Mr Prime Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 The fact he was openly saying his goal was to overthrow a democratically elected government by force. That is an affront to the whole political system and removal of the freedom to vote as we know it in the UK. He was a danger to democracy in the UK. I've already dealt with that assertion and you have not bettered me with any evidence or explained to anyone how an NUM victory constituted the UK becoming a communist state. I'm waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 The fact he was openly saying his goal was to overthrow a democratically elected government by force. That is an affront to the whole political system and removal of the freedom to vote as we know it in the UK. He was a danger to democracy in the UK. We do indeed live in a democracy. Perhaps you should reconsider what you are advocating if you think it a danger to democracy when people exercise their political rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 I've already dealt with that assertion and you have not bettered me with any evidence or explained to anyone how an NUM victory constituted the UK becoming a communist state. I'm waiting.An NUM victory would have given huge power to the old style left wingers in Labour, and the next Labour government, lapdogs to the unions as they would have been, would undoubtedly have waved a hard-left agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 An NUM victory would have given huge power to the old style left wingers in Labour, and the next Labour government, lapdogs to the unions as they would have been, would undoubtedly have waved a hard-left agenda. That Labour government would have to have been voted in by the majority of voters. Hardly a communist dictatorship. Labour is/was as much a lapdog of unions as the Tories are of big business including sleazy non doms but that's OK obviously. I always found it hilarious that dimwits would tear their hair out over a political party being funded by millions of ordinary people. Another being funded by a few hundred unrepresentative businessmen was/is considered fine! This warping of morality was delivered by the distorting mirrors of the media, a lie filled, impossible to sue tool of big business. I remember some controversy in 97 about the top Tory donors being Hong Kong businessmen some of whom were apparently linked to drugs offences but never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left 4 dead Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 That Labour government would have to have been voted in by the majority of voters. Hardly a communist dictatorship. Labour is/was as much a lapdog of unions as the Tories are of big business including sleazy non doms but that's OK obviously. I always found it hilarious that dimwits would tear their hair out over a political party being funded by millions of ordinary people. Another being funded by a few hundred unrepresentative businessmen was/is considered fine! This warping of morality was delivered by the distorting mirrors of the media, a lie filled, impossible to sue tool of big business. I remember some controversy in 97 about the top Tory donors being Hong Kong businessmen some of whom were apparently linked to drugs offences but never mind. Good post; good points well made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 If you're genuine then thanks. I've always found right wing logic strange, apparently the unions held us to ransom. I wonder if Conrod and upinwath think the bankers have done this? I am still waiting after many years to find out how the Gandalf like Scargill could transform the UK into a dictatorship. So far I've had quotes about his enthusiasm for direct action, big deal and speculation about a left wing Labour government winning an election, so no dictatorship. Again I want someone to tell me the actual procedures for dictatorship following the NUM's victory. Some passages from a Scargill written plan would be helpful, what the Americans would call the 'smoking gun'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 That Labour government would have to have been voted in by the majority of voters. Hardly a communist dictatorship. Labour is/was as much a lapdog of unions as the Tories are of big business including sleazy non doms but that's OK obviously. I always found it hilarious that dimwits would tear their hair out over a political party being funded by millions of ordinary people. Another being funded by a few hundred unrepresentative businessmen was/is considered fine! This warping of morality was delivered by the distorting mirrors of the media, a lie filled, impossible to sue tool of big business. I remember some controversy in 97 about the top Tory donors being Hong Kong businessmen some of whom were apparently linked to drugs offences but never mind. It’s a shame the world is nothing like you describe. Labour also have financial backers, they are not solely funded by the unions. On your comments about businessmen with drug offences, I would like to know if this was the more common possession or something more sinister. You wouldn’t be trying to hint at something untrue now would you? A link to said news articles would clear this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 The Ridley plan/report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridley_Plan The Thatcher governments intention was to destroy the unions, the mining industry and the community that depended on it. How have they gotten away with this act of state aggression against its citizens? What nonsense, the miners had a history of using their control of the nations electricity supply as a political weapon. Far from being an "act of state aggression against its citizens" the Ridley Plan was necessary to protect the majority of citizens of this country from a minority which had demonstrated it was all too willing to use any power it had to hold the rest of the nation hostage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 You will get no link as this was a news story from 97 I remember on TV. Ask a Tory member, they should know the history of their party. Labour are not solely funded by the unions? You don't say! I know that, I am talking about the perception that they are from simple minded right wingers. The world is as I describe, I have said nothing that can't be fact checked. Are you now going to tell me the Tories are not simply funded by business and that the press is fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-ultimate-betrayal-tories-took-money-from-a-heroin-baron-1139689.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/49069.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.