[the truth]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;7658854]I disagree with just about all that,plenty unemployed were created and lives wasted for decades from the Conservative govts of 1983 onwards.

Labour if it had such votes as you say, it didn't do them any good in the 1983,1987 and 1992 elections.-
neil kinnock never had a chance , theyd bankrupted the nation the unions out of control again, he was also considered too bald too ginger and too welsh

I also think you may actually be surprised at the number of people you call on benefits,who acually don't vote Labour at all.
-pls provide evidence of this? it contradicts all my findings
AS for boundary changes, they rarely benefit Labour anyway.
Labour's 65+ overall majority in 2005, would have been reduced to around 55 after the boundary changes done in that parliament.
Also had the Lib Dems not blocked the boundary changes laid out in this parliament, that would have reduced the seats Labour had again as prospective holds.

Boundary changes as I said, rarely,if ever are to Labour's benefit at all

that's simply untrue

from the 2005 general election, when Tony Blair’s Labour won 35.2 per cent of the popular vote, compared to 32.4 per cent for the Conservatives.

Despite the fact that the difference between the total votes cast for both parties were very small, Labour ended up with 355 seats and the Tories got just 198. That’s 55 per cent compared to 30 per cent.

[joeysteele]

[QUOTE=the truth;7659029]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I disagree with just about all that,plenty unemployed were created and lives wasted for decades from the Conservative govts of 1983 onwards.

Labour if it had such votes as you say, it didn't do them any good in the 1983,1987 and 1992 elections.-
neil kinnock never had a chance , theyd bankrupted the nation the unions out of control again, he was also considered too bald too ginger and too welsh

I also think you may actually be surprised at the number of people you call on benefits,who acually don't vote Labour at all.
-pls provide evidence of this? it contradicts all my findings
AS for boundary changes, they rarely benefit Labour anyway.
Labour's 65+ overall majority in 2005, would have been reduced to around 55 after the boundary changes done in that parliament.
Also had the Lib Dems not blocked the boundary changes laid out in this parliament, that would have reduced the seats Labour had again as prospective holds.

Boundary changes as I said, rarely,if ever are to Labour's benefit at all

that's simply untrue

from the 2005 general election, when Tony Blair’s Labour won 35.2 per cent of the popular vote, compared to 32.4 per cent for the Conservatives.

Despite the fact that the difference between the total votes cast for both parties were very small, Labour ended up with 355 seats and the Tories got just 198. That’s 55 per cent compared to 30 per cent.

This may be massive mistake on my part and a waste of my time but here goes anyway.

What a shocking thing to describe as reasons for Neil Kinnock not becoming PM.

There is one thing I would ahve admired about him and that was he took his party by the scruff of the neck and gave it a good shaking.
Something the Conservatives need from a leader too, to get rid of the noisy and disruptive nasty element of its party,which has got worse under this leader.

The boundary changes near always reduce the seats in the areas where Labour are strongest, that is a fact.
On the daily politics at the time the boundary changes were being debated, the concensus was that if they went through,labour would ahve an even harder job to win and the Conservatives badly needed the boundary changes in place.
The Lib Dems blocked them being done.

AS to the 2005 election, a major change came about in 1997,in my view,a change that removed the Conservatives as the 'natural' party of power and saw the Conservatives swept away.
Why they did so badly in 2005, was because Labour had that massive build up of votes that fell to them in 1997 and therefore only needed to be virtually level with the Conservatives to gain an overall majority.
Nothing to do with boundary changes.
The other factor to the 2005 election was that in 2 elections from losing in 1997, and 3 other leaders on from John Major, in that time, the Conservatives could only add less than 2% to the votes they got in a general election.
Rising from just under 31% in 1997 to just under 33% in 2005.

In a whole 8 years they only added 2% at best to their votes won at the 1997 election.
That is why they failed to get over 200 seats in 2005,their failure to attract votes despite Labour's vote plummeting too to hust over 35%.
Their votes going to the Lib Dems who were then able to make greater inroads to and take more Conservative seats.

AS for some on benefits not voting Labour, many went over to the Lib Dems and many vote Green too,I say that because I have been involved with people with benefit problems and when we get on to politics, I have been surprised how many do not vote Labour.
I don't have to prove anything to you just as we rarely get anything of substance to back up what you say which brings me to another point.

The state of the area you live in should be visited by all politicians of all parties I think, it seems from what you say, there are jobs a plenty,no one needs to be out of work, the jobs are good jobs and the only blight on the landscape is that near all who work in the NHS are useless and finally people on benefits when they needn't be, spoil things by voting Labour.

It seems,with all due respect from what you keep saying,all the answers to the the whole of the rest of the UK are there in your area,a separate state of Utopia almost.
Set apart from the rest of the UK, as all that goes on there is at odds with what most others find near everywhere else across all corners of the UK.

Finally,I also don't see what being Welsh has to do or should have to do with not getting to be PM of the UK.
Some of the finest politicians have come from Wales and held Welsh seats.

I agree with one thing you said, the Unions did need restraints put on them at the end of the 70s,no disagreement there.

However even as to that now, I think they need less restraints in the light of workers being exploited by short 16 hour weeks or less, and zero hour contracts.
Or do such part time jobs with low hours and zero hour contract jobs not exist too at all where you are.

[the truth]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;7659650]

Originally Posted by the truth

This may be massive mistake on my part and a waste of my time but here goes anyway.

What a shocking thing to describe as reasons for Neil Kinnock not becoming PM.

There is one thing I would ahve admired about him and that was he took his party by the scruff of the neck and gave it a good shaking.
Something the Conservatives need from a leader too, to get rid of the noisy and disruptive nasty element of its party,which has got worse under this leader.

The boundary changes near always reduce the seats in the areas where Labour are strongest, that is a fact.
On the daily politics at the time the boundary changes were being debated, the concensus was that if they went through,labour would ahve an even harder job to win and the Conservatives badly needed the boundary changes in place.
The Lib Dems blocked them being done.

AS to the 2005 election, a major change came about in 1997,in my view,a change that removed the Conservatives as the 'natural' party of power and saw the Conservatives swept away.
Why they did so badly in 2005, was because Labour had that massive build up of votes that fell to them in 1997 and therefore only needed to be virtually level with the Conservatives to gain an overall majority.
Nothing to do with boundary changes.
The other factor to the 2005 election was that in 2 elections from losing in 1997, and 3 other leaders on from John Major, in that time, the Conservatives could only add less than 2% to the votes they got in a general election.
Rising from just under 31% in 1997 to just under 33% in 2005.

In a whoole 8 years they only added 2% at best to their votes won at the 1997 election.
That is why they failed to get over 200 seats in 2005,their failure to attract votes despite Labour's vote plummeting too to hust over 35%.
Theru votes going to the Lib Dems who were then able to make greater inroads to and take more Conservative seats.

AS for some on benefits not voting Labour, many went over to the Lib Dems and many vote Green too,I say that because I have been involved with people with benefit problems and when we get on to politics, I have been surprised how many do not vote Labour.
I don't have to prove anything to you just as we rarely get anything of substance to back up what you say which brings me to another point.

The state of the area you live in should be visited by all politicians of all parties I think, it seems from what you say, there are jobs a plenty,no one needs to be out of work, the jobs are good jobs and the only blight on the landscape is that near all who work in the NHS are useless and finally people on benefits when they needn't be, spoil things by voting Labour.

It seems,with all due respect from what you keep saying,all the answers to the the whole of the rest of the UK are there in your area,a separate state of Utopia almost.
Set apart from the rest of the UK, as all that goes on there is at odds with what most others find near everywhere else across all corners of the UK.

Finally,I also don't see what being Welsh has to do or should have to do with not getting to be PM of the UK.
Some of the finest politicians have come from Wales and held Welsh seats.

I agree with one thing you said, the Unions did need restraints put on them at the end of the 70s,no disagreement there.

However even as to that now, I think they need less restraints in the light of workers being exploited by short 16 hour weeks or less, and zero hour contracts.
Or do such part time jobs with low hours and zero hour contract jobs not exist too at all where you are.

The anti Kinnock tabloid campaign was horrific and his welshness his gingerness and his baldness were all used as huge weapons against him.
\that you've chosen to be offended by me saying that is a joke. this is the bigotry that existed and was allowed to be used against him at the time to ultimately destroy his chances of winning the election. \I think overall hed have done a good job. he messed up a few issues including the miners strike but ultimately he was a good man. unlike blair and his revolting new age kronies

[joeysteele]

[QUOTE=the truth;7660871]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

The anti Kinnock tabloid campaign was horrific and his welshness his gingerness and his baldness were all used as huge weapons against him.
\that you've chosen to be offended by me saying that is a joke. this is the bigotry that existed and was allowed to be used against him at the time to ultimately destroy his chances of winning the election. \I think overall hed have done a good job. he messed up a few issues including the miners strike but ultimately he was a good man. unlike blair and his revolting new age kronies

Wow, no disagreement with you at all there the truth ,I would, had I even been born then,(well, I just was when Neil Kinnock lost the 1992 election), taken Neil Kinnock any day over Tony Blair and his New Labour nonsense.
My Dad says Neil Kinnock and his wife Glenys got despicable attacks from the press, although my Dad was then a lifelong Conservative and wouldn't have supported Labour at that time.

[the truth]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;7660890]

Originally Posted by the truth

Wow, no disagreement with you at all there the truth ,I would, had I even been born then,(well, I just was when Neil Kinnock lost the 1992 election), taken Neil Kinnock any day over Tony Blair and his New Labour nonsense.
My Dad says Neil Kinnock and his wife Glenys got despicable attacks from the press, although my Dad was then a lifelong Conservative and wouldn't have supported Labour at that time.

labour were on track to be a proper decent honest socialist party at that time and with john smith. tragically he died and somehow that vile rat bliar was somehow allowed to get his filthy paws on the hands of power. first thing he did was try to ruin the unions further, he did nothing for the collapsed industries or deprived communities nor did he fight vat and the rich got richer the poor got poorer. the only people who hated new labour more than the tories was old labour.