Jump to content

Britain’s opposition Labour Party demand energy price cap freeze


Scott

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, transam said:

Weeeeeell, I have always looked at the Labour Party as being socialists, as many do....????

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2016/09/labour-socialist

Did you actually read the article? It doesn't say what you apparently think it does. Here's the conclusion

 

"So now, the Labour party is less socialist. “Social democrats” are usually how more centrist left wing politicians in western democracies are described – and how most Labour MPs would identify. But Corbyn and his allies often use the description: “democratic socialist”."

 

And given that the author of the piece includes the NHS, minimum wage, and progressive taxation as socialistic, even his tepid clams are suspect. Or maybe he believes that most UK citizens are socialist?

Edited by placeholder
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, transam said:

Weeeeeell, I have always looked at the Labour Party as being socialists, as many do....????

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2016/09/labour-socialist

Here once again, for your benefit, is the definition of socialism:

 

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+socialism&oq=definition+of+so&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59.7682j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Millions of people in a wealthy nation having to choose between ‘Heating and Eating’, millions of others already struggling to afford food.

Millions more having to choose between Christmas holidays in The Alps or having to rough it with the pensioners in Tenerife, already struggling with the private school fees. 
Those north London labour supporters won’t tolerate it either, because they believe Starmer would sort it all for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All this bleating about Unions and Socialism.

 

Somebody seems not to have noticed that in the face of the worse cost of living crisis in living memory, unions and industrial action are becoming quite the thing again.

 

Likewise support for nationalization of utility and railway companies 

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/utilities/trackers/support-for-bringing-energy-companies-back-into-public-ownership

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/05/11/why-do-people-support-rail-nationalisation

It seems most of the planet has the same problem, not just the UK, at the present time......????

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Are they voting for socialists? Do the vast majority of the candidates they're voting for endorse the proposition that "the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole?" .Most likely, to their way of thinking, are they settling for the lesser of 2 evils. 

Who are the socialists voting for, is what I asked....????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, baboon said:

The RMT is not affiliated with the Labour Party. He doesn't take their cash.

ASLEF are. Are all the strikers from only one union?
Affiliated or not, they’ve still been in the take. Individual MPs have been too. 
Labour is mired in their own corrupt sleaze with the unions. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Really?

 

On the take?

 

Sleaze?

 

Care to back those claims up. 
 

Keep in mind declared contributions above a certain amount to a party or individual MP is completely legal. 
 

Donations below this level do not need be declared. 

Read something else other than your rag and you will see how many Lab MPs have been taking thousands from the unions. 
 

The party really needs it now, with a £4.8M deficit after loosing 100,000 members since last year. Even their own membership are leaving Starmer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Read something else other than your rag and you will see how many Lab MPs have been taking thousands from the unions. 
 

The party really needs it now, with a £4.8M deficit after loosing 100,000 members since last year. Even their own membership are leaving Starmer. 

That’s not the question I asked. 
 

It is well known and openly declared as regulations require that unions contribute to both the Labour Party and individual mps.
 

That is not graft, being on the take or illegal. 

 

Now back up your claims of being on the take and sleaze. 
 

I would ask that you recant these claims if unable to do so.
 

However, that would take integrity and the courage to admit you are wrong…

 

I doubt you possess these qualities. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

That is not graft, being on the take or illegal. 

 

Now back up your claims of being on the take and sleaze. 

MPs taking money from unions is Labour’s sleaze. Declare it on the register, it is still sleaze. 
They are in the unions’ pocket. Supporting the union strikes and joining their picket lines is sleaze.
Did they actually get disciplined? Sleaze. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Loiner said:

MPs taking money from unions is Labour’s sleaze. Declare it on the register, it is still sleaze. 
They are in the unions’ pocket. Supporting the union strikes and joining their picket lines is sleaze.
Did they actually get disciplined? Sleaze. 

Oh? Whose payroll is Natalie Elphicke on? Shame on you!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How on earth did you miss out on the history of the UK’s Labour movement’s during your years in school?

That was a very different Labour Party I learned about. Nothing like the recent cabal of liars masquerading as a party ‘for the many.’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...