leicsmac Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 If the Tories really care about their own voters they have had a funny way of showing it over the last couple of years. Can't alienate the floating voters, too many people disillusioned by politics and the hard core of Tories isn't enough to win an election. Achieving more in life than you ever dared to dream when young. What about just being happy where you are, and just fulfilling the dreams of when you were young? Ambition is a good thing, but surely so is satisfaction.
Guest MattP Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 Er, where as they've done wonders for the typical Labour demographic? Depends what you mean by that. Old Labour demographic of the working man they have done quite a bit for. Probably because of the Lib Dems but look what a guy on 12k pays in tax now compared to five years back. New Labour demographic of immigrants, the public sector and the underclass no haven't done much.
Guest MattP Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 Can't alienate the floating voters, too many people disillusioned by politics and the hard core of Tories isn't enough to win an election. What about just being happy where you are, and just fulfilling the dreams of when you were young? Ambition is a good thing, but surely so is satisfaction. Course it is. Look at the comres poll on who would you vote for if the Tories had Thatcher in charge. 40pc in every poll. Hopefully we can get rid of Scotland as well next year and make it easier. England is a tory voting country. Satisfied is nice. Ambition is better. The former is for retirement as far as im concerned.
leicsmac Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 Course it is. Look at the comres poll on who would you vote for if the Tories had Thatcher in charge. 40pc in every poll. Hopefully we can get rid of Scotland as well next year and make it easier. England is a tory voting country. Satisfied is nice. Ambition is better. The former is for retirement as far as im concerned. But she isn't in charge. And Cameron certainly is nowhere near the influential figure she was. Also people have a habit of looking at the past through rose-tinted spectacles. Agree with you about the Scotland part, but with the Scots still involved in Gen Election voting and Cameron in charge I honestly don't think the Tories have enough hardcore support to win an election just with them. They need to pull in the floating voters, and for that they need a few moderate policies. Fair enough with the ambition thing. I think if you go through life always wanting more, you don't really appreciate what you already have,
Guest MattP Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 Your right about the muddle ground. Problem is he's alienated his traditional support with his policies.
Finnegan Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 Your right about the muddle ground. Problem is he's alienated his traditional support with his policies. What you mean is, he's not racist enough.
leicsmac Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 Your right about the muddle ground. Problem is he's alienated his traditional support with his policies. So he's hosed either way.
RobHawk Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 Most politician's these day's are all twats anyway!! Only in it for their own selfish reasons! If its not money its Ego! I'm fed up of reading about Mark Bridgen! I wonder Mr Bridgen, are you so concerned about HS2 because of the cost and the damage to countryside throughout the country or.............. is it because the planned route goes through your back garden? Hypocritical bastards the lot of em!
purpleronnie Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 Most politician's these day's are all twats anyway!! Only in it for their own selfish reasons! If its not money its Ego! I'm fed up of reading about Mark Bridgen! I wonder Mr Bridgen, are you so concerned about HS2 because of the cost and the damage to countryside throughout the country or.............. is it because the planned route goes through your back garden? Hypocritical bastards the lot of em! No doubt if they didn't build it he'd be moaning about how poor the train service is.
RobHawk Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 No doubt if they didn't build it he'd be moaning about how poor the train service is. Undoubtedly! It's a shame really, I met David Taylor a few times when i was younger. I didn't agree with him on everything but he seemed to genuinely do what he thought was best for NW Leics! He didn't toe the party line either! He tried his best to represent the people who voted for him! That's the impression i got anyway and it really struck a chord with how politics should be! I'm now disillusioned to say the least! And before anyone starts that wasn't a labour Vs conservative comment it just so happens they are to NW Leices MP's im comparing!
digitalalba Posted 10 June 2013 Author Posted 10 June 2013 And he was in no way directed towards that conclusion in a what was clearly a pre planned event with a camera in the corner. What a load of crap Are you suggesting that Mr Wayne Naylor of considerable age, elected by the people, funded by the tax payer, a member of the ruiling party of Leicestershire for quite some time, hasn't the ability to say no when invited into a thought process, when it concerns potential criminal behaviour of the Lord Mayor of Leicestershire? What was he thinking when he obliged a constituence invitation for a chat? Is there no handbook the Labour party dishes out? Is there no wealth of knowledge process a Councillor goes through to enable him/her to gather hundreds of votes? Were the public thus then duped into believing this particular Councillor hadn't the right credentials for the job? There is approximately 22,000 Councillors in Britain, how many others are voted for under these circumstances P.S. Councillor Naylor's...er...news http://councillor.leicester.gov.uk/home/wayne-naylor/my-news/ ...what could he fill that page with i wonder haha
lavrentis Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 Was in town 2 days ago and I overheard some peoples thoughts on Peter Soulsby. I don't think he is liked in Leicester all that much.
purpleronnie Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 Was in town 2 days ago and I overheard some peoples thoughts on Peter Soulsby. I don't think he is liked in Leicester all that much. People discussing politics in the streets? All the conversations I hear are either to do with mobile phones or some reality TV show.
lavrentis Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 People discussing politics in the streets? All the conversations I hear are either to do with mobile phones or some reality TV show. Was in a thing called a pub
purpleronnie Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 Was in a thing called a pub never heard of it, sounds like a crazy place.
Finnegan Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 Was in town 2 days ago and I overheard some peoples thoughts on Peter Soulsby. I don't think he is liked in Leicester all that much. Most people don't have a clue what he actually does. I'm not defending him or the council but you could have a team of Gary Lineker, Englebert Humperdink and him out of Deep Purple running the City and people would still call them wankers.
lavrentis Posted 10 June 2013 Posted 10 June 2013 never heard of it, sounds like a crazy place. Sounds like you might fit in Most people don't have a clue what he actually does. I'm not defending him or the council but you could have a team of Gary Lineker, Englebert Humperdink and him out of Deep Purple running the City and people would still call them wankers. They seemed pretty certain he spent 4 million pounds renovating a "square" so they said.
PaulB Posted 11 June 2013 Posted 11 June 2013 ... The English a distinct "racial" (ethnic) group. White British is our ethnicity. English is a nationality, one shared by many non-white British residents of the city of Leicester who were born and raised here. You have got it the wrong way round English is an ethnicity protected under the equality act 2010 just as other ethnicities are. The English have been around for over a thousand years! British on the other hand is a nationality, made up in 1707 by the formation of the British government and is open to anyone.
PaulB Posted 11 June 2013 Posted 11 June 2013 And he was in no way directed towards that conclusion in a what was clearly a pre planned event with a camera in the corner. What a load of crap Does it really matter how it was recorded? There is a councillor agreeing discrimination by Peter Soulsby
Webbo Posted 11 June 2013 Posted 11 June 2013 Does it really matter how it was recorded? There is a councillor agreeing discrimination by Peter Soulsby And as soon as the councillor tried to explain or say he would try to find out if it amounted to discrimination the man shut him up and threw him out. As a journalistic sting operation it was crap.
Father Ted Posted 11 June 2013 Posted 11 June 2013 Most people don't have a clue what he actually does. I'm not defending him or the council but you could have a team of Gary Lineker, Englebert Humperdink and him out of Deep Purple running the City and people would still call them wankers. He's only in it for personal gain. Im not surprised that you're pro-Soulsby considering that you are a council worker and he takes good care of your lot.
Finnegan Posted 11 June 2013 Posted 11 June 2013 He's only in it for personal gain. Im not surprised that you're pro-Soulsby considering that you are a council worker and he takes good care of your lot. Woah now. Very little makes me actually angry on this forum these days but that's just wrong on a number of levels and you need to pipe the **** down. One, I'm not pro-Soulsby, the passage you just quoted even states I'm not interested in defending him. It was just a general comment on how people view council leadership. Two, the city council is a local authority that's essentially a bunch of completely unrelated businesses all with one common theme - we all have to answer to councillors. Unless you live in a council house and have an issue with it's repair, I have absolutely sod all to do with you. There certainly isn't an "our lot" and we CERTAINLY aren't taken care of, which brings me on to my last point... Three, I and my colleagues are front line service staff. We've got middle management above us, senior managers above them and way, way up again come the directors you read about in the mockery on six figure salaries. They aren't us, they aren't representative of us and they don't take care of us. With the controversial exception of our pension (which is a central government issue, not a local authority one) we are some of the most shit-on members of the national workforce. We do what we can with an ever shrinking budget and useless leadership that's only interested in securing it's own future in the post. We have more right to be angry with the mayor, with councillors and with directors than the vast majority of other city residents. I understand people's frustrations and I'm well and truly used to members of the public tarring the council with the same brush. I'd laugh off a comment like that from Moose or Matt on an obvious wind up but the fact you earnestly seem to believe that grinds my gears. Rant - and lunchbreak - over.
Father Ted Posted 11 June 2013 Posted 11 June 2013 Woah now. Very little makes me actually angry on this forum these days but that's just wrong on a number of levels and you need to pipe the **** down. One, I'm not pro-Soulsby, the passage you just quoted even states I'm not interested in defending him. It was just a general comment on how people view council leadership. Two, the city council is a local authority that's essentially a bunch of completely unrelated businesses all with one common theme - we all have to answer to councillors. Unless you live in a council house and have an issue with it's repair, I have absolutely sod all to do with you. There certainly isn't an "our lot" and we CERTAINLY aren't taken care of, which brings me on to my last point... Three, I and my colleagues are front line service staff. We've got middle management above us, senior managers above them and way, way up again come the directors you read about in the mockery on six figure salaries. They aren't us, they aren't representative of us and they don't take care of us. With the controversial exception of our pension (which is a central government issue, not a local authority one) we are some of the most shit-on members of the national workforce. We do what we can with an ever shrinking budget and useless leadership that's only interested in securing it's own future in the post. We have more right to be angry with the mayor, with councillors and with directors than the vast majority of other city residents. I understand people's frustrations and I'm well and truly used to members of the public tarring the council with the same brush. I'd laugh off a comment like that from Moose or Matt on an obvious wind up but the fact you earnestly seem to believe that grinds my gears. Rant - and lunchbreak - over.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.