No I have not, you twisting, squirming, inconsistent dolt.

You claimed, as fact, that the "Labour Movement" [sic per se was not interested or involved.

This is factually incorrect bølløcks.

Simple as.



To show that you're barely literate?



That is not what you said at all. Learn to actually post what you mean rather than spouting factually incorrect, misinformed cr@p and then squirming like mad to claim you wrote something more specific than your wild generalisation.

Anyone else remember vbfg's fabulous word 'tard'?

Why are you so foul-mouthed? These tirades seem to spout forth whenever [uanyone[/u questions your irrational, pre-conceived ideas.

Before "right to buy" all rents were lower, as a percentage of income. Councils were also more tolerant of recalcitrant payers than private landlords and certainly mortgage providers. But in those days a house was viewed as somewhere to live and not an asset to borrow against

Stupidity irritates me.

And imbeciles who make grandiose, sweeping statements that are therefore factually incorrect, and then squirm and pretend otherwise when this is pointed out by people who actually know some of what is going on in a given situation, irritate me even more.

You claimed something in a sweeping statement. It was not factually accurate. This was pointed out to you. You persisted, claiming that the person who'd pointed out that what you'd posted actually meant something different. You can't even read and understand what you post yourself.

And I do not get "foul mouthed" at anyone who disagrees with me - as can be seen, right now, with any number of threads on this forum.

But thank you for, yet again, illustrating how you've never been one to let facts get in the way.

And now you call the fact that I know about something because I've actually worked on it as "irrational, per-conceived ideas" ...

So, have I missed something, is Ed Milliband leading a united Labour Movement in an all all out war against these policies? Are the union members fully united and leading a bottom up movement, which culminates in Ed and his shadow cabinet marching shoulder to shoulder with Mrs Mop?

No. You're not "missing something".

But that is [unot[/u what you asserted earlier.

If what you have now posted is what you meant, then you should have posted that earlier. Not what you did post. Which was factually incorrect.

Let's look – again, for the terminally dumb – at what you actually posted:



"It's members" [sic? "it's members (such as they are) are even less bothered"?

This describes a whole. (Albeit incorrectly, of course: there is no apostrophe in the possessive) The members of the whole of the labour movement.

This is factually incorrect.

Because the fact is that some members [uare[/u bothered and some members [uare[/u trying to do something.

Learn to use English accurately before you spout inaccuracies and then claim you know better than someone who has done work on the issues.

Ignoring the superfluous apostrophe - I am not trying to write literature in these rapid posts - it still seems you are agreeing with me. You are resorting to saying that some members are trying to do something, something I never doubted. But the vagueness of the overall response - "some", "trying" to do "something" says it all - there is no co-ordinated, mass opposition. There are few people messing about without any real self-belief that they will achieve anything significant. What there is not is a mass, non-fragmented campaign that believes it will crush government policy.

I'm not "resorting" to saying anything.

I'm pointing out that you posted factually incorrect drivel – and have then tried desperately to play at shifting the goalposts to pretend that you had a clue what you were on about.

Your attempts to pretend otherwise are predictably pathetic.

Your amendment of what I said says it all It sums up the socialist mentality - most people, those that we believe want us to represent them, beacuse we know best, are stupid and easily lead. Incapable of making up their minds. However, they are good for giving us money (preferably without option if we can get away with it) to fund our lifestyles and fantasies as union leaders, politicians, etc.

The thing is though, organised socialism is in crisis because people ainn't stupid - they realise they have been taken for a ride by the self-serving.

Mintball, interesting quote from The Jewish Labour Movement's website:

“The Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing”
Harold Wilson, 5th September 1964


What is the current Labour Party's ethos - or is the Party "nothing"

Throughout this thread you seem to conflate the labour movement and The Labour Party. Since the introduction of Nooooo Labour, the only connection has been the latter are happy to take money from the former. Ideologically they are poles apart

And our [iWail[/i-quoting friend calls others "stupid" ...

Not at all, for the Labour Movement to be meaningful it needs representation via the Labour Party. I think you have realised my point - there is no longer a meaningful Labour Movement. So, as I said, there is no effective opposition to the government's proposals in many areas. For small interest groups to moan is not enough. Never was in the past, never will be in the future. So, unless the Labour Movement can recreate itself in a guise that appeals to the masses, it serves no purpose.

Do you seriously believe that?

If it hadn't been for the labour movement (note lack of capitals), organising and protesting against a number of pieces of legislation that thsi dog's breakfast of a government has attempted to bring to the statute book, there would have been few if any amendments and almost everything would've been passed on the nod.

The NHS 'reforms' would have been passed ages ago, just for starters.

Dally has a point when he says the labour movement needs to re-invent itself. For years it has been but a pale shadow of the social behemoth that took the battle, literally and figuratively, to big capital over a century ago and won.

That said, we mustn't ignore the colossal forces arrayed against labour today and the near absolute power they wield. Take the media, for instance. Regardless of how weak labour is today in comparison to yesteryear it would be entirely wrong to say it is insignificant. Added together the total number of unionised employees in Britain is considerable. Yet it seems the only column inches/time slots afforded to labour in the newspapers or on the tv/radio exist to cover some "hardliner" conspiring with workers to make wholly unreasonable demands of employers - the loyalty, ethics, morals etc. of which are never questioned. Why are unions airbrushed from existence when all manner of fringe groups - such as the BNP, EDL - even the LibDems etc. are granted endless column inches?

When was the last time ANYONE saw a programme on mainstream TV which didn't lampoon, marginalise and/or vilify unions or union members? Which TV programs - fact or fiction - over the last twenty years have celebrated the achievements of unions - the bitter campaigns against corporate thugs, the bravery of its members etc.?

And in todays Police related news [urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/10/thousands-999-police-axed-spending-cuts[/url it would appear that figures released under Freedom of Information requests direct to all 43 police forces in England and Wales show that 5261 fewer "first responder" police officers (ie front-line staff) exist now compared to the period March 10 to Dec 11.

Strangely though the figures which were verified by the House of Commons library and only contain complete data from 23 forces (so the figure could be higher), are dismissed out of hand by The Home Office who haughtily claim that "These are not official figures and we don't recognise them."

Somebody is telling porkies I suspect, and I suspect that the Home Office "spokesman" who provided the anonymous quote for The Observer is probably a Conservative or LibDem MP desperately trying to back up Camerons statement from last month that the percentage of frontline officers was actually increasing.

So, you request information from all 43 police forces and although not complete you see a substantial fall in numbers, but instead you choose to believe an anon source from within government that all is fine and rosy and the PM's promises still stand ?

Which one is it for you ?




And when did any Tory government turn its back on the police force ?

They'll blame the LibDems for that one

She learnt from the best.

And, as various researchers and commentators have indicated, swearing is actually a sign of intelligence. It is big and it is clever.

Yes, and people who [idon't[/i swear are the ones with a limited vocabulary.

My mother, who's a nurse, says if you're not swearing creatively you're not swearing at all. We don't agree on much but we do agree on that.

That's the one. Let alone actually having the intelligence and imagination to invent new ways of swearing ...

I got a right knackering off some jizztingler for doing just that last week.

I whole-edly agree.