Search results

Either you haven't got a clue or you are just lying. Look at the graph. Unemployment was going down until Labour got in. It levelled off then went up before the recession. So it wasn't high for the Tories because it had shot up under Labour? Why can't you just be truthful for once?

But that hasn't happened though has it. Labour took it up to nearly 11%. The Tories took it down to 5%. Labour took it up to 7.5%. Now the Tories have taken it to record employment. How are you going to twist this one?

That is my take on it. Many of billions spent but would take 10 years or more.

Why not show unemployment rates at the start and end each time a different party takes over? The graph is clear. It goes up each time under Labour and down each time under the Tories. Thinking about it why do we vote Labour knowing this? I am starting to doubt my voting history.

I'm not against it in principle. But close to 40 billion to be able to give away free internet even to those who can afford it? And have to pay hundreds of millions a year to keep it going? Show us the details on the other utilities and we can make our minds up.

Even if we buy it was Labour? The pair of you are in total denial. Or was everyone on strike during the Labour government the fault of the Tories? Labour had made us nearly bankrupt. Yes it was brought down from nearly 11% and went back up to just over 10%. But then it was brought diwn to 5%...

Do you need glasses? Look at the graph. It shot up under Labour. It took a lot of shit with the Tories to bring it down from nearly 11%. When Bliar took over from the Tories unemployment was in freefall. Bliar managed to stop unemployment from dropping not too long after taking over. Then it...

So when did I say that? Oh yes. You are making things up again.

Oh I see the double act are back. So when was the unemployment that high? Who had been in power? Yes I vote Labour. Sometimes I wonder why myself. I would most probably be better off with a Tory government. But I was dragged up on most of the council estates in Coventry. I know what it is...

You have a lot to say on matters you don't have a clue about. Most people I knew could only get agency work. Zero hours contracts is a name that didn't exist then. If you didn't have a permanent job you didn't get holiday pay. In fact why do I bother. Have told you countless times before. But...

Maybe set it at 85k and give themselves a 6k raise.

One sentence that contradicts itself.

I left school just after a Labour government. The unemployed reached well over 3 million with a population well below what it is now. Unemployment level was nearly at 11% after the Labour government. And most of them that had a job were out on strike. Yet you preach that my generation had it so...

Yeah but that was a past Labour government. We only consider past Tory governments on here.

I am middle of the road yet a lifelong Labour voter and supporter. Yet I see major problems with both of them. The problem is that we are a two party system most of the time. Both sides are too extreme.

Can you remind me of the last decent Labour government? I will give you a clue. I plan to retire in less than 3 1/2 years. And it was before I was born. Would you dare say Bliar? The Tory in disguise?

Oh the irony. You spend ages trying to make out that I have said something that I haven't. OK. Onto what has been said. McDonnell says only top 5% will pay more tax. I trust the calculations were not done by Abbott. The IMF......more trustworthy than any UK politician......say the numbers are...

And of course you don't see anything but a coincidence. You never do. That is unless it is by anyone but Labour. Then it is meant 100%.

Why is that? So Corbyn is just an MP until he is needed to be more. It has to be passed by MP's to try and keep them happy. So taxing the rich but just keeping the MP's out of this extra tax makes no difference? Of course it doesn't.

One thing I have noticed is MP's earn 79k. Labour wants to raise tax on earnings over 80k. Coincidence?