Friday, December 08, 2006
ELDERSLIE BY ELECTION
Labour have held Elderslie with a greatly reduced majority, despite all the squalid SNP ( who stand for nothing ) bragging they have failed again. The Gnats stank the place out again with their tactics and for that reason alone they deserved to lose, they are quite shameful and can't see a belt without trying to hit below it, they bring shame on Scots everywhere. So we have sent them homeward to stink again. Oh and the SSP, or was it Solidarity ( it's confusing when thieves fall out ) got 50 votes, the revolution isn't quite here yet it seems. The reviled Tories ( who stand for something ) beat the awful Lib. Dems. ( who stand for nothing ) but most importantly we won and youse didnae !
Posted by Cllr Terry Kelly at Friday, December 08, 2006
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
"but most importantly we won and youse didnae !"
So what you are saying is that you want power for power's sake? I mean, you have told us that the SNP and LDs stand for nothing and that the Tories stand for something but you are strangely silent on which camp Labour fall into.
Out of curiousity will you be standing int he STV elections next year?
I take it that you have given up trying to defend the gay bashing SNP - imagine being gay and English in your Scotland - The country could have such fun persecuting these minorities and then move on to other non Scots - lest we forget, the homophobic bigots of BYU are still dealing officially, with your party, the SNP that's a scandal which you are running away from, that's shameful, and an affront to decent Scots everywhere.
wdxaptuQ1 - No, I want power because without it etc etc - I know You like these games and I'm sure you know perfectly well what was meant by my comments but, at the risk of sounding rather obvious I'll leave you to do what you usually do ' make it snappy, make it nasty and make it up ' you must try harder !
As a Socialist who believes in equality, peace and the redistribution of wealth, why do you represent a party that is in no way Socialist, that does not believe in equality of opportunity, that has invaded two countries (one illegally)and has done little, or more honestly, nothing to redistribute wealth in this country.
You oppose discrimination, and that is a noble stand indeed, sir, but why do you represent a party that has Ruth Kelly as a Minister For Equality but has consistently abstained from gay rights legislation.
Reactionary Snob - thank you for that brilliant political analysis I've just realised I've been in the wrong party for 35 yrs. Send me a form for your party and I'll consider joining.
Ho ho ho. I'm serious though although my tongue was firmly wedged in my cheek. I've seen how you dodge and jump about on issues - can you answer the following questions?
1) As someone who is anti-discrimination, and as I say this is a noble aim, do you back Ruth Kelly's appointment as Minister for Equality? You bash the Nats for their stance on certain homosexual rights. Where do you stand on Ruth Kelly's 12 abstentions on gay rights legislation?
2)Have university top-up fees a) helped the poorest people in society go to university or b) because of the fear of debt that people from lower socio-economic groups have put people off? I'd be interested to know if you supported them.
3)The Chanecellor has admitted that he cares more about wealth creation than wealth resdistribution? Do you support him? Do you believe they are the same thing? What do you think of the inequality in this country? What do you think of Labour's record on this after 9 years?
4) What do you think about the War in Iraq? Were you for it?
I think you probably were against top-up fees, abhore Ruth Kelly's views, were against the war and would prefer the Chancellor to focus on inequality. If so, what about the current Labour party do you believe?
Ah Terry. I asked "Out of curiousity will you be standing int he STV elections next year?"
Its a simple and civilsed question. The SNp does not 'Gay-Bash and is not anti-English. We're also tolernat of those from all religious backgrounds. Like Mormons.
I just see no point in trying to engage you in any sort of meaningful debate as your only repsonse to any question asked of you is to accuse people of being things that they are not, while not answering the question put to you.
You also don`t put up comments which are put to you for you own purposes.
I feel very sorry for your constituents if this is the level you behave at in the Council.
Another quick question for you, trident. Cllr Ewan Aitken here in Edinburgh is against, as is Malcolm Chishol a Labour MSP. Where do you stand? Simple question for which I`ll hope you`ll answer rather than resort to name calling.
Why should I tell you if I'm standing ? the SNP are anti gay and anti English so where does that leave us ? I never said anything about any individual Mormon, I highlighted the scandal of your party's links to the homophobic BYU which is Mormon you have chosen again to run away from this, do you not think that this is becoming a bit sterile, you are now reduced to whinging because you can't address the points.I sometimes don't put up comments, mainly because they are anonymous and abusive I've never made a secret of that. Let me reciprocate by sympathising with anyone who has you as a representative, if you concentrate hard you might spot that I'm answering you in kind ! Your quick question, Trident - against. One for you, is there not one SNP member who favours Trident? if there is why have we not heard about them, my views are well known on this.
Reactionary Snob-how I've missed you, read some of the dross I get sent. How dare you accuse me of dodging and jumping around, any dodging and jumping which you think you've seen is merely me advancing in a different direction.
Q1 - Ruth Kelly is one of the most able ministers in the house, a genuine intellectual. Her deep religious convictions clearly guide her stance on gay rights, which in my opinion makes her position in a Socialist party untenable.
Q2 - I didn't support the present method, I think we have university funding wrong but it pleases me to reflect on the numbers of working class kids who now attend Uni. I grew up in a time (1950's )when it was almost unheard of but there is lots more to do.
Q3 - There is great wealth in this country 'beyond the dreams of avarice' I would do more on redistribution without ignoring wealth creation. The inequality is terrible, obscene wealth and obscene poverty are cheek by jowel, that's uncivilised. Labour after 9 years ? a curate's egg, lots more to be done, but I doubt if you would like my remedy.
Q4 - Iraq ? are you having a laugh ?
I believe that our society stinks and I also believe that it must change and become socialist, if there is another way of doing this other than the Labour Party I am not aware of it - I will therefore continue with the struggle.
I don't agree with you on much of this as it happens, but at least you've got the cojones to put your money where mouth is.
If Ruth Kelly is an intellectual with deeply held (anti-gay) religious convictions, why is that forgivable in your world? The SNP and the LibDems (and ultimately Labour once someone had sat on Tom McCabe and Jack McConnell) stood shoulder to shoulder in the Scottish Parliament in repealing clause 28. Where do you get the gall to call the SNP anti-gay?
But Davie's right, why bother engaging in debate, when it's easier to smear?
Bob - stop squirming, you are the latest in a long line of SNP apologists who refuses to address your party's scandalous official dealings with the bigots of Brigham Young University, who stand accused in a Scottish Parliamentary Motion of driving gay students to commit suicide. I can only conclude that like the others in your party you are running away from it. Where do you lot get the gall to ask decent Scots to vote for a party with these official sinister links.
Post a Comment