Eastleigh By-election

Where are 3 parties, Look back on your history

Labour have the ideas, but carry them through in a poor way

Tories oppose everything new but carry it out in a penny-pinching way

Liberals just say no to everything, yet never come up with real alternatives.

Your politics say a lot about how you live your life. Find me a policy implemented in 100 years by any party other than Labour that has been for the good of the working man.

Factories act, Welfare state, minimum wage, all brought in by Labour and opposed by Tories. Politics is not new just the faces at the front

So we should put people in charge of the country who have no idea of how to run it? Outstanding.

At least the LibDems have Vince Cable who is an extremely competent economist. Who have UKIP got to do the fiddly little things like make sure we don't have to go back to a barter system?

The lack of quality in UKIPs talent pool just shows that serious politicians, or ambitious newcomers, think they are a waste of time. If people want to work on reducing crime then they'd be better placed to do so from within the ranks of the existing parties, or form another party that isn't based on one policy (and that one policy being to withdraw from Europe)

To put them in charge would be no better or no worse, and to call Vince Cable competent stretches the imagination. Point is Labour will bring on the change and have the ideas, Tories will resisit but control the purse strings, Liberals will sit watching and do nothing.

We have a governemnt system that means out of nearly 700 MPs 300 will spend all their time spouting policy, and equal 300 will spend time simply opposing whatever is said. Put them together you have the makings of a credible forceful movement.

Separate they are just destructive.

Anyone found a Tory proposed policy for the benefit of the working man yet? keep looking

xine267 wrote (see)

So we should put people in charge of the country who have no idea of how to run it? Outstanding.

And the present government are doing such a great job by quality career politicians who were preceeded by Labour who also had so much talent that they managed to screw it all up. You say no Idea of how to run....whitehall runs the country not the politicians..they just comeup with crazy ideas that the civil servants then water down or throw out.

Oh and I am not a closet racist and do not intend voting for UKIP BNP Labour Libdem or Tories. I just want a party that represents the ordinary folk not career politician with idalogical dogma that only suits them to get power at the cost of everything else.

There is no immigration debate. People will always migrate to places to provide better lives for themselves and their family. They always have done and always will. Why should your welfare as a human being be limited by the imaginary borders in which you have been born?

People who complain of immigration are rich people from rich countries. It's nothing but protectionism, keeping the wealth in one place. Some many claim "culture protection", but culture isn't static. It constantly evolves. Despite the scaremongering propaganda people come to the UK to work. Those that sign on more often than not are doing so because our laws prevent them from working. Sorry, but despite what some think people do not uproot their family and travel thousands of miles to sign on the dole and get racially abused by some of the locals.

You want to curb immigration then spread the wealth. The likes of the UK got rich of the exploitation of other nations natural resources. The Empire built roads alright. Straight down to the docks to bring the goods to London, Liverpool, Glasgow etc. Funnily enough spreading the wealth would be somewhat along the lines of the EU, the very thing UKIP despise. Remember kids no EU membership and look forward to many of your employment rights going bye-bye. Some of us are old enough to remember the days before four weeks annual leave was a legal requirement.

Immigration is a red herring in terms of cost to the UK. The wealthy tend to detest taxation and blame cost on the poor. They serve to protect themselves and exploit others at any cost. Remember when the minimum wage was going to destroy the country? If we had that the country was doomed according to the Tories, same with signing up to the EU employment legislation. Funnily enough they did love sucking the big fat cock of corporations and banks and remain awfully low key on tax avoidance in the "we're all in this together" camp.

Deporting people from a country en mass. Shutting up shop like a scared little child and abandoning human rights act isn't political thinking. It's protectionism for the wealthy and trying to pretend the world doesn't exist.

Didn't Thatcher get the rebate from the EU over the CAP?
Hasn't the bloated welfare state so beloved of the labour government benefitted the non-working man?
I'd argue that shutting down primary, inefficient and costly industries in the 1980s has , over time benefitted the working man: a long term plan, that was unpopular at the time, and forced the UK to expand where it has a comparative advantage.

Sadly as I've got older, I realise that none of the parties are in it for the long term, and none of them give me a cohesive argument to vote for them anymore.
Despite right of centre political leanings, I'd advocate more cross party groups, and longer term (10yr+) policies

You explain my point very well

Thatcher gort a rebate yes exactly they cannot come up with ideas but can control costs.

The welfare state does benefit the working man, but was not a tory introduction,

closing the industry was not about cost it was about destroying a structure of villages and towns that would never elect a tory, it actually put our utilities into the hands of the business where they remain, how exactly was that good for anyone, a combination of Ethnic cleansing and a return to the days of the rich controlling the resources and housing.

Read again and look further

you think it was about destroying villages and towns, I think it was about costs.
'ethnic cleansing'.....really?

It had nothing to do with costs. It was a exercise in breaking the Unions and she was more than happy to destroy large swathes of the country to exercise that plan.

so would we be better off if cost ineffective primary industries that hold the governemnet to ransom were still prevalent? Obviously the working conditions in those days were also much better.

Yes, pretty much everything they privatised would be better nationalised in my opinion. Of course things like working conditions, union influence and many other factors would have evolved as anything does over a period of 30 years.

Also "cost ineffective" is invalid, as many of the closures made were to profit making sites at that time.

Eggyh73 wrote (see)

Yes, pretty much everything they privatised would be better nationalised in my opinion. Of course things like working conditions, union influence and many other factors would have evolved as anything does over a period of 30 years.

Also "cost ineffective" is invalid, as many of the closures made were to profit making sites at that time.

Yes it would. Shareholders are benefitting at the cost of the users that's wrong.

Incidentally, someone on another website the other day made the point that EDF is a state-owned French company that privately runs part of Britains electricity supply and makes a profit  - for the French!

On one hand that's scandalous but on another - if they can do it, surely so can we?

Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

Where are 3 parties, Look back on your history

Labour have the ideas, but carry them through in a poor way

Tories oppose everything new but carry it out in a penny-pinching way

Liberals just say no to everything, yet never come up with real alternatives.

Your politics say a lot about how you live your life. Find me a policy implemented in 100 years by any party other than Labour that has been for the good of the working man.

Factories act, Welfare state, minimum wage, all brought in by Labour and opposed by Tories. Politics is not new just the faces at the front

Looking at 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law_in_the_United_Kingdom

and 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom

seems that there are plenty of laws brought in for the good of the working man by parties other than Labour:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Age_Pensions_Act_1908

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Boards_Act_1909

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance_Act_1911

(Ignoring your 100 years rule, round numbers are overrated)

The legislation you quote Pensions, national insurance was devised and introduced by the Liberal governments at the time masterminded by a group of Politicians who would eventually break away from the Lib party to form the Labour Party. Both actions were opposed by the Tory party.

The trade boards act was introduced by Winston Churchill and was designed to support the lone trader businessman  to allow him to use labour and to gain payment for work done, it was not a social measure.

Keep looking - there's nothing to find

Dustin wrote (see)

so would we be better off if cost ineffective primary industries that hold the governemnet to ransom were still prevalent? Obviously the working conditions in those days were also much better.

Dustin wrote (see)

so would we be better off if cost ineffective primary industries that hold the governemnet to ransom were still prevalent? Obviously the working conditions in those days were also much better.

Eggyh73 wrote (see)

Yes, pretty much everything they privatised would be better nationalised in my opinion. Of course things like working conditions, union influence and many other factors would have evolved as anything does over a period of 30 years.

Also "cost ineffective" is invalid, as many of the closures made were to profit making sites at that time.

Eggy I'm finding myself in a strange position, I find I have something in common with you, and agree with your comments.

What Thatcher did to the mining industry and in particular the Communities (who she could never win over or control) was little more than Gerrymandering and Ethnic cleansing,

I live in an area that had low unemployment for years..............and then the industry was all taken away so that anyone educated moved away and those left were left with no work..........and then generations were on benefits..........blame the people for being on benefits if it helps.......but who took the jobs that 40 years later still haven't been replaced

and then let them hear stories of poeple getting enough bonuses that would probably feed the whole village for a week at teh same time as losing millions of money.........and you wonder why the divide seems to get bigger

Seren I'm not in any way in favour of benefits except for the extreme cases, but you're right and I also agree with some of the above, the exercise in the 80s was about clearing the decks for the Tory party, the removal of strong opposition, and the re-distribution of wealth back to the "ruling classes" look today at inflated Utility prices, and the ever increasing private housing market. 

The tory party did once bring in a social measure though, the Poll tax, and wasn't that a roaring success