This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
General Election 2017
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 Lyons550  Shirley 20 Apr 17 2.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Great speech from Corbyn this morning. What I like is that he says what goes in the manifesto will be fully costed. An extract, full speech here... [Link] Britain needs a Labour government that is prepared to fight for people in every part of the country, our towns, villages, as well as big cities. A Labour government that isn’t scared to take on the cosy cartels that are hoarding this country’s wealth for themselves. It needs a government that will use that wealth to invest in people’s lives in every community to build a better future for every person who lives here. Because the Conservatives, drunk on a failed ideology, are hell bent on cutting every public service they get their hands on, and they will use all of the divide-and-rule tricks of the Lynton Crosby trade to keep their rigged system intact. Don’t be angry at the privatisers profiting from our public services, they whisper, be angry instead at the migrant worker just trying to make a better life. Don’t be angry at the government ministers running down our schools and hospitals, they tell us, be angry instead at the disabled woman or the unemployed man. It is the rigged economy the Tories are protecting that Labour is committed to challenging. We will not let the elite extract wealth from the pockets of ordinary working people any longer. So many people in modern Britain do what seems like the right thing to do. They get jobs, they spend all day working hard, they save to buy their own home, they raise children, they look after elderly or sick relatives. And yet, at the end of it, they get almost nothing left over as a reward. Not a bad speech written for him there...but it's all empty rhetoric...the ideology sounds good...I'd be certainly interested in how long he would envisage it would take to see this happen as well as the cost...because in the past Labour governments have been shown time after time to spend 'now' rather than when the country can afford to do so. To implement the above properly the changes re: tax evasion etc needs to be addressed BEFORE that money should be spent.
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 20 Apr 17 2.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Great speech from Corbyn this morning. What I like is that he says what goes in the manifesto will be fully costed. An extract, full speech here... [Link] Britain needs a Labour government that is prepared to fight for people in every part of the country, our towns, villages, as well as big cities. A Labour government that isn’t scared to take on the cosy cartels that are hoarding this country’s wealth for themselves. It needs a government that will use that wealth to invest in people’s lives in every community to build a better future for every person who lives here. Because the Conservatives, drunk on a failed ideology, are hell bent on cutting every public service they get their hands on, and they will use all of the divide-and-rule tricks of the Lynton Crosby trade to keep their rigged system intact. Don’t be angry at the privatisers profiting from our public services, they whisper, be angry instead at the migrant worker just trying to make a better life. Don’t be angry at the government ministers running down our schools and hospitals, they tell us, be angry instead at the disabled woman or the unemployed man. It is the rigged economy the Tories are protecting that Labour is committed to challenging. We will not let the elite extract wealth from the pockets of ordinary working people any longer. So many people in modern Britain do what seems like the right thing to do. They get jobs, they spend all day working hard, they save to buy their own home, they raise children, they look after elderly or sick relatives. And yet, at the end of it, they get almost nothing left over as a reward. Spoken like a man who knows he will be out of a job soon and will never have to deliver. So easy to be in opposition.
|
|
Kermit8  Hevon 20 Apr 17 2.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Lyons550
Something is only meaningful to an individual if it affects them in some way...gay rights wont therefore be meaningful to the large portion of the population...so its a fair enough statement to make So if one in twenty of the adult population is gay - that's around 2.5million - and if each individual as a reasonable assumption has 4-5 close family and/or friends that makes 12-15million individuals closely attached in some way and not by a two-way dildo. Gay rights, therefore, would be meaningful to quite a large chunk of the population. A minority 'yes' but a hefty minority.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 20 Apr 17 2.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Lyons550
In which case, is it not politically correct to simply call these instances Anti Discrimatory...rather than 'Gay' rights...the use of the word itself is discriminatory to those that arent't Gay...surely? Rights for BME could also come under anti discrimanatory rights, but have nuanced differences from LGBT rights which is why (I think) there is a distinction.
|
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 20 Apr 17 2.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Spoken like a man who knows he will be out of a job soon and will never have to deliver. So easy to be in opposition. How insightful. No arguments against what he said, just a dig. (which I suppose requires less thinking so it comes as no surprise)
|
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 20 Apr 17 2.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
That people from whatever walk of society should be treated equally. That's just a dream of a perfect society. I ask again, how does the issue of gay rights affect someone who isn't gay? Answer.... it doesn't.
|
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 20 Apr 17 2.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
So if one in twenty of the adult population is gay - that's around 2.5million - and if each individual as a reasonable assumption has 4-5 close family and/or friends that makes 12-15million individuals closely attached in some way and not by a two-way dildo. Gay rights, therefore, would be meaningful to quite a large chunk of the population. A minority 'yes' but a hefty minority. You make a fair point Kermie. Of course gay rights are not particularly significant for the majority in a direct personal sense but the principles they represent should always be significant in how we want society to be.
|
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 20 Apr 17 2.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
So if one in twenty of the adult population is gay - that's around 2.5million - and if each individual as a reasonable assumption has 4-5 close family and/or friends that makes 12-15million individuals closely attached in some way and not by a two-way dildo. Gay rights, therefore, would be meaningful to quite a large chunk of the population. A minority 'yes' but a hefty minority. But less then 25% of the current population...a relatively small minority at the moment (which I accept will continue to grow). As such I felt comfortable with matt's comment...and wont feel the need to recoil with some faux pc imbued distain.
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 20 Apr 17 2.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Rights for BME could also come under anti discrimanatory rights, but have nuanced differences from LGBT rights which is why (I think) there is a distinction. These groups revel in their identity and as such create a large part of the discrimination themselves as it gives them a platform to wail from. None of them want to be part of the 'normalised' population...as they wouldn't then feel precious.
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 20 Apr 17 2.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
That's just a dream of a perfect society. I ask again, how does the issue of gay rights affect someone who isn't gay? Answer.... it doesn't. Even if one of your siblings or children was gay?
|
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 20 Apr 17 2.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
That's just a dream of a perfect society. I ask again, how does the issue of gay rights affect someone who isn't gay? Answer.... it doesn't. You don't read my posts any more
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 20 Apr 17 2.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You make a fair point Kermie. Of course gay rights are not particularly significant for the majority in a direct personal sense but the principles they represent should always be significant in how we want society to be. Amen to that
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 20 Apr 17 2.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
My wife's french and she will be voting for him. We were in France at the weekend and I saw no evidence of a fading campaign. I predict he will win, but it is close and I could well be wrong. I can name a number of his policies and I'm not French and live in London. I see no reason why his background precludes him from being a good President with plenty to offer. Also I think he spent most of his time at school in his home town of Amiens and went to a local school. Miliband is the son of Polish Jewish immigrants. Not sure that falls under the heading of Noblesse Oblige. I think that when his political beliefs seem so closely tied to his former profession as an investment banker then you can make the argument. He went straight from the finance district in to politics as an economic minister, and was key in pushing Hollande's business friendly reforms through. Now he's being bankrolled by pharmaceutical NGOs, bankers and property moguls. To me, that always sounds alarms about a politician who claims to be working in the best interests of the people. You're right about Milliband tbf. Think I just have a slight blind animosity for anyone who walks away petulantly from their constituency like he did after losing a leadership election. But anywhoo, back to the GE...Corbyn seems to be channelling the energy and tenacity that saw him overcome the odds and become Labour leader, which is good. I think realistically, he's aiming for an improvement on Milliband's result, which should cement the left within the Labour Party and hopefully frighten the Tories out of their most b@stard-friendly desires.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 20 Apr 17 2.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Even if one of your siblings or children was gay? Clearly and this is where Kermit and I agree it would...but then that's what I said in my first post. it still stands (based on Kermies sound reasoning) that it's a minority at the moment.
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
| Nest 20 Apr 17 2.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Of course gay rights are not particularly significant for the majority in a direct personal sense but the principles they represent should always be significant in how we want society to be. This
|
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 20 Apr 17 2.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
I didn't say that. You are using this to dodge what I put to you. The fact is that housing affects 100% of the population, gay rights circa 5%. Sure, you don't have to be gay to want equality for gays. However, if you are straight, gay rights are meaningless to your life. It's just like you can want ramps installed for disabled person access in public buildings, because that's the right thing to do, but if you don't have mobility issues it doesn't matter whether the ramps are there or not. As I've said previously more unequal societies are less productive and less nice places for the majority to live in. So equal rights and opportunities are massively important! That's like saying quality of state education is irrelevant to kids who go to private school.
|
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 20 Apr 17 2.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Polling day in term time shutting thousands of schools. Children's education will be ruined and what about parents with jobs?
|
|
| Part Time James 20 Apr 17 2.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
I didn't say that. You are using this to dodge what I put to you. The fact is that housing affects 100% of the population, gay rights circa 5%. Sure, you don't have to be gay to want equality for gays. However, if you are straight, gay rights are meaningless to your life. It's just like you can want ramps installed for disabled person access in public buildings, because that's the right thing to do, but if you don't have mobility issues it doesn't matter whether the ramps are there or not. I sometimes walk up disabled ramps when I don't feel coordinated enough to walk up steps.
|
|
| Part Time James 20 Apr 17 3.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Part Time James
I sometimes walk up disabled ramps when I don't feel coordinated enough to walk up steps. Wait, that wasn't me making an analogous admission to a penchant for bum love.
|
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 20 Apr 17 3.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Lyons550
Not a bad speech written for him there...but it's all empty rhetoric...the ideology sounds good...I'd be certainly interested in how long he would envisage it would take to see this happen as well as the cost...because in the past Labour governments have been shown time after time to spend 'now' rather than when the country can afford to do so. To implement the above properly the changes re: tax evasion etc needs to be addressed BEFORE that money should be spent. You should not be drawn into the fallacy that an economy is anything like a household in terms of spending and borrowing. The country can't afford to keep cutting essential services and delaying investment in education, training, infrastructure and social care.
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.