Labour 'does not back ANY spending cuts as they deny need for austerity measures'

Harriet Harman plays into the hands of ITK!!!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032808...terity-measures.html

The argument needs to be about how to keep demand in the economy,while reducing the debt to managable proportions.
Tax revenues and where the iron strikes are vital elements if we're to move on from here.

This opposition reminds me of the 'Foot Healey' period of the early 80s.Failed politicians with their heads in the sand denying fundamental change was needed,even though they were involved helping to make the mess.
Because of lack of credible opposition the government are making mistakes,cutting without reference to effect.For Milliband substitute Kinnock,for Harman...Healey.
We need somebody of the caliber of Blair,not this nasty man hating femenist!

Over to you...

You weren't down the Thai at lunchtime,must be the shock of Joseph's long lost relative being even more stupid than ever.

Locked Out wrote:
What you always have to bear in mind when dealing with anything Ms Harman comes out with is the fact that she has sacrificed everything... everything... she used to claim she believed in. But in this regard she is little different to any of the other career politicians who fill the lobbies these days speaking one set of words for public consumption while thinking and planning something completely different and quite often the actual opposite. Expediency is the watchword for Ms Harman. Your analysis of her as a "man hating feminist" is perhaps a little harsh {she is, after all, married to a man, albeit one who owes his seat in Parliament solely to the fact that he was finessed onto a "women-only" shortlist and was voted for by people who probably thought - rather optimistically if you ask me - that he might be marginally less inept than his spouse}, and even if she were a real feminist it isn't a problem if she's a feminist. Indeed, if you happen to be a woman you would think it a good thing. Even some men {and I'm one myself} think feminism is a good thing. But even if she is a feminist she's a politician first and a feminist second. And there's the problem. The important thing is that she is one of those all too common creatures, the political opportunist {witness her shameless display of back-pedaling hypocrisy when Ed Milliband's leadership victory was announced. David Milliband's reproving looks and words illustrated her innate duplicity in a way that suggested that her true nature had come as some kind of surprise to him, which it shouldn't have done}. But I wouldn't worry about her. She isn't bright enough {and everyone in the political world knows it} to ever have an real influence. She's always somehow managed to box above her weight. A good thing for all, then, that she's never managed to punch effectively.

Amen Here endeth the first lesson.

Innocent Accused wrote:
Labour 'does not back ANY spending cuts as they deny need for austerity measures'

Harriet Harman plays into the hands of ITK!!!

Don't worry, IA, I've got Harriet (or should I say Mrs Jack Dromey?) sussed !

SHE is the one that dropped women-only shortlists when her hubby wanted a "safe seat" and then re-introduced them as soon as he had been elected.

HE was Labour Party treasurer but failed to notice the money going into the account from the (ahem !) "donations" which led to the donor getting a peerage !

Locked Out wrote:
What you always have to bear in mind when dealing with anything Ms Harman comes out with is the fact that she has sacrificed everything... everything... she used to claim she believed in. But in this regard she is little different to any of the other career politicians who fill the lobbies these days speaking one set of words for public consumption while thinking and planning something completely different and quite often the actual opposite. Expediency is the watchword for Ms Harman. Your analysis of her as a "man hating feminist" is perhaps a little harsh {she is, after all, married to a man, albeit one who owes his seat in Parliament solely to the fact that he was finessed onto a "women-only" shortlist and was voted for by people who probably thought - rather optimistically if you ask me - that he might be marginally less inept than his spouse}, and even if she were a real feminist it isn't a problem if she's a feminist. Indeed, if you happen to be a woman you would think it a good thing. Even some men {and I'm one myself} think feminism is a good thing. But even if she is a feminist she's a politician first and a feminist second. And there's the problem. The important thing is that she is one of those all too common creatures, the political opportunist {witness her shameless display of back-pedaling hypocrisy when Ed Milliband's leadership victory was announced. David Milliband's reproving looks and words illustrated her innate duplicity in a way that suggested that her true nature had come as some kind of surprise to him, which it shouldn't have done}. But I wouldn't worry about her. She isn't bright enough {and everyone in the political world knows it} to ever have an real influence. She's always somehow managed to box above her weight. A good thing for all, then, that she's never managed to punch effectively.

Excellent analysis

(Can you translate into text-speak so loony Labour voters can understand?)

Innocent Accused wrote:
Labour 'does not back ANY spending cuts as they deny need for austerity measures'...



4 Million Scroungers

370,000 households where NO ONE has EVER worked

Says it all, really, doesn't it?

In The Know wrote:
Innocent Accused wrote:
Labour 'does not back ANY spending cuts as they deny need for austerity measures'

Harriet Harman plays into the hands of ITK!!!

Don't worry, IA, I've got Harriet (or should I say Mrs Jack Dromey?) sussed !

SHE is the one that dropped women-only shortlists when her hubby wanted a "safe seat" and then re-introduced them as soon as he had been elected.

HE was Labour Party treasurer but failed to notice the money going into the account from the (ahem !) "donations" which led to the donor getting a peerage !

And to think she's related to Joseph Chamberlin

Innocent Accused wrote:
In The Know wrote:
Innocent Accused wrote:
Labour 'does not back ANY spending cuts as they deny need for austerity measures'

Harriet Harman plays into the hands of ITK!!!

Don't worry, IA, I've got Harriet (or should I say Mrs Jack Dromey?) sussed !

SHE is the one that dropped women-only shortlists when her hubby wanted a "safe seat" and then re-introduced them as soon as he had been elected.

HE was Labour Party treasurer but failed to notice the money going into the account from the (ahem !) "donations" which led to the donor getting a peerage !

And to think she's related to Joseph Chamberlin

and me !!..and as I am descended from the same line that ITK says he is..then it means that I, ITK and Harriet are all distant relatives.

Which means there is a fair chance that In The Know and I (and maybe others on here) are related to some of those 4 million scroungers.

which means of course : In The Know is a scrounger and part of the problem, not the solution.

veritas wrote:


and me !!..and as I am descended from the same line that ITK says he is..then it means that I, ITK and Harriet are all distant relatives.

Which means there is a fair chance that In The Know and I (and maybe others on here) are related to some of those 4 million scroungers.

which means of course : In The Know is a scrounger and part of the problem, not the solution.

Kissing cousins then?

Locked Out wrote:
Your analysis of her as a "man hating feminist" is perhaps a little harsh {she is, after all, married to a man

Speechless.

veritas wrote:
and as I am descended from the same line that ITK says he is..

aren't many people descended from some fairly prominent line, veritas (if only they could prove it ?).

Most people cannot trace their lineage before 1835 (when civil registration began - although for the next 20 years it was a bit patchy) because they had no land, paid no tax, were not important people and therefor no record of them exists ?

Do the maths ....

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
and as I am descended from the same line that ITK says he is..

aren't many people descended from some fairly prominent line, veritas (if only they could prove it ?).

Most people cannot trace their lineage before 1835 (when civil registration began - although for the next 20 years it was a bit patchy) because they had no land, paid no tax, were not important people and therefor no record of them exists ?

Do the maths ....

obviously there are probably thousands but I can actually prove it (if records are true)..so I really should be on the throne especially as I would have been a benign dictator (got rid of parliament..dodgy set-up).

I may have..in true British royal tradition..got rid of a few troublesome relatives..I can think of one right now.