Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html en-gb 30 Thu 21 Aug 2014 18:26:39 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html Puddingclub http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=99#comment701 Another Labour leader without the X factor Sun 03 Oct 2010 07:03:11 GMT+1 crickedneck http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=99#comment700 No, but neither did Bliar. The choice between he and Camerlegg is desperate and the country will slide in to even deeper s**t. Sat 02 Oct 2010 22:08:35 GMT+1 2squirrels http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=99#comment699 No he didn't he is just the new kid on the block and his party must be very worried about his very much altering views. His first speeches contradicted most of what he said when he was running for leaderof the Labour party. Sat 02 Oct 2010 20:59:59 GMT+1 Nomasters http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=99#comment698 Sorry, but no. Nice chap and all that, but from the moment he opens his mouth, I am just hearing some university debating semi-pro who has more (albeit unsubtle) craft than substance. No surprises there, as we truly deserve a Miliband, just as we deserve a Cameron. We allowed real politics to die in this country when we allowed Thatcher to crush the unions just so we could have (in the 1980s) one of the new mobile phones which was the size of a briefcase. The way forward? may I suggest something radical, such as a socialist alternative? ("He's mad!....MAD!") Sat 02 Oct 2010 20:41:11 GMT+1 Nick Vinehill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=99#comment697 Richard Grey your 693 reply to mine: (and no doubt for the umpteenth time)Well then Conservative voter as a rule: it's totally irrelevent Ed Miliband wasn't in Parliament at the time of the invasion of Iraq. There is politics outside Parliament you know!The Iraq campaign is not a single issue on its own; it was about imperialism, resources amd military spheres of influence and along with Afghanistan is fundamental to general economic and political policy of both the now Tory government and the former New Labour government now in opposition. Miliband (Ed) was quite prepared to stand as a Labour candidate and enter Parliament fully aware that a Labour government (with the backing of the Tory Opposition) had commited this act of state terrorism by invadng a county that couldn't fight back despite it's dictatorial regime that had been groomed and armed by the US and its cronies in the first place because it suited their imperialist interests!What about my second point about him being a protege of 'New' Labour yet now he wants to draw a line under it so as to appear a novel new leader? Sat 02 Oct 2010 19:35:54 GMT+1 carl c http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=99#comment696 No, hi didn't convince me. I was amazed when I heard that he had beaten his brother in this contest as from my perspective, David seemed the clear choice. Turns out that a large percentage of the labour party agreed with me, but apparently the union vote did not. I also heard on the news of the alleged response to the outcome by Davids wife when the result was announced, it seems she was as equally surprised. I have nothing personal against Ed but he just doesn't seem to have the presence and strength of character of his brother. Yes he seems like a nice friendly guy who is good at writing policy and strategy but he seems too much like a more approachable Gordon Brown. I cannot see how he is going to present a valid opposition to David Cameron in the comming months, but at least Ed has done what he needed to and indicate he will not be a union puppet. Sat 02 Oct 2010 10:52:06 GMT+1 richardgh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=99#comment695 685. At 10:46pm on 30 Sep 2010, ruffled_feathers wrote:I am a Conservative voter as a rule. I did vote for Labour in 1997 because I felt the Conservatives had become too arrogant - they had to go. I felt this happened with Labour also.I am not sure that any more than two consecutive terms in office for any party is constructive for them or for the country. At that point they have made themselves sufficiently unpopular that it takes time to reconstruct their party and work out who they are again.= = = = = = = = =I was a life long Conservative voter until the end of the First Thatcher parliament - Then I voted Labour because I thought Thatcher was leading us into a disaster - especially for welfare - State Education and NHS.I think you are right - two consecutive terms of office is sufficient - It could reduce the destruction imposed by any one party on the country.Though I think that an overwhelming majority doesn't help to keep a real balance between exploitation and profit. I rather liked the old consensus politics prior to Thatcher. Sat 02 Oct 2010 08:00:57 GMT+1 richardgh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=98#comment694 682. At 8:25pm on 30 Sep 2010, belazela wrote:He is a mediocre politician - he won't amount to much.= = = = == Hmm... So you think the Leader of the second most popular political party in Great Britain with a population of over 60 MILLION is NOT "amounting to much"I have news for you - He already HAS. Sat 02 Oct 2010 07:41:05 GMT+1 richardgh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=98#comment693 689. At 4:09pm on 01 Oct 2010, Maureen Gobener wrote:Ed Milliband has a way to go. Like quite a few others, both politicians and the electorate, he has not understood the real reason behind the Iraq war. You have to have vision and a knowledge of history to realise why this was necessary. Thank God Tony Blair had the vision and knowledge to deal with the tyrant. By now we would be wringing our hands in despair as Sadaam moved ahead with nuclear weaponry. Does anyone remember his purchases of parts from this country for a huge gun he had acquired? This was going to be capable of lobbing a weapon into Israel. And does anyone remember two articles in the Daily Telegraph reporting on dead of night movements of camouflaged lorries moving across the Iraqi desert towards Syria? How come we never heard any more about that? There are occasions when it is vitally necessary to go to war and Blair was absolutely right to do so. Now Ed Milliband think and learn from someone who managed to get you and your Party elected for 3 terms.= = = = = = = == Though I actually agree with you - there is no doubt that the Iraq war is now unpopular - So Ed Milliband is right to point out he thought it was wrong - particularly as many potential voters also think so. It certainly won't stop me voting for him. I'd sooner vote BNP than Tory. They're more honest. Sat 02 Oct 2010 07:24:24 GMT+1 richardgh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=98#comment692 692. At 11:40pm on 01 Oct 2010, Nick Vinehill wrote:An utter hypocrite along with the others! Why didn't he say the war was wrong at the time and why does he want to draw a line under the Brown and Blair era when he is a protege of everything 'New' Labour stands for!= = = = = == For the umpteenth time - Ed Milliband WAS NOT IN PARLIAMENT when Tony Blair agreed to invade Iraq. SO HE COULDN'T HAVE SAID SO.He needs to draw a line under the Blair/Brown era to distance his leadership from their now unpopular stance.It's called politics Sat 02 Oct 2010 06:54:52 GMT+1 Nick Vinehill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=98#comment691 An utter hypocrite along with the others! Why didn't he say the war was wrong at the time and why does he want to draw a line under the Brown and Blair era when he is a protege of everything 'New' Labour stands for! Fri 01 Oct 2010 22:40:24 GMT+1 Hilda Williams http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=98#comment690 my comment is based on every day living and what ever is mentioned in the comment would not be influential enough to to give the new leader of the labour party a pass into the prime minister's place at No 10 at the present time or indeed in five years time,but all things being equal in a country full of political ill feelings shown towards indvidual members of parliament,it would be difficult to side with any group of supporters,which could earn the blessings of all the people all of the time and for the people at the right time,which in time would favour a return to government a labour Prime Minister. Fri 01 Oct 2010 21:38:12 GMT+1 jenny eckersley http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=98#comment689 Ed. Miliband is what the Labour Part now needs. A new broom which will sweep Gordon Brown and his ideas out of office.Ed is personable, articulate and passionate. He has more charisma than Cameron and Clegg have in their joined at the hip relationship.Good luck to him, and I will certainly vote for him. Fri 01 Oct 2010 21:12:00 GMT+1 Maureen Gobener http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=98#comment688 Ed Milliband has a way to go. Like quite a few others, both politicians and the electorate, he has not understood the real reason behind the Iraq war. You have to have vision and a knowledge of history to realise why this was necessary. Thank God Tony Blair had the vision and knowledge to deal with the tyrant. By now we would be wringing our hands in despair as Sadaam moved ahead with nuclear weaponry. Does anyone remember his purchases of parts from this country for a huge gun he had acquired? This was going to be capable of lobbing a weapon into Israel. And does anyone remember two articles in the Daily Telegraph reporting on dead of night movements of camouflaged lorries moving across the Iraqi desert towards Syria? How come we never heard any more about that? There are occasions when it is vitally necessary to go to war and Blair was absolutely right to do so. Now Ed Milliband think and learn from someone who managed to get you and your Party elected for 3 terms. Fri 01 Oct 2010 15:09:54 GMT+1 Trouble McTrouble http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=97#comment687 No, he didn't I'm sad to say. He came across to me as the petulant younger brother who is more intent on proving something to his family and, more importantly to him, his better known older sibling, than someone who is keen to prove something to the rest of the nation.I give him one term and then he'll be out. Once again the unions have a lot to answer for. Fri 01 Oct 2010 09:16:31 GMT+1 Enny2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=97#comment686 BBC, Why do you never post my commets? Do not tell me they are bad. Or is there any other reasons? I pay my licence fees. Fri 01 Oct 2010 01:03:50 GMT+1 Enny2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=97#comment685 I like his idea of family life, not the tories returning to basics hypocracy when shagging one another. He was accused of not signing his daughters birth certificate. So what? It does not reduce the fact that he loves her. New Generation do not have the old victorian values, we should leave them it. Would anyone have accepted Henry the VIII's marriages and murder today? I will not like to see Ed rushing to marry his girlfriend because of what some tories are saying. As long as you love each other, you do not tie any cowardice knot. Be who you are, your own man, not slave of the press who will panic into doing what he does not want to do. You're representing not just the married, but unmarried couples living together, gays, and single mums and dads. Fri 01 Oct 2010 00:58:45 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=97#comment684 "551. At 3:11pm on 29 Sep 2010, Rich wrote:As a lifelong Labour supporter I said on this website that we could not possibly win the last election so long as Gordon Brown was Prime Minister. After the televised debates I said that we would be lucky to come third. With Miliband in charge I don't think I will ever see another Labour Government in my lifetime (I'm 64). We have completely lost the plot regarding what the average man in the street expects of our party. With regard to the current shower in charge, they are even worse than us but will flannel their way along telling the morons who voted for them what they want to hear but will change absolutely nothing."I am a Conservative voter as a rule. I did vote for Labour in 1997 because I felt the Conservatives had become too arrogant - they had to go. I felt this happened with Labour also.I am not sure that any more than two consecutive terms in office for any party is constructive for them or for the country. At that point they have made themselves sufficiently unpopular that it takes time to reconstruct their party and work out who they are again. Thu 30 Sep 2010 21:46:51 GMT+1 Davesaid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=97#comment683 Heaven forbid it is rumoured Red-Ed is to invite Gordon to take the post of Shadow Chancellor. I jest-I hope. Thu 30 Sep 2010 20:09:43 GMT+1 bazilla http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=97#comment682 I don't know about ed. but i do like his rabbit in headlights expressions. I can guarantee you that he will be a complete disaster.Why do I think that? well because he is just playing the political game. he is disconnected with reality and bloated with perceived power. They are all the same.We're doomed Thu 30 Sep 2010 20:07:20 GMT+1 belazela http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=97#comment681 He is a mediocre politician - he won't amount to much. Thu 30 Sep 2010 19:25:24 GMT+1 hypocracyrules http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=96#comment680 675. At 12:37pm on 30 Sep 2010, George wrote:Ed has convinced me..that the Labour party wants a young unexperienced leader rather than anyone with substance..why? is it the fashion or do they want someone who is malleable and naieve?I was also amazed at the amount of coverage of this leadership election by the BBC and other media, I'm not sure any other party would have got such publicity._______________________________________________________________________There won't be as much coverage of the tory party conference will there BBC? Thu 30 Sep 2010 18:33:37 GMT+1 hypocracyrules http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=96#comment679 Did Ed Miliband convince you?No, his eyelids have a nasty habit of covering his eyes for far too long in my book. Thu 30 Sep 2010 18:27:48 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=96#comment678 · 678. At 7:01pm on 30 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote: 677. At 12:58pm on 30 Sep 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:I make no assumptions, I just read the drivel produced by you and the rest of the rabid Right like MellorSJThe words are yours and his, not mine----------------------------------------------------------Thatcher, look what you have written! Of course you have made assumptions, and they ARE your wordsYou apply your own impetrations to what people say and then accuse them of saying it.######################### Mellorsj said that he fired 30 of his 36 employees, his friends and had no regretsYou saidNo it is not! In reality it is the proprietor of any small business that takes the risk. People do not do that lightly; they do it for self-advancement. Yes, they want to make money. Without them, most people wouldn't have a jobThey are not obliged to employ you and you aren’t obliged to work for them. You can always start your own business you must recognise that by making some people redundant, you safeguard the jobs of everyone else. The banks won't allow you to loose money indefinitely. We can all see for ourselves what happens when banks have too many bad debtsOf course people matter. But if nobody has a job because there are no employers, then we will all be beggars on the streetYOUR words not mine Thu 30 Sep 2010 18:16:57 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=96#comment677 677. At 12:58pm on 30 Sep 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:I make no assumptions, I just read the drivel produced by you and the rest of the rabid Right like MellorSJThe words are yours and his, not mine----------------------------------------------------------Thatcher, look what you have written! Of course you have made assumptions, and they ARE your wordsYou apply your own impetrations to what people say and then accuse them of saying it. Thu 30 Sep 2010 18:01:09 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=96#comment676 · 655. At 10:10pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote: 653. At 9:11pm on 29 Sep 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:· 652. At 8:48pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote: it is the proprietor of any small business that takes the risk. People do not do that lightly; they do it for self-advancement. But in the end why should they? They are not obliged to employ you and you aren’t obliged to work for themI have had to make people redundant The banks won't allow you to loose money indefinitely. nobody has a job because there are no employers, then we will all be beggars on the street################## I run a business, I work 130 hour a week, the reason I don’t employ anyone is that I know I can’t provide full time employment.I will not exploit someone in order to line my own pockets; I believe that if you employ someone then you have an obligation to ensure that you look after their interests before you own shortsighted greed.You can blame your own lack of business acumen on the banks, they are hardly blameless, but it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that the people YOU employ are provided with a wage, after all, YOUR profits are dependent on their exploitation, because if you use them and then fire them that is all you are doing is exploitation.You said it yourself “self-advancement”. Sod everyone else, I’m all rightThatcherism at its worst----------------------------------------------------------Yes Thatcher, I did say “self-advancement" That is reality, and you’re not in it.And, you have again made assumptions haven't you? In fact they are ridiculous assumptions that fly in the face of your normal vitriol about the banks. I hardly think that the UK Auto-motive industry halving, in terms of volume production, has got anything to do with my Acumen do you? This did happen because of the credit crunch!But then you didn’t know that did you? You interpreted things as you wished them to be, just as you do with MellorSJ######################## I make no assumptions, I just read the drivel produced by you and the rest of the rabid Right like MellorSJThe words are yours and his, not mine Thu 30 Sep 2010 11:58:50 GMT+1 pablonw6 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=96#comment675 I'm not convinced yet but he's got time to grow into the role. I think he needs to distance himself from Kinnock, who while leader did modernise the party, trouble is even Kinnock had his limits. This is 2010 and the world has moved on. I know the party shouldn't be looking inwards but he needs to put someone on the case re the leadership/shadow cabinet electoral system. It really does need to be one member 'ONE' vote - not up to 12 as has been reported in the news. It can't be right to be able to vote more than once. That would improve credibility, show that he is ready to reform the process that favoured his election. The other thing - party funding, crack that then he could be onto a winner. Thu 30 Sep 2010 11:42:42 GMT+1 George http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=96#comment674 Ed has convinced me..that the Labour party wants a young unexperienced leader rather than anyone with substance..why? is it the fashion or do they want someone who is malleable and naieve?I was also amazed at the amount of coverage of this leadership election by the BBC and other media, I'm not sure any other party would have got such publicity. Thu 30 Sep 2010 11:37:12 GMT+1 holly_bush_berry http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=95#comment673 #672 Magi Tatcher has a dream that capitalism bans slavery.In 1904 Mark Twain wrote “The skin of every human being contains a slave."There is a price for relieving that malaise, Magi. Do you know what it is?I'll give you a clue. You will not find it in any political refuges. Thu 30 Sep 2010 11:09:22 GMT+1 holly_bush_berry http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=95#comment672 #671 Magi TatcherIt is your capitalist world. In my eyes it is a fantasy wrought out by people like you who would wish to impose their values, madness, and incredibly inflated self importance upon me. There are ways of avoiding it but I fear they would be lost on you even if I even began to explain in the simplest of terms.Your arguments are feeble and indefensible. Own up to them and you will feel very much better - instantly. Have you got the nerve, Magi? Thu 30 Sep 2010 10:43:00 GMT+1 Magi Tatcher http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=95#comment671 670. At 11:06am on 30 Sep 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:668. At 10:09am on 30 Sep 2010, Magi Tatcher wrote://If "exploitation" means increasing the standard of living of the masses, tripling the life span of the average person, and bringing wealth and prosperity to all those who live under it, then capitalism is a system of "exploitation".//Evidently a case of miss identifying the meaning of words and concepts!Exploitation IS exploitationCapitalism IS capitalismExploitation IS NOT capitalism = capitalism IS equality of opportunity, means increasing standards of living for ALL, brings wealth and prosperity to all those who 'engage' with it - One does not 'live' under it. One cannot use it to enslave others, or profit from the sacrifice of others, one cannot exploit another if one acts by the principles of capitalism.Capitalism is NOT a system of exploitationFeudalism IS a system of exploitation, fascism is a system of exploitation, socialism is a system of exploitation, communism is a system of exploitation, Statism is a system of exploitation, mysticism is a system of exploitation, religious dogma is a system of exploitation, indoctrination is a system of exploitation, cultism is a system of exploitation, Slavery is a system of exploitation, monarchy is a system of exploitation, divine right is a system of exploitation.But Capitalism is never a system of exploitation! I think that is what I said but then it wouldn't be HYS without an incoherent rant from The Ghosts of John Galt. Capitalism is the only system that bans all forms of coercion (i.e., slavery and dictatorship) for anyone or by anyone, since it regards each and every man as an end to himself, and not as a tool to be enslaved by others. Thu 30 Sep 2010 10:34:05 GMT+1 Magi Tatcher http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=95#comment670 669. At 10:35am on 30 Sep 2010, holly_bush_berry wrote:#668 Magi Tatcher taxed himself.Exploit meaning take advantage of, or use something for benefit. By those standards in your capitalist world it is okay to rape, pillage and plunder without fear of prosecution or persecution because the system makes people live longer into their miserable existences, and have more problems making ends meet. Of course the poor and miserable can exploit the system, but then you'd criticise them for 'taking advantage'.I am not confused; you clearly are. Is it REALLY 10.30am - already? It's not MY capitalist world it is OUR capitalist world. If you don't like it you can always seek a safer haven elsewhere but no you would sooner stay here, do nothing and moan. Quite pathetic really. Thu 30 Sep 2010 10:09:03 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=95#comment669 668. At 10:09am on 30 Sep 2010, Magi Tatcher wrote://If "exploitation" means increasing the standard of living of the masses, tripling the life span of the average person, and bringing wealth and prosperity to all those who live under it, then capitalism is a system of "exploitation".//Evidently a case of miss identifying the meaning of words and concepts!Exploitation IS exploitationCapitalism IS capitalism Exploitation IS NOT capitalism = capitalism IS equality of opportunity, means increasing standards of living for ALL, brings wealth and prosperity to all those who 'engage' with it - One does not 'live' under it. One cannot use it to enslave others, or profit from the sacrifice of others, one cannot exploit another if one acts by the principles of capitalism. Capitalism is NOT a system of exploitationFeudalism IS a system of exploitation, fascism is a system of exploitation, socialism is a system of exploitation, communism is a system of exploitation, Statism is a system of exploitation, mysticism is a system of exploitation, religious dogma is a system of exploitation, indoctrination is a system of exploitation, cultism is a system of exploitation, Slavery is a system of exploitation, monarchy is a system of exploitation, divine right is a system of exploitation. But Capitalism is never a system of exploitation! Thu 30 Sep 2010 10:06:58 GMT+1 holly_bush_berry http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=95#comment668 #668 Magi Tatcher taxed himself.Exploit meaning take advantage of, or use something for benefit. By those standards in your capitalist world it is okay to rape, pillage and plunder without fear of prosecution or persecution because the system makes people live longer into their miserable existences, and have more problems making ends meet. Of course the poor and miserable can exploit the system, but then you'd criticise them for 'taking advantage'.I am not confused; you clearly are. Is it REALLY 10.30am - already? Thu 30 Sep 2010 09:35:01 GMT+1 Magi Tatcher http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=95#comment667 666. At 08:58am on 30 Sep 2010, holly_bush_berry wrote:#663 The Ghosts of John Galt sagely stated "Real capitalism is non exploitative, all is predicated on moral integrity, honesty, and fair exchange in the process of value creation."Indeed. There is a word which Adam Smith used, satisfied, to equate demand and supply, and to demonstrate the way capitalism should work. Sadly 'satisfaction' has been relegated to a word sometimes appearing in song titles in our dystopian dog eats dog and poops world. If "exploitation" means increasing the standard of living of the masses, tripling the life span of the average person, and bringing wealth and prosperity to all those who live under it, then capitalism is a system of "exploitation". Thu 30 Sep 2010 09:09:41 GMT+1 Magi Tatcher http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=94#comment666 645. At 7:27pm on 29 Sep 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:· 644. At 7:18pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote:641. At 6:34pm on 29 Sep 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:Considering that by his own admission MellorSJ fired 30 of his 36 strong workforce, including his friends, as his business failed because of his inept management. I wouldn’t take his sour view of the world to seriously...-----------------------------------------------------Thatcher, are YOU really the person to be accusing others of being sour?Read your own words!##########################But I don’t exploit my workforce to line my pockets and then put them on the dole, because I cant hack it, then have the gall to blame them for my incompetence in ruining the businessThe only person I exploit is myselfIs that a euphemism? Thu 30 Sep 2010 09:00:48 GMT+1 holly_bush_berry http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=94#comment665 #663 The Ghosts of John Galt sagely stated "Real capitalism is non exploitative, all is predicated on moral integrity, honesty, and fair exchange in the process of value creation."Indeed. There is a word which Adam Smith used, satisfied, to equate demand and supply, and to demonstrate the way capitalism should work. Sadly 'satisfaction' has been relegated to a word sometimes appearing in song titles in our dystopian dog eats dog and poops world. Thu 30 Sep 2010 07:58:37 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=94#comment664 If you are running a business, every time you make an employee redundant your business is a step closer to achieving the ZERO! Thu 30 Sep 2010 07:12:44 GMT+1 U14566093 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=94#comment663 660. At 11:09pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote:654. At 9:31pm on 29 Sep 2010, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn wrote:So what you are saying is that:The only reason for employing human beings is to exploit them as much as possible to make as much money for your self as you can, they don’t matterAs an employer you have no responsibilities to your employees only to yourselfBy making people redundant, the only person you are protecting is yourselfYour employees should be grateful that you let them make money for youAnd you wonder why people are forced to strike; you wonder why people join a union. Please----------------------------------------------Thatcher, I was waiting for one of your clones to enter the fray...Who's next? Biederbeck, True Witness, Fed up with Thatcherites, The Green Dome, Peter, Squonk???###################Clone?Clone?This from the man created by and blindly obedient to the Tory ManifestoI think for myself thank youTry it Thu 30 Sep 2010 07:02:44 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=94#comment662 661. At 11:20pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote:657. At 10:29pm on 29 Sep 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:655. At 10:10pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote:///Of course people matter. But if nobody has a job because there are no employers, then we will all be beggars on the street.;-)///If nothing is done to amend this distortion of what it is -We will all be begging in the gutter either way! You cannot compromise with that which is morally bankrupt and corrupt, you cannot continue to get away with it by doing a deal with your destroyers! ----------------------------------------------------------Ghost, I don't disagree for the sake of it, but this IS reality!Until 'your revolution in the head' actually produces a tangible alternative, this reality will remain.--------------------------------------------Nope, reality IS reality, does not the whole banking fiasco demonstrate clearly, that what you 'believe' is the reality, is merely an illusion conjured up by a bunch of mystics of materialism? Reality is always objective, 2+2 is always 4, it is not to be avoided, evaded or deceived without the consequences manifesting themselves in the misery and suffering belief in such illusion will inevitably cause.Reality is not the tangible alternative, it is reality. Your illusion and delusional belief in an arbitrary, abstract conception of what this illusion actually is, constitutes the intangible alternative, made tangible by nothing more than a irrational collective wish or desire for it to be true. Capitalism is a conception with definitive contextual concepts, with definitive corollary concepts and ideas. It cannot be cheated, distorted or faked by those whom would use the words, language and concepts of such a socio-economic system to justify 'something' that does not reflect any of the principles of a capitalist system. No it is not possible to have your cake and eat it too. It is not possible to eat a cake before you have the necessary ingredients to bake the cake, or the knowledge of how to bake a cake, or indeed the necessary intelligence to build an oven.Ask yourself this, What kind of a business fails because the bank refuses to 'give' them more cash? What kind of a economic system is predicated on 'success' by association?Or lets put it this way, if you manufacture tangible products that are the best, if your company has built a reputation for quality, service, value and honesty - you will never be bankrupt, never make any redundant, never be seeking constant 'support' from a bank....you would never find it necessary to seek the ZERO! - Unless of course your 'capitalist system' IS not a capitalist system at all, but something else merely masquerading as such! The little gangs of thugs run the show, either 'play' their illusionary game or do not play.That's the choice, it ain't rational. it ain't capitalism, and its far from what 'objective reality' would demand is the correct and proper way to conduct business, or indeed Human relations. Real capitalism is non exploitative, all is predicated on moral integrity, honesty, and fair exchange in the process of value creation.To each his worth. Thu 30 Sep 2010 06:13:19 GMT+1 hareetashwa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=94#comment661 He only talked about optimism, new generation in charge, past is dark, future is for younger people, courage and confidence: such jargons.Since he treats winning leadership contest as a personal achievement rather than community responsibilty, his tone was more of 'my','me' the beginner and predeceesors are dis-graceful, all the issues appeared invented then and there for him to solve; so need no further narration.Some are compermise with Cameroon's people; some are confront; rest are in air to pick in future, or not known. Wed 29 Sep 2010 23:21:15 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=94#comment660 657. At 10:29pm on 29 Sep 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:655. At 10:10pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote:///Of course people matter. But if nobody has a job because there are no employers, then we will all be beggars on the street.;-)///If nothing is done to amend this distortion of what it is -We will all be begging in the gutter either way! You cannot compromise with that which is morally bankrupt and corrupt, you cannot continue to get away with it by doing a deal with your destroyers! ----------------------------------------------------------Ghost, I don't disagree for the sake of it, but this IS reality!Until 'your revolution in the head' actually produces a tangible alternative, this reality will remain. Wed 29 Sep 2010 22:20:37 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=93#comment659 654. At 9:31pm on 29 Sep 2010, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn wrote:So what you are saying is that:The only reason for employing human beings is to exploit them as much as possible to make as much money for your self as you can, they don’t matterAs an employer you have no responsibilities to your employees only to yourselfBy making people redundant, the only person you are protecting is yourselfYour employees should be grateful that you let them make money for youAnd you wonder why people are forced to strike; you wonder why people join a union. Please----------------------------------------------Thatcher, I was waiting for one of your clones to enter the fray...Who's next? Biederbeck, True Witness, Fed up with Thatcherites, The Green Dome, Peter, Squonk??? Wed 29 Sep 2010 22:09:21 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=93#comment658 "198. At 6:35pm on 28 Sep 2010, CoveBrian wrote:So why didn't he say something a year ago or even resign ?"Because it's all about power and "being somebody important". Wed 29 Sep 2010 21:56:04 GMT+1 hareetashwa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=93#comment657 This is Kinnock! My God, I saw for the first time...what view has he got about social governance is very very poor!! He can run a socialist party or trade Union but accommodating people from all walks of life, with diverse intelligence to deliver!...I doubt. This Kinnock, ...about whose ideology, GBrown was telling? surprises me, I had high hopes. But now dashed, ..or am I too quick to conclude. No wonder, he could not lead party, ...still hanging around. It is poor on me to speak so less of a person of past generation. But we are also trade-Union member and supporter.Governing a state from the Union like establishment attitude, is disasterous!! we are socialist minded, part of Union; but for running country, one needs to have trader, capitalists, regulators and think-tank in place as well. If you don't have solutions for fitting all these elements in socialist like system then you aught to compormise with them to accommodate in real society; simply because you can't get rid of them for casting actual socialism.How to have a socialistic society, with capitalist and market principles contributing; is a real challenge. but no compermise of respective values!! cheers, Wed 29 Sep 2010 21:50:50 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=93#comment656 655. At 10:10pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote:///Of course people matter. But if nobody has a job because there are no employers, then we will all be beggars on the street.;-)///If nothing is done to amend this distortion of what it is -We will all be begging in the gutter either way! You cannot compromise with that which is morally bankrupt and corrupt, you cannot continue to get away with it by doing a deal with your destroyers! Wed 29 Sep 2010 21:29:24 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=93#comment655 655. At 10:10pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote:653. At 9:11pm on 29 Sep 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:· 652. At 8:48pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote: Don't you folk know, whether you are a small business or an employer or an employee there is only one option lefttime to go John Galt When you realise that everyone is beyond the point of no return, when everyone just shrugs - then you know reality. Wed 29 Sep 2010 21:24:33 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=93#comment654 653. At 9:11pm on 29 Sep 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:· 652. At 8:48pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote: it is the proprietor of any small business that takes the risk. People do not do that lightly; they do it for self-advancement. But in the end why should they? They are not obliged to employ you and you aren’t obliged to work for themI have had to make people redundant The banks won't allow you to loose money indefinitely. nobody has a job because there are no employers, then we will all be beggars on the street################## I run a business, I work 130 hour a week, the reason I don’t employ anyone is that I know I can’t provide full time employment.I will not exploit someone in order to line my own pockets; I believe that if you employ someone then you have an obligation to ensure that you look after their interests before you own shortsighted greed.You can blame your own lack of business acumen on the banks, they are hardly blameless, but it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that the people YOU employ are provided with a wage, after all, YOUR profits are dependent on their exploitation, because if you use them and then fire them that is all you are doing is exploitation.You said it yourself “self-advancement”. Sod everyone else, I’m all rightThatcherism at its worst----------------------------------------------------------Yes Thatcher, I did say “self-advancement" That is reality, and you’re not in it.And, you have again made assumptions haven't you? In fact they are ridiculous assumptions that fly in the face of your normal vitriol about the banks. I hardly think that the UK Auto-motive industry halving, in terms of volume production, has got anything to do with my Acumen do you? This did happen because of the credit crunch!But then you didn’t know that did you? You interpreted things as you wished them to be, just as you do with MellorSJ Wed 29 Sep 2010 21:10:46 GMT+1 U14566093 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=93#comment653 652. At 8:48pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote: >"The point of business is to provide a living, both for your self and for your employees."No it is not! In reality it is the proprietor of any small business that takes the risk. People do not do that lightly; they do it for self-advancement. Yes, they want to make money. Without them, most people wouldn't have a job.;-)>"Employers have responsibilities, or they should have."In reality they do. But in the end why should they? They are not obliged to employ you and you aren’t obliged to work for them. You can always start your own business.;-)>"That’s what the likes of MellorSJ and you cant understand. It is people that you destroy in your ever-growing greed."I don't remember destroying anyone. I have had to make people redundant though and it was a terrible experience. However, by your own logic, you must recognise that by making some people redundant, you safeguard the jobs of everyone else. The banks won't allow you to loose money indefinitely. We can all see for ourselves what happens when banks have too many bad debts.;-)>"It is people that matter, it is people that make your profit, without them, your employees; you are just one more beggar on the street."Of course people matter. But if nobody has a job because there are no employers, then we will all be beggars on the street.;-)####################### So what you are saying is that:The only reason for employing human beings is to exploit them as much as possible to make as much money for your self as you can, they don’t matterAs an employer you have no responsibilities to your employees only to yourselfBy making people redundant, the only person you are protecting is yourselfYour employees should be grateful that you let them make money for youAnd you wonder why people are forced to strike; you wonder why people join a union. Please Wed 29 Sep 2010 20:31:36 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=92#comment652 · 652. At 8:48pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote: it is the proprietor of any small business that takes the risk. People do not do that lightly; they do it for self-advancement. But in the end why should they? They are not obliged to employ you and you aren’t obliged to work for them I have had to make people redundant The banks won't allow you to loose money indefinitely. nobody has a job because there are no employers, then we will all be beggars on the street################## I run a business, I work 130 hour a week, the reason I don’t employ anyone is that I know I can’t provide full time employment.I will not exploit someone in order to line my own pockets; I believe that if you employ someone then you have an obligation to ensure that you look after their interests before you own shortsighted greed.You can blame your own lack of business acumen on the banks, they are hardly blameless, but it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that the people YOU employ are provided with a wage, after all, YOUR profits are dependent on their exploitation, because if you use them and then fire them that is all you are doing is exploitation.You said it yourself “self-advancement”. Sod everyone else, I’m all rightThatcherism at its worst Wed 29 Sep 2010 20:11:29 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=92#comment651 >"The point of business is to provide a living, both for your self and for your employees."No it is not! In reality it is the proprietor of any small business that takes the risk. People do not do that lightly; they do it for self-advancement. Yes, they want to make money. Without them, most people wouldn't have a job.;-)>"Employers have responsibilities, or they should have."In reality they do. But in the end why should they? They are not obliged to employ you and you aren’t obliged to work for them. You can always start your own business.;-)>"That’s what the likes of MellorSJ and you cant understand. It is people that you destroy in your ever-growing greed."I don't remember destroying anyone. I have had to make people redundant though and it was a terrible experience. However, by your own logic, you must recognise that by making some people redundant, you safeguard the jobs of everyone else. The banks won't allow you to loose money indefinitely. We can all see for ourselves what happens when banks have too many bad debts.;-)>"It is people that matter, it is people that make your profit, without them, your employees; you are just one more beggar on the street."Of course people matter. But if nobody has a job because there are no employers, then we will all be beggars on the street.;-) Wed 29 Sep 2010 19:48:41 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=92#comment650 · 648. At 7:48pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote: 645. At 7:27pm on 29 Sep 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:· 644. At 7:18pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote: 641. At 6:34pm on 29 Sep 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:Considering that by his own admission MellorSJ fired 30 of his 36 strong workforce, including his friends, as his business failed because of his inept management. I wouldn’t take his sour view of the world to seriously...-----------------------------------------------------Thatcher, are YOU really the person to be accusing others of being sour?Read your own words!########################## But I don’t exploit my workforce to line my pockets and then put them on the dole, because I cant hack it, then have the gall to blame them for my incompetence in ruining the businessThe only person I exploit is myself-----------------------------------------------------------You don't know any of that!You interpret it this way, because you don't like MellorSJ. That IS sour.Actually, I get the impression that you don't like any employer whose motivation is to make profit. Since this is the point every business, I find that rather perplexing.############################# He said it, not me. In fact he was positively overflowing with joy that he had got every penny from them, 30 people, 30 pieces of silver and then discarded them like yesterdays rubbishThe point of business is to provide a living, both for your self and for your employees, the point of business is not to destroy lives, destroy communities and destroy the prospect of employees in order to make 22 million profit instead of 21 million profit.That is why I despise Thatcherism and all that support the misguided philosophy that all that matters is Profit, Profit, Profit. Employers have responsibilities, or they should have,That’s what the likes of MellorSJ and you cant understand. It is people that you destroy in your ever-growing greedIt is people that matter, it is people that make your profit, without them, your employees; you are just one more beggar on the street Wed 29 Sep 2010 19:11:30 GMT+1 Bill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=92#comment649 Miliband brothers had best read a little bit of British history - the only dynasty's we permit here is that of the monarchistic type. Wed 29 Sep 2010 19:07:29 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=92#comment648 538. At 2:47pm on 29 Sep 2010, ToriesBrokeBritain wrote:"311. At 11:04pm on 28 Sep 2010, concernedgal wrote:The Labour party is full of two faced people - e.g. Ed Miliband & Harriet Harman!How can you trust you trust a new leader who is prepared to betray his own brother for his career!"----------------------------------------------->"You mean like people who describe themsleves as Conservative Progressives? LOL."---------------------------------------------------- Yes, just like Tony Blair Wed 29 Sep 2010 18:59:56 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=92#comment647 645. At 7:27pm on 29 Sep 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:· 644. At 7:18pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote: 641. At 6:34pm on 29 Sep 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:Considering that by his own admission MellorSJ fired 30 of his 36 strong workforce, including his friends, as his business failed because of his inept management. I wouldn’t take his sour view of the world to seriously...-----------------------------------------------------Thatcher, are YOU really the person to be accusing others of being sour?Read your own words!########################## But I don’t exploit my workforce to line my pockets and then put them on the dole, because I cant hack it, then have the gall to blame them for my incompetence in ruining the businessThe only person I exploit is myself-----------------------------------------------------------You don't know any of that!You interpret it this way, because you don't like MellorSJ. That IS sour.Actually, I get the impression that you don't like any employer whose motivation is to make profit. Since this is the point every business, I find that rather perplexing. Wed 29 Sep 2010 18:48:08 GMT+1 panchopablo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=92#comment646 591. At 4:25pm on 29 Sep 2010, sweetAnybody wrote:572. At 3:58pm on 29 Sep 2010, hill wrote:I see Neil Kinnock thought the TU delegate said "Neil we've got our party back". I thought it was "Neil we've got our puppets back"==========="Yes, this is 'Lord' Neil Kinnock - the man who wanted to disband the lords.Is it mandatory to tick the 'hypocrite' box to join the labour party"Lets not forget this is Kinnock who hated the EU but now he and his wife have lovely pensions from it. Wed 29 Sep 2010 18:36:05 GMT+1 cheerful77 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=91#comment645 I think the election of Ed Milliband when he only won by the union electoral college is a total disaster for the Labour party and David Milliband was right not to stand for the front bench. The poisoned relationship of the Blair and Brown years would have been repeated in the tension between the two brothers. Ed's decision to stand showed the jealousy of the younger brother. Offering David the Chancellorship could have been the only inducement which might have persuaded him otherwise. On the back benches David will be freer to attack the coalition governement on many issues, a choice also made by Alastair Darling, Jack Straw and Margaret Beckett. Also they all need a rest and the media are making this country ungovernable with their habit of chewing over every word they are as bad as the paparazzi. When do we get another chance to elect the Labour leader? I can't wait. Wed 29 Sep 2010 18:30:01 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=91#comment644 · 644. At 7:18pm on 29 Sep 2010, John_Bull wrote: 641. At 6:34pm on 29 Sep 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:Considering that by his own admission MellorSJ fired 30 of his 36 strong workforce, including his friends, as his business failed because of his inept management. I wouldn’t take his sour view of the world to seriously...-----------------------------------------------------Thatcher, are YOU really the person to be accusing others of being sour?Read your own words!########################## But I don’t exploit my workforce to line my pockets and then put them on the dole, because I cant hack it, then have the gall to blame them for my incompetence in ruining the businessThe only person I exploit is myself Wed 29 Sep 2010 18:27:50 GMT+1 John_Bull http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=91#comment643 641. At 6:34pm on 29 Sep 2010, Its all Thatchers Fault wrote:Considering that by his own admission MellorSJ fired 30 of his 36 strong workforce, including his friends, as his business failed because of his inept management. I wouldn’t take his sour view of the world to seriously...-----------------------------------------------------Thatcher, are YOU really the person to be accusing others of being sour?Read your own words! Wed 29 Sep 2010 18:18:19 GMT+1 hareetashwa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=91#comment642 FROM A BROTHERS HEART !!!!! ...WITH TRUE PATRIOTISM !!This is a very defining moment for Labour Party; incredibly nice, happened for frontline opposition; in the interest of party, in the interest of country and in the very interest of both Miliband brothers. David's decision is in no way, a rebellious tone.... no way!! any matured personality will follow his footsteps, under such circumstances.I became a fan of David M, only after hearing Ed's view and speech in recent days. His ascent is phenomenal; but he needs space for himself; because he wanted that way. His views are for himself, where David has no role. So why should he be around inside the ring?; instead why not do better job for his own brother Ed, from outside the ring. He can do cheering, encourage crowd to cheer for Ed. This is no mean a job, I can tell with fullest confidence.....as I myself being Labour activist, an Union member ....and of all has my own yonger brother in frontline politics. I have been cheering and jeering (by debating, helping to guide...in my own terms) trying to make a true serving leader for the community and country.Ed has to go through all such processes what David has gone through alreday. Mere courage and confidence will not deliver(for the fact that those characteristics demon also has); the flambouancy has been in use far too early; will make struggle for David to shape a Leader out of Ed. Now David has an even bigger task than serving the role from inside ring. Hats up David !! you are true brother and patriot at the same time. Wed 29 Sep 2010 18:04:51 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=91#comment641 627. At 5:22pm on 29 Sep 2010, MellorSJ wrote://This is a fascinating view of economics. Apparently, companies don't compete. Who knew?//That's the point - companies do not compete when capitalism has been usurped by nepotism and cronyism! Only, incompetence, moral bankruptcy and corruption triumphs when the little gangs of thugs rule the world! Anyone, who believes we have anything like a free market of competition are truly living in a fantasy of self delusion. In defending the destroyer of humanity you merely offer support for an illusion and live in denial of any evidence that contradicts your delusional belief! Wed 29 Sep 2010 17:36:06 GMT+1 U14552020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=91#comment640 · 628. At 5:25pm on 29 Sep 2010, holly_bush_berry wrote: #606 MellorSJ jumps to “that is a skill; his talent was” from the words “expertise in”.I guess that explains why we have crooks running the country then. ########################## Considering that by his own admission MellorSJ fired 30 of his 36 strong workforce, including his friends, as his business failed because of his inept management. I wouldn’t take his sour view of the world to seriously.It’s more envy than conviction.Envy that he failed spectacularly and that others can provide steady rewarding employment for their employees Wed 29 Sep 2010 17:34:55 GMT+1 YorkshireKnight http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=91#comment639 Kinnock says "We've got our party back". Oh dear - can't see Labour getting back into power for a generation. Wed 29 Sep 2010 17:04:45 GMT+1 Wolfie_Smith http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=90#comment638 Nice to be enthused about the Labour Party again. Glad he has dropped the New Labour Project and is l.ooking tobring the Labour party back to it's roots. Time will tell of course if that happens. Pleased he has said that the Iraq war was wrong and now all I need to hear from him before I rejoin is an apology to the FBU for the despicable treatment and comments made about them while they had their dispute a few years ago. Wed 29 Sep 2010 17:01:04 GMT+1 Jim Paris http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=90#comment637 As one who left the Labour Party when it took us into an illegal war in Iraq I welcome a return to a degree of honesty about the rightwing nastiness of Blairite policies and politics. David 'contaminated' himself by being identified as a Blairite and by attempting to prevent the truth about torture being made public through the courts as Foreign secretary. I would welcome a shift to the left (i.e back into the centre ground) in Labour's foreign and economic policy and may now consider membership again. But I need to see some evidence first. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:59:28 GMT+1 RyanZZ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=90#comment636 As someone who is not a member of any party, I will say that David Miliband impressed me when he declined to applaud his brother's Iraq war comments. Harriet Harman looks too much like a proud mum and her clapping was disingenuous; Ed is very much the populist - he won't last long. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:56:19 GMT+1 RyanZZ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=90#comment635 I am what you may call a 'swing voter'. I voted Tory in the election and having seen Ed M in action, I doubt I will be changing my vote for the foreseeable future. He looks like a deer in the lights. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:53:33 GMT+1 noffers http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=90#comment634 A novice in politics. He is the living embodiment of all that is wrong with modern politics - whether Labour or Conservative. A reasonably nice-looking chap with a pleasant voice but no record nor experience. What are his policies? Does he HAVE any policies on the economy? Remember he was a recent appointee to a relatively minor ministry.As to the hoo-hah over big brother Dave - who cares? If he was an ex-prime minister or a senior minister of many years standing then I can understand that this would be newsworthy but really, David Milliband??!! Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:44:09 GMT+1 PreetiBoyC http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=90#comment633 Very dissapointed to see David Miliband step down from front-line politics for three main reasons:(1) After the massacre of the last General Election the Labour Party/New Labour/Next Generation Labour needs its greatest talents to provide an effective opposition to the coallition.(2) David Miliband has proven that he has tremendous stature on both the national and world stage.(3) I fear that Ed Miliband in the comming weeks, months and years will need a lot of support and a strong wing-man...That said, I think David Miliband is far from finished and I think he will one day be leader of the Labour Party and eventually, Prime minister. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:44:01 GMT+1 corum-populo-2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=90#comment632 Yes, the speech was very lame - but the highlight was watching the Tony Woodley expensive holiday tan drain from his face as one of the MOST highly paid leaders of Unite at the expense of all members!The biggest problem with Unite is not that it's grown and integrated with other unions - it's that the tiny male Unite leadership is too big for it's boots AND roots. In spite of it's size and huge income from female members, Unite is still unethically unrepresentative of it's members - no female leaders allowed - it's the same inequality in the RMT, RCN, UNISON etc.If I'm wrong about mysogeny, and overpayment of an elite 'closed shop' kingdom in all major unions that do not declare their income and salaries paid to their top dogs - then do correct me or tell me where to to access what any union member should continue to pay subscriptions to a secret society that can only be accessed by an Animal Farm representative.Yes, naturally, ALL unions invest member's subscriptions on union members behalf for the members' own good. Yeh. Good stuff. However, that is a financial contract - so all union members, under UK and European Law are fully entitled to request and receive a copy of their unions financial activity and investment on their behalf. That includes full disclosure of Trustees salaries and disbursements too, plus pensions of Trustees of union funds. Don't ask - don't get. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:39:35 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=89#comment631 KevinOrr burbles: "Spain is on general strike, half of Europe is marching, and we Brits are sitting like gutless wonders, believing the drivel of the gutter press and the right of centre politicians that we have to cut back, and we're "all in it together""Ha ha ha ha ha ha! I was in the Piazza del Duomo in Milano this lunch time. There was a LOT of noise and TV cameras. And then twenty (yes, twenty) people marched by. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:37:40 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=89#comment630 ToriesBrokeBritain wrote: Well, we'll get to that. TBB's handle is already misguided."Do you think saving any money would have made any diffference to the near Apocaliptic collapse of the Worl Banking system and the Capitalist system?"I do. That's why a prudently run country such as Australia is weathering this storm just fine."If you do, you don't live on this planet."A fascinating idea. I will say Milan is a lot better dressed..."We are not a global power anymore."Now there's a non sequitur."Our economies are tied to other world economies and we are generally STILL better off than MOST countries in the same predicament."Better off than the US? Australia? Ireland? I'll give you Greece, though."God I wish you doom mongers would just emigrate!"And lose the last remaining brain cells in Britain connected to reality? Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:33:08 GMT+1 Norman Brooke http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=89#comment629 The only way Ed. Miliband will become PM is if he is not a puppet of the City and the mega rich. They have controlled all PMs since Thatcher and thier policy of dergulation has caused economic ruin and financial disaster with the societal consequence of poverty and family breakdown.British style finance capitalism did this, nothing else and from Thatcher to Cameron and all in between they are ruining this Nation out of an insane dream like dogma and warped ideology.If Ed Miliband can rise above this he will win the next election comfortably by promising REAL change in our economic and social direction. He has to bring back the 5 million who deserted Labour. Half of them were due to Iraq but the other half was down to domestic policy of allowing the Rich to get richer and poor to get poorer. Miliband must reverse this and bring back core voters as well. Middle class people worry about jobs are overstressed and face long working and increasing age retirement. Miliband must reverse Camerons brutal social policy and not just focus on international issues as why Labour lost.He has a very promising begining. Can he reverse our decline into third world status our collapsing econmic system and our being one of the worst places to live in the Western World? He must create policies that will reverse all this and if so he will be more popular than Blair in 1997. I think people are at last begining to see what the media are all about in this country protecting faceless capitalism while ordinary folks pay the penalty through increasing stress and lower quality of life.I say drive the City merchants out now and give the job to those who DO have a caring and more socially responsible attitude and will work for a damn site less and do it infinately better.Germany has proven that good quality of life = stronger economy.Poverty leads to increased health costs and increased burdens. Miliband must fight the Tory-Coaltion lie as both imoral and bad for the economy.Cameron aint got a clue. He thinks through his privilaged nose, Miliband must be of the people and unite what Cameron is dividing. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:26:15 GMT+1 Pete M http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=89#comment628 David Miliband = Sore LoserI have to say, however, that I agree totally with his comment to Harriet Harman regarding clapping. Unfortunately I also have to agree with her response. It is sad that people of such little moral fibre as Miliband senior are able to rise so high in today's political classes.Unfortunately Miliband Jr is no better. His opportinistic opposition to the war in Iraq would sit better if he hadn't voted no less than EIGHT times to block the parliamentary inquiry. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:25:50 GMT+1 holly_bush_berry http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=89#comment627 #606 MellorSJ jumps to “that is a skill; his talent was” from the words “expertise in”.I guess that explains why we have crooks running the country then. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:25:34 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=89#comment626 mofro scribbles: "Employer and employee is a two way thing, each one needs the other. So if an employer is paying particularly low wages (whatever the country) and the working conditions are not good, then the employer is EXPLOITING its workforce. The result of exploitation is not only the supply of cheap consumer goods, but a much wider gap in the pay (and bonuses) of the employer to the employee."This is a fascinating view of economics. Apparently, companies don't compete. Who knew? Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:22:18 GMT+1 John Knowles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=89#comment625 As the second wave of the recession bites following the massive cuts in public expenditure and therefore the loss of the contracts for the private sector that always result, we will need someone who understands and cares about the 90% of this country who are not to blame for the economic disaster created by the Tory's friends the gambling bankers and there unrivalled greed. The coalition will never complete a full term, ConDem in name and condemning in nature - destined to be remembered as the government that destroyed our social wages (our public services) that we members of the 90% rely on. Go for it Ed! Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:21:31 GMT+1 Geoffrey Bastin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=88#comment624 I'm no laboiur supporter nor have I ever been but EM's speech and general demeanour is a refreshing after what went before. He speaks plain english unlike his brother who uses fancy sentences that leaves me wondering what he was on about. Of course all this makes no difference to the real job of Government. I know politicians are only super salesmen but the present government is making all the right noises and until the debts are sorted no amount of waffle from left or right has any meaning. Each Labour government in history always leaves the economy as good as bust because they always believe in spending everyone elses money as if it was going out of fashion. They are hopeless at balancing the books. Lets hope after this next financial adjustment we do not make the same mistake and elect a Labour government otherwise Mr Miliband will show us the true meaning of being in the Red. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:17:31 GMT+1 Pamela Read http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=88#comment623 It is right that Dave Miliband retires from front line politics and keeps a low profile for a while. If he had not he would have done a great disservice to his brother and to his Party - allowing the Media to bang onforever about the brothers' differences. Yes, he's done the only decent thing. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:13:55 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=88#comment622 Roger_the_cat_too wote: "It is when a CEO tries to force a global pay cut. Not because the company is in trouble but simply to boost profit. A profit that his already obscene bonus is linked to. Essentially taking pay directly from staff and paying it to himself."It's not their pay until they earn it. Until then, it might go elsewhere.The shareholder, however, might want to consider (a) staff morale, and (b) whether some of these saving should accrue to them.In any case, it's still NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:12:53 GMT+1 holly_bush_berry http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=88#comment621 #495 MellorSJ has opined the absence of economic understanding as a constraining influence on his ability to expand our knowledge of the same. As it seems clear we are very short on economic knowhow at the top of our political spectrum I thought I’d chip in with a definition of market equilibrium for Mr Miliband’s (and others) benefit.Market equilibrium occurs just after lunch when both buyers and seller have a siesta.(Note to moderators: The BBC could make big bucks out of this and my written bits are copyright) Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:08:35 GMT+1 Halfhybrid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=88#comment620 I don't understand why the BBC has got so carried away by this. I'm fed up of seeing it as front page news.After all, it is four years till the next election so he ain't going nowhere just yet.Could it be that the BBC is yet again attempting to engineer the views of the voting public? After all, we already know that BBC leans to the left. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:03:41 GMT+1 Bruce Tuxford MBA http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=88#comment619 Can we jump forward in time by five years and see where we are? What would you thought would have happened if you could speak to yourself from five years ago? Finance crics? Tories in power Banks bankrupt? Labour saying the war should nver have happened?There is a good chance that in five years time with 25-40% cuts we will have 25-40% more people moving to the left and Ed could come into his own. After all who could have forseen David as PM and George as Chanceler?Howerver I could have wished for a little bit more of "hitting the ground running" from yesterdays speech. Still early days!!!!!!! Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:03:35 GMT+1 mofro http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=88#comment618 #577. At 4:07pm on 29 Sep 2010, oglidewell wrote:At 3:36pm on 29 Sep 2010, mofro wrote:#549. At 3:07pm on 29 Sep 2010, oglidewell wrote:515. At 2:02pm on 29 Sep 2010, mofro wrote:"Hindsight is a wonderful thing you know"------------Ed Milliband is keen to give the impression that he has always disagreed with the Iraq war. If that is the case, then why didn't he speak out against it?Citing Labour's failures now is completely ridiculous, given he wrote the manifesto. I stand by my words saying that his words show a complete lack of conviction, and a commitment to political expediency over intellectual and moral credibility. Simply claiming "oh, hindsight" doesn't counter my point at all.----------------------Many other MP's claim they were against the war, so why didn't they speak out against it, before, rather than after the War.Citing Labour's failures is not, as I have said before, ridiculous. As far as I am concerned it shows that as leader of the party he is trying to acknowledge their failings from the past in order to form a path for the future.You are welcome to your opinions, but please acknowledge the fact that my opinions are just as valid as yours - I repeat, we both speak from an equally biased point of view.---------------------He is trying to distance himself from a Government that he was fundamentally part of. It is ridiculous to tout himself as part of a "new generation", when he is indelibly associated with the previous one. You ascribe a supposedly equal bias when you cannot possibly know at all my starting point. Your statement completely lacks the intellectual credibility it strives for.-----------------------I am basing my opinion on what I have read in your comments which certainly sound biased even if you think they are not. You state this time that "It is ridiculous to tout himself as part of a "new generation", when he is indelibly associated with the previous one", but I entirely disagree with your verdict. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:03:01 GMT+1 Nervous http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=87#comment617 583. At 4:15pm on 29 Sep 2010, Blinkin_Annoyed wrote:At 2:10pm on 29 Sep 2010, sweetAnybody wrote:162. At 5:50pm on 28 Sep 2010, RJWTimes wrote:Nice analysis from Tories who can't spell, i guess Cameron won't be relying on them who can't spell than those who can spell, is that also a difference between a Tory fascist and a liberal highly educated person.==================You need a fullstop after spell. 'I' should be in capitals.Its 'relying on those' not 'relying on them'. You need another fullstop after spell again. 'Is' starts with a capital letter.There is something wrong with 'is that also a difference between a' - it doesn' scan at all, and the final sentence needs a question mark.What were you saying about the well educated?********************Well done! Give yourself a pat on the back and adopt an expression of smug self righteousness, you've earned it!================================I think I have. When someone posts that only people who believe the same as them are clever, but then that person can't even string a sentence together, I think they deserve all the ridicule they get. We all make mistakes in our rush to get our comments out. It's just that most of us are a little more down to earth about our own talents than RJWTimes seems to be. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:01:24 GMT+1 MarkLatham http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=87#comment616 David will resign from the front bench. Perhaps he should have been faster to move on from the last government but he seemed to be saying that everything that was done was good and the message was badly carried by Gordon Brown. That won't win the next election. Ed Miliband has a great chance to do so. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:00:52 GMT+1 KarenZ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=87#comment615 No. He is another career politician who is swinging in the wind. He supported Brown but is happy to trash NuLiebour now.His policies are wrong to rebuild Britain. Yet another guy who lacks balls. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:00:15 GMT+1 shillo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=87#comment614 I apologise to all those who believe that I was trying to censor open debate.My point was that far from being an open debate by people the whole of HYS would appear to those more independantly minded to have been taken over by Tory Spin Doctors. Thus leaving the rest of us struggling to try and get a word in edgeways. Wed 29 Sep 2010 16:00:04 GMT+1 John Kirriemuir http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=87#comment613 David Miliband is a skilled politician (that's both a good, and a bad, thing). But the country is in deep trouble, and cut are happening and will happen. This isn't the time - if there is ever a time - for an epic, public sulk. If you don't want to run for the shadow cabinet, then in a Sarah Palin type way I wonder if your heart is really in your job or role if it isn't the top prize... Wed 29 Sep 2010 15:59:12 GMT+1 blloyd78 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=87#comment612 I hope he brings a banana again. It will help remind everyone exactly why David is not, nor ever will be, the leader of the Labour Party. Wed 29 Sep 2010 15:59:12 GMT+1 corum-populo-2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=87#comment611 In addition post #500 'Barry Jones' - on 29 Sept.You rightly criticise Thatcherism as well as Brownism in your post. Both are heavily linked with the worst of Americanisation, but without their tax-breaks unless you are Lord Ashcroft, Rupert Murdoch or any other multi-national buying and selling UK plc basics such as land, water, agriculture, transport and freedom of speech?Let's both hope both those destructive goblins are gone forever. Perhaps we can adopt the smug lifestyle methods of France; combined with the style of Italy and the proud and effective industrial methods of Sweden and Germany. Just a thought. Wed 29 Sep 2010 15:58:45 GMT+1 Episkopian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=86#comment610 This post has been Removed Wed 29 Sep 2010 15:58:38 GMT+1 Mr Cholmondley-Warner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=86#comment609 586. At 4:18pm on 29 Sep 2010, Kentucker wrote:Naturally the BBC want to guard their profligate waste of our licence money on over staffing and trendy PC socially liberal programming in pursuit of their pronounced internal agenda promoting equality, diversity, cross dressing and Stephen Fry!-------------------------------------------------------------------------Cross dressing ? I think this is what we in the trade call "projection". Wed 29 Sep 2010 15:58:17 GMT+1 richardgh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=86#comment608 587. At 4:19pm on 29 Sep 2010, tobycoulson wrote:Yet another glorified show pony who has yet work in the real world. One thing I find sad these days is that MPs can take up a position of power without having ever experienced what life is like. If I had my way I would say that no one can become an MP until the age of 30 and until they have held down a responsible tax paying job.= = = = = = = =Hate to point out - Ed M is over 30 and held down a responsible tax paying job.You do really need to get a job Wed 29 Sep 2010 15:56:08 GMT+1 holly_bush_berry http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=86#comment607 #480 Simon Harpham asks “Why is Armando Iannucci posing as the leader of the Labour Party?”Because you went to the wrong optician. Wed 29 Sep 2010 15:53:39 GMT+1 mrcynict4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=86#comment606 NOPE !! Wed 29 Sep 2010 15:51:47 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=86#comment605 Roger_The_Cat_Too wrote: "suggest you google Mark Hurd - a classic example of CEO greed. A man with no expertise in anything other than hammering down wages and costs"That is a skill worth having, and worth remunerating well."took $Ms out of HP before leaving over a sex and expenses scandal a few weeks ago. His profits purely from acquisiton not growth or R&D."Maybe he was worth it. Or maybe HP shareholders should have been more careful with their money. Probably the latter...."His only talent was ruthlessness."I thought his talent was "hammering down wages and costs."You seem here to be describing Ed Milliband. Wed 29 Sep 2010 15:50:37 GMT+1 john http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=86#comment604 Like his brother a career plitician with ZERO life experience beyond this rariefied world. No business experience, No experience of working in a REAL jobNo experience of REALITYLike his brother, remarkably charisma free and bland to the point of beige.There is no real conviction to principal other than what it takes to get the job. We know nothing of his politics and beliefs, just like his brother. They say what is needed to impress the boss. Now he is the boss, he joins the vacuous ranks of Blair wannabees. Regardless of how he protrays himself. For guys like this it is all about getting the job not what can be done with it.Dull. Wed 29 Sep 2010 15:49:47 GMT+1 MellorSJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=85#comment603 Khuli wrote: "You must have missed his speech... this is "Labour - The New Generation"."Surely you meant Labour: The Next Generation?After all, we have read about Labour: Voyager.But I want to see is Labour: Deep Space Nine.(Hmmmm. Make that NINETY years in opposition .... ) Wed 29 Sep 2010 15:47:06 GMT+1 Ron C http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/will_you_watch_labour_leaders.html?page=85#comment602 Just like that, Ed the unions Baron has dismissed the old guard, New Labour,... and he is back to Labour, that is, although the La La part still remains, just like that, as though the old roots have never existed, er,... that is, the Labour crew that would`nt bury the dead, or move the rubbish mountains and of course the country was busted by them, Healey scrambled the IMf and we were saved. Out they went (what Labour was that then?..still it was the La, La crew. Lets not be too hasty in deleting data) Tony Blair dismissed that lot with the La, La New Labour..Ah they are gone too, they never have been, enter the very serious La, La Gordon Brown who dismissed New Labour..er did the control freak, saviour of the world have acomplices..can`t be sure, to him everybody was a scheemer, and besides he did identify a bigot that supported his suspicions they wanted rid of him. Enter the peoples Baron, Red Ed, at this point in time the last lot have never existed, clap, clap, crap from Harriet Harman, furiously in awesome wonder nailing her red flag to the mast...Oh yes she says "I voted for the leader" she told his older brother, even though she signed up for the ghastly war. Now Ed is saying, starting with a good kick in curlies for everybody at the conference, how wrong everything is, and how wrong Labour is, the war, oh so much was wrong when he was..er La, La New Lab ..Ah!..and what Labour is he now. Not to worry, thank heaven there is Still a thread of identity running though the crew as they are La Laing again all through the conference, with the staged managed media frenzy on call for any given walking moment. The La, La crew are back in the frame, in god knows what guise, or form standing for what, nobody knows. Nation busters, and backing mad on new (sorry wrong word, they`re gone)reform. Somebody please put them out of their misery. The Baron, Red Ed would, and he`s just done it, like all La, La New, Old, reformed, thick Labour nation busters, Stab you and I in back all over again given the chance, watch him wilt under in the real world. Wed 29 Sep 2010 15:46:35 GMT+1