Jump to content

Labour nor Tory can do what needs to be done.


Recommended Posts

It's a no win situation. Neither can offer what we need as a country, because they're all massive vote losers.

 

For example:

 

*We need more housing. (argue that if you want - but I'll suggest we do)

 

If either claimed that there would be a massive house building project, say 500,000 new homes over a term.

 

Straight away, 14,500,000 home owners realise their property is likely to devalue. Possible loss to the party of millions of voters. A none starter for either party, and fairness [or progress] takes a back seat. Conclusion: Neither dare do anything major as it is a potential vote loser because an opposition will attack with this one.

 

-

 

It's widely thought that pensioners are unfairly paid in their pensions (i.e. rich get same as poor)

 

Straight away, (I can't post exact figures as my new internet connection runs like treacle), it's clear, neither party dare even touch pensioners, as the grey vote is huge. A none starter for either party and fairness takes a back seat.

 

-

 

The child benefit system. Hugely controversial, and doesn't serve the purpose it was meant for (though that in it self is controversial!)

 

Who dares trample on this? The Tory party have had a little snip into this, but even that will lose them votes. A none starter for either party and fairness takes a back seat.

 

-

 

Spiralling NHS costs - when it just isn't necessary. Both parties have sneaked around this topic, but neither dare do anything as it is a vote loser because an opposition will attack with this one.

 

-

 

Is it just Catch-22 until someone starts a war on us or similar?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Said it before, we need a revolution. :thumbsup:

 

By who though?

 

I was addressed in the local 24 hour shop by some white woman who said something in the region of 'what'ya *kisses teeth* check me, push me rass, tccch, disrespec me chah will ya move me ass aint likin' (though when I repeated that verbally to my work colleagues they found it hugely amusing, so I'm guessing it's better face to face) - I'd rather no rev innit check it, if that is the alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By who though?

 

I was addressed in the local 24 hour shop by some white woman who said something in the region of 'what'ya *kisses teeth* check me, push me rass, tccch, disrespec me chah will ya move me ass aint likin' (though when I repeated that verbally to my work colleagues they found it hugely amusing, so I'm guessing it's better face to face) - I'd rather no rev innit check it, if that is the alternative.

 

The man innit. We should rise up and share what's rightfully ours.

I'm deadly serious btw, blud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man innit. We should rise up and share what's rightfully ours.

I'm deadly serious btw, blud.

 

We should do that ting cos if we don't then we is screwed. The conservationists will hunt us down and ting, also Mr Whippy will be forced on us cos thatcher invented it to close all the steel mines and ting. No wat I meen bro?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should do that ting cos if we don't then we is screwed. The conservationists will hunt us down and ting, also Mr Whippy will be forced on us cos thatcher invented it to close all the steel mines and ting. No wat I meen bro?

 

Na ya speekin mi langwij bruv. :love:

 

Got whole shed full of foxes here just waitin for a bite at the tory horses ass mate. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's widely thought that pensioners are unfairly paid in their pensions (i.e. rich get same as poor)

 

Straight away, (I can't post exact figures as my new internet connection runs like treacle), it's clear, neither party dare even touch pensioners, as the grey vote is huge. A none starter for either party and fairness takes a back seat.

 

This was my favourite.

 

It is hugely unfair, you're right. Irrespective of how much you've contributed over the years, everyone gets the same. So it would be much fairer if those who paid in more (i.e. the rich) got more than those who paid in little or nothing (i.e. the poor).

 

That is what you're proposing, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.