EXCELLENT GAINS BOOST LABOUR

[Cannydc]

27 Oct 2011

Newcastle Under Lyme BC, Newchapel
Lab 248 (45.7;+12.9), Con 160 (29.5;+2.1), UKIP 118 (21.7;+6.3), Lib Dem 17 (3.1;-3.3), [Others 1 (0.0;-18.1)]
Majority 88. Turnout 19.4%. Lab gain from Con.

Lancashire CC, Wyreside
Con 2178 (58.0;-7.9), Lab 877 (23.4;+10.3), UKIP 361 (9.6;+9.6), Green 339 (9.0;-12.1)
Majority 1301. Turnout 27.77%. Con hold.

Walsall MBC, Bloxwich East
Lab 922 (48.0;+5.2), Con 834 (43.5;+1.1), UKIP 98 (5.1;-3.0), English Democrats 49 (2.6;+2.6), Green 16 (0.8;+0.8), Lib Dem 0.0; -2.9)], [Democratic Lab Party (0.0;-3.8)]
Majority 88. Lab gain from Con.

[Lady Murasaki]

What's the difference between them tho? Tories and Labour? Much of a muchness.

[Verum]

What's the difference between them tho? Tories and Labour? Much of a muchness.

Depends how right and left the respective parties are at any given time. Would the Tories have created the health service, for example? But granted, Labour's performance last time was woeful at times.

[Lady Murasaki]

What's the difference between them tho? Tories and Labour? Much of a muchness.

Depends how right and left the respective parties are at any given time. Would the Tories have created the health service, for example? But granted, Labour's performance last time was woeful at times.

While Labour were in power the Tories were leaning more and more to the left/centre.

It's all a con. There's little between them!

[Verum]

What's the difference between them tho? Tories and Labour? Much of a muchness.

Depends how right and left the respective parties are at any given time. Would the Tories have created the health service, for example? But granted, Labour's performance last time was woeful at times.

While Labour were in power the Tories were leaning more and more to the left/centre.

It's all a con. There's little between them!

I won't go out on a limb for the Labour Party, they are the lesser of evils as far as I'm concerned, I was just putting some perspective on it.

[wutang]

Depends how right and left the respective parties are at any given time.

Kind of. Its more a case of what is best for capital at any given time - or what the ruling class see's as best. For example; when the system comes under threat from the workers then reforms, such as welfare state, are more platitable. As one Tory MP said in 1943 "if we dont give them reforms they will give us revolution". When the strength of the masses is weaken, such as now thanks to 30 years of Thatcherite attacks on the working class by Tories & Labour, then these reforms can be scaled back without worrying about class struggle.

Also sometimes such policies are done because they aid the functioning of capitalism, for example post-war Nationalisation. After WW2 British Capital was in a bad way, capital was bogged down with unprofitable industries (such as the railways), the state took these industries of the hands of the capitalists (with juciy compensation packages) and then investors, fresh with loads of Government money, could invest in new more profitable industries. The state then carries out the required restructuring of the newly nationalised industries, it has a monopoly on state power so can force workers to accept things that private capital sometimes cant (see: the wage freezes enforced by Labour in the 70's) and once they are primed to make money again privatises them.

Same with things like health and education - as capital develops it needs more skilled workers (so that their labour is more productive), this means a certain amount of money is invested in training someone up to the required skill level. Its therefore in your interest as such an investor to keep that person fit and healthy for as long as possible so you get the most back from your investment - the more productive the worker the more money you make from their labour.

[spicy]

I'm sorry but you could put a red rossette on a monkey and the places you qoute would still vote Labour. There's probably more people on benefits in those areas too.

It gets pretty boring at election times when Labour get Sunderland, no surprise there then. My mum was a Geordie a staunch Labourite, who only changed when she saw how her country was changing due to immigratio.

[Cannydc]

I'm sorry but you could put a red rossette on a monkey and the places you qoute would still vote Labour. There's probably more people on benefits in those areas too.

It gets pretty boring at election times when Labour get Sunderland, no surprise there then. My mum was a Geordie a staunch Labourite, who only changed when she saw how her country was changing due to immigratio.

Except that one of the 3 was held by the Tories.

Or did you just ignore that and rant on regardless?

Point is, Labour's SHARE of the vote increased solidly in all 3 elections.

And that is something in action which you mentioned on another thread - Democracy...

[wutang]

There's probably more people on benefits in those areas too.

Well duh, they are the former manufacturing/industrial heartlands that got thoroughly destroyed in the 80's. Remember when Thatcher said "dont worry I'll sack everyone in these places but the private sector will come to the rescue"... turns out she was chatting out of her ar$e. Same is happening now, public sector cuts in the North is happening ALONGSIDE PRIVATE SECTOR CUTS. Doh!! The private sector isnt coming to the rescue it is fleeing along with the public sector (the reality that "free market" pricks like Thatcher, and her latest incarnation Cameron, cant understand, or their ideological mantras refuse to admit, is that state spending underpins the private sector)

The idea that they choose to stay unemployed because its better is so discredited only dogmatic (reality devoid) "free market" capitalists still cling to it:

In addition, it is worthwhile to note that the right-wing assumption that higher unemployment benefits and a healthy welfare state promote unemployment is not supported by the evidence. As a moderate member of the British Conservative Party notes, the "OECD studied seventeen industrial countries and found no connect between a country's unemployment rate and the level of its social-security payments." [Dancing with Dogma, p. 118] Moreover, the economists David Blanchflower and Andrew Oswald "Wage Curve" for many different countries is approximately the same for each of the fifteen countries they looked at. This also suggests that labour market unemployment is independent of social-security conditions as their "wage curve" can be considered as a measure of wage flexibility. Both of these facts suggest that unemployment is involuntary in nature and cutting social-security will not affect unemployment.

Another factor in considering the nature of unemployment is the effect of decades of "reform" of the welfare state conducted in both the USA and UK since 1980. During the 1960s the welfare state was far more generous than it was in the 1990s and unemployment was lower. If unemployment was "voluntary" and due to social-security being high, we would expect a decrease in unemployment as welfare was cut (this was, after all, the rationale for cutting it in the first place). In fact, the reverse occurred, with unemployment rising as the welfare state was cut. Lower social-security payments did not lead to lower unemployment, quite the reverse in fact.

[spicy]

I'm sorry but you could put a red rossette on a monkey and the places you qoute would still vote Labour. There's probably more people on benefits in those areas too.

It gets pretty boring at election times when Labour get Sunderland, no surprise there then. My mum was a Geordie a staunch Labourite, who only changed when she saw how her country was changing due to immigratio.

Except that one of the 3 was held by the Tories.

Or did you just ignore that and rant on regardless?

Point is, Labour's SHARE of the vote increased solidly in all 3 elections.

And that is something in action which you mentioned on another thread - Democracy...

I don't rant on regardless I make valid points. Democracy does have it's failures if it's socially engineered but that's the price we pay I suppose.

Don't worry Canny Labour will win the next election, because people in the main (especially in this day and age) do not accept hard times, wanting an easy life is what everyone wants these days. The want something for nothing brigade are in their millions and I don't just mean people on benefits. The younger generation expect their parents to pay for everything for them, it's a joke. Their is a huge political void in this country now and it seems coalitions will be the norm. I hope not because I can't stand the Liberals, I'd rather Labour than them. However they will never get my vote again. I don't like being betrayed in the election the way Labour did over the EU, and the proliferation of political correctness under them was another disaster for this country too in my opinion.

[spicy]

27 Oct 2011

Newcastle Under Lyme BC, Newchapel
Lab 248 (45.7;+12.9), Con 160 (29.5;+2.1), UKIP 118 (21.7;+6.3), Lib Dem 17 (3.1;-3.3), [Others 1 (0.0;-18.1)]
Majority 88. Turnout 19.4%. Lab gain from Con.

Lancashire CC, Wyreside
Con 2178 (58.0;-7.9), Lab 877 (23.4;+10.3), UKIP 361 (9.6;+9.6), Green 339 (9.0;-12.1)
Majority 1301. Turnout 27.77%. Con hold.

Walsall MBC, Bloxwich East
Lab 922 (48.0;+5.2), Con 834 (43.5;+1.1), UKIP 98 (5.1;-3.0), English Democrats 49 (2.6;+2.6), Green 16 (0.8;+0.8), Lib Dem 0.0; -2.9)], [Democratic Lab Party (0.0;-3.8)]
Majority 88. Lab gain from Con.

Good to see UKIP beat the Lib/dems.

[Guest]

27 Oct 2011

Newcastle Under Lyme BC, Newchapel
Lab 248 (45.7;+12.9), Con 160 (29.5;+2.1), UKIP 118 (21.7;+6.3), Lib Dem 17 (3.1;-3.3), [Others 1 (0.0;-18.1)]
Majority 88. Turnout 19.4%. Lab gain from Con.

Lancashire CC, Wyreside
Con 2178 (58.0;-7.9), Lab 877 (23.4;+10.3), UKIP 361 (9.6;+9.6), Green 339 (9.0;-12.1)
Majority 1301. Turnout 27.77%. Con hold.

Walsall MBC, Bloxwich East
Lab 922 (48.0;+5.2), Con 834 (43.5;+1.1), UKIP 98 (5.1;-3.0), English Democrats 49 (2.6;+2.6), Green 16 (0.8;+0.8), Lib Dem 0.0; -2.9)], [Democratic Lab Party (0.0;-3.8)]
Majority 88. Lab gain from Con.

Good to see UKIP beat the Lib/dems.

The UKIP that lies about our powers being transferred to the EU?

[Guest]

more proof the majority of people are unfit to vote.

[Guest]

more proof the majority of people are unfit to vote.

Don't abuse UKIP voters please

That's my job

[Cactus Jack]

I'm sorry but you could put a red rossette on a monkey and the places you qoute would still vote Labour. There's probably more people on benefits in those areas too.

It gets pretty boring at election times when Labour get Sunderland, no surprise there then. My mum was a Geordie a staunch Labourite, who only changed when she saw how her country was changing due to immigratio.

Except that one of the 3 was held by the Tories.

Or did you just ignore that and rant on regardless?

Point is, Labour's SHARE of the vote increased solidly in all 3 elections.

And that is something in action which you mentioned on another thread - Democracy...

You ASK if Spicy ignores the facts?

Canny, Old Fella, just ASSUME Spicy ignores the facts.