I personally have socialist sympathies as I always care for the underdog so perhaps you might think I would vote for the labour party in my country? Actually not! -and I would in fact vote against them precisely because I care for the underdog!
The UK labour party has dumped all its socialist principles a long time ago so is now NOT socialist! -yet they say that they are socialist, that’s just one small part of their hypocrisy. So what do they stand for if not socialism? -answer, nothing. They are now absolutely no better than the Conservative party.
Their hypocrisy and spin has caused me serious annoyance for many years but the latest hypocrisy and spin has really pissed me off:
In their last budget they basically said they are going to make cuts in public spending; ok, fair enough; except, they didn’t call it “cuts” in public spending, they called it “efficiency savings” 😛
-how hypercritical of them! -trying to make a negatively sounding thing sound like a good positive thing! What on Earth has cutting spending in essential services such as the NHS so that we have less of them got to do with “efficiency” 😛
I really hate it when they make out that a bad thing is a good thing. If there was a famine in the UK, what would they call it? An “Optimising population readjustment”?
I hated the Conservatives when they were in power but at least they were not so dishonest to call cuts in public spending anything other than what they really are; they just called them “cuts”.
-oh, and to add to that labour party hypocrisy, they say that they won’t make those “efficiency savings” until one and a half years time to give a chance for the economy to recover first so that we can then “afford” to make those “efficiency savings” -what a convenient coincidence for them! That means it just happens that we the voters won’t see the terrible effects of cuts to the NHS etc until just AFTER the next general election! -no coincidence; just hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhere do they say they are socialist?
I personally have socialist sympathies as I always care for the underdog so perhaps you might think I would vote for the labour party in my country? Actually not! -and I would in fact vote against them precisely because I care for the underdog!
The UK labour party has dumped all its socialist principles a long time ago so is now NOT sociali ...[text shortened]... cuts to the NHS etc until just AFTER the next general election! -no coincidence; just hypocrisy.
Originally posted by RedmikeI cannot recall the last time one of them said this but I don’t think it was that long ago and surely they still claim they stand for socialist? -else I would think that this would virtually be an admittance that they stand for nothing.
Where do they say they are socialist?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI agree. That’s why I think we need proportional representation which is why I will be voting for the liberals even though I not very impressed by them either. It is simply the case of me choosing the party that is the least terrible.
The UK has a (semi) two-party system. In any such system the parties will differ very little precisely because that would simply cost a lot of votes.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYeah, I'm glad I have more to choose; if I were a UK citizen I would probably vote for the LibDems as well.
I agree. That’s why I think we need proportional representation which is why I will be voting for the liberals even though I not very impressed by them either. It is simply the case of me choosing the party that is the least terrible.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe Labour party does not consider them socialist. They will call themselves social democrats (the friendly face of capitalism).
I cannot recall the last time one of them said this but I don’t think it was that long ago and surely they still claim they stand for socialist? -else I would think that this would virtually be an admittance that they stand for nothing.
Socialism split after the Russian revolution.
One side wants to create changes within the system, the other (more radical) side believes that the system is the problem and that it needs to change to create a socialist society.
The Labour party is the former. By creating change within the system, they become part of the system. This means making concessions.
These concessions lead socialists to believe they're not socialist, and the radical element (outside of the system behaviour) of socialism leads social democrats to create a distance between themselves and the "radical element".
Hence that the Labour party isn't socialist.
Originally posted by shavixmirI don't think Labour intends to change the system much, even from within.
The Labour party does not consider them socialist. They will call themselves social democrats (the friendly face of capitalism).
Socialism split after the Russian revolution.
One side wants to create changes within the system, the other (more radical) side believes that the system is the problem and that it needs to change to create a socialist society ...[text shortened]... etween themselves and the "radical element".
Hence that the Labour party isn't socialist.
Originally posted by shavixmirWon't sentences like this only confuse the people who think that people are either capitalists or they are communists?
The Labour party does not consider them socialist. They will call themselves social democrats (the friendly face of capitalism).
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI think "New" labour's socialist credentials died with John Smith.
I cannot recall the last time one of them said this but I don’t think it was that long ago and surely they still claim they stand for socialist? -else I would think that this would virtually be an admittance that they stand for nothing.
Originally posted by WajomaI am appalled.
Don't worry Andrew they're back on track with Brownies "compulsory voluntary community service"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5143911/Gordon-Browns-plan-for-army-of-teen-volunteers.html
I would like to ask him if HE volunteer to do 50 hours of unpaid 'community service' by the time he reached the age of 19?
…"compulsory voluntary community service"……
lol -now that’s a laughable contradiction.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonFair enough. Rendering people appalled is the raison d'etre of The Daily Telegraph. Along with disseminating gusset shots during Wimbledon and covering rapes in an ever so slightly prurient way. Good cricket coverage though - or so they say. I personally don't concur. Nor am I appalled, by the way.
I am appalled.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonPerhaps it means you can volunteer to do whatever you want - within reason - as you accumulate your community service hours.
…"compulsory voluntary community service"……
lol -now that’s a laughable contradiction.[/b]
Teenagers are able to voluntarily choose many of the subjects they are examined in at the age of sixteen, even though staying in school till they are sixteen is compulsory. I note that the youth work scheme "...is likely to become part of the National Curriculum and would be integrated into moves to make everyone stay in education or training until the age of 18 by 2011."
Originally posted by RedmikeBut the net result of Labour, 'Old' and 'New', is to land us in bankruptcy. We are now back in the same sinking boat that the infamous H.Wilson and his successor Callaghan left us in 1979. Both spent and wasted taxpayer's money as if there was no tomorrow with the same disastrous result.
Where do they say they are socialist?