Labour party purge ?

Sponsored Links
Hypocrite?
What should she do / have done then, in your opinion?
Deliver a load of promises then perform an unbelievable amount of U-turns thus revealing her as a spineless, unelectable, untrustworthy and hugely disliked leader of the Tory party.

Sounds too ridiculous to be true.
 
Deliver a load of promises then perform an unbelievable amount of U-turns thus revealing her as a spineless, unelectable, untrustworthy and hugely disliked leader of the Tory party.

Sounds too ridiculous to be true.
And yet, in Number 10 she sits whilst Comrade Corbyn crys like a spanked child
 
surely you must concede that had there been a Conservative government in power at the time, regulation would have been much lighter.

You may well be right, but in truth, we'll never know. At the end of it, speculation about what the Conservatives might have done, doesn't excuse what Labour actually did. It happend on their watch, so they should take the blame; they just don't seem to want to.
 
Sponsored Links
You may well be right, but in truth, we'll never know. At the end of it, speculation about what the Conservatives might have done, doesn't excuse what Labour actually did. It happend on their watch, so they should take the blame; they just don't seem to want to.
The Munich/Manchester disaster, Zeebrugge, Piper Alpha, Lockerbie, Hillsborough, Marchioness, the recent terror attacks, the Grenfell fire, etc happened on Conservatives 'watch' so they should take the blame?
 
Now now Noesall; she lost seats, but not the election; it was Corbyn that did that.
 
Now now Noesall; she lost seats, but not the election; it was Corbyn that did that.
I don't think any of the competing parties begrudge her the position she is in now. I don't know of any recently elected party to be in such a low position. Poor old Tories.
 
Noseall you and comrade corbyn need to take Lyndon johnsons advice it's very simple

"The 1st rule of politics is the ability to count" ;)

:)
 
Incidentally Noseall Lyndon Baines Johnson was the president of the USA ,just in case u did not know :)
 
You may well be right, but in truth, we'll never know. At the end of it, speculation about what the Conservatives might have done, doesn't excuse what Labour actually did. It happend on their watch, so they should take the blame; they just don't seem to want to.
My memory, and I might be mistaken on this, is that the Labour government had been criticised by Conservative party in the period before the crash, because the Labour government was keeping more bank regulation in place than the Conservatives thought they should.

The argument that everything that happens on a particular government's watch is their fault doesn't hold water, unless it happened as a result of the government's action or inaction (I don't think we can blame the government of the day for an eclipse, for example). In this case, it seems reasonable to suggest that the higher level of regulation kept in place by the Labour government mitigated against more damage.

In order to suggest that the Labour government was responsible, and that the Conservatives would have been a better bet, which is, I think, your underlying argument (though I could be wrong about this), you'd really need to argue that a Conservative government at that time would have insisted on a higher level of banking regulation than the Labour government did.
I would suggest that, given the Conservative party's much stronger attachment to the free market, that this is not a realistic position to put forward.
 
I am familiar, but only through my interest in the Vietnam war.

interest in vietnam war Hmmmm

why?

american , Australian, south korean, French troops fought in Vietnam

not widely publicised but Germans as well for the French. afaik some were x members of the SS
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top