........Corbyn has it in hand, U2 batteries are on express delivery.

"bm" wrote in message
web.com...
.......Corbyn has it in hand, U2 batteries are on express delivery.

News just in.
Seems that Dave is providing hot dogs and caviar to anyone who will vote
Labour.

"bm" wrote in message
web.com...

"bm" wrote in message
web.com...
.......Corbyn has it in hand, U2 batteries are on express delivery.

News just in.
Seems that Dave is providing hot dogs and caviar to anyone who will vote
Labour.

The Tim Farron poofter sect is up in arms, how dare they screw my Saturday
night ****-in.
Totally unacceptable, I'll be having a word with Vince, he'll know how to
bull**** properly.

If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his mps do
not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much if elected.
We are in dire need of a communist party in this country. One that actually
can work. However at the present we have basically a lot of rabble who seem
to have no direction in all the parties. One has to ask does it, in the end
matter at all?

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"bm" wrote in message
web.com...
.......Corbyn has it in hand, U2 batteries are on express delivery.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message news

If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his mps do
not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much if elected.
We are in dire need of a communist party in this country. One that
actually can work. However at the present we have basically a lot of
rabble who seem to have no direction in all the parties. One has to ask
does it, in the end matter at all?

Brian

A communist party that can actually work?
Are you for real?

Brian Gaff wrote

If Labour do win,

Not a chance, you watch. Even you lot arent actually THAT stupid.

who is going to be in his government.

We'll never know, because even you lot aint actually THAT stupid.

most of his mps do not agree with him and they
may not want to toe the line much if elected.

Yep, it would be a complete shambles.

We are in dire need of a communist party in this country.

Nope, no one does.

One that actually can work.

None ever can.

However at the present we have basically a lot of rabble
who seem to have no direction in all the parties.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

One has to ask does it, in the end matter at all?

Nope, the system is robust enough so that it can survive anything.

And the fools you get to vote for arent anything
like as important as they think they are.


"bm" wrote in message
web.com...
.......Corbyn has it in hand, U2 batteries are on express delivery.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his mps do
not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much if elected.


it's only his defence and foreign policy where they disagree with him, and
he seems to have put those aspiration to bed during the election for the
greater good.

But on his economic/employment/etc policies they are much in agreement with
him, they just didn't think that they were policies that could win an
election

tim

On 04/06/17 12:02, tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his
mps do not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much
if elected.


it's only his defence and foreign policy where they disagree with him,
and he seems to have put those aspiration to bed during the election for
the greater good.

But on his economic/employment/etc policies they are much in agreement
with him, they just didn't think that they were policies that could win
an election


which is precisely why they shouldn't win an election.

tim





--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 04/06/17 12:02, tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his mps
do not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much if
elected.


it's only his defence and foreign policy where they disagree with him,
and he seems to have put those aspiration to bed during the election for
the greater good.

But on his economic/employment/etc policies they are much in agreement
with him, they just didn't think that they were policies that could win
an election


which is precisely why they shouldn't win an election.

but is almost certainly the reason why they are closer than the should be

tim

On 04/06/17 12:13, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 04/06/17 12:02, tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his
mps do not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much
if elected.


it's only his defence and foreign policy where they disagree with
him, and he seems to have put those aspiration to bed during the
election for the greater good.

But on his economic/employment/etc policies they are much in
agreement with him, they just didn't think that they were policies
that could win an election


which is precisely why they shouldn't win an election.

but is almost certainly the reason why they are closer than the should be


How close they are is a subject of considerable debate.

There is an infeasibly large spread in the polls.

More than can be explained by statistics.



tim





--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 04/06/17 12:02, tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his mps
do not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much if
elected.


it's only his defence and foreign policy where they disagree with him,
and he seems to have put those aspiration to bed during the election for
the greater good.

But on his economic/employment/etc policies they are much in agreement
with him, they just didn't think that they were policies that could win
an election


which is precisely why they shouldn't win an election.

but is almost certainly the reason why they are closer than the should be

It remains to be seen if they actually are closer than they should be.

The polls have ****ed up so spectacularly recently that it remains to
be seen if they are actually closer to being the govt than they were
the last time. IMO thats very unlikely given that Labour has tripped
off to the hard left again and hardly any of the voters want that policy
and the leadership **** fight has been so spectacularly stupid. Thats
just the sort of thing that sees so many of the voters decide that if
they cant even run the ****ing party, they havent got a hope in hell
of running the ****ing country, particularly with the very important
Article 50 negotiations coming up with Corbyn not even able to
organise a ****up in a ****ing brewery, or anything else at all either.

in 1595606 20170604 120422 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/06/17 12:02, tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his
mps do not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much
if elected.


it's only his defence and foreign policy where they disagree with him,
and he seems to have put those aspiration to bed during the election for
the greater good.

But on his economic/employment/etc policies they are much in agreement
with him, they just didn't think that they were policies that could win
an election


which is precisely why they shouldn't win an election.

Mrs Mayhem is so useless that anyone should be able to beat her
(assuming an intelligent electorate, which we ain't got)

On 05/06/17 07:32, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1595606 20170604 120422 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/06/17 12:02, tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his
mps do not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much
if elected.


it's only his defence and foreign policy where they disagree with him,
and he seems to have put those aspiration to bed during the election for
the greater good.

But on his economic/employment/etc policies they are much in agreement
with him, they just didn't think that they were policies that could win
an election


which is precisely why they shouldn't win an election.

Mrs Mayhem is so useless that anyone should be able to beat her
(assuming an intelligent electorate, which we ain't got)



But then Corbyn is even more useless as is Farron, Sturgeon etc.
Hobson's choice.


The theory being they are supposed to make the EU leaders look competent
I think.



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

"Bob Martin" wrote in message ...

in 1595606 20170604 120422 The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 04/06/17 12:02, tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his
mps do not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much
if elected.


it's only his defence and foreign policy where they disagree with him,
and he seems to have put those aspiration to bed during the election for
the greater good.

But on his economic/employment/etc policies they are much in agreement
with him, they just didn't think that they were policies that could win
an election


which is precisely why they shouldn't win an election.

Mrs Mayhem is so useless that anyone should be able to beat her
(assuming an intelligent electorate, which we ain't got)

Don't be so harsh on yourself. I'm sure you have a trace of intelligence
somewhere.

In article ,
Bob Martin wrote:
in 1595606 20170604 120422 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/06/17 12:02, tim... wrote:


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his
mps do not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much
if elected.


it's only his defence and foreign policy where they disagree with him,
and he seems to have put those aspiration to bed during the election for
the greater good.

But on his economic/employment/etc policies they are much in agreement
with him, they just didn't think that they were policies that could win
an election


which is precisely why they shouldn't win an election.

Mrs Mayhem is so useless that anyone should be able to beat her
(assuming an intelligent electorate, which we ain't got)

I wasn't impressed by her 'enough is enough' speech. Her command of the
language is poor. That is the sort of thing you say about tantrums from a
toddler - you've put up with it for long enough, and won't anymore.

We should not be putting up with terrorism under any circumstances.

It is a different matter trying to understand the reasons behind that
terrorism and doing something about that too.

It seems at least one of the terrorists had been reported by more than one
person as being a dangerous fanatic. Just how much cutting police numbers,
which Ms May did as HS, was responsible for this not being acted on is
something we may never know.

--
*Money isn‘t everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

tim... wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his mps
do not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much if
elected.

it's only his defence and foreign policy where they disagree with him,

Like hell it is. There's a reason he's been thru so many shadow ministers
and why the entire parliamentary party tried to change leader and failed.

and he seems to have put those aspiration to bed during the election for
the greater good.

He's always been into that sort of flagrant dishonesty.
He never did make clear what he thought about leaving
the EU in the runup to the BRexit referendum either.

But on his economic/employment/etc policies they are much in agreement
with him,

Like hell they are, particularly on the question of whether
it makes any sense what so ever to be spending an immense
amount of money renationalising what he wants to renationalise
at time when Labour has already produced an immense deficit
with their terminal stupidity of deregulating the banks and then
having to bail them out and take over the worst of them when
the **** hit the fan internationally.

they just didn't think that they were policies that could win an election

I'm not convinced that most of them are actually
stupid enough to want to renationalise what he
wants to renationalise at the immense cost of that now.

Certainly some of the union goons are
that stupid, but I just don't believe that the
remaining Blairites are actually that stupid.

On 04/06/2017 08:45, Brian Gaff wrote:
If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his mps do
not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much if elected.

No MP has ever turned down a ministerial post. I can still remember
Clare Short, who would fit like a glove into JC's loony left, being
unable to resist the temptation for an ego boost taking a post in
Blair's first government.

JoeJoe wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his mps
do
not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much if elected.

No MP has ever turned down a ministerial post.

Some have done just that.

I can still remember Clare Short, who would fit like a glove into JC's
loony left, being unable to resist the temptation for an ego boost taking
a post in Blair's first government.

Sure, but not all operate like that.

"JoeJoe" wrote in message
...
On 04/06/2017 08:45, Brian Gaff wrote:
If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his mps
do
not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much if elected.

No MP has ever turned down a ministerial post.

then you haven't been looking for the past 18 months

tim

In article , Brian Gaff
writes
If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his mps do
not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much if elected.
We are in dire need of a communist party in this country.
They've taken over the Labour Party
One that actually
can work.
You're having a laugh.
However at the present we have basically a lot of rabble who seem
to have no direction in all the parties. One has to ask does it, in the end
matter at all?

Brian


--
bert

On 05/06/17 23:33, bert wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
writes
If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his
mps do
not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much if elected.
We are in dire need of a communist party in this country.
They've taken over the Labour Party
One that actually
can work.
You're having a laugh.
However at the present we have basically a lot of rabble who seem
to have no direction in all the parties. One has to ask does it, in
the end
matter at all?

Brian


There are fundamentally good scientific or mathematical reasons why
centralised economies do not work as well as market economies.

To impose one on the basis its more 'fair' is precisely what Winny
Churchill had in mind when he said

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Or as Bob Dylan put it
"(a man) who cares not to come up any higher
But rather drag you down in the hole that he's in."

That's why ISIL and Labour feel like kin. They both preach a gospel of
envy and hatred, and instead of directing their efforts to improving
themselves, direct it towards destroying people that are the object of
their hatred.

Faced with a question like 'would it be better if everybody earned £6
and hour ore some earned £6, some £10 and some £100, which would you
prefer?' 99% of lefty****s would say making everybody equally poor was
social justice, and making a few people less poor was unfair.

Labour is supported by people who cannot bring themselves to admit the
fundamental fact that they are not equal to other people. They are not
brain surgeons, rocket scientists, or concert pianists. And instead of
trying to make the best of what they are, they moan, and say they are
life's victims, and won't someone be nice to them.

But all that happens is people throw sweeties at them to shut them up.

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 06/06/2017 05:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/06/17 23:33, bert wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
writes
If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his
mps do
not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much if
elected.
We are in dire need of a communist party in this country.
They've taken over the Labour Party
One that actually
can work.
You're having a laugh.
However at the present we have basically a lot of rabble who seem
to have no direction in all the parties. One has to ask does it, in
the end
matter at all?

Brian


There are fundamentally good scientific or mathematical reasons why
centralised economies do not work as well as market economies.

To impose one on the basis its more 'fair' is precisely what Winny
Churchill had in mind when he said

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Or as Bob Dylan put it
"(a man) who cares not to come up any higher
But rather drag you down in the hole that he's in."

That's why ISIL and Labour feel like kin. They both preach a gospel of
envy and hatred, and instead of directing their efforts to improving
themselves, direct it towards destroying people that are the object of
their hatred.

Faced with a question like 'would it be better if everybody earned £6
and hour ore some earned £6, some £10 and some £100, which would you
prefer?' 99% of lefty****s would say making everybody equally poor was
social justice, and making a few people less poor was unfair.

Labour is supported by people who cannot bring themselves to admit the
fundamental fact that they are not equal to other people. They are not
brain surgeons, rocket scientists, or concert pianists. And instead of
trying to make the best of what they are, they moan, and say they are
life's victims, and won't someone be nice to them.

But all that happens is people throw sweeties at them to shut them up.


nothing wrong with being able to better yourself, but everything wrong
with not having the opportunity because of money, breeding, and some
peoples inherited feeling that they are somehow better than all around
them.

On 07/06/17 20:02, critcher wrote:
nothing wrong with being able to better yourself, but everything wrong
with not having the opportunity because of money, breeding, and some
peoples inherited feeling that they are somehow better than all around
them.


Exactly, and since its socialism that makes you feel like that, ****
socialism.

There are so many reasons for failure, out pinning them all on social
class is a Marxist lie.

And of course, with Marxism, bettering yourself is the worst thing you
can do isn't it brothers?



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 04/06/2017 08:45, Brian Gaff wrote:
If Labour do win, who is going to be in his government. most of his mps do
not agree with him and they may not want to toe the line much if elected.
We are in dire need of a communist party in this country. One that actually
can work. However at the present we have basically a lot of rabble who seem
to have no direction in all the parties. One has to ask does it, in the end
matter at all?

Brian

If he wins don't worry about his MP's , they will queue up for cabinet
jobs and will be telling all and sundry they knew he would come up
trumps.Then we can start deselecting the turncoats.