The left wing do like to have their cake and eat it.
Ironically, when a slice of that cake is taken away, they don't like it.
For instance, David Cameron was overheard saying how "Fanatically corrupt" Nigeria, and Afghanistan are.
The left are reveling at Cameron's words, and are even trying to compare the corruption of the Tory party with these two countries. I am aghast I tell you, aghast.
Firstly, yes the Tory party is corrupted, then again so is the Labour Party, the Lib Dems, The Greens, UKIP, SNP etc, if anyone can find me a main political party that isn't corrupt then you are better than Houdini.
Secondly, after years of preaching, it turns out Emma Watson, poster girl for feminism, has been named on the Panama papers for having an offshore account.
Not a peep from those on the left, however, imagine it was Gary Barlow, who once campaigned for the Conservatives, who was named, the left would shouting from the roof tops! But not for one of their own.
Talk like a socialist, live like a capitalist.
Wednesday, 11 May 2016
Friday, 6 May 2016
Remarkable Ruth!
What a leader Ruth Davidson is!
Firstly, she has put Labour into third place, also she managed to stop the SNP from getting an majority, and she is now the official leader of the opposition in Holyrood.
How did she do so well?
She's passionate, she's intelligent, she doesn't use political jargon, she tells it how it is, she is a conviction politician.
Ruth Davidson doesn't take votes for granted, nor does she suffer fools easily, and if there's one thing Nicola Sturgeon didn't want was Davidson lead Tory opposition.
However, the main issue for the Tories is now London, and Zac Goldsmith's pathetic, and rather half arsed campaign.
Firstly, did he ever show any passion? I don't believe he did.
Did he ever show any character? No, and to be fair to Sadiq Khan, he has slightly more personality, and whether people like it or not, a lot of votes do come down to personality, just look at Boris, did people listen to what he had to say, or did they like his personality? I think the latter wins.
Boris Johnson, Ruth Davidson, and even Sadiq Khan, all have a voice, and they want you to hear them, Goldsmith was quiet, shy, and looked like nervous every time he was asked a question, or put to challenge.
Lastly, towards the end of the campaign, the left were able to label him Islamaphobic, not a good look when you're wanting to run England's capital, where 12.4% of the population are Muslim.
However, I think we all knew deep down Zac was never going to win, and Corbyn was never going to bring the "5 million voters."
UKIP's surge in Wales should be a stark warning to them, they're slowly but surely losing the faith of what should be Labour heartlands.
Labour should be asking themselves where they're going wrong, but they won't, they'll do what they've always done, stick their heads in the sand, and hope it all blows over.
Firstly, she has put Labour into third place, also she managed to stop the SNP from getting an majority, and she is now the official leader of the opposition in Holyrood.
How did she do so well?
She's passionate, she's intelligent, she doesn't use political jargon, she tells it how it is, she is a conviction politician.
Ruth Davidson doesn't take votes for granted, nor does she suffer fools easily, and if there's one thing Nicola Sturgeon didn't want was Davidson lead Tory opposition.
However, the main issue for the Tories is now London, and Zac Goldsmith's pathetic, and rather half arsed campaign.
Firstly, did he ever show any passion? I don't believe he did.
Did he ever show any character? No, and to be fair to Sadiq Khan, he has slightly more personality, and whether people like it or not, a lot of votes do come down to personality, just look at Boris, did people listen to what he had to say, or did they like his personality? I think the latter wins.
Boris Johnson, Ruth Davidson, and even Sadiq Khan, all have a voice, and they want you to hear them, Goldsmith was quiet, shy, and looked like nervous every time he was asked a question, or put to challenge.
Lastly, towards the end of the campaign, the left were able to label him Islamaphobic, not a good look when you're wanting to run England's capital, where 12.4% of the population are Muslim.
However, I think we all knew deep down Zac was never going to win, and Corbyn was never going to bring the "5 million voters."
UKIP's surge in Wales should be a stark warning to them, they're slowly but surely losing the faith of what should be Labour heartlands.
Labour should be asking themselves where they're going wrong, but they won't, they'll do what they've always done, stick their heads in the sand, and hope it all blows over.
Sunday, 1 May 2016
Labour's Playing A Dangerous Game Of Denial
To deny that Labour has an anti-semitic problem is in itself a major problem, because you'll never effectively eradicate the problem.
For those who are in denial here's a few pointers as to why you do have a huge problem within Labour:
1. Naz Shah saying that Jews should be "transported" as a "solution."
2. Ken Livingstone claiming "Hitler was a zionist." is not only ignorant, but extremely disrespectful to the Jewish people who suffered at the hands of this megalomaniac
3. The NUS having a debate about whether they should recognise the Holocaust or not........ just wow!
4. The leader himself in talks with Hamas, and Hizbollah, who are not only anti-semitic, but sexist, and homophobic.
5. Ken Livingstone accusing a Jewish journalist of being a "German Camp guard criminal."
However, it's quite obvious that the Labour leader, if not agrees with the anti-semitic views, he definitely empathises with them.
Firstly it took 5 hours to suspend Ken Livingstone, why did it take that long?
Secondly, Ken and Jeremy have been friends for decades, I'm pretty sure that Ken expressing these anti-Semitic views didn't come as a huge shock to Jeremy.
Thirdly, Jeremy still appointed Ken as a member of the Nation Executive Committee, knowing that Ken held these views.
Anti-Semitism is a real, huge problem within the Labour party, a problem that laid dormant for many years, but has sadly started to raise it's ugly head again.
To deny this problem is dangerous, to tackle it head on would be the best plan of action, but sadly Labour are doing what they've always done, and are burying their heads in the sand.
For those who are in denial here's a few pointers as to why you do have a huge problem within Labour:
1. Naz Shah saying that Jews should be "transported" as a "solution."
2. Ken Livingstone claiming "Hitler was a zionist." is not only ignorant, but extremely disrespectful to the Jewish people who suffered at the hands of this megalomaniac
3. The NUS having a debate about whether they should recognise the Holocaust or not........ just wow!
4. The leader himself in talks with Hamas, and Hizbollah, who are not only anti-semitic, but sexist, and homophobic.
5. Ken Livingstone accusing a Jewish journalist of being a "German Camp guard criminal."
However, it's quite obvious that the Labour leader, if not agrees with the anti-semitic views, he definitely empathises with them.
Firstly it took 5 hours to suspend Ken Livingstone, why did it take that long?
Secondly, Ken and Jeremy have been friends for decades, I'm pretty sure that Ken expressing these anti-Semitic views didn't come as a huge shock to Jeremy.
Thirdly, Jeremy still appointed Ken as a member of the Nation Executive Committee, knowing that Ken held these views.
Anti-Semitism is a real, huge problem within the Labour party, a problem that laid dormant for many years, but has sadly started to raise it's ugly head again.
To deny this problem is dangerous, to tackle it head on would be the best plan of action, but sadly Labour are doing what they've always done, and are burying their heads in the sand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)