely the issue of how many cars there are on the road. Otherwise why would one of your solutions be to improve public transport?
Alan
Monday Jun 11, 13:44
Steve, congestion is related to two things, the number of cars on the road (as you have fairly corrected me on) and also the number of obstructions faced by motorists whilst on the road.
I would suggest that unecessary roadworks are when contractors dig up the same road twice within a space of 2 months, slowing traffic down to 40mph causing huge, knock on tailbacks. This has been done on the M6 southbound. Additionally the works being done at junction 8 on the bridge. For god's sake, how long does it take!!
My evidence by the way is sitting in it!!
Dave
Monday Jun 11, 14:06
Congestion is based on too many veichles on the road both the private motorist and wagons. ASDA recently started to use more rail frieght, don't know what other big industries don't follow suit. Plus if we bought more local produce rather than ship it in from abroad and out of season, life would be a little better on the roads. As for road works, I agree with you Alan. Also, why not have pipes and electrics running above the head where possible instead of under ground?
Alan
Monday Jun 11, 14:19
I'm with you Dave on local produce, I think the supermarkets are starting to wake up to this with Tesco and Asda taking the lead. I think if we stock supermarkets with local produce then it's a happy medium between the farmers and people who ned 24 hour shopping due to work restrictions/ time constraints.
In relation to roadworks I watched an interesting programme the other night. It was a bit of a p*ss take but never the less highlighted that since privatisation of utilities there are now hundreds of companies who are permitted to dig up our roads as opposed to 20/30 years ago when there was only about 4. The programme highlighted that alot of companies break regulations all the time, the government/ councils often take them to court but the fines are minimal. Up the fines I say! Put a process in place where a case has to be justified, costed and have time constraints apply. For every day over then there should be a hefty fine.
I'm not sure I agree with pipes running overhead Dave, perhaps over the motorways?? I assume that's what you mean?
Dave
Monday Jun 11, 15:44
Alan, I was typing as I was thinking and I guess it would only work on dual carriage ways and motorways. Not possible for ordinary streets.
peter h
Monday Jun 11, 23:28
re congestion:
UK has a specific problem insofar as we have the most cars per mile in the western world and are therefore more prone to congestion than anyone else.
And yet, we pay less attention to alternative means of transport than almost anybody else too.
First, we have far less cycle facilities than other Euopean countries. Go to holland and denmark and see how many more journeys are done by bike because they provide bike friendly routes
Then look at our trains. Massively too expensive and under-invested, so they are not used nearly enough.
Buses? Chaos.
Trams? Well, that's a sore point round here.
If you don't like congestion LS, get your party to stop paying lip service to alternative transport and start doing something about it.
Truth probably is they don't want to lose the revenues from fuel sales.
Our transport policies are a mess
peter h
Monday Jun 11, 23:38
re taxes. As I said before, just closing tax loopholes, evasion and avoidance would probably bring in the revenue you need.
A millionaire pays less tax as a percentage of his disposible income than does somebody on the dole. Is that moral, or ethical, or even financially prudent?
The rich have access to any number of tax avoidance schemes which are perfectly legal but plainly immoral.
Just look at all these private equity guys now paying less tax than cleaners.
See how Philip Green or Rupert Murdoch avoid, perfectly legally, tax. Why?
Essentially, this government is terrified of being branded a high taxation government, so it introduces taxes by stealth, which is fundamentally dishonest.
What they should do is have the courage to say what taxes need to be raised,simplify the tax system and close the loopholes to make it simpler and more cost-efficient to collect the taxes.
BUt they don't have the guts for fear of being labelled high taxers by The Daily Mail.
They should also educate people into realising that taxes aren't some kind of fine. They're the means by which we all club together to buy things we need and can't buy individually.
Labour Supporter
Tuesday Jun 12, 10:31
peter h - you live in la la land. these are complex issues with lots of resistance from interest groups as well as entrenched positions and you behave as if the govt can just wave a magic wand and make it all better. well maybe in your lib dem fantasy land but not in the real world.
Northern Correspondent
Tuesday Jun 12, 10:45
News from Charlestown bye-election is that the Lib dems are spinning their usual lies about health service/hospital closures. They are a disgrace they really are.
Alan
Tuesday Jun 12, 11:36
LS, tell me why what Peter has said about taxes is wrong!? Why is what he's suggested so complex! They govern the country so quite frankly, complex or not, they should address them. What are you trying to suggest, if something is difficult or complex then we shouldn't even look at it or try to resolve the problem. If that were the case then we'd still be in the stone age.
Furthermore, who are these interest groups that are providing so much resistance - name them!? What are these 'entrenched positions'.
If anyone lives in 'la la land' whatever that it, then it's you!
Dave
Tuesday Jun 12, 13:46
I am really scared by how much Alan and Peter are singing from the same hymn sheet at the moment.
John Holliker
Tuesday Jun 12, 15:11
Chaps - Alan's given us the answer on congestion charging. I mean, if Blair forced us all to listen to Aerosmith we'd all be converting to public transport!
"As for congestion, I don't like it either, but given the choice of being stuck in my air conditioned car with a pack of cigs and a bit of Aerosmith playing or sat on a bus I think you know which one I'd choose."
Alan
Tuesday Jun 12, 15:17
LOL, there's nothing wrong with some 80's classics every now and again!
Alan
Tuesday Jun 12, 15:34
p.s. Dave, it won't last for long!
Dave
Tuesday Jun 12, 15:49
I think Blair (if he hasn't done so already) would put a stealth tax on Aerosmith listening. Worse still, when those bloody mobile phones with crappy tiny little speakers, and the kids on the back of the bus listening to so called RnB or worse still Aerosmith, at least in your own car you can change channel on the radio
peter h
Thursday Jun 14, 00:34
aerosmith are crap, alan.
that good enough dave?
as for you labour supporter, there is no earthly reason why a unified, simplified, properly enforced taxation system should not be aimed for.
And enforcement is universally feeble. Just look at the size of the black economy, customs evasion on booze and fags, expenses fiddling, income tax avoidance schemes,
I reported a company evading VAT and the authoprities refused to investigate because it involved less than £50 000 per year! When did you last see anyone stopped by Customs at Ringway airport? Look at the HUGE losses from VAT carousel fraud. All that adds to your tax bill la la laddy. When people know they are unlikely to get caught, then they'll evade tax.
John Holliker
Thursday Jun 14, 22:28
What I like about LS is that if you disagree then you are a Lib Dem. Like that's the biggest insult going.
I never have voted Lib Dem, and don't intend doing so. I have genuinely voted Labour on all but two occasions in my life. Whilst attitudes like his/hers prevail I'd rather perform Love In An Elevator into Flemish to an audience of homophobic axe murderers.
Mind you, LS has managed the impossible of uniting Alan, Dave, Peter and myself of a sort-of similar position, despite our differing political outlooks.
Great work! No wonder Mr Bradley went down the tubes with *talent* like that on his team.
peter h
Thursday Jun 14, 23:01
And, John, if attitudes like LS do prevail in Labour, it will not win another election.
Chris Paul
Friday Jun 15, 23:59
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com
The question was/is (paraphrased):
How will Labour win back "strikers" and "protestors"
The former being people who chose to abstain, the latter those who lent their votes to opposition parties - mostly the Lib Dems - and in many cases to warn rather than depose their MP and Mr Blair.
Clearly Lucy Powell will need to give her positive case to support her as an individual. I believe that she ticks far more of the boxes as an individual than the incumbent. People will see that.
Lucy and Manchester Labour will need to win back the hearts and minds of tranches of voters who declined to support us as the local party responsible for the huge success of our great city because of some unpopular decisions from the Prime Minister of the day.
It would of course be quite wrong to publish any analysis of what exactly should be done to achieve this aim. But improved information gathering, improved presentation of Manchester Labour's phenomenal success and Lib Dem resistance and obstruction, and improved rebuttal of Lib Dem nasties will need to be part of the picture.
On the question of Marie Louise Gardens I will say:
1. There have been three earlier Planning Consents granted for the main site;
2. The Right to Buy sale is ancient history and certainly not reversible;
3. The Lib Dem comments on the additional structure on council owned land - as seen in the planning report - ACCEPTED the plan with some minor alterations. Because of the input to the park. But accepted nonetheless. They are now being very disingenuous indeed.
4. Ming Campbell has just proposed an extraordinary course of action for Councils viz. refusing planning permission, buying up land, granting permission, and selling on for super profit. This will take some explaining IMO.
The road is long and winding. But we'll get there.
John Holliker
Saturday Jun 16, 15:00
http://http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/02/withington-supporters-endorsements.html
...and as you can see from the link, Mr Paul and his gobby pals who post on this blog, and litter the local newspaper's letters sure to comatose, have been constant and unwaivering in their support of Ms Powell.
All talk...and little substance. Simply supports the view in my 6.6.07 post that if Mr Paul, LS, Sedgeley Park and co. really, really really, have Ms Powell's best interests at heart, they'd ship out of this constituency and take their blather and b*llshit elsewhere. No wonder Bradley suffered such a humiliation with these chumps in the ranks.
Alan
Sunday Jun 17, 13:13
John, I helped Keith Bradley from Jan 05 - the election in May 05. Between Feb and April I
Alan
Sunday Jun 17, 13:23
........ (hit return by accident)... worked in his office most days having quit my job in December. In April I ran out of money and started another job, however I spent nearly every night and most weekends working there and delivering leaflets/ election materials etc... personally I don't remember a Chris Paul and sisnce they don't use their real names I've no idea who LS or Sedgeley Park are. What I do know is that there were a small core of very dedicated people who made up Keith's permenant staff. They were knowledgeable, passionate and exceptionally hard working. I think it would be unfair to associate these people with 'the chumps'. Furthermore people like Geoff Bridsen who worked tirelessly on the campaign trail and Thomas who administers this site did a fantastic job.
Personally my support for Keith Bradley is unwavering. Having spent time working with him I stand by my view that he was a really decent guy who genuinely cared about his constituency and was passionate about his work. As for Lucy Powell, I don't know her so I wouldn't like to pass judgement. Her CV is certainly very impressive and having seen Prime Ministers Question Time this week with John Leech sitting on the second row of the Lib Dem camp looking like a lost (rather smug and arrogant) schoolboy, I'm quite sure she will stand a good chance at the next general election.
Alan
Sunday Jun 17, 23:10
http://www.southmanchesterreporter.co.uk/news/s/229/229053_what_you_will_pay.html
Anyone know where John stands on this... John I know you read the site so perhaps you can reply personally??
peter h
Sunday Jun 17, 23:23
It's all very well to say what a splendid candidate Lucy Powell will make, but where is she? Just sitting talking to her labour buddies? Does she think that is the way to win hearts and minds? She's in for a shock. John Leech and his colleagues understand very well the need to stay visible and be seen to be pursuing local interests. She would do well to start doing the same.
And, Chris Paul, Marie Louise Gardens is not a party political issue. Over 6000 people of all persuasions have signed that petition. That's a hell of a lot of people in this one small area. Why doesn't your Miss Powell get stuck in on something which is very obviously close to the hearts of a lot of the people she would like to represent? Does she not have the wit to do that? John certainly does.
peter h
Sunday Jun 17, 23:29
Alan
Congestion charges are no substitute for a coherent integrated local transport policy aimed at getting people out of cars and onto other forms of transport, and we don't have that. The buses are a joke; the trams ain't coming here; this city is very bike-unfriendly. Without addressing those, congestion charges are just one more stealth tax.
Alan
Monday Jun 18, 08:29
Agreed
peter h
Monday Jun 18, 23:02
and aerosmith are rubbish
John Holliker
Tuesday Jun 19, 22:27
Now now you tow...I thought we were being concilliroty. No need to go back to bickering. Twisted Sister trump your Aerosmith.
Alan. Found your Saturday post illuminating. I've met Bradley twice and I think I broadly share your view, though a little more autonomy would have saved his bacon. I met Geoff Bridson again only last weekend at the Didsbury Festival. Inimitable is the only word I would use.
No, regardless of what you posted, I worry for Labour locally. It's always the know-it-alls and gobs who do the most damage and in my experience, they are normally the most lazy/culpable. I notice Sedgely Park/LS and co. have gone to ground. They're the type of person that Jim Henson's wouldn't have dreamed up.
John Holliker
Tuesday Jun 19, 22:27
Now now you tow...I thought we were being concilliroty. No need to go back to bickering. Twisted Sister trump your Aerosmith.
Alan. Found your Saturday post illuminating. I've met Bradley twice and I think I broadly share your view, though a little more autonomy would have saved his bacon. I met Geoff Bridson again only last weekend at the Didsbury Festival. Inimitable is the only word I would use.
No, regardless of what you posted, I worry for Labour locally. It's always the know-it-alls and gobs who do the most damage and in my experience, they are normally the most lazy/culpable. I notice Sedgely Park/LS and co. have gone to ground. They're the type of person that Jim Henson's wouldn't have dreamed up.
peter h
Tuesday Jun 19, 23:04
thank you John. LS etc don't understand that one does not win defecting Labour voters back by insulting them.Dave sits down and takes the trouble to explain why he voted Lib Dem, and gets abuse for his pains. So he's going to vote Labour after that, is he?
Be fair though, Jim Henson might have done Chris Paul.....
peter h
Tuesday Jun 19, 23:13
And another thing. How come not one of the Labour people on this site have had anything to say about Marie Louise Gardens?
It's a classic case of major local interest - 6000 signatures on the petition is one very big slice of the electorate.
How come Labour locally does not have the wit to understand that and do something about it? How come they allow themsleves to appear to side with the property developers and not the local people?
That's crazy. And it typifies why John Leech has such a major personal popularity and why local Labour is losing the plot. If they had the wit to bring a result on Marie Louise Gardens, they'd boost their standing overnight. But they just don't get it.
Hothead
Wednesday Jun 20, 10:05
John Leech lied about Christies. He lied about Southern cemetery. He was caught out in Parliament concocting a fib about police numbers. He is not massively popular locally he is regared as joke outside the close knit Lib Dem circles. And just because people expalin to us why they vote Lib dem doesn't necessarily make them likeable. The Lib dems are a protest vote. It is a free vote. it costs nothing. i has no significance . People can vote Lib Dem in the certain knowledge that they will nevr ghet a lib dem council or a lib dem government. it's self indulgent.
Hothead
Wednesday Jun 20, 10:09
John Leech lied about Christies. He lied about Southern cemetery. He was caught out in Parliament concocting a fib about police numbers. as for Marie Louise gardens his party leader has recently come up with some of the most developer friendly, bizzare planning proposals you could imagine. I don't see Liar Leech splashing those swivel eyed views all over the South Manchester Reporter. Too busy jumping on the next bandwagon to come along. He is not massively popular locally he is regared as joke outside the close knit Lib Dem circles. And just because people explain to us why they vote Lib Dem doesn't necessarily make them likeable. The Lib Dems are a protest vote. It is a free vote. It costs nothing. It has no significance . People can vote Lib Dem in the certain knowledge that they will never get a Lib Dem council or a Lib Dem government. It's self indulgent.
Hothead
Wednesday Jun 20, 10:09
Sorry about double posting. Hit send on first one by mistake.
Alan
Wednesday Jun 20, 11:59
Peter/John, what is the exact issue with the gardens because I've read a newspaper report and it seems to suggest that only part of it has been sold to developers? Cheers
peter h
Wednesday Jun 20, 20:03
Alan, none of it should be sold to developers.
It's a public park bequeathed to the people of Manchester 100 years ago.
Council says it can only afford to pay for the upkeep of the park by selling part of it to a devloper and using the funds to pay for the upkeep of the park.
LOcal people regard that as an utter disgrace. And if you think about the principle being espoused, it IS a disgrace. Local people also feel that their feelings have been sidelined by an overly cosy relationship between developer and council members. That may or may not be true, I have no idea.
Any way, trhe result is that over 6000 people have petitioned the Council to protest.
When you think about the size of the area, 6000 people represents a sizeable chunk of the electorate, which suggests to me that it is madness that local Labour activists are doing nothing, just because the council itself is Labour. Labour could win itself some very easy popularity round here by blocking this development and showing that they do actually listen. But they haven't got the wit to do it,
peter h
Wednesday Jun 20, 20:11
Hothead, you're in for a shock come the next election. Labour only has to lose about 40 seats, allowing for constituency border changes, to lose its overall majority. That, given the Iraq war, is a probability. That means a hung parliament. That means Lib Lab coalition government. That's why Gordon Brown is already talkling to Ming Campbell about it. So I'll vote Lib Dem in the knowledge that that they will be in government sooner or later.
And, by the way, John Leech is VERY popular locally. How else do you think the Lib Dem swing here at the election was so huge, far bigger than anywhere else? That's reality. Until Labour deals with that locally, they'll never get the seat back. You shouting "liar" about some dead issue won't matter one jot.
John Holliker
Wednesday Jun 20, 21:54
..and the last I heard, the guy trying to make a fat profit on Marie Louise gardens is/was a Labour Party member.
Fact!
sedgelypark
Wednesday Jun 20, 23:07
John H, the reason I've been 'keeping my head down' is I've just moved house so not on net as much.
But as always John I can't work out if you're a Lab supporter or a Fib pretending to be Lab supporter. But it seems to me you are the latter.
Peter, what say you to the You Gov poll that puts the Fibs at a pathetic 14% which actually means they would lose a load of seats to the Tories.
Call Me Dave and his cronies have achieved one thing and that is to squeeze the Fib vote as many former Fib voters are thinking we're Tories really so might as well vote for the real thing.
So JL is faced with a party in meltdown nationally and a strong Lab candidate so I think he is in deep trouble.
John Ellis
Thursday Jun 21, 09:12
And now Gordon Brown seems to want some of those lying, failing, mock Tory Fib Dems in his government! Sedgely, don't you find the Labour Party ... er ... a bit bewildering at times?! Watch the ground under your feet - looks like your new leader's snipping at it!
Alan
Thursday Jun 21, 09:31
Peter, wouldn't the swing account for a protest vote as opposed to popularity? Already you have said that Keith Bradley lost due to the Iraq war, etc so I would suggest that the massive swing is the result of Labour supporters voting Lib Dem because they couldn't bring themself to vote Tory?.
If you don't believe this is the case then what evidence do you have to support your claim that John Leech is VERY popular locally??
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 21, 09:55
Peter h - I don't agree I'm afraid. The Lib Dems are on 14% nationally, going backwards in local elections and poll after poll showing Withington as a Labour Gain in the next election. You really do have a selective reading of the situation. Perhaps you could conjure up one of those barmy graphs that you Lib dems are so proud of to show how popular John Leech is " round here" and how he is the " only one that can win" " round here". Please give this moral bloody superiority a rest will you it's giving us a headache. Leech is a crap MP, he's made absolutley no impact locally, nationally he's a laughing stock, even in his own party, no one likes him, no wants wants to hang around with him. His behaviour over the "dead" issue of The Christie has made him politically toxic. He's giving up his council seat even though he really doesn't want to. His contribution to Parliament has been nil, his contribution to Manchester has been to sow negativity and cynicism. He is not popular anywhere. The swing in 2005 was nothing to do with him excpet insofar as he rode a series of fortunate circumstances. Could have trained a hamster to do that. Those circumstance will never be repeated. He relied heavily on the student vote for example. The next election will almost certainly be in June 2009. if that is the case the students will have gone home!! The turnover in the electorate means that 40% of the electorate in 2005 wont even live in the constituency so won't have any allegiance to him. The Labour candidate si a strong one with a revitalised party, Blair has gone, the Tories will get soemthing of a small bounce. His 600 majority wont survive all this. By mid June 2009 Leech will be off the council and out of Parliament. Roll on mid-June 2009!!
Alan
Thursday Jun 21, 11:11
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL2193186620070621
Whatever next!!!! They've definately lost my vote now!!
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 21, 11:40
Alan, - Why? Sureley not because the in shambolic Lib Dem l"leadership" have walked into the huge vanity elephant trap set for them by GB. He's trying to show people that there is no point voting Lib Dem. They have no principles.
Alan
Thursday Jun 21, 12:07
Well we know that already, problem is there's no real point in voting Labour anymore either!!
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 21, 12:28
Oh for God's sake Alan get a grip. You carry on like the countries gone to hell in a handcart. this Labour Government has done tremendous things. We are still the only party competent enough and committed enough to tackiling real poverty and disadvantage. wea er the party of the working person and of the trade unions. We are the only party committed to a funded programme to end Child poverty. There are more doctors, nmore nurses more teachers more schools more hospital more policemen more childrens centres, better pensions , more jobs etc etc. Please stop this self pitying nonsense and try and get out of this middle class strait jacket approach. There are thousands of residents in the city for whom this government has been a life saver. Literally. they have been given jobs , better housing, better skills. Please lift your head up from the page and look around.
Alan
Thursday Jun 21, 13:00
LS, your patronising comments are pathetic and only serve to prove that you have no real ideas! All you can do is recite the party website, thus suggesting that you have little or no knowledge on the subjects of which you speak. Furthermore you,offer little information as to where you see the party going.
I agree they have done alot of great things, they have also done alot of bad things (dependant on what side of the fence you stand I suppose)but thats not what it's about!!!!! It's about what are they GOING to do, what are their plans for the future!!
All I see is a party wading in it's own mess, approaching Lib Dems to join their ranks, an undemocratic coronation of a man with less charisma than my big toe, an 'et tu Brutus' scenario in relation to Tony Blair and no direction for the future other than to tax us more!
If anyone needs to get a grip matey it's you! You're clinging onto a party that has become stale, stuck and undynamic. time for you to lift your head up from the page and look around!!!
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 21, 13:06
Will you stop suggesting that I recite the party website. I have looked at the party website about 3 times in the last 10 years. I have been a member of the Labour Party since 1974 and I have a very extensive personal and professional knowledge of the subjects I talk about. I have over 25 years experience of working with all kinds of communities on all kinds of issues in all kinds of places. So if anyone is patronising anyone it is you. Can we hear you experience of working alongside poor and disadvantaged groups in any other context than reading about them in the Guardian.
You were never a Labour supporter or you would talk like this. You are a classic Lib dem oppositionist. A do nothing moaner.
Sorry don't really like to be rude but God help us.
Alan
Thursday Jun 21, 15:01
I'm suprised you're that old because my nephew has more common sense tthan you!!
1. I have absolutely no experience of working with disadvantaged groups within the community but I'd love to know why you think this makes you qualified in all areas of government??
2. I love the way that you make sweeping assumptions. How do you know that I haven't travelled the world as a missionary?? (I haven't by the way)
3. I don't read the Guardian - it's crap! I read The Times and the FT.
4. I've been a Labour Supporter for 10 years.
5. I'm not a Lib Dem opportunist, I loathe them probably more than you do.
6. And yes I do moan..... so what!!
7. As such a dedicated supporter I would imagine that you did everything you could to help Keith Bradley in the last election. So lets hear how you helped? How many hours did you put in, how many leaflets did you deliver, how many doors did you knock on..... or are you the 'do nothing moaner' you claim that I am??
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 21, 15:23
Alan
1. It doesn't but it makes you unqualified.
2. Oh thats good. Now we know what you haven't done.
3. The Times is Crap and so is the FT. The point still applies.
4. Don't belive you.
5. Yes you are. No you don't.
6. I know you do.
7. Yes I did. I took a week off work. I canvassed 3/4 nights a week. I delivered countless thousands of leaflets. Oh and by the way I had been doing this for teh best part of thirty years. Not just a few weeks before the GE in 2005. I know you don't like advice but heres some anyway. I can out bid you on any aspect of activity involvement in teh community or politics on any area you choose so don't bother. i have knocked on hundreds of doors this year and delivered thousands of leaflets, written hundreds of letters done dozens of surveys. If you have done the smae let me know and I will unreservedly apologise but utnil then don't you dare accuse me of be a do nothing moaner.
Alan
Thursday Jun 21, 15:37
1. Your response is flawed and makes no sense?
2. Agreed
3. How can the point still apply if I don't read the Guardian. Again an un intelligent response.
4. I don't care whether you do or not.
5. Thats like me saying I'm a Project Manager and you saying 'no you're not' when in fact I am??!!
6. Agreed
7. Don't believe you!!
I don't claim to have soldiered for the cause for near on 30 years. And if you have done what you say you have then you'll know who I am??
You may despise people like me who work in excess of 60 - 80 hours a week, who volunteer to help out 2-3 months before an election but at the end of the day, people like me have the right to vote and your constant, unintelligent ramblings don't make me want to vote for your beloved party. Luckily, I'm quite sure that the Labour Party is not made up of people like you who make little or no sense, but there are plenty who would look at this site and believe you to be the voice of 'Labour'. No wonder Labour is going to get creamed at the next election!!!
Labour Supporter
Thursday Jun 21, 15:49
I don't despise you. What , in anything I have said gives you that impression. I don't care what you believe or don't believe I have done. I'm not answreable to you I am answrebale to myself and the Labour Party of which I am a member. The