Why is Ed Balls unliked and untrusted?

by blueturando Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:07 pm

First topic message reminder :

Ed Balls, The shadow chancellor is having diffiiculty being liked and trusted by much of the population, so much so that he has recently had a survey undertaken to find out why this is. Unfortunately Ed has probably not learnt his lessons from the Expenses scandal and the tax payer will fund his little poll under the guise of 'Research'.
Embarrassingly, Labour Party sources say the polling results show that Mr Balls is still seen as a turn-off by many, both politically and personally and similar polls have found that people think he is a bully, untrustworthy, unprincipled and opportunistic.
With all the cock ups from the Coalition, the Labour party should be streets ahead of the coalition on the economy, but the Tories still lead the way, if only by a small margin when pollsters are asked 'Who do you trust on the economy?'
So what do you think? I imagine the left leaning will defend him at all costs, but the majority do not agree with you.

by oftenwrong Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:16 am

Ecclesiasticus 44:1‐15
1 Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers that begat us.
2 The Lord hath wrought great glory by them
through his great power from the beginning.
3 Such as did bear rule in their kingdoms,
men renowned for their power,
giving counsel by their understanding, and declaring prophecies:
4 Leaders of the people by their counsels,
and by their knowledge of learning meet for the people,
wise and eloquent are their instructions:
5 Such as found out musical tunes, and recited verses in writing:
6 Rich men furnished with ability,
living peaceably in their habitations:
7 All these were honoured in their generations,
and were the glory of their times.

by betty.noire Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:42 am

Perfect example of biased moderation. All that is happening is that vulnerable people are forced out and the pushiest people dominate. What's needed is a moderator who moderates. But here I see moderators who think that because they are a moderator they can do what they like.

Shame really

If you wish to criticise the moderation of this forum, kindly do so in a personal message to a member of staff. Threads are for discussing issues, not making complaints. Ivan.

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:07 pm

Gosh, these touchy Tories are not anywhere near as good as taking it as they are at gleefuilly dishing it out....I wonder why that could be...? Very Happy

by Mel Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:43 pm

"vulnerable people are forced"

I shall forever be laughing at that comment Very Happy

Vulnerable people my arse!!!!

by Mel Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:55 pm

"civility is a two way street son. Get it right."

When you decide to show some, people might start to debate with you Land. The truth hurts, hence your nasty retalition.
Your eagerness to promote nastiness is very evident.

Sorry you are feeling left without much Tory comfort here on this forum. Rmember MSN where Tory prominence was rife? Now that those posters
have got what they wanted, a cruel disgusting Tory led lot, they put their heads in the sand. At least the labour posters did not shy away and leave the forum from the torrents of abuse and lies being put about on that forum by now invisible Tory supporters.

by oftenwrong Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:17 pm

Choosing a political party to support is not so much a question of selecting the best, as of avoiding the most toxic.

by betty.noire Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:09 pm

Mel wrote:"vulnerable people are forced"

I shall forever be laughing at that comment

Vulnerable people my arse!!!!

Probably slightly over egging it a bit Laughing

by astra Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:33 pm

Ivan 0801 hrs

Ivan, I am not in the least bothered about Ed Ball MP capabilities, and whether the country would be better off with him in fiscal control.

Why is ED Balls unliked and untrusted?

Because he is seen as a condescending smarmy git!

It is his PERSONALITY I cannot abide!

by oftenwrong Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:09 pm

That's you off his Christmas-card list then, astra.

by blueturando Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:41 pm

Perfect example of biased moderation. All that is happening is that vulnerable people are forced out and the pushiest people dominate. What's needed is a moderator who moderates. But here I see moderators who think that because they are a moderator they can do what they like.

Shame really

Betty hits the nail on the head, but few care about this valid point...totally ignored and back to the usual mud slinging

When somebody started a thread asking if Cameron is a moron, any Tory supporters could simply reply 'no', if that's their opinion. This thread is dishonest because it makes an assumption in its title. That's the difference, and why it's reminiscent of the tripe we used to get from brownboots1 at MSN and can do without here..

Yes Ivan. when you have a thread asking if Cameron is a moron it is reminiscent of the MSN board, but I am sure as usual these things only work one way for you and Mel

by Adele Carlyon Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:46 pm

So are you sticking around or shipping out lad?

by blueturando Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:49 pm

Im stubborn Adele.....and a sucker for punishment, so Im sticking around. Just had a couple of days break in case I said something I later regretted

Hope youre having a fabulous weekend

by astra Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:51 pm

Nice to see you around, Blue

by sickchip Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:03 pm

blue,

Why not try starting a thread asking Is Ed Miliband a cretin from another galaxy and make the opening post nothing but a spurious character assasination of Miliband........similar to Awful Truth's opening gambit on the Cameron 'moron' thread; and see what happens. Wink

by Adele Carlyon Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:15 pm

But it's not the same...Tis a statement of fact re Cameron, the answer is yes!! A big fat yes with sprinkles on! lol

Glad you're sticking around Blue. Smile

by Mel Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:44 am

Good news you are hanging on in here blue. The forum would not be quite the same without you. cheers

by sickchip Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:13 am

I couldn't agree more.

by bobby Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:39 am

tlttf. Hello Landy mate, I wonder what would happen if I mentioned a certain Benito Mussolini , would the thread I posted on be under threat of closure, thereby forcing me to post the same thing on another thread, then would I be threatened with moderation sanctions like a ban.

I mention Mussolini as he was an evil Fascist National leader, famed and cursed for many unsavoury deeds, but prior to him becoming a megalomaniac he was a good and able Leader and did much good in Italy. The same surely could be said of Enoch Powell other than he wasn’t a Leader. Yes he did give his famous Rivers of Blood speech, which to a degree proved to be right, but he also did much more, like he was on the committee that opened employment exchanges in the West Indies which in fact bought over many of our ethnic minorities, surely that wasn’t an act of racism but of necessity to rebuild Britain after the war.

You and Blue are both correct, it seems that the moderation on this forum goes to far, and is now stifling free speech and different thoughts than those of a few. I chose to leave for that very reason, nothing to do with sick chip, he hasn’t got that much power. I received some personal messages from people I have made virtual friendships with and came back, also why should I leave, surely its better to stay and bring a bit of reason to what was when started an extremely good forum.

We were even told how approaches where made to some more influential people with the aim of improving the quality of the forum, well what does that say about us who where here at the beginning.

Incidentaly Landy, when did you mention anything to do with racism.

by sickchip Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:05 am

I chose to leave for that very reason, nothing to do with sick chip

Pleased to hear that, bobby - especially since I thought you were leaving in anger because of our squabble. Glad you're back.

And I agree entirely with what you say.

by bobby Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:09 am

As I said sickchip, it was purely to do with moderation, and what was said after our spat.

Thanks for the greeting.

by tlttf Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:19 am

Thanks for that bobby and sickchip, I know we disagree on politics, however I always think it's good to have opposing views aired, there are even times when my views have been changed or moderated by certain posters (sickie). I'm forever accused of supporting this coalition (most seem to think it's a torie government). The truth is they've done nothing different to manage the country that labour wouldn't have done if they'd have retained power and I despair that people don't see it as a club for the boys (regardless of their political persuasion). Millionaires (or wannabes)that believe there point of view is valid and final.

As anybody knows my politics are more right wing than the governments and I believe everybody should be able to start life with the same opportunities, those that go on to make good should where possible help those that are unable to help themselves. They shouldn't however have to help those that choose a way of life dependent on the charity of the working man/woman. When CEO's are paid £millions to run a company, it should be remembered they are not all seeing gods, simply employees that should be paid accordingly (sickchips view). However if they start their own company and do well they have the right to do as they wish with their funds. I don't think tha'ts particularly extremist in it's view, though some may object.

Thanks, end of rant!!

by oftenwrong Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:51 pm

".... if they start their own company and do well they have the right to do as they wish with their funds. I don't think tha'ts particularly extremist in it's view, though some may object."

Thank you for that little nugget explaining the Tory view of Business, distilled to its essence, landy.

All too often the Managing Director thinks all the money in the Company is HIS, and resents having to pay taxes, decent wages or provide safe working conditions out of it. He will pay the premiums for his own Pension, and Private Health Care, but squeaks like a porker when National Insurance has to be paid.

by tlttf Sun Jun 17, 2012 1:41 pm

Bloody hell were in agreement again OW, surely this can't go on? Smile

by **Phil Hornby** Sun Jun 17, 2012 1:44 pm

And just as we thought the Tory/ LibDem Coalition was as bad as it gets..! Very Happy

by **Ivan** Sun Jun 17, 2012 2:00 pm

I wonder what would happen if I mentioned a certain Benito Mussolini

If you started a thread praising Mussolini as the greatest dictator that the UK never had, it would be deleted. This forum is not for the promotion of either racism or fascism, and that must be obvious to anyone who isn't here with the sole intention of making trouble.

by **Ivan** Sun Jun 17, 2012 2:05 pm

The truth is they've done nothing different to manage the country that Labour wouldn't have done if they'd have retained power

tlttf. When you post something that resembles the truth, it will make the national news bulletins.

The truth is that this country was out of recession when this Tory-dominated government came to power. The truth is also that Labour had no intention of privatising the NHS and much of state education while destroying the welfare state.

by **Ivan** Sun Jun 17, 2012 2:22 pm

Fat Ed.

tlttf. LOL. I assume that's a reference to Ed Balls, who ran the London Marathon this year for charity. Not bad for a fatty, eh? More than either Eric Pickles or Nicholas Soames ever could or would do, even though I don't suppose they're 'fat' in your warped view of the world.

by oftenwrong Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:33 pm

tlttf wrote:Bloody hell were in agreement again OW, surely this can't go on?

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. pig

by Adele Carlyon Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:43 pm

But the Chancellor's credibility has suffered a battering in recent months, amid escalating protests from left and right over his insistence that deep spending cuts are the best way to rescue the UK from double-dip recession. The shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, is now far ahead in the popularity vote when interviewees are asked who they would prefer to see in charge of the UK economy.

Taken from here...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/osborne-the-peoples-damning-verdict-7856645.html

Gideon really should retire to his dungeon, miss whiplash is waiting to nail his balls to the dart board with her 6 inch heels!

by Mel Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:48 am

Land Quote "As anybody knows my politics are more right wing than the governments"
Now that is the very reason posters here are naturally left under the impression that you are a Tory supporter. The way in which every one of your posts condemn Labour and more so it's supporters here, coupled with the snide remarks, you are blatently trouble making and enjoying it.
Of course you squeal when you are pulled over the coals having knowingly put yourself in a mode that could require Moderation.

Whilst claiming not to support the Tory party, you have (following pressure) confessed that you voted for them at the last election in a post some time ago.
Taking all of that into consideration, you continue to slag off members of the Labour party as you did at every quarter with Brown when Labour was in power, with little or no condemnation of this rotten egg of your so called "Coalition" which as you know full well is 90% Tory dominated.
You of course like others are entitled to your political opinions, however do try to keep to the politics and instead of the troublemaking. Thanks.

by trevorw2539 Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:00 am

Mel. quote

You of course like others are entitled to your political opinions, however do try to keep to the politics and instead of the troublemaking. Thanks.

I belong to the Politically Religious Atheistic Theological Society - commonly known as P.R.A.T.S.
Our views are generally contentious, according to your particular views, and are intended to provoke much 'ardent' discussion. Politically we are on the far left, or far right, depending on which is relevant at the time of the discussion. We've even been known to travel the middle path Embarassed

Religion and athiesm is a speciality. Most of our members think there might be a 'God'. That, of course, takes in agnosticism.

Of course, our views change when necessary to provoke. We never insult posters, though view them all with suspicion.

The point is: Are we welcome here? Laughing

by bobby Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:11 am

Yes i've got nothing against Liverpool suporters, Very Happy

by trevorw2539 Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:36 am

bobby wrote:Yes i've got nothing against Liverpool suporters,

Great. Now where can I cause the greatest dissent. Wink

by tlttf Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:56 pm

Mel wrote:Land Quote "As anybody knows my politics are more right wing than the governments"
Now that is the very reason posters here are naturally left under the impression that you are a Tory supporter. The way in which every one of your posts condemn Labour and more so it's supporters here, coupled with the snide remarks, you are blatently trouble making and enjoying it.
Of course you squeal when you are pulled over the coals having knowingly put yourself in a mode that could require Moderation.

Whilst claiming not to support the Tory party, you have (following pressure) confessed that you voted for them at the last election in a post some time ago.
Taking all of that into consideration, you continue to slag off members of the Labour party as you did at every quarter with Brown when Labour was in power, with little or no condemnation of this rotten egg of your so called "Coalition" which as you know full well is 90% Tory dominated.
You of course like others are entitled to your political opinions, however do try to keep to the politics and instead of the troublemaking. Thanks.

Melly it really worries me that somebody with your strange thinking process was actually in control of working people. You were (prior to leaving) obviously a micromanager who made decisions by committee. The one good thing you manage to highlight is your need for control and power. Thankfully there are some on this forum that are not so obsessed with troublemaking as yourself. Thanks Suspect

by tlttf Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:58 pm

Back to the thread. Balls unliked because he was part of the original problem in killing the ambition of the working man/woman.

by trevorw2539 Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:05 pm

tlttf wrote:Back to the thread. Balls unliked because he was part of the original problem in killing the ambition of the working man/woman.

I'm not getting involved. Just a thought. My father used to say that was Margaret Thatcher's principle - stuff the working man. He never would refer to her by name, and heaven help anyone who swore - oops - mentioned her name. Just thought I'd mention it. Rolling Eyes

by oftenwrong Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:51 pm

tlttf wrote:Back to the thread. Balls unliked because he was part of the original problem in killing the ambition of the working man/woman.

errr.... The person responsible for emasculating the working man, Landy, did not actually possess any balls.

Edward Michael Balls was only just out of short trousers when Maggy slashed and burned her way across Britain's Industrial landscape.

But by all means think of it differently if it pleases you.

by betty.noire Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm

A recent poll by Ipsos MORO put Mr Balls ahead of Mr Osbourne by 8%. They were on level pegging in March, the result of a fairly dire budget with a series of humiliating U-turns

However, that said , I remain unconvinced by Mr Balls populist measures, levies on bankers bonuses, a temporary VAT reduction in order to reduce consumption.

by bobby Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:52 pm

Sorry Betty.Black , but the idea of reducing VAT is to increase consumption not reduce it. It is due to a reduction in consumtion because of reduced earnings that we now enjoy yet another Tory made recession and a double dipp recession to boot.

by trevorw2539 Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:50 pm

bobby wrote:Sorry Betty.Black , but the idea of reducing VAT is to increase consumption not reduce it. It is due to a reduction in consumtion because of reduced earnings that we now enjoy yet another Tory made recession and a double dipp recession to boot.

I really wonder if a VAT reduction would do a lot to help at the moment. It seems to me that it would have to be a substantial reduction to induce people to spend more than is either necessary, of possible, with the reduction in the value of the pound due to price increases. A reduction of even 5% would really be of very little interest, surely, when other bills are increasing by + 8-10%. It would certainly not push prices of larger items down by 5% as traders would absorb some of it in their profit margins.
Under normal circumstances I would agree that a VAT decrease helps, but with current conditions of rising prices and a decrease in the public's purchasing power I wonder. £15 off a £300 TV that I would like is not incentive enough to buy it. Not with increases in Utility Bills, food and clothing. Oh and the increase in August of duty on Petrol.

A substantial VAT decrease means less Revenue unless increased sales compensate. But then, you know that. And I am not an economist scratch

by betty.noire Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:56 pm

bobby wrote:Sorry Betty.Black , but the idea of reducing VAT is to increase consumption not reduce it. It is due to a reduction in consumtion because of reduced earnings that we now enjoy yet another Tory made recession and a double dipp recession to boot.

Opps, sorry typo on my part, over tired I'm afraid Embarassed

by Sponsored content