Jump to content

sheffbag

Members
  • Content Count

    2,409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sheffbag

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 13/09/1971

Personal Information

  • Location
    Rotherham
  • Interests
    mmmm
  • Occupation
    F/T lazy git

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Education has never been equal and the perception of the better the school the more oportunites has always been prevelant Really? Over history Labour had many opportunites to end selective education and, in some cases, point blank refused to do it. You might want to read this http://www.educationengland.org.uk/articles/31labourgrammar.html
  2. since they seem fond of sticking themselves to the road drag them off and superglue them to the pavement
  3. announced 17th Sept. The name change has been in the pipeline for a bit. It was covered in local media but shows the interest in the name change. Same old shower just a diferent name
  4. Did you have a problem with Blair having 157 seats more than the Tories despite only 800,000 votes (2.8% of total votes) more or just 35.2 of the votes in 2005? Lib dems suffer the most out of not having PR, the regularly polled over 20% of the vote but always end up with small number of seats
  5. This was announced some time ago. Im not calling Dan or his "pr" team egocentric but South Yorkshire is the only combined authority or area governed by a mayor to have the word "Mayoral" in the title. It does give the humorous acronym of (S)YMCA though so cue memes of the Village People The SYPTE integration has been on the agenda for a long time. It was certain after a report commissioned by SCR about the PTE said that the PTE had too many levels of management and would be better run under......SCR control (adding another layer of management)
  6. its like Paul Hardcastle did a labour remix of 19
  7. i question the first but applaud the 2nd. i would like to go one day too yes - the richest 50% hold 98% of the wealth according to the report i quoted along with many other news sites. This puts it on par with the USA for wealth distribution https://inequality.org/great-divide/updates-billionaire-pandemic/ NZ charities estimate there are about 43000 people homeless out of a population do 4.5M so its about 1% which is probably on par with other countries
  8. based on what? https://datacommons.org/place/country/NZL?utm_medium=explore&mprop=amount&popt=EconomicActivity&cpv=activitySource%2CGrossDomesticProduction&hl=en A lot of stats make NZ and GB fairly close to each other A financial equality study by the University of Wellington (and other sources) all report a disparity in income between the rich and poor https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/1935430/WP-21-10-wealth-inequality-in-New-Zealand.pdf So what are you basing New Zealand on and (to Anna) which countries are you thinking of?
  9. Anna You know that is complete and utter rubbish. Please evidence it and show how it would be a victory that would put Labour in power and JC as PM If you want to go down that route of "3000 votes from victory" (whatever you count "victory" as) then the Conservatives needed 9 seats for an outright majority. They could have got those by winning the following seats (based on the Tories finishing 2nd in that consituency) Kensington - 20 votes (or 11 Labour votes to swing) Perth and North Perthshire - 21 Votes (or 11 from SNP) Dudley North - 22 votes (or 12 from Labour) Newcastle Under Lyme - 30 votes (16 from Labour) Crewe - 48 votes (25 from Labour) Cantebury - 187 votes (94 form Labour) Barrow - 209 (105 from Labour) Keighley - 237 (119 from Labour) Lanark - 266 (134 from SNP) So for the Tories to get an outright majority they needed an extra 1040 votes or take 521 votes from the winning party. That was for an outright majority Want to know how many labour seats would have been won by them gaining the "3000 votes" in seats where they came 2nd? - 14 of which 6 were SNP and 1 PC . so it would read Conservative - 310 Labour - 276 Explain to me how thats a "victory"? If they got the same number of extra votes that the Tories needed for an outright majority (1040) then they would have gained 7 seats and only 1 of those was a Tory seat so it would be Conservative - 316 Labour - 269 Those are your facts not some hypothetical reasoning. Anyway you read it, he was nowhere near a "victory"
  10. JC would still find a way to lose the election in China if he was in charge
  11. You keep banging on about "membership increase". It makes absolutely no difference what the size of the labour membership or any other party is. Onyl thign that matters is votes in the ballot box and JC managed to lose 2 general elections to possibly the worst PM's in history. Thats like having a cupboard full of chocolate but been on a diet so you dont use any of the resource. It actually makes him look worse as he managed to increase "membership" yet got the worst result in modern history at the election. How does that work? oh i forgot, its the nasty media's fault. Corbyn is nothing in politics anymore. He's a lonely independent mp who has a following amongst certain vocal members of the Labour party who for whatever reason deem him as the messiah even though he was rubbish at the job of being leader or getting Labour into power (you know, the thing a political party aspires to be so they can actually implement their policies). If he is such a socialist then why hasnt he joined the SWP. He would be their first MP wouldn't he? Why is he sitting around as an independent waiting for the chance to possibly get readmitted to the Labour Party. If he's such a great leader then why not make his own party and see how many follow him? I would say that leaders such as Blair and Thatcher have had a far longer following than a former leader of the opposition. But then again they did actually win multiple elections and were successful at their jobs so you could understand that. "Changing lives or shouting slogans" - Great response to the hecklers yesterday and his speech actually made me, as a former Labour voter, think that perhaps this guy can win an election and offer me a prospect to vote Labour again. What did you think to his speech Anna?
  12. load of cobblers. John Smith was infinity times the leader of the Labour party never mind a prime minister than JC wasnt
  13. Normal service resumes Conservatives gain 6 points support in a week and Labour get back in line https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/691qntqk1u/TheTimes_VI_Results_210916_W.pdf errr, you do know Starmer has no power to remove or appoint the deputy leader so there is no "survive" there
  14. You really do love him dont you Galvanised the party? did he? results don't show that and the mass removal of his shadow cabinet dont really show that Increased the party membership yet got the biggest hammering in modern times in the election. If all those new members joined because of Corbyn and he"galvanised the party" then ........why didnt they vote for him? I thought they were the Labour party not the socialist party?
  15. Anna - you know that the irrelevance part of the reply was to you claiming it was your beloved Jeremy Corbyns policy, when it wasnt. it was first drafted in 2010. You still wont say how its "fully costed". JC got more airtime than any other leader during the election, if he couldnt get it across or publicise or the resto f his momentum lackeys couldnt promote it correctly, thats not the media's fault. Thats Labour. Ahead of the field? dont you mean so far behind in the elections they are on a different farm?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.