Self Destruct

And another thing... Portillo. Used to be practically a neo-nazi, now has sat out of politics and has declared himself ex-gay, appears on TV as single mum, and now comes across as a reformed person, and really rather likable (did I really say that? )
BUT...is this just a ploy?

Something of the night. . follow his thoughts

By taking the idea from Mekon and using the way back machine to view history you get
conservatives stuff as you can see they blocked the way back machine in late Oct 2002, I wonder why? What a pitty the last couple of weeks can't be recalled and examined using the 20-20 vision of hindsight.

Roy T

Certainly Howard is a pinko liberal compared to Paul Ranson who's right to silence is so rarely excersised when it comes to political 'debate' on this forum.

Matthew, you forgot to mention illegal war mongering. That's why I can't vote Labour again.

Alex

quote:

---

And another thing... Portillo. Used to be practically a neo-nazi, now has sat out of politics and has declared himself ex-gay, appears on TV as single mum, and now comes across as a reformed person, and really rather likable

---

Surely that's the point. The Tories know damned well that they haven't a hope in hell's chance of being elected to power for one, probably two, more terms so Portillo's rebranding himself to be ready after Howard f*cks up, which is inevitable. Portillo's simply decided to out-Blair Blair.

Just played AC/DC - Night of the Long Knives (from: For Those About To Rock). Maybe I should have played Back in Black.

quote:

---

Certainly Howard is a pinko liberal compared to Paul Ranson who's right to silence is so rarely excersised when it comes to political 'debate' on this forum.

---

So you don't actually know what you're talking about?

Paul

Thankfully not.

It doesn't matter who gets in in some respects, as they always plan only 5 years in advance. Therefore you will never get any lasting changes or common sense

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
it's a great example of spinning via slogan. Something that the Conservatives need to start inventing.

---

How about: Labour Isn't Working? Oh, silly me, they've done that already. Right before they put another two million people out of work.

Davie

If you have to go back 24 years to find a bad example I think you make my point for me. Thank you.

I won't debate the economic illiteracy.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave J:
so Portillo's rebranding himself to be ready after Howard f*cks up, which is inevitable. Portillo's simply decided to out-Blair Blair.

---

Yeah, so is he now to be trusted or is he really plotting a fascist takeover when he's in?

quote:

---

Yeah, so is he now to be trusted or is he really plotting a fascist takeover when he's in?

---

No, he's absolutely not to be trusted. He's a politician!

Been there done it.

Graham Ricketts

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
If you have to go back 24 years to find a bad example I think you make my point for me. Thank you. I won't debate the economic illiteracy.

---

I'll assume that was addressed to me. In which case...

You spoke about the Tories needing to "invent" spinning via slogan. It's pretty clear they mastered deceptive slogans a long time ago. That's not making your point at all, Paul. It's contradicting it.

As for "economic illiteracy," we'll do the maths (I'll go slowly for you, Paul):
Approximately 1,000,000 unemployed when the Tories were elected.
Approximately 3,000,000 unemployed under the Tory government.
3,000,000 - 1,000,000 = 2,000,000.

So however you want to spin it, that's an increase in two million under a political party that campaigned with the slogan Labour Isn't Working.

'Need to start inventing' was what I wrote. You and Matthew may be living in the past but it's the 'Gordon and Tony wasting billions of pounds of public funds' government that is the matter of immediate moment.

It's really really stupid to be associating '3 million unemployed' with an individual politician, party or even government. Life is more complicated than that.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
'Need to start inventing' was what I wrote.

---

That's gibberish. The word "inventing" as you apparently mean it is either superfluous or wrong.

quote:

---

It's really really stupid to be associating '3 million unemployed' with an individual politician, party or even government. Life is more complicated than that.

---

The charges of "economic illiteracy" and being "really really stupid" are simply infantile name-calling unless you intend to back them up. Do you?

Davie

Ladies night at the Tory club must be like this

What I want to know, is how long will it take for the Liberal Democrats to be finally acknowledged as the official opposition? If Michael Howard is going to take over, it can't be very long
They don't have a clue, do they!

quote:

---

That's gibberish. The word "inventing" as you apparently mean it is either superfluous or wrong.

---

You think these snappy straw men fall fully formed from the clouds?

quote:

---

The charges of "economic illiteracy" and being "really really stupid" are simply infantile name-calling unless you intend to back them up. Do you?

---

Well, if you can justify your claim I might have to. But since you have not I don't see any point in starting.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
You think these snappy straw men fall fully formed from the clouds?

---

What? I think it may be time for your medication.

quote:

---

Well, if you can justify your claim I might have to. But since you have not I don't see any point in starting.

---

You already started, Paul. You just don't have the bottle to continue.

Well, I think it's unarguable that the Tories presided over a sustained period of mass unemployment, and very hard to argue against the perception that in some industries (steel, coal-mining, etc), major job cuts were government policy, and that significant cuts in public spending were a stated aim of Tory policy (even if not ultimately achieved). If anyone wants to argue that these policies were necessary to the future long-term health of the economy, that's one thing, but it's quite another to deny the Tories' responsibility for what happened under the Thatcher and Major governments. After all, it's the main reason why they are basically unelectable today, despite the failures of Blairism. Economics is obviously more complex than "Toryism = unemployment", and I suspect mass unemployment would have been a fact of life if Thatcher had never been PM (oh, happy thought), but if the Tories want to claim the "success" of modernising the economy, then they should expect to be blamed for the failures of that project as well, even if ultimately much of the economic cycle is outside the direct control of individual governments.

-- Ian

It's a pity that so many people who talk talk talk talk so-called politics can't be arsed voting when the times comes around, and our Oh so luvvly lads are gettin blown away for that very freedom ?
Fritz Innit.

Thatcher is Hitleresque, she spoke a great truism once though in that Nuclear Weapons cannot be dis-invented? Dennis was a good bloke though, What a Star³

Graham Ricketts

quote:

---

You just don't have the bottle to continue

---

I don't see any point in trying to discuss it with you. Your assertion that the Conservative governments of the 80s and 90s itself put 2 million people out of work and that this was somehow deliberate or avoidable is ridiculous.

Read Ian's message above.

Paul

How about defining unemployed. In the UK the statistics exclude anyone over 50, anyone with savings in excess of £8000 and anyone who is living with someone earning over £15000 so the true figure is much higher than any government will admit to.

And no I don't have a point worth arguing, just thought I'd throw in this snippet.

Tom

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
I don't see any point in trying to discuss it with you.

---

But you haven't tried, Paul. You've indulged in name-calling from a safe distance, and run for cover when challenged.

Just a reminder, as you seem unable to stay on topic: the debate was about spin. I quite understand how you don't want to expose your inadequacies in public - especially as the message you urged me to read backs up what I said about deceptive slogans.

There's no shame in admitting you were wrong. There is shame in cowardice.