When is the Labour manifesto released? Eagerly awaiting to see how much

[Billy Goat Sverige]

free stuff they plan on giving away.

[WES]

free stuff they plan on giving away.

They won't be giving away anything, it will all have to be paid for by our children.

I know you know this, what I find myself wondering is how many of the uneducated masses know this.

Having said that, I still think Labour are going to get swamped in this GE.

Out of interest, what is the top rate of tax in Sweden land and when do you start paying it?

[PSRB]

free stuff they plan on giving away.

***********free money*************

[Just Trent]

free stuff they plan on giving away.

The latest one is free broadband. :hehe:

GLWTPIMO

[Billy Goat Sverige]

They won't be giving away anything, it will all have to be paid for by our children.

I know you know this, what I find myself wondering is how many of the uneducated masses know this.

Having said that, I still think Labour are going to get swamped in this GE.

Out of interest, what is the top rate of tax in Sweden land and when do you start paying it?

60% is the highest if you’re earning over 1m kronor (about £90k I think). Your employer pays another 9% on top of that.

[Pokster]

They won't be giving away anything, it will all have to be paid for by our children.

I know you know this, what I find myself wondering is how many of the uneducated masses know this.

Having said that, I still think Labour are going to get swamped in this GE.

Out of interest, what is the top rate of tax in Sweden land and when do you start paying it?

Oh they will be swamped.... BUT, this general idea that Labour **** up the economy was rubbished when the longest run of growth we have ever had was under Blair/Brown. Putting the BOE in charge of setting interest rates was a major cause of this. I seem to remember the Tory cut rates just before the 1997 election purely as a vote winner even though it would have had a detremental effect on the economy

[barrybueno]

The latest one is free broadband. :hehe:

GLWTPIMO

They really are utter ****s :hehe: I remember that one eyed wánker Gordon Brown banging on about the UK's low broadband speeds as if it was in some way our biggest issue :homer:

[WES]

Oh they will be swamped.... BUT, this general idea that Labour **** up the economy was rubbished when the longest run of growth we have ever had was under Blair/Brown. Putting the BOE in charge of setting interest rates was a major cause of this. I seem to remember the Tory cut rates just before the 1997 election purely as a vote winner even though it would have had a detremental effect on the economy

I think it's more what Corbyn/McDonnell/McCluskey will do to the economy than what Labour generally will do. I disagreed with much of what Blair and Brown did but I never thought they would bankrupt the country.

McDonnell is a different beast, he really could destroy our economy and set us back decades.

[Tony C]

Free Broadband is all part of their climate control strategy

Free broadband = Free Porn = More W anking = Less Babies

:nod:

Fits perfectly with their 4 day week imo

I’ve seen through their evil plot...

[IUFG]

Free Broadband is all part of their climate control strategy

Free broadband = Free Porn = More W anking = Less Babies

:nod:

Fits perfectly with their 4 day week imo

I’ve seen through their evil plot...

all makes sense now.

a day off, wánking :cloud9:

#VoteLabour etc

[PSRB]

I think it's more what Corbyn/McDonnell/McCluskey will do to the economy than what Labour generally will do. I disagreed with much of what Blair and Brown did but I never thought they would bankrupt the country.

McDonnell is a different beast, he really could destroy our economy and set us back decades.

Quite, they were the closest I ever came to voting to Labour as they seemed to have at least some understanding of economics*

*bar Golden Brown selling our gold reserves for feck all, forgot about that bit

[barrybueno]

all makes sense now.

a day off, wánking :cloud9:

#VoteLabour etc

Yes I'm starting to see the light as well. If you want a wánker for a neighbour, vote Labour

[Tony C]

Might be a good time to buy shares in Kleenex #FreeeeeeMoney

[barrybueno]

Might be a good time to buy shares in Kleenex #FreeeeeeMoney

:hehe: Open Reach shares as well, once all this nonsense is over they'll go back to normal. *****Free Money*****

[IUFG]

Might be a good time to buy shares in Kleenex #FreeeeeeMoney

fix a toilet roll holder to the headboard :nod:

[Yesterday Once More]

The point is that they can promise the earth with impunity because they know they won't get an overall majority. If Corbyn gets in with the help of the SNP, Lib Dems and various other odds and sods they will be able to say that they had to compromise their most ambitious spending plans to get the others onside. It's a freeeeeeee hit.

[Pokster]

Quite, they were the closest I ever came to voting to Labour as they seemed to have at least some understanding of economics*

*bar Golden Brown selling our gold reserves for feck all, forgot about that bit

when he sold it Gold was on a 20 yr downtrend, and if the dot com bubble hadn't burst there is every chance we would have made money on the deal.... he didn't sell all of it, we still have truckloads of gold in reserve

[PSRB]

The point is that they can promise the earth with impunity because they know they won't get an overall majority. If Corbyn gets in with the help of the SNP, Lib Dems and various other odds and sods they will be able to say that they had to compromise their most ambitious spending plans to get the others onside. It's a freeeeeeee hit.

There is also a very strong possibility that it will destroy the Labour party........we live in hope

[barrybueno]

fix a toilet roll holder to the headboard :nod:

Now this is pure genius, did you just think of that or have you already got one in place? :hide:

[7sisters]

The latest one is free broadband. :hehe:

GLWTPIMO

But, hang on. 5G ? Although the take up and existing wi-fi infrastructure will remain in place for a while, surely Broadband will be replaced at some point anyway :shrug:

[IUFG]

Now this is pure genius, did you just think of that or have you already got one in place? :hide:

No, but have thought about it. It would be a cheaper alternative to latex sheets and wiping your old chap on the curtains

[Burney]

Oh they will be swamped.... BUT, this general idea that Labour **** up the economy was rubbished when the longest run of growth we have ever had was under Blair/Brown. Putting the BOE in charge of setting interest rates was a major cause of this. I seem to remember the Tory cut rates just before the 1997 election purely as a vote winner even though it would have had a detremental effect on the economy

Hmmm. Here’s the thing, though, p: the economy is ALWAYS in a worse state when Labour leave office than it is when they entered it. Unemployment is ALWAYS higher.

And so we vote the tories in to clear up the fùcking mess Labour ALWAYS makes.

[Burney]

Quite, they were the closest I ever came to voting to Labour as they seemed to have at least some understanding of economics*

*bar Golden Brown selling our gold reserves for feck all, forgot about that bit

They understood it insofar as they allowed money to be made more than any previous Labour administration. However, they still spent like drunken sailors, which meant we were horribly ill-prepared when the inevitable correction came.

[Pokster]

Hmmm. Here’s the thing, though, p: the economy is ALWAYS in a worse state when Labour leave office than it is when they entered it. Unemployment is ALWAYS higher.

And so we vote the tories in to clear up the fùcking mess Labour ALWAYS makes.

So I assume taht you blame the Global financial crisis at Labours door then? A sthey certainly did not **** up the economy prior to that. Boom and Bust was an apt saying by Brown, as that is what always happened before

[Burney]

So I assume taht you blame the Global financial crisis at Labours door then? A sthey certainly did not **** up the economy prior to that. Boom and Bust was an apt saying by Brown, as that is what always happened before

Where did I say that? Of course I don’t. I do blame them for leaving the public finances in such a place whereby we were less protected than we otherwise might have been, however.

And ‘an end to boom and bust’ was predicated on the economic fantasy of perpetual, uninterrupted growth (which various snake oil salesman were selling at that time). How would we say that worked out? :hehe:

And I note you haven’t addressed the fact that Labour ALWAYS leaves the economy in a worse state than they find it. Could that be because you know it’s undeniably true?

[AFC East]

Oh they will be swamped.... BUT, this general idea that Labour **** up the economy was rubbished when the longest run of growth we have ever had was under Blair/Brown. Putting the BOE in charge of setting interest rates was a major cause of this. I seem to remember the Tory cut rates just before the 1997 election purely as a vote winner even though it would have had a detremental effect on the economy

It's true. New Labour were economically sound and we all did very well thank you. Corbyn has nothing in common with that project whatsoever.

[AFC East]

Where did I say that? Of course I don’t. I do blame them for leaving the public finances in such a place whereby we were less protected than we otherwise might have been, however.

And ‘an end to boom and bust’ was predicated on the economic fantasy of perpetual, uninterrupted growth (which various snake oil salesman were selling at that time). How would we say that worked out? :hehe:

And I note you haven’t addressed the fact that Labour ALWAYS leaves the economy in a worse state than they find it. Could that be because you know it’s undeniably true?

That is absolutely nonsense. No doubt you can prove anything with confirmed bias statistical reporting, but an analysis of the state of an economy is a lot broader than unemployment figures or inflation. Your analysis probably isn't.

And I am no Labour supporter, most certainly never will be now.

[Pokster]

Where did I say that? Of course I don’t. I do blame them for leaving the public finances in such a place whereby we were less protected than we otherwise might have been, however.

And ‘an end to boom and bust’ was predicated on the economic fantasy of perpetual, uninterrupted growth (which various snake oil salesman were selling at that time). How would we say that worked out? :hehe:

And I note you haven’t addressed the fact that Labour ALWAYS leaves the economy in a worse state than they find it. Could that be because you know it’s undeniably true?

It's becuase I haven't bothered to go back and check....

I would also suggest the biggest headache facing the economy is Brexit, and we all know which party decided that would be a good idea

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Where did I say that? Of course I don’t. I do blame them for leaving the public finances in such a place whereby we were less protected than we otherwise might have been, however.

And ‘an end to boom and bust’ was predicated on the economic fantasy of perpetual, uninterrupted growth (which various snake oil salesman were selling at that time). How would we say that worked out? :hehe:

And I note you haven’t addressed the fact that Labour ALWAYS leaves the economy in a worse state than they find it. Could that be because you know it’s undeniably true?
That data says that's not even true of Atlee even though we had a fully employed semi-command total war economy up until VJ day.

Anyone who thinks that Atlee, Cripps and that govt were in any way economically reckless, or left the economy in any way worse than could have been hoped for is simply being disingenuous or thick.

A quick google shows me that the unemployment rate in 1970 was about the same as in 1964, while inflation was slightly lower.

Do you want the links? So basically your assertion is simply a myth.

The economy was screwed by the unions in 1979, just like they were in 1974. But that Lab govt had had to deal with the 1973 oil crisis. Inflation rose from 8% in 1973 to 22% c.75/6 and had fallen back to 8% by '78/9, meaning it was lower when Sunny Jim left office in spring than it was when Wilson came in in 1974.

Not a too shabby performance, which is why he was 5% ahead in the polls in autumn '78 before the fückwitted Stalinists like Jez called the WoD and condemned us to 18 years of Thatcherism.

Yes, unemployment rose from 2% at the time of the opec crisis, and was around 6% in 1977/8, but was falling slightly under Lab from then on.

So you want to be really careful about causation vs correlation. (Except you don't, do you, because you're simply trying to troll lefties knowing full well none of them can stop work for an hour to google the data as I have.)

But under Maggie, unemployment went up to over 12%. It was higher when she left that when she entered (despite her having had a decade, despite the north sea oil, and despite Lab having had to deal with the full blast of the oil crisis.)

It was still 8% when the Tories left power in 1997, while under Atlee it stayed at about 2%, and under Wilson in the '60s, it was between 2-3%.

Again, if we want to try to separate causation and correlation, let's look at just Blair's decade, which means we don't skew the figures with the final 2-3 years of Brown dealing with the sub-prime crash.

Blair reduced unemployment from roughly 8% to 5% while inflation hovered at around or under 4%.

Oh, and the debt/gdp ratios fell under Atlee 45-51, under Wilson 64-70 and under Blair '97-07 and was basically the same at the end as at the start under Harold and Sunny Jim '74-9.

While it's gone up from 40% to 80% under your mob since 2010.

What's that you say? Down to the crash? In which case you need to make allowances for the oil crisis {and the last 3 years of NuLab}, and if you do that, you'll see that Lab actually left the econ in a similar or better shape than they inherited it.

So basically, B, you're just speaking bøllocks.

Out of interest, what the fück did you study at uni?

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Out of interest, what the fück did you study at uni?

I would imagine b studied English Literature or similar. This means that though he may spout doctrinaire tory bóllócks, he does so rather eloquently.

[Sir C]

For the love of Christ man learn to present a concise argument! It’s like being battered with words!

Did the IMF loan never happen, by the way? Desperate measures like 98% taxation?

[IUFG]

That data says that's not even true of Atlee even though we had a fully employed semi-command total war economy up until VJ day.

Anyone who thinks that Atlee, Cripps and that govt were in any way economically reckless, or left the economy in any way worse than could have been hoped for is simply being disingenuous or thick.

A quick google shows me that the unemployment rate in 1970 was about the same as in 1964, while inflation was slightly lower.

Do you want the links? So basically your assertion is simply a myth.

The economy was screwed by the unions in 1979, just like they were in 1974. But that Lab govt had had to deal with the 1973 oil crisis. Inflation rose from 8% in 1973 to 22% c.75/6 and had fallen back to 8% by '78/9, meaning it was lower when Sunny Jim left office in spring than it was when Wilson came in in 1974.

Not a too shabby performance, which is why he was 5% ahead in the polls in autumn '78 before the fückwitted Stalinists like Jez called the WoD and condemned us to 18 years of Thatcherism.

Yes, unemployment rose from 2% at the time of the opec crisis, and was around 6% in 1977/8, but was falling slightly under Lab from then on.

So you want to be really careful about causation vs correlation. (Except you don't, do you, because you're simply trying to troll lefties knowing full well none of them can stop work for an hour to google the data as I have.)

But under Maggie, unemployment went up to over 12%. It was higher when she left that when she entered (despite her having had a decade, despite the north sea oil, and despite Lab having had to deal with the full blast of the oil crisis.)

It was still 8% when the Tories left power in 1997, while under Atlee it stayed at about 2%, and under Wilson in the '60s, it was between 2-3%.

Again, if we want to try to separate causation and correlation, let's look at just Blair's decade, which means we don't skew the figures with the final 2-3 years of Brown dealing with the sub-prime crash.

Blair reduced unemployment from roughly 8% to 5% while inflation hovered at around or under 4%.

Oh, and the debt/gdp ratios fell under Atlee 45-51, under Wilson 64-70 and under Blair '97-07 and was basically the same at the end as at the start under Harold and Sunny Jim '74-9.

While it's gone up from 40% to 80% under your mob since 2010.

What's that you say? Down to the crash? In which case you need to make allowances for the oil crisis {and the last 3 years of NuLab}, and if you do that, you'll see that Lab actually left the econ in a similar or better shape than they inherited it.

So basically, B, you're just speaking bøllocks.

Out of interest, what the fück did you study at uni?

yes, yes, but riddle me this, gg...when is this incessant fúcking rain going to stop?

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Did the IMF loan never happen, by the way? Desperate measures like 98% taxation?

I don't think it did c. Rather like Black Wednesday never really happened - Norman Lamont running around like a headless chicken raising interest rates at one point to 12% simply because George Soros understood what a nation of deluded kunts we were.

Cost us close to 3billion and that was in '92! - I expect it was Angela Merkel's fault eh?

[Sir C]

I don't think it did c. Rather like Black Wednesday never really happened - Norman Lamont running around like a headless chicken raising interest rates at one point to 12% simply because George Soros understood what a nation of deluded kunts we were.

Cost us close to 3billion and that was in '92! - I expect it was Angela Merkel's fault eh?

Whataboutery. Dull.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Whataboutery. Dull.

Gotcha. Shouting whataboutery is what Monty also does when he has no counterpoint to offer.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

For the love of Christ man learn to present a concise argument! It’s like being battered with words!

Did the IMF loan never happen, by the way? Desperate measures like 98% taxation?

I would have thought, considering it was B who used the expression "left the econ in a worse state than they found it in" without defining it, that using all three of unemployment rate, inflation rate and debt/gdp ratio would have been acceptable.

Yes there was the imf loan, as a result of the oil crisis. Just like your mob have doubled debt/gdp this decade as a result of the crash.

However, once we take out those shocks and analyse the data, we see that Lab generally kept things stable or made things a bit better while the Tories did worse in some cases.

Basically, it sounds like B heard this assertion on the Telegraph or somewhere and took it as fact, when a quick glance at the data shows it's fake noooz.

Oh, and 98% taxation.

1. It was 95%.
2. It was started by your mob.

Hence the Beatles song Taxman>

19 for you and 1 for me.
Haha, Mr Wilson. Haha, Mr Heath.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

yes, yes, but riddle me this, gg...when is this incessant fúcking rain going to stop?

Still raining in Paris atm. So dunno. St Swithens day? {Whenever that is.}

[Sir C]

I would have thought, considering it was B who used the expression "left the econ in a worse state than they found it in" without defining it, that using all three of unemployment rate, inflation rate and debt/gdp ratio would have been acceptable.

Yes there was the imf loan, as a result of the oil crisis. Just like your mob have doubled debt/gdp this decade as a result of the crash.

However, once we take out those shocks and analyse the data, we see that Lab generally kept things stable or made things a bit better while the Tories did worse in some cases.

Basically, it sounds like B heard this assertion on the Telegraph or somewhere and took it as fact, when a quick glance at the data shows it's fake noooz.

Oh, and 98% taxation.

1. It was 95%.
2. It was started by your mob.

Hence the Beatles song Taxman>

19 for you and 1 for me.
Haha, Mr Wilson. Haha, Mr Heath.

I don’t have a mob.

[Ash]

Gotcha. Shouting whataboutery is what Monty also does when he has no counterpoint to offer.

I'm not sure that Monty is the worst offender tbf.

as we know, an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Shouting whataboutery is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

[Ash]

Oh, and 98% taxation.

1. It was 95%.
2. It was started by your mob.

Hence the Beatles song Taxman>

19 for you and 1 for me.
Haha, Mr Wilson. Haha, Mr Heath.

You what? Revolver was 1966.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Gotcha. Shouting whataboutery is what Monty also does when he has no counterpoint to offer.

Interesting that while C, courageously and as civilised as ever, takes up the baton to politely discuss the evidence with me, B himself, who came up with the assertion and said that all us lefties must agree with it as no-one had disputed said assertion thus far, is no where to be seen now I've spent an hour going through a dozen or more sets of figures and have proved that he's speaking complete bøllocks.

Strange, that.

I wonder if me having all the tabs still open and being able to screengrab the graphs in seconds to support my data has anything to do with it?

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I'm not sure that Monty is the worst offender tbf.

as we know, an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Shouting whataboutery is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

Do a search on the phrase whatabout - 8 results all told and here's the score

Sir C - 4
Berni - 2
Jorge - 1
BGM -1

So actually Sir C is demonstrably the worst offender.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Interesting that while C, courageously and as civilised as ever, takes up the baton to politely discuss the evidence with me, B himself, who came up with the assertion and said that all us lefties must agree with it as no-one had disputed said assertion thus far, is no where to be seen now I've spent an hour going through a dozen or more sets of figures and have proved that he's speaking complete bøllocks.

Strange, that.

I wonder if me having all the tabs still open and being able to screengrab the graphs in seconds to support my data has anything to do with it?

Oh it may take him longer to piece his data together but he'll be back with his own data to refute your findings at some time I should think. It is terribly unfair when you young chaps can scour the web as efficiently as you do :-D

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

You what? Revolver was 1966.

Yes. But the rate was introduce in the war, reduced slightly afterwards and kept at that level.

Think. If Wilson had suddenly whacked it up in '64, then the Beatles wouldn't be singing that Wilson and Heath were the same, would they?

Simple Primary Source analysis.

Here, if you don't believe me:

The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s.

In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%.[17] In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%

Thus, the Sainted C is wrong to blame that 95% tax rate on the Labour govt. Then inherited it in 1964 and kept it the same for their whole 6 years in power.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Oh it may take him longer to piece his data together but he'll be back with his own data to refute your findings at some time I should think. It is terribly unfair when you young chaps can scour the web as efficiently as you do :-D

I don't think even B is swivel-eyed enough to dispute the data I got from the ONS and HM Treasury's Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) on the grounds that some comment underneath Guido Fawkes says otherwise.

[Sir C]

Oh it may take him longer to piece his data together but he'll be back with his own data to refute your findings at some time I should think. It is terribly unfair when you young chaps can scour the web as efficiently as you do :-D

The point is that whatever statistics anyone wants to throw at the matter won’t change the reality that socialism always ends with poor *******s having their testes coshed. Because it never, ever works. It’s a system that fails to take into account, or care about, basic human wualities like responsibility, ambition, compassion and decency. The only way it can be implemented is via coercion.

To add insult to injury, after you’ve suffered the gulags and the electrodes, you end up having to eat your pets. :venezuela:

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

you end up having to eat your pets. :venezuela:

. . . . . . . . . . .

[barrybueno]

yes, yes, but riddle me this, gg...when is this incessant fúcking rain going to stop?

About 1am over my way by the looks of it, too fúckíng late to walk down the pub then :shout:

[Ash]

The point is that whatever statistics anyone wants to throw at the matter won’t change the reality that socialism always ends with poor *******s having their testes coshed. Because it never, ever works. It’s a system that fails to take into account, or care about, basic human wualities like responsibility, ambition, compassion and decency. The only way it can be implemented is via coercion.

To add insult to injury, after you’ve suffered the gulags and the electrodes, you end up having to eat your pets. :venezuela:


:nono: Not necessarily.

Illiteracy rates:
2006 13.0%, 2018 2.4%

Unemployment rates
2006 9.2%, 2018 4.1%

Moderate poverty rates
2006 60.6%, 2018 34.6%

Extreme poverty rates
2006 38.2%, 2018 15.2%


#Bolivia

It's ok, though. Fascist death squads will soon be doing again what they always do in Latin America and making it free for the local oligarchs and US corporations to crush the poor and dine on their, erm, precious bodily fluids. And nick all the lithium, obviously.

[Sir C]

:nono: Not necessarily.

Illiteracy rates:
2006 13.0%, 2018 2.4%

Unemployment rates
2006 9.2%, 2018 4.1%

Moderate poverty rates
2006 60.6%, 2018 34.6%

Extreme poverty rates
2006 38.2%, 2018 15.2%


#Bolivia

It's ok, though. Fascist death squads will soon be doing again what they always do in Latin America and making it free for the local oligarchs and US corporations to crush the poor and dine on their, erm, precious bodily fluids. And nick all the lithium, obviously.

And the rigged election? Was that all a CIA plot?

Is your argument here that socialism works because Bolivia? Would you like some examples osprey socialism failing? You don’t need m ego list them really, do you?

Fascist death squads indeed.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

The point is that whatever statistics anyone wants to throw at the matter won’t change the reality that socialism always ends with poor *******s having their testes coshed. Because it never, ever works. It’s a system that fails to take into account, or care about, basic human wualities like responsibility, ambition, compassion and decency. The only way it can be implemented is via coercion.

To add insult to injury, after you’ve suffered the gulags and the electrodes, you end up having to eat your pets. :venezuela:

C, you've just basically ignored all my data and just said "Whatevs, it's always bad." and tried to get out of it by switching from the Lab party's post-war economic record to the record of soi disant socialist regimes.

Firstly, every Lab govt believed in a mixed market economy so weren't socialist.

Secondly, every govt was led by the right of the party and was brought down by the left for not being lefty enough,

Atlee brought down over prescription charges in 1951, Wilson by In Place of Strife Union reform in 1970, Callaghan by the Winter of Discontent in 1979, and Blair by Brown in 2007.

Thus we can rightly consider that those govts were centre-lefties, not socialists, and this explains why, other than intl shocks over which they had no control (add in the breakdown of Bretton Woods that screwed Heath) they basically left the economy is as good a state as they found it.

It's one thing to say I'm a Tory and I don't like Labour.

It's another to try and rewrite economic history, as B did, or to try and say that they must be wrong'uns simply because real socialist regimes are.

Most of the time, the party's been run by Oxbridge public school boys. That's not exactly Maduro or Castro, is it? {Indeed, that one of the issues of my wing of the party. We'd rather have an Oxbridge public school boy [or girl] than Jez. But ssshhh, don't tell anyone as we're not meant to say this publicly.}

[Ash]

And the rigged election? Was that all a CIA plot?

Is your argument here that socialism works because Bolivia? Would you like some examples osprey socialism failing? You don’t need m ego list them really, do you?

Fascist death squads indeed.

It has not been proven to have been rigged. The body making the accusation is financed by Washington and another international electoral body has refuted the allegations.

And I said "Not necessarily" above.

[Sir C]

C, you've just basically ignored all my data and just said "Whatevs, it's always bad." and tried to get out of it by switching from the Lab party's post-war economic record to the record of soi disant socialist regimes.

Firstly, every Lab govt believed in a mixed market economy so weren't socialist.

Secondly, every govt was led by the right of the party and was brought down by the left for not being lefty enough,

Atlee brought down over prescription charges in 1951, Wilson by In Place of Strife Union reform in 1970, Callaghan by the Winter of Discontent in 1979, and Blair by Brown in 2007.

Thus we can rightly consider that those govts were centre-lefties, not socialists, and this explains why, other than intl shocks over which they had no control (add in the breakdown of Bretton Woods that screwed Heath) they basically left the economy is as good a state as they found it.

It's one thing to say I'm a Tory and I don't like Labour.

It's another to try and rewrite economic history, as B did, or to try and say that they must be wrong'uns simply because real socialist regimes are.

Most of the time, the party's been run by Oxbridge public school boys. That's not exactly Maduro or Castro, is it? {Indeed, that one of the issues of my wing of the party. We'd rather have an Oxbridge public school boy [or girl] than Jez. But ssshhh, don't tell anyone as we're not meant to say this publicly.}

It's one thing to say I'm a Tory and I don't like Labour.

I’m not a Tory. I’ve just seen the horrors of socialism at first hand. My father grew up in the Netherlands under a socialist dictatorship. I grew up in England in the 1970s. I travelled extensively behind the iron curtain. I have studied history.

The Labour Party has always sheltered the likes of Benn, Wilson and Livingstone who would see us delivered into the hands of the Soviets.

Call me old fashioned, but I rather like my country and many of its citizens. I do not wish ill upon them. I do not wish the UK to resemble the places I saw in the 1980s. Romania, East Germany and Poland, so beloved of your leftist comrades, were no fun at all.

Anyone who can support leftism is either evil or uninformed.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

It's one thing to say I'm a Tory and I don't like Labour.

I’m not a Tory. I’ve just seen the horrors of socialism at first hand. My father grew up in the Netherlands under a socialist dictatorship. I grew up in England in the 1970s. I travelled extensively behind the iron curtain. I have studied history.

The Labour Party has always sheltered the likes of Benn, Wilson and Livingstone who would see us delivered into the hands of the Soviets.

Call me old fashioned, but I rather like my country and many of its citizens. I do not wish ill upon them. I do not wish the UK to resemble the places I saw in the 1980s. Romania, East Germany and Poland, so beloved of your leftist comrades, were no fun at all.

Anyone who can support leftism is either evil or uninformed.

because there never was one. Unless you're pulling the old "Nazis as National Socialists" old guff out of the bag.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

It's one thing to say I'm a Tory and I don't like Labour.

I’m not a Tory. I’ve just seen the horrors of socialism at first hand. My father grew up in the Netherlands under a socialist dictatorship. I grew up in England in the 1970s. I travelled extensively behind the iron curtain. I have studied history.

The Labour Party has always sheltered the likes of Benn, Wilson and Livingstone who would see us delivered into the hands of the Soviets.

Call me old fashioned, but I rather like my country and many of its citizens. I do not wish ill upon them. I do not wish the UK to resemble the places I saw in the 1980s. Romania, East Germany and Poland, so beloved of your leftist comrades, were no fun at all.

Anyone who can support leftism is either evil or uninformed.

Yes, but we didn't though, did we? Despite being in power for 16 years during the cold war, we didn't once have you over to the soviets.

Indeed, it was us that secretly started the nuke programme (without telling the proper lefties in the cabinet, let alone on the backbenches) to keep you, I and the rest of HM's subjects free from evil Stalinism.

We introduced a welfare state that WSC was proud of that took away any reason for the plebs to rise up and kill you, or to sell you out to the soviets.

After one of your mob was nobbing the same bint as the Ruskie naval attache, we took over and won the world cup and then legalised abortion, divorce and poofery.

Our economic policies in the 60s were identical to the Tories, that's why the post war Keynesian consensus of stop-go demand management was known as Butskellism and RAB Buttler and Hugh Gaitskell were in complete agreement.

Every time the left of our party got uppity, we trashed the govt rather than give in to them, whether over prescription charges in '51 or the unions in '69-70, or '78-9.

Post-Thatcher, we didn't undo her privatisations, but simply introduced a windfall tax on the privatised utilities, while also creating the independent MPC to set monetary policy, doing more to stabilise the long term economic prospects than anything the Tories have done since the repeal of the corn laws.

You say you've studied history, C.

Well read the above, you know it's true.

And given that, you can't really claim that the moderate, governing wing of our party are in the same league Maduro or Chavez. We're basically like SuperMac but with added northern accents.

And every time the left get uppity, we stop them. By crashing the govt or splitting the party.

I would suggest that my wing of the party have proved themselves to be as proud patriots as any Tory, prepared to put national interest over party needs, ideology or dogma at every single turn once in power.

Thoughts?

[Yesterday Once More]

Nearly 6pm and they are still in the manifesto meeting spending our money. Then Diane Abbott has to tot it all up.