The Cuts. Is YOUR arse twitchin?

[eFestivals]

Yes, but only in relation to large civil engineering firms whose main client (through whichever agency) is ultimately the government. The construction industry is slightly larger than that one sector...

absolutely. But it's still the case that the [parts of the construction industry with those hugely profitable (rip off is the correct word!) govt contracts suffered from the effects of the recession far less than those parts of the construction industry without those fat govt contracts.

Untrue.

True. See above.

So, fcuk the multinational and you fcuk the man on the street.

But at a lesser rate than by f**king the small builders.

Two points.

One - I'm not complaining

yet your words show that you are.

Two - It was not the party that I voted for that caused (in part) the mess we are in.

very true. The party you vote for caused it COMPLETELY, by having set the political agenda that led to all that happened, with morons like you pushing that agenda so hard that even govts that followed could not escape from that agenda.

It is the party I voted for (along with Paddy Pantsdown's lot) that have been asked by the man in the street, to clear it up...

and who now realise just what a HUGE f**k-up they made in doing that. Even those people who bought into the tory bollocks hook line and sinker are now starting to realise just how much they've been conned.

The smarter people realised from the off just what would happen, and didn't vote to make the rich richer at the expense of the poorest. Same old tory scum.

[TheGayTent]

absolutely. But it's still the case that the [parts of the construction industry with those hugely profitable (rip off is the correct word!) govt contracts suffered from the effects of the recession far less than those parts of the construction industry without those fat govt contracts.

[eFestivals]

What you'll find is that the bit that cost the taxpayer is not the D&B element of most major projects but the O&M element. 13 long years your party were in power and did they scrap PFI projects, or did they wholeheartedly endorse it and let far more projects that way that the previous government...? That's your party for you...

Not my party. It's a party I've voted for on occasion, but not a party I endorse.

But what have Labour done? They've taken the tory policy of PFI - yes, it's 100% a tory idea (an idea that Slimy Gideon is continuing with) - and run with it, as a result of Thatcherite stupidity having set the political agenda in this country for the last 30 years.

Not true.

You're frigging mad, or very very very stupid.

But if I've got you wrong, please do explain to me how small builders who have no govt contracts have been affected by the recession to just the same extent as those who had govt contracts to help keep them in work.

Not only would I like to hear how that's happened, but the Federation of Master Builders would like to know too, so they can tell their now-bankrupt members how stupid they've been.

So laughable it does not warrant a response

So what you're saying is that Labour didn't follow the tory idea of PFI, or the tory idea of light regulation of bankers (something the majority of your racist party STILL say is the right thing yto do), etc, etc, etc? PMSL.

You're proving that tories are by default short of working brain cells.

You and your likeminded friends are in the tiny minority.

yeah - that'll be why the racist fascist party you support didn't get a majority, eh? People voted on what the manifestos said - and that proves that even at election time it was support for tory idiocy that was the minority view, and it's a much smaller minority as things stand today.

You're proving that tories are by default short of working brain cells.

Proof of that if it isn't already blindingly obvious to you now, will be proved when the numbers come in that attend this daft march on march 26th...

Yeah, cos the divide and rule agenda of the born-again Thatcherite morons like you won't have anyone thinking "I'll keep my head down and hope that's enough to save me my job", eh?

You're proving that tories are by default short of working brain cells.

[Ed209]

yeah - that'll be why the racist fascist party you support didn't get a majority, eh? People voted on what the manifestos said - and that proves that even at election time it was support for tory idiocy that was the minority view, and it's a much smaller minority as things stand today.

[diddly-dee]

whoaaa! Hang on. The Tory party may be a lot of things, but as a party they are neither racist or fascist. Those terms should be used carefully and reserved solely for political parties where it's actually true. That's unfair on a lot of people.

[eFestivals]

whoaaa! Hang on. The Tory party may be a lot of things, but as a party they are neither racist or fascist. Those terms should be used carefully and reserved solely for political parties where it's actually true. That's unfair on a lot of people.

The racist part is VERY DEFINITELY true.

Here's a history lesson......

In 1967, the tory candidate for (I think it was) Smethick stood on the slogan "if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Liberal or Labour". That person remained as a tory MP until 1997.

In the 1970s, as the tories moved away from such outright racism, the National Front was formed by ex-tory members to push for a stronger racist agenda.

In 1979, with a much stronger racist element again to their policies, the tories destroyed the ground on which the NF operated. As a result they faded away. The tories as a party remained at heart racist, as can be seen from the countless blatant racist comments made by tories since then.

And then at the weekend, with the EDL marching in Luton because they object to a person's right to chose their religion and hold opinions informed by their religious beliefs (unless white and Christian ), Dave Moron gave a speech which backed the EDL's racist agenda, and made no condemnation of it.

They remain racist to the core.

[diddly-dee]

The racist part is VERY DEFINITELY true.

Here's a history lesson......

In 1967, the tory candidate for (I think it was) Smethick stood on the slogan "if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Liberal or Labour". That person remained as a tory MP until 1997.

In the 1970s, as the tories moved away from such outright racism, the National Front was formed by ex-tory members to push for a stronger racist agenda.

In 1979, with a much stronger racist element again to their policies, the tories destroyed the ground on which the NF operated. As a result they faded away. The tories as a party remained at heart racist, as can be seen from the countless blatant racist comments made by tories since then.

And then at the weekend, with the EDL marching in Luton because they object to a person's right to chose their religion and hold opinions informed by their religious beliefs (unless white and Christian ), Dave Moron gave a speech which backed the EDL's racist agenda, and made no condemnation of it.

They remain racist to the core.

[Ed209]

You said the Tory party he voted for ... i.e. the current Tory party. Yes they have in the past had a small racist element, and probably still have racists in the party. But I'm certain the Labour party also have racist members and voters. Even the greens probably have some racist voters.

The current Tory party though are not a racist or facist party. While a lot of their policies stink (imo), they don't stand for a racist or facist agenda. David Cameron's speech was ill-timed, and poorly worded, but it wasn't racist. I think the guys a dick, but I definitely don't think he's a racist.

[eFestivals]

Whilst individual members (and tory supporters) may (and undoubtedly are) be racist, do you not think that any 'racist' agenda followed by the party as an institution is part of a smoke-screen 'divide and rule' policy to promote the wider neo-con capitalist agenda - rather than being an ideological committment.

Yes, it certainly has a racist core.

That racist core didn't leave when the tories were for a short time not the party of "rule by the aristos for the aristos", in fact it strengthened.

They've now reverted to their aristo heritage - and unless you're able to show me the landed and titled gentry of this country that aren't white so that "rule by the aristos" is benefiting those non-whites, their policies are not designed to be good for anyone but whites, and only a very limited subsection of those whites.

A conservative administration is just as happy to stiff white working class communitues as they are black and asian working class communities.

I refer you to Dave Moron's speech at the weekend.

Did he say that everyone had to follow his yet-to-be-defined idea of Britishness, or only those origin is not 'British'?

Case proven.

[rabid]

so they're only pretending to be stupid?

that's a relief

[diddly-dee]

Yes, it certainly has a racist core.

That racist core didn't leave when the tories were for a short time not the party of "rule by the aristos for the aristos", in fact it strengthened.

They've now reverted to their aristo heritage - and unless you're able to show me the landed and titled gentry of this country that aren't white so that "rule by the aristos" is benefiting those non-whites, their policies are not designed to be good for anyone but whites, and only a very limited subsection of those whites.

I refer you to Dave Moron's speech at the weekend.

Did he say that everyone had to follow his yet-to-be-defined idea of Britishness, or only those origin is not 'British'?

Case proven.

[lost]

You said the Tory party he voted for ... i.e. the current Tory party. Yes they have in the past had a small racist element, and probably still have racists in the party. But I'm certain the Labour party also have racist members and voters. Even the greens probably have some racist voters.

The current Tory party though are not a racist or facist party. While a lot of their policies stink (imo), they don't stand for a racist or facist agenda. David Cameron's speech was ill-timed, and poorly worded, but it wasn't racist. I think the guys a dick, but I definitely don't think he's a racist.

[5co77ie]

This image is doing the rounds:

rather apt for a more accurate party logo.

[worm]

No, it's not rule by aristo's - it's rule by money (which, of course, is the same thing in many cases) - but's it's not an exclusive 'white aristo club'. To expand on the race-based point, I imagine there's very little Jewish landed aristocracy in the UK but a number of very wealthy Jewish businessmen and women who can exert power and influence within the upper echelons of government. Same situation for Indian Steel Tycoons. It's nothing to do with race, Dave Moron's speech is to appease the little Englanders who have been misled into believing that the ills of britain are down to foreign cultural invasion when the reality of the situation is that it's to do with money and the power that this brings. Of course, it's an exclusive club made up predominantly of white anglo-saxon protestants - but that's due to historical precedents and not contemporary racial ideology - and, as has been covered in other threads, there's a situation of 'public school' and universities that perpetuates and centralises power within the same groups. But, for example, if some black guy or asian guy was to invent a gadget that sold in it's billions and was to shoot up to the top end of the 'sunday times rich list' do you not think he would have access to and influence over those in power? They wouldn't snub him because of the colour of his skin or religion. It's all about money and contolling the means of production. The conservative ideology is vile - absolutely. But to latch onto it as race-based is a detractor from how odious it really is in that it cares for nobody, balck or white, other than a very very small interest group.

[5co77ie]

No, it's not rule by aristo's - it's rule by money (which, of course, is the same thing in many cases) - but's it's not an exclusive 'white aristo club'. To expand on the race-based point, I imagine there's very little Jewish landed aristocracy in the UK but a number of very wealthy Jewish businessmen and women who can exert power and influence within the upper echelons of government. Same situation for Indian Steel Tycoons. It's nothing to do with race, Dave Moron's speech is to appease the little Englanders who have been misled into believing that the ills of britain are down to foreign cultural invasion when the reality of the situation is that it's to do with money and the power that this brings. Of course, it's an exclusive club made up predominantly of white anglo-saxon protestants - but that's due to historical precedents and not contemporary racial ideology - and, as has been covered in other threads, there's a situation of 'public school' and universities that perpetuates and centralises power within the same groups. But, for example, if some black guy or asian guy was to invent a gadget that sold in it's billions and was to shoot up to the top end of the 'sunday times rich list' do you not think he would have access to and influence over those in power? They wouldn't snub him because of the colour of his skin or religion. It's all about money and contolling the means of production. The conservative ideology is vile - absolutely. But to latch onto it as race-based is a detractor from how odious it really is in that it cares for nobody, balck or white, other than a very very small interest group.

[eFestivals]

No, it's not rule by aristo's - it's rule by money (which, of course, is the same thing in many cases) - but's it's not an exclusive 'white aristo club'.

Not completely exclusive nope, but as close as it can ever get in today's world.

I suggest you read up some on the history of the tory party. Of particular interest to you should be the Thatcher 'revolution', and it's reversal in the last 5 years.

But, for example, if some black guy or asian guy was to invent a gadget that sold in it's billions and was to shoot up to the top end of the 'sunday times rich list' do you not think he would have access to and influence over those in power? They wouldn't snub him because of the colour of his skin or religion.

oh, he wouldn't be snubbed. They'd bleed him dry before they shat on him.

The conservative ideology is vile - absolutely. But to latch onto it as race-based is a detractor from how odious it really is in that it cares for nobody, balck or white, other than a very very small interest group.

But what you're missing is that that "very very small interest group" is now just about exclusively the same aristos who have been running this country since the year dot, that that group does not include any non-whites and those allowed onto the sidelines - David Davis for instance - are patronised in public and called oiks in private. Their influence is minimal.

As for non-whites, they're 'accepted' only from the point of view that they're here. That doesn't mean they're wanted here. Just as the tories try to disguise their real agenda as being something else, they do the same with their racism.

[worm]

As for non-whites, they're 'accepted' only from the point of view that they're here. That doesn't mean they're wanted here. Just as the tories try to disguise their real agenda as being something else, they do the same with their racism.

Edited February 8, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

It doesn't mean that they're not wanted here either. This is a conspiracy theory Neil.

It's got nothing to do with race and nothing to do with 'being here' either. If you're a well to do Indian then you're seen as a benefit, whereas if you're an unskilled working class Indian then you're not. This is because they're conservatives rather than Nazis.

Diddly and Ed have it spot on.

Yes, an wealthy Indian might be "seen as a benefit".

But what that Indian cannot do is become one of 'them'. They might be accepted into the party, they might even rise to high governmental office as a member of that party - but they will never be a part of the core group, because that is decided on class, parentage, and ultimately skin colour too.

I refer you to Dave Moron's speech at the weekend. Show me where he said he expected the same of 'white English' as he did of those he singled out.

That is saying very clearly that - to him - there is a greater perceived problem with those foreigners than 'white English'. 'White English' are "anti-social" if they don't follow his yet-to-be-defined version of what it is to be British, while those foreigners are "extreme".

[worm]

But what that Indian cannot do is become one of 'them'. They might be accepted into the party, they might even rise to high governmental office as a member of that party - but they will never be a part of the core group, because that is decided on class, parentage, and ultimately skin colour too.

[eFestivals]

That's not the conservative party, that's some clandestine group within the conservative party.

the "clandestine group within the conservative party" you refer to is better known as their leadership.

[worm]

the "clandestine group within the conservative party" you refer to is better known as their leadership.

[eFestivals]

So you're saying that a black man or woman will never be allowed to run the Conservative party on the basis of their race.

I'd hold you to that, but fear I may be dead by the time the opportunity comes round.

"Never" is a long time, and things change. Except your own stupidity of course.

But it *IS* the case that the conservative idea is one of restoring a version of England which never existed, but an idea where there were no non-white skins, particularly within the traditional ruling elite that is still very much in control of the Conservative Party.

Edited February 9, 2011 by eFestivals

[5co77ie]

I thought BBC2's 'Who Gets the Best Jobs?' last night made interesting watching last night.

I know it wasn't about jobs in politics per see but it did highlight exactly why politicians and professions are drawing less and less from a wide socio-economic spectrum, and how the gulf between the affluent and normal people is getting wider and wider.

Edited to add:

It can be watched on iplayer here

Edited February 9, 2011 by 5co77ie

[llcoolphil]

I thought BBC2's 'Who Gets the Best Jobs?' last night made interesting watching last night.

I know it wasn't about jobs in politics per see but it did highlight exactly why politicians and professions are drawing less and less from a wide socio-economic spectrum, and how the gulf between the affluent and normal people is getting wider and wider.

Edited to add:

It can be watched on iplayer here

[eFestivals]

What was the gist?

that if you go to a private school you go to the better Unis where you meet similar types who all end up in the best jobs who are then able to send their kids to private school ... and then it goes around again, and again, and again, etc.

(I didn't actually see the programme but saw trailers for it which said pretty much what I have above).

What's saddest about this is that for a while this cycle was broken, and Britain ended up having PMs for 34 years which hadn't gone to private schools (Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major), but things have reverted back to the old way with Bliar and now Dave Moron.

There's less social mobility now than there was 90 years ago - we're going backwards as a society and not forwards.

Edited February 9, 2011 by eFestivals