[quote=“cake”]Major and thatcher were the same party.[/quote] I know. But if boundary changes favoured Conservatives, why did Thatcher get 376 seats with 42.3% and Major only 336 seats with 41.9%? Logic?
[quote=“cake”]Major and thatcher were the same party. If boundry changes favoured labour, why the hell would thatcher want to introduce them? It would be political suicide[/quote] Because boundary changes are the purview of the Boundary Commission, NOT the Prime Minister. Another conspiracy theory shot to pieces. You never check facts.
In your world, Fruity, people act only out of mean motives. There is no place for dispassionate review of the evidence or a collective approach to solving problems. There is no sense of charity or of benevolence. You have a depressing view of mankind. It is also wrong. Boundary Commission: statistics.gov.uk/pbc/downloads/bce_q&a.doc
In a labour constituency 20,000 will vote labour and in a conservative constituency 8000 will vote conservative. So the majority have voted for labour. So instead of being two seats with 10,000 constituenst each, there is one seat with 20,000.
There are less seats in the traditional labour areas now.
You say thatcher had no say - you must be joking.
Call it a conspiracy, but the woman had only her own interests and business interests at heart and yes the government has been involved in conspiracies so that would be nothing new.
You never lived under thatcher, you’ll never understand what she did. You can spout your beliefs - that is fine. I witnessed first hand how she destroyed communities and cities because they did not support her policies.
Under Thatcher there was no sense of charity and certainly no sense of benevolence, there was no collective approach - that sound like someone else.
What was her famous quote - something like the self is the community now. I can’t remember exactly but that is not a collective approach.
[quote=“cake”]Tradional labour voters…see the blair and his cronies as a bunch of lairs…I never fell for it once.[/quote] Let’s get this right. Labour were unpopular socialists who became popular capitalists. Behaved as capitalists. “Liars” because they did what they said they would do!!! This is democracy. Your distaste for it shows you to be a little despot!!!
I could do a websearch and find many instances where labour have not done what they said they would do. Infact you could do the same with bush and you will find the lies.
My distatse for lies makes me a despot??
[quote=“cake”]What was her famous quote - something like the self is the community now. [/quote] She said: “There is no such thing as society.” In short: society does not have opinions, individuals and groups do. Often quoted approvingly by intellectuals, including my Marxist professor. But an idea that the chattering (cake) classes cannot grasp.
No, Cake. You specifically criticsed them because you thought they were “real” labour pretending to be conservatives. You were dismayed when they turned out to have changed their beliefs for real and not just cycnical reasons! You were dismayed that they weren’t liars - not very democratic, Fruity!
Oh you are so self righteous.
Maybe you should be called Immybiggestfan. You have your head up your arse.
Individuals and groups such as unions were virtually destroyed by her. She destroyed society
Thatcher was a discrace to humanity - enough said.
So a marxist approves one quote - is that supposed to sway me.
Marxists live in a fantasy world.
[quote=“cake”]Tradional labour voters have woken up, many others who sway from party to party are seeing the light. They see the blair and his cronies as a bunch of lairs.[/quote] i.e.,they were liars because they really had “gone capitalist.” You don’t even know what you say.
I certainly do know what I say and many are disillusioned with blair, that hads nothing to do with capatalism.
Ha ha
They weren’t/aren’t liars
HA HA HA HA HA
Bend over and take some more boy
[quote=“cake”]She destroyed society[/quote] You prove my point. What do you mean by “society?” If you mean “strong labour unions” then yes. But you don’t know what you mean. Its a word for the empty-headed, which, incidentally, is why my professor deleted it every time I wrote it.
[quote=“cake”]Ha ha They weren’t liars[/quote] They said they would turn capitalist. They did. You hoped it was a trick to win power. It wasn’t. They meant it. You get upset and call them liars. They weren’t. They meant it.
[quote=“cake”]Marxists live in a fantasy world.[/quote] Well, I don’t agree with marxism. But its less of a fantasy than anarchism. And its at least an attempt to be constructive, unlike your nihilism.
[quote=“cake”]So a marxist approves one quote - is that supposed to sway me.[/quote] No, it was to demonstrate that the comment was a scientific one that can be accepted by fair-minded people of many political persuasions or philosophical beliefs. You, though, don’t get the point.
No they were sort of capitalist in 92. They really changed after the 87 election, when they knew they had no chance with their policies. That isn’t the lies I am talking about. I am talking about all these promises they made to the public and never carried them out - say something to appease the voters, knowing they had no intention of carrying the thing out. I can remember they said years ago they would get rid of the student loans scheme or write it off - they didn’t.
I don’t agree with anarchy
[quote=“cake”]Oh you are so self righteous.
Maybe you should be called Immybiggestfan. You have your head up your arse.[/quote] Riled? Did my pointing out the inconsistencies in your posts and your lack of a theoretical framework/philosophy raise the heckles?
I don’t think you did point out any inconsistencies - the boundry thing was in your opinion a conspiracy. You came to a few assumptions about the lies I was talking about regarding blair.
lack of theorectical framework/philosophy - who do you think you are henry kissinger?
[quote=“cake”]They really changed after the 87 election, when they knew they had no chance with their policies. That isn’t the lies I am talking about.[/quote] Yes it was. You even did an abstract voting calculation to make your point. Your accusations were broad. They were about Blair’s new labour (new conservtives) not being the election trick you hoped.