Monuments to Stupidity

[Onlyforfun]

1- Can't remember which one and can't be bothered to look it up, but it was either Hazel Blears or Harriet Harman who is campaigning for the Labour deputy leadership and promised to "increase the number of minority MP's by 4 times at least".

Sorry love, but only the electorate can do that. and the polling booth is the one place we can make our choice in private without fear of being accused of rascism, sexism, gayism etc. :ermmm

2- Med Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire wants to bring back hidden speed cameras usin the analogy that "I might put up Neighbourhood Watch signs but I don’t tell burglars when I am specifically running an anticrime operation.”

Shouldn't the police be mounting a constant anti-crime operation? Maybe if they caught a few burglars the public would trust them on speeding. :ermmm

3- Gordon Browns tax and spend is in trouble so is now asking HMRC to get tough on taxes and extending the tax net at every opportunity.

Out of many examples of madness, I was most surprised to see that they are now chasing married couples who run a small business and use both their tax allowances to "avoid tax" (remember tax is OUR money Gordon, not yours) and pay themselves dividends rather than salaries to avoid the 40% top rate. On the other hand the Private Equity boys have managed to negotiate a special 10% tax rate on their multi-billion pound profits. And raising corporation tax on small businesses to fund a cut on large businesses?

Whatever you thought of Thatcher, at least she understood that small businesses were the backbone of the nations financial health. :ermmm

4- Warning labels on booze. Not content with having every building have at minimum on the outside; CCTV warning sign, smoking policy sign, disabled access sign and on the inside; fire door signs, emergency exit signs, more no-smoking signs, health and safety signs, our dear leaders now think that increasing the warning labels on booze will somehow stop people drinking???

Frankly, if anyone doesn't know the health dangers of drinking, smoking, unprotected sex, not exercising or whatever by now I don't think labels are going to help. And to especially target the "middle class wine drinker" who after busting a gut for 12 hours in the office, enduring a crowded commute to pay for the bloated "public services" shares a bottle of wine with his / her partner of an evening is taking the piss.

This at the same time we are warned of a pensions "timebomb" because we are all living too long. Cut duty on booze and fags to a level where it pays for the NHS cost of treating the effects and leave us to get on with our lives you b:censored: s. :ermmm

[Win2Win]

Out of many examples of madness, I was most surprised to see that they are now chasing married couples who run a small business and use both their tax allowances to "avoid tax" (remember tax is OUR money Gordon, not yours) and pay themselves dividends rather than salaries to avoid the 40% top rate. On the other hand the Private Equity boys have managed to negotiate a special 10% tax rate on their multi-billion pound profits. And raising corporation tax on small businesses to fund a cut on large businesses?
Agree....he's even looking at taking PAYE out of dividends now.....::hump the small guy...keep the big :icon_tong happy ;fire

[Jonny2621]

1-
Whatever you thought of Thatcher, at least she understood that small businesses were the backbone of the nations financial health. :ermmm

This feckless mob have made it harder to start and run a small business than ever before, more taxes, more regulations, more red-tape, more pension rules, more restrictions, more costs

They don't have a blooming clue :ARsurrend

As long as you keep your Private Equity boys happy and paying less than 10%tax Gordon, you're a disgrace ;fire

[BULL1DOG]

Funny thing I have yet to meet anyone who voted for this lot (or admits to it )

Next time

None of the above?

[Win2Win]

I voted for them :doh ....so did TH....and numerous others on here who constantly say so......I needed Labour in last time, as I didn't trust the bloody Tories handling the betting exchange tax.

[Onlyforfun]

5- Some bint on BBC Breakfast talking about the Big Brother "racism" incident. She accused Ch4 of showing the footage to cynically generate interest and ratings. Shortly afterwards we had the usual "in my forthcoming book about Big Brother".

All stones should be kept away from stupid people in glass houses. :ermmm

6- Possible slightly obscure for some, but the London Metal Exchange has changed it's rules on Nickel lending. Basically because people have sold metal they didn't own and can't afford to buy the physical stuff to deliver, the LME has stepped in to help them by forcing anyone who owns over 25% of physical stock in LME approved warehouses MUST lend it to the market.

So lending rates plummet from $100/tonne to $20 tonne and the price drops 5%. Yet again the clever investor who spots a future supply / demand divergence and places himself and his investments to profit has his profit stolen by the authorities to help out those with less foresight.

And the promise and precedent of intervention will obviously ensure the loser is more careful in future? :ermmm

[Win2Win]

PMT week OFF? :D

[piggy]

OFF i don't really mind you spouting your tory drivel as some of it actually makes a point but what really hacks me off is your continual reference to witch thatcher as if she was some kind of goddess.
"Whatever you thought of Thatcher, at least she understood that small businesses were the backbone of the nations financial health." :yikes: so thats why more small buisnesses went under per annum during her "reign" than any government before or after , i know iv'e said it before but boom bust economy, mass unemployment, highest interest rates in history, the poll tax, the miners strike etc etc :ermmm i lived and suffered through the thatcher years so don't quote them as a good time for this country.

[pilky201]

All Maggie Thatcher did for me was to send me to the Falkland Islands to fight a silly war over a piece of scabby land and a bit of fishing water. I ended up drinking horrible elephant lager in the rose and crown in Port Stanley picking up litter and penquins and freezing my nuts off. I also bought a Betamax video recorder (some of the older folk on here might remember those). When i flew back into RAF Brize Norton 4 months later the damn things had been taken out of circulation. Bless Her:ooo:rolleyes:

[Win2Win]

Lucky you weren't on HMS Sheffield watching low flying French missiles coming in :ermmm

[pilky201]

Sir Galahad took alot of casulties and Simon Westons book called moving on will tell you more about the war than i know

[Onlyforfun]

Piggy, I too lived through the Thatcher years and ultimately they were good for me, laying the foundations of a free market economy and the dominance of London as a Financial Centre. So I get to work in an interesting job, in a good environment for good pay, rather than working in a mine or steelworks or similar.

More small businesses went under becuae there was a massive increase in the start up of small businesses due to deregulation and inevitably many go bust, many due to interest rate rises required by teh high budget deficit to subsidise unsustainable heavy industry.

As for boom and bust having gone away, watch this space, it is merely that the current government are presiding over a huge credit inflation to postpone the INEVITABLE bust, with the probable result that it will be the worst since the 1920's (you probably think that was Thatchers fault aswell :ermmm)

And if you don't like what I write, you are welcome not to read it.

[sparkyminer]

by teh high budget deficit to subsidise unsustainable heavy industry.


Rubbish. The high budget deficit was to pay for all the dole, social security et al of everyone she put on the dole.

[tophatter]

OFF, sometimes you forget that Lady Thatcher had to be dragged kicking and screaming from power by her own party because her time was done. Even now they know that times have a changed and now say and do everything the very opposite of what she did because they know that is the only way they will taste power again.

In the last two elections, after the Major defeat, they had one last try at reviving the old Thatcherite agenda. They first tried doing it with a youthful Thatcherite in WIlliam Hague and he and his policies were roundly laughed off the stage by the electorate. They then tried put in an old style Thatcherite, firstly in Iain Duncan Smith and then Michael Howard. Despite the fact we had a Labour Prime Minister trying to secure an unheard of 3rd term against a backdrop of a hugely unpopular foreign policy the right wing old school rhetoric of Howard only served to hold up the conservative vote, not advance it, and I think they increased the share of the vote by about 1%.

They now have a very different kind of rhetoric and leader but that is because they know the game is up. The only thing that links him to the conservative party is the fact he went to Eton and has stuffed his shadow cabinet full of ex schoolmates. The rhetoric has been taken from Blair and progressive social Democrats and that is the only way that mob is going to get in. The battle has been waged, the country was once too far to the left, then it lurched to the right and now it is somewhere in between. He has already said he wants to be the heir to Blair so those who have spent the past 10 years complaining about the way things are had better get used to it as this bloke has no policies of his own and so the status quo will continue if he manages to create enough apathy in the country to get elected.

It isnt us lefties who have rejected and killed off Thatcherism, as there were never enough of us to do that. It is the businessmen, the home owners, the middle class and the Conservative party that have done that. All Blair did was take the gap between right and left that was so obviously there. YOu cant expect the Labour party to give it back, the Tories have no one to blame except themselves.

I wont even go into the reasons why I think Thatcherism ultimaltey failed becuase events since have confirmed it was only ever a transition period and that while she was certainly a radicaliser she was ultimatley a one trick pony and so entrenched with dogma when circumstances dictated a change she was found wanting. She got away with it the first couple of times due to weak opposition and political sleight of hands but she was roundly rumbled the third time in the late 80's/1990.

Finaly Im sure Dave Cameron has only appointed an ex editor of the News of the world to his team for his political expertise and not as a spin doctor, because heaven forebid, even an ex Tv Advertising sale rep like Cameron, realises one of the major charges agianst Blair was he was too fond of spin, or could it just be this is another aspect of blair he is apeing?

[bigcumba]

Piggy, I too lived through the Thatcher years and ultimately they were good for me,

That sums up the whole Thatcher era ... I'm alright, :censored: the rest of you....

[sparkyminer]

so the status quo will continue if he manages to create enough apathy in the country to get elected.



Unfortunately I fear not TH, unlike Tony Blair who was able to keep the far left at bay. I don't think Cameron will be able to or even want to keep the far right away.:)

[tophatter]

Hope you are right Sparky, because if you are correct that means he wont win the next election.

What the right dont realise is they lost because their policies were wrong for the world we now live in. Cameron is dead right when says everytime his party looks back they are damaging themselves. I actually believe he is sincere in this belief because it is so obvious. How he deals with the right wing space cadets in his party is his problem, if he is as good a reformist as Blair and as good a political strategist he has a chance, if he is all mouth and no trousers he will fail.

[tophatter]

1- Can't remember which one and can't be bothered to look it up, but it was either Hazel Blears or Harriet Harman who is campaigning for the Labour deputy leadership and promised to "increase the number of minority MP's by 4 times at least".

I had a little search on google trying to help you out by finding out OFF. Unfortunatley when I typed in a search looking for such I was flooded with results from The conservative party and the leading one was actually from their own propagandasite (sorry i mean website) and included the following quote



Until we're represented by men and women in the country, regardless of race or creed, we won't be half the party we could be.

My plan for positive action is based on clear principles. Guaranteeing more women and ethnic minorities are selected in winnable seats.

Ensuring that someone's potential to be a good MP is the only factor that counts in being selected as a parliamentary candidate. And preserving the autonomy that constituencies have to select the candidate that is best for them.

So today I am announcing five decisive steps that will increase dramatically the number of women, and black and minority ethnic Conservative MPs.

First, and with immediate effect, I am today freezing all candidate selections.

No more candidates will be selected until we have established a system that guarantees increased diversity, fairness and meritocracy.

Second, we will draw up a priority list of our best and brightest candidates from the existing candidates list and from new recruits.

The priority list will be representative of Britain today…

… at least half the people on it will be women…

… and it will include a significant proportion of people with disabilities, and from black and minority ethnic communities.

I want to make it clear that "brightest and best" does not mean youngest and most metropolitan.

The priority list will welcome women of all ages and backgrounds…

…the fifty-three year-old whose children have just left home, as well as the thirty-three year old who has yet to start a family.

The priority list will be drawn up by the Party Board's Committee on Candidates

---------------------------------

So the querstion has to be asked, is it a monument to stupidity to take action to increase representation of hithertoo under representated members of the population in our parliament, or a plain piece of sensible party politics. Dont forget that the Debuty Labour leadershiop contest is to be deputy leader of the labour party and as such to help that party progress, it is not to be confused with trying to win a general election.

[Win2Win]

It could be worse....we could of had Bush :yikes:

[piggy]

Piggy, I too lived through the Thatcher years and ultimately they were good for me, laying the foundations of a free market economy and the dominance of London as a Financial Centre. So I get to work in an interesting job, in a good environment for good pay, rather than working in a mine or steelworks or similar.

More small businesses went under becuae there was a massive increase in the start up of small businesses due to deregulation and inevitably many go bust, many due to interest rate rises required by teh high budget deficit to subsidise unsustainable heavy industry.

As for boom and bust having gone away, watch this space, it is merely that the current government are presiding over a huge credit inflation to postpone the INEVITABLE bust, with the probable result that it will be the worst since the 1920's (you probably think that was Thatchers fault aswell :ermmm)

And if you don't like what I write, you are welcome not to read it.

i like political debate, i enjoy it very much and i believe it is my duty to tell the truth about thatcherism so the younger members on here that maybe don't know the real truth are not mislead by rhetoric that is based on falsehoods. i myself am a bit of a dinosaur, a real socialist the sort that the labour party doesn't want anymore with core beliefs like equality for all, freedom of all, i might not like what you say but i would fight for your right to say it, in my time i have been a shop steward and ended up on a right wing employment blacklist, i was a leading light in the anti poll tax movement and travelled all over the north lecturing on how to keep the baillifs out, my phone was tapped and during the second poll tax march i ws followed by plains clothed police who filmed me all day, if i tell you that at the so called poll tax riot a 74 yo lady told me she heard two policeman chatting and one said when does the trouble start, at the second poll tax march when we where in hyde park listening to speeches a group of long haired yobs started shouting abuse and throwing bottles a group of us went over to try and quite them down and in the ensuing melee a couple of wigs came off and they then legged it to our chants od bye bye specials, of course you probably won't believe a word of this but thre thatcher years to me mean 16% interest that was the final nail in the coffin of MY small buissness, being blacklisted so i couldn't get a mainstream job, being followed, filmed and listened into just because i protested against something i beliueved to be unfair.

[mathare]

And if you don't like what I write, you are welcome not to read it.Is he not also welcome to disgaree with it and to voice his disagreement?

[Win2Win]

Is he not also welcome to disgaree with it and to voice his disagreement?

Not if he hasn't read it no? :doh

[bigmazey]

Piggy,

I was witch hunted out of the Labour party because I was the Secretary of KLAPTU(Kilmarnock&loudon anti poll tax union). We had public meetings where hundreds of people attended yet my local constituency Labour party was wanting to throw me out cause I was to political. They believed I was a member of the Militant Tendancy due to my work within the Poll tax Campaign but I was not. I was what the militant referred to as a fellow traveller. We worked hard for the labour party yet they wanted to throw us out. My area is now an SNP area and I believe that this is the Labour Partys own doing.

And as for Thatcher! AHHHHHH!

I first remember her for taking my free school milk away. Thatcher the milk snatcher.

[Win2Win]

She certainly milked us alright :(

[piggy]

bigmazey,
i was secretary of scarborough anti poll tax union and the labour party tried 3 times to expel me claiming i was a member of militant but they failed every time so i know where your coming from :D

[scoobydoo]

Did anyone see the Andrew Marr programme last night on Lady Thatch on BBC2? Im not a huge politics person but I found it very interesting...I guess more the historical nature of the programme. Love or hate her...she certainly had huge impact on Britain and whether you think that was good or bad depends on which side of the political isle you fall. The thing that struck me most was that in the end...its always your own side that screws you isnt it! They dont even leave it to us as voters...they get rid first...same has happened to Blair only he agreed to go...she had to be pulled screaming it seems! Fascinating programme though IMHO.

[tophatter]

It was a good programme. A little too short, as it is hard to cram it all in within such a short space of time, but interesting all the same.

I certainly give her credit as you can not be prime minister for that long without been a formidible politician. I give Blair the same credit as he made big changes to the Labour party and survived as their leader for 13 years, that is absolutley incredible, and he has managed to leave with a little bit more dignity than the lady managed. The 70' and 80's was the last battleground of post war industrial politics. The whole thing veered between left and right and Thatcher probably brought the inevetible end to things in a more brutal, but maybe more effective way, that was going to happen whoever ran the country.

My whole point about her and her followers is their revolution, like all revolutions has come to an end. She would be viewed as a crank now if she or someone of her ilk, came along because all those battles have been fought and certain corrections and realignments (not enough in my opinion) have been made to remedy some of the side effects of her policies. Cameron knows this and Blair knew it, but the big difference in my opinion between those two is that the New Labour ptoject had been evolving for years by a lot of skilful politicians, whereas the Tory equivilient is still in its infancy and I dont think they are anywhere near as shrewd as the New Labour mob were.

[bigmazey]

What with Thatchers now 81 (when will the witch ever die?) it seems as good a time as ever to state why I hate her so much.

My first 5 (Going on 500) REASONS WHY I HATE THATCHER (In no particular order)

1. As Education secretary under Edward Heath in a foretaste of what is to come, stops free milk for school children. No chance of the widely praised 'free fruit' scheme ever being Tory policy! She later deregulates school meals so all they have on the menu is burger and chips! The health of the nation was not something Thatcher thought any of her concern.

2. Shamelessly uses the 'race card' to get elected PM in 1979! (Though I wont claim her to be the first Tory leader to use this and certainly not the last!) "We are being flooded!" she asserts despite figures showing emigration higher than immigration and immigration at its lowest post-war level. Her idols are Keith Joseph (who ruined his own chance of being leader with a demon eyed rant on TV about sterilising the poor (I jest not!!)) and Enoch Powell (the 'intellectual' racist). She promotes Keith 'Eugenics' Joseph to Education Minister!

3. Monetarism! Disastrous policy of trying to control money supply. In the first of her two recessions (the worst since the 1930's), one fifth of our industrial base is wiped out and unemployment is more than doubled, there are summer riots in every inner-city in the country. Not bad for her first 2 years in office! In the first of many U-turns (see point on 'myth of strong leader'), she abandons monetarism. Polls predict Labour landslide and despite the resolute support of the press, she is the most unpopular PM on record. How could she possibly get out of this one?

4. The Falklands! In a gross piece of incompetence (or was it deliberate?) fails to avert the Falklands crisis by ignoring intelligence on the Argentine preparation for invasion in early 1982. Indeed she seems to positively encourage it by proposing scrapping the only warship we have there and having her defence secretary Nicholas Ridley openly say we didn't want the Falklands, thereby giving the impression we are not bothered about the islands! In 1978 when faced with the same intelligence, the Labour government quietly averts a war through diplomatic channels by threatening to send a taskforce. It's the classic tale, to divert attention from disastrous economic policies at home a crooked leader engages in a foreign war (except I'm not talking about Galtieri!). Perhaps Thatcher was getting advise from some of the brutal dictatorships she helped prop up in South America, "Would you like some more tea Mr Pinochet?". Number of British soldiers killed, 278, Argentines, 3000+. Blood on her hands anyone?

5. Destruction of local democracy. The beauty of not having a written constitution, having the backing of the press, having a massive majority in parliament (despite only getting 42% of the vote, less than 1 in 3 of the electorate) and having a permanent inbuilt Tory hereditory second chamber is that Tory PMs can do whatever they like. If you dont like local democracy because they vote for someone else, just abolish it like Thatcher did and centralise everything from Whitehall and unelected Quangos who you carefully select. (Yes, Thatcher invented Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations.) The popular GLC was scrapped despite over 80% of Londoners being opposed. Londoners have to wait over 13 years before getting an assembly back and electing Livingstone as its leader once again.

If I started listing my other reasons I would never stop.

Politicising the civil service,regressive taxation,the widening gap between rich and poor,homelessness for the young, THE POLL TAX! etc.,etc.,etc.,

I rest my case

[scoobydoo]

What with Thatchers now 81 (when will the witch ever die?) it seems as good a time as ever to state why I hate her so much.

My first 5 (Going on 500) REASONS WHY I HATE THATCHER (In no particular order)

1. As Education secretary under Edward Heath in a foretaste of what is to come, stops free milk for school children. No chance of the widely praised 'free fruit' scheme ever being Tory policy! She later deregulates school meals so all they have on the menu is burger and chips! The health of the nation was not something Thatcher thought any of her concern.

2. Shamelessly uses the 'race card' to get elected PM in 1979! (Though I wont claim her to be the first Tory leader to use this and certainly not the last!) "We are being flooded!" she asserts despite figures showing emigration higher than immigration and immigration at its lowest post-war level. Her idols are Keith Joseph (who ruined his own chance of being leader with a demon eyed rant on TV about sterilising the poor (I jest not!!)) and Enoch Powell (the 'intellectual' racist). She promotes Keith 'Eugenics' Joseph to Education Minister!

3. Monetarism! Disastrous policy of trying to control money supply. In the first of her two recessions (the worst since the 1930's), one fifth of our industrial base is wiped out and unemployment is more than doubled, there are summer riots in every inner-city in the country. Not bad for her first 2 years in office! In the first of many U-turns (see point on 'myth of strong leader'), she abandons monetarism. Polls predict Labour landslide and despite the resolute support of the press, she is the most unpopular PM on record. How could she possibly get out of this one?

4. The Falklands! In a gross piece of incompetence (or was it deliberate?) fails to avert the Falklands crisis by ignoring intelligence on the Argentine preparation for invasion in early 1982. Indeed she seems to positively encourage it by proposing scrapping the only warship we have there and having her defence secretary Nicholas Ridley openly say we didn't want the Falklands, thereby giving the impression we are not bothered about the islands! In 1978 when faced with the same intelligence, the Labour government quietly averts a war through diplomatic channels by threatening to send a taskforce. It's the classic tale, to divert attention from disastrous economic policies at home a crooked leader engages in a foreign war (except I'm not talking about Galtieri!). Perhaps Thatcher was getting advise from some of the brutal dictatorships she helped prop up in South America, "Would you like some more tea Mr Pinochet?". Number of British soldiers killed, 278, Argentines, 3000+. Blood on her hands anyone?

5. Destruction of local democracy. The beauty of not having a written constitution, having the backing of the press, having a massive majority in parliament (despite only getting 42% of the vote, less than 1 in 3 of the electorate) and having a permanent inbuilt Tory hereditory second chamber is that Tory PMs can do whatever they like. If you dont like local democracy because they vote for someone else, just abolish it like Thatcher did and centralise everything from Whitehall and unelected Quangos who you carefully select. (Yes, Thatcher invented Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations.) The popular GLC was scrapped despite over 80% of Londoners being opposed. Londoners have to wait over 13 years before getting an assembly back and electing Livingstone as its leader once again.

If I started listing my other reasons I would never stop.

Politicising the civil service,regressive taxation,the widening gap between rich and poor,homelessness for the young, THE POLL TAX! etc.,etc.,etc.,

I rest my case


Guilty M'Lud! we'll now move onto the punishment phase..:)

Do you really think she engineered the Falklands War Mazey? From the programme, and not so much from memory myself, I know the country was in a hell of a state at the time but would she really have lost to Foot do you think in 83?

[bigmazey]

Do you really think she engineered the Falklands War Mazey? From the programme, and not so much from memory myself, I know the country was in a hell of a state at the time but would she really have lost to Foot do you think in 83?

Yes! Possibly?

[Win2Win]

The Falklands! In a gross piece of incompetence (or was it deliberate?) fails to avert the Falklands crisis by ignoring intelligence

...and Blair didn't ignore the intelligence and look where that got us!

[bigmazey]

Oh! Dont get me started on Blair as well:butthead:.This thread will go on forever............

[Win2Win]

5. Destruction of local democracy.

Democracy isn't the democracy the West tries and makes us believe....It is a vote we get to put a load of spoon fed, in-bred, goof-balls in a job, and then they do what the hell they like without even looking in on us.

Britain is now probably closer to communism than democracy.

[Onlyforfun]

Got to resurrect this thread I'm afraid:

7- On the news last night they were talking about the boxer who got shot. Now I have no opinion on what sort of man he was, I didn't even know he existed, but bear in mind he won a few boxing titles. Quote from "a friend" - "He was a gentle giant, there wasn't a violent bone in his body".

I'm sure wherever he is that he's pleased his friends took so much time to come up with an apt tribute. :splapme

8- Gordon Brown on the news talking (and smiling!) about the electricity sub-station that was nearly switched off "I was personally involved in teh relief effort until 11 o'clock, no make that midnight." Filling sandbags were you Gordon? Have you noticed that since the evil one became PM it has done nothing but rain, forget Global Warming, the antichrist is in charge.

Honourable mention to David Camerons "We are all in this together, the Rwandans and the flood victims" :lickme

[Win2Win]

Sanbags.....when will folk realise they are USELESS for sustained flooding.....they are porous, and bit of the old bath sealant, and the window foam around the inside & outside of the door will keep a few inches at bay.

[sparkyminer]

Live at the top of a hill, like what I do.:)

[Win2Win]

If ever I get flooded, that mean Manchester is a few hundred feet under water........so some good things can happen :D

[Onlyforfun]

I knew there was another one!

9- Wife recently received a friends email from Facebook from one of her best friends at University who has been shall we say lax about keeping in touch, saying "now we can keep in touch properly". In the age of the email, telephone, text message and last time I looked the Royal Mail still occasionaly manages to deliver letters in the same epoch from which they were sent. But Facebook suddenly provides the antidote to laziness???

[Onlyforfun]

P.S. - not content with making it rain and flooding large swathes of England (Scottish conspiracy according to my wife), Gordon Brown has reversed casino legislation, tried to tighten the drugs laws and is thinking about scrapping opening hours extensions. No wonder he smiles so much. There is nobody happier than a Calvinist Scot intent on banning all frivolity and amusement.

[tophatter]

I would be smiling if I was him too OFF watching Cameron make a right pigs ear of things. He has looked even more feeble than even Brown could have hoped for. At the moment with a relativley new cabinet and no Tony Blair and a Tory party aalmost deviod of personality led by what looks like a lost little boy in charge, Brown looks like a giant in political terms. It could not have worked out better for him.

The only Tory who has even come close to impressing in recent weeks in my view is David Davies and I bet many a conservative wish they could have that leadership election again. They have managed yet again to elect the wrong leader. He would have been a good spin doctor ala Mandleson working the press and doing the PR but a future Prime Minister? Now that is a monument to stupidity! :)

[Merlin]

"I think he's got all the qualities to be a great prime minister and a great socialist prime minister and we haven't had that for a quite a long time.

"He'll take with him a knowledge and an understanding of the Labour Party which our recent leader [Tony Blair] didn't have.

"That doesn't mean to say that he is going to do everything we on the left would like - he'll do as much as he possibly can".

94 year old ,Michael foot, on Gordon Brown...

[Win2Win]

David Davies was on Talksport last week, and seemed to be talking sense :yikes: .....so no wonder they didn't vote him in :)

Only thing is, about half of the ideas he mentioned, Gordon Brown has announced!!!

[Onlyforfun]

Funny how perceptions are different, almost everyone I know sees Broon as forever the bridesmaid, never the bride, he was no.2 for so long that it is difficult to see him as a leader.

If what Foot says is true, he won't last.

[Win2Win]

I like the way for years he told Blair no spare money around....while he stashed Billions away while he was in power :)

[Onlyforfun]

10- Todays villain is Nick Lester - Director of Transport at London Councils who reckons that councils have a better record of enforcement of minor traffic infringments than the police as 12 London Councils he represents dished out 396,000 penalties in 1 year for driving into box junctions and the like.

Hello??? 396,000 penalties??? Yeah, it really seems like they've solved the problem, doesn't it. The fact that people committed so many infringements suggests that while they are better at "catching" these dastardly people (probably often caught out by strange road markings where box juctions extend for 20 yards or so into the continuing street as in certain spots in Lambeth) the decriminalisation of minor offences whereby a penalty charge is levied with no penalty points, suggests that people are more likely to break a minor law if there is no expectatin of significant punishment. You can rack up as many infringements as you like without fear of losing your license.

Something similar to the Swedish nursery experiment detailed in the excellent Freakonomics whereby punishing people with a small fine led to an increase in transgressions as they see the fine as payment to be allowed to break inconvenient rules. A sense of personal responsibility and empathy is essential in lowering teh numbers of minor infringements, but the Police and councils seem to be doing all they can to frustrate and annoy road users leading to widespread "thumbing of the nose" at their petty powers "you can fine me, but you can't stop me"!

[buddhabee]

"I think he's got all the qualities to be a great prime minister and a great socialist prime minister and we haven't had that for a quite a long time.

"He'll take with him a knowledge and an understanding of the Labour Party which our recent leader [Tony Blair] didn't have.

"That doesn't mean to say that he is going to do everything we on the left would like - he'll do as much as he possibly can".

94 year old ,Michael foot, on Gordon Brown...

It's unfortunate that we had to suffer 10 years of Blair when someone who actually is a Socialist was living next door. He's made a good start repairing the damage Blair presided over. Getting rid of that damned casino in the deprived area of Manchester has restored some of my faith in the Labour party.

[tophatter]

My perception of Brown has never changed, you dont be chancellor for 10 years, see off half a dozen or more shadow chancellors without having a glove layed on you and sieze the leadership of the labour party and the premiership unopposed unless you are a very big politician.

The Tories has spent two years bigging up Blair because they knew it would be Brown they would be fighting with at the next election and the byproduct of that was that they lowered peoples expectations of Brown. It was easy for Cameron to tweak the tail of Brown and then run and hide behind Blair but now Brown is the daddy and he is a nice contrast to Cameron. The truth is the tories were absolutley in awe of Blair and they have lumbered themselves with their own (vastly inferior) version of him. Unfortunatley he is nowhere near as politically smart as Blair was and they have believed the silly fairytale they spun that Brown would be lost without Blair. So when people are eager for a change who do they perceive is the bigger change from Blair?

The tories have fouled up yet again and they will now at some point self implode as they suddenly realise they have picked a dud yet again. Cameron cant change now as it will look silly and he has to believe in the Blair project. His party will argue amongst themselves and lose the next election. So not only will Brown have been a chancellor for 10 years he will be a prime minister who wins labour a fourth term and someone who has been a big player in the Labour party for 20 years. If the Tories only form of attack is to wait for him to make mistakes then they should have picked a heavyweight to land the punches when those mistakes occured not a wet, etonion lightweight toff who probably does politics as a hobby rather than lives and breathes it like Brown.

[Merlin]

If what Foot says is true, he won't last.

He clearly (or maybe not so clearly) has a lot of Eric Hobsbawm influence.....However, not to worry, because his calvinistic roots will ensure that usury and capitalism both thrive:yikes:

[Merlin]

The tories have fouled up yet again and they will now at some point self implode as they suddenly realise they have picked a dud yet again.

If the Tories only form of attack is to wait for him to make mistakes then they should have picked a heavyweight to land the punches when those mistakes occured not a wet, etonion lightweight toff who probably does politics as a hobby rather than lives and breathes it like Brown.

Dont think Brown will be making many early mistakes....He has had a decade to plan for this moment...

I hope that his principles/ideas which seem to favour Subsidiarity are carried through and he decentralizes as much power as he can get away with - ......

[Onlyforfun]

I like the way for years he told Blair no spare money around....while he stashed Billions away while he was in power :)

Hmm, the top of the economic cycle, London the powerhouse of international finance, record tax receipts and yet we are running a £20-40 billion year deficit. Where are these missing billions? Who is going to pay back what we owe? Will Western governments be tempted to encourage to service these debts by confiscating the wealth of the population through inflation rather than tax? And if you want the answer to the last question just look at the headline CPI inflation figure and its manipulation over the last 20 years, the quiet expiry of M3 reporting and on and on leading to artificially low interest rates.

[Onlyforfun]

My perception of Brown has never changed, you dont be chancellor for 10 years, see off half a dozen or more shadow chancellors without having a glove layed on you and sieze the leadership of the labour party and the premiership unopposed unless you are a very big politician.

Siezed? Blair took it off him and kept it to himself for over a decade and Brown didn't have the bottle to seize anything. Labour merely suffered for a lack of an alternative to Brown. Hilary Benn? Ed Millibland? Don't make me laugh.


wet, etonion lightweight toff who probably does politics as a hobby rather than lives and breathes it like Brown.

Fortunately elections aren't won by the chip on shoulder, so-called working class voter in this day and age, but the ever expanding middle class, who could stomach Blair as one of them, but not Brown (and being a Scot won't help either- bear in mind that he even lost an election to an English Conservative in Scotland in 1979).

[sparkyminer]

Fortunately elections aren't won by the chip on shoulder, so-called working class voter in this day and age,

Steady on there mate.

[Merlin]

The best thing Brown could do is call an earlyish election...with Cameron and the Tories all at sea.....he will piss-it...and probably significantly increase Labour majority...

[Win2Win]

...with Cameron and the Tories all at sea.......


Sailing back to Rwanda in a 'green' boat is he? :)

[tophatter]

Its not us working class chip on shoulder types doing the complaing about cameron is it? Its his own lot.

So you think he is going to win the next general election performing the way he is do you OFF? Just because he is not working class and because he is not Scottish?


Just about sums up for me exactly why the Tories are in the state they are in. They won elections in the 80's because Labour were in a state of denial and were unelectable. The stuff you come out with is a mirror image. So Camerons big achievements are being English and posh and that means more to the electorate than having been the chancellor for 10 years, a Prime Minister and a key member of a party that has won three elections in a row???

You know very well what I was saying when I said Brown siezed the premiership. The fact he was unopposed for the job all politicians aspire to shows just how strong his grip on the party is and he has managed to to take out any opponents in order to become PM. Yes, Blair was Premier before him but as I keep saying Cameron is not in Blairs league and besides been chancellor is hardly a bad position to hold while you wait the chance to sieze power.

You need to forget all this stuff about Brown been scottish as it is a much more sizeable minority than been an old Etonion and I know which one of those groups of people I identify with more. He is a member of the parliament of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, he has been in government for over 10 years and he is leader of the Labour party. The fact he is scottish means absolutley zilch in most peoples book and in any case Cameron even managed to botch that assualt on him and now if he tried it he would just sound ridiculous and sound like something out of the UK independence party, he has thrown everything into getting away from that image. That line of attack has gone, he had to do it early, he bottled it, he flunked it and he looks as lost as a lamb now. Brown has politically butchered him in this first month and all he had in response was some silly trip abroad which was meant to make him look Green, but not the kind of green he ended up looking. What kind of a leader tries a pathetic kind of spin like that when he should be at home steaming into a new opponent? Brown has started the job, he will now sit back and chuckle while the bitter old right wing in the tory party finish it off!

[Merlin]

Agree, about the Scottish bit...think there have been at least 5 and half(the half being BONAR LAW..who was born in Canada)...Scottish Prime Ministers during the last 100 years......

[Onlyforfun]

11- Today we have the wonderful Battersea Council. They have a half decent adventure playground in Battersea Park (not nearly as good as the ones you'll find in Dalkeith or Galloway Forest Park though). Great so far, it is even supervised!!!

Now the bad side, the big sign saying "we will respect you whatever your ethnicity, gender or sexuality." This is for kids from 3-12 ffs. How many gay 3 year olds do you know??? (Merlin need not respond in case of incriminating himself - now illegal in the UK, but not on W2W :D)

[Onlyforfun]

12- There may have been 5.5 Scottish PM's, but that was before Scotland had it's own Parliament.

[Onlyforfun]

13- Those who obviously think I care about, or want to hear about their opinions, when I already know I am right. :laugh

[Win2Win]

We are told people are born gay, it is not a choice, so you can have gay 3yo's.....they are just not 'at it' yet :ooo

[tophatter]

12- There may have been 5.5 Scottish PM's, but that was before Scotland had it's own Parliament.

Again in the grand scheme of things OFF nobody cares. The tory boys got themselves all excited about the West Lothian question and thought they could just hammer Gordon on this without going to the bother of thinking up some decent policies or more importantly a clear sense of purpose themselves. It might have worked, but be honsest, have you ever seen such an inept attempt at attacking some one on their perceived weak flank. It hardly registered, the bluey/greeny/turquoise lot have been wetting themselves with excitement about how Brown would cope with this issue and what a damp, feeble squib of an attempt to get in early and hurt him it has turned out to be!

He, of course, saw it coming and totally and utterly nuetralised it straight away by making himself look more British against a Tory leadership who incredibly were making noises about dismantling the union because it suited them electoraly as they have given up on Scotland years ago.

I dont blame you for been irritated because I know you are no Brown fan and you must be disheartened at the thought of how badly the party you should naturally be at home with are performing. I cant resist but to respond becuase in everyday life It is becoming increasinlgy hard to find anyone who believes Cameron is going to beat Brown and so its nice to find someone to argue with. :laugh

[Onlyforfun]

14- The Sun's "GREAT WHITE SHARK FOOTAGE".

A rounded dorsal fin = basking shark. 2 minutes on google images or a quick call to a shark expert would have been all it takes to find out for sure instead of splashing this nonsense about Jaws 2 all over the front page.

Shame on you!

[tophatter]

now that one I can agree with you!

Every summer we have the sharks on the coast story or the giant jellyfish story.

Has been so as long as I can remember!

[Win2Win]

Plenty of sharks in the loan business the media should pay more attention too.

[bigcumba]

14- The Sun

I would have stopped typing there.... :wink

[Onlyforfun]

Anyone else notice how Gordon Brown leaves teh country and the sun comes out for the 1st time since he became PM. Then he arrives in Washington and it starts pissing down over there? He is the antichrist!

15- http://www.win2win.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=50704.

Please just :censored: off...

[sparkyminer]

http://www.win2win.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=50704. You'll get no argument from me on that one.:D

[bigcumba]

That reminds me.... when's the next series of Grumpy Old Men start? :wink

[Win2Win]

We'd all be much better with Calamity Cameron in charge :ooo

[Merlin]

Richard Hills

[bigcumba]

We'd all be much better with Calamity Cameron in charge :ooo

...and Boris Johnson as Mayor of London :laugh

[piggy]

...and Boris Johnson as Mayor of London :laugh

i'd vote for boris to be mayor of london, mind you i live in scarborough :D boris, boris, boris

[bigcumba]

At least you know where London is... Boris probably thinks Scarborough was a character in the last Harry Potter movie!

[Win2Win]

Richard Hills

Managed to show his perfection at getting the timing wrong again today :thumbs :icon_tong:icon_tong:icon_tong:icon_tong

[tophatter]

Why dont the Tories ever put up a serious candidate to oppose Ken? Anyone would you think they are scared of him and have resigned themselves already to another defeat at his hands.

[bigcumba]

Why dont the Tories ever put up a serious candidate to oppose Ken? Anyone would you think they are scared of him and have resigned themselves already to another defeat at his hands.

Probably because they have a lack of serious candidates for any top job.... so they stick in a jumped up buffoon with about as much in common with your average Londoner as I have with the Sultan of Brunei...

[Onlyforfun]

If you can afford to live in London, you can afford not to worry about Ken.

He only really has power over transport and as he's priced the poor off the roads it makes driving that little bit more pleasant for everyone else. Any other decrees issued from HQ are generally ignored by Tory councils anyway.

[sparkyminer]

OFF will be voting for Boris as London mayor?
I'd love him to get the job, just for the entertainment value.:)

[Onlyforfun]

16- It's not often anyone says it - but "I feel sorry for British Airways".

Let's take a look at the phenomenon of their £275 million pound fine for "colluding in price fixing". Where are the other fines? Well Virgins playground grass chief Branson gets away with it by telling sir all about it as soon as they realised they migt get caught, but what about the rest? No other country in the world would fine their national carrier for such practises, next this government (and our supposed American allies) will be trying to stop BAE from buying minor Saudi royalty charlie and hookers.

But I digress, if there was a cartel, by definition there should be more fines, and as for the yanks, they are just pissed off that the UK has the only profitable flag carrying airline left in the World.

And what is the big love in with Sir Dick anyway. His trains are slower than the M6 and more expensive than the Space Shuttle, his broadband / mobile empire crumbles further by the day after the Murdochs gave him a kicking (wonder what he'll grass them up for), sure Virgin Upper Class is better than BA Business, but try getting a connecting flight through the former.

[sparkyminer]

Other airlines were involved, I think Lufthansa and Korean Airways. I don't think Lufthansa were fined though.

[Merlin]

Korean Airlines was the other.....fined.....sure is rough justice for BA...Branson will have his comeuppence soon enough....there are plenty of skeletons in his cupboard.......needs someone brave enough to spill the beans...wish I knew more...coz I would spill them...no worries:yikes:

[Merlin]

Racehorse

[Win2Win]

Plenty more airlines are under investigation for fuel charges on cargo in the US, and the two blokes who left BA are still under criminal investigation in the US.

17. Sir Ian Blair - For waiting 2 years for a report to tell him his second in command is a muppet, something we all knew 2 years ago, and still hasn't been sacked. They both should go for incompetence.

[Onlyforfun]

Ian Blair was near the top of my list today, but 1st prize goes to:

18- The Russians. Planting a wee flag on the sea bed does not give you any territorial rights in international law, territorial waters extend 200 miles from the coast no more. To say there is a n underground feature extending into the sea is neither here nor there.

There are 2 inherent ironies in the situation.
1- It would be and incredibly difficult place to drill for, never mind extract oil and gas reserves from. A 2 mile deep sea, covered for most of the year in ice? And when you remember that the Russians have been busy stealing from UK and US oil majors who are the only ones who could hope to have the resources and expertise to do this, I don't think they've got a chance.
2- If the Russians had a viable Navy they could perhaps enforce their claims, but instead of putting their vast inflows of petro-dollars to rebuilding a national navy, it has all gone to the oil oligarchs who have instead spent billions on a personal fleet of gin palaces.

The sooner we build more nuclear plants to stop our reliance on Russian gas the better. Never trust the Russians, this is a country who killed more of it's own citizens during the revolution than died in combat worldwide in WW2. If you are in any doubt ask any Pole, Czech, Slovak, Ukrainian etc.

[tophatter]

better get on the phone to dodgy Dave then OFF before Zac fills his head with more nonsense. I reluctanly agree with nuclear power as im a realist but that clown either cynically thinks he can use greeness (not political greeness, but enviromental greeness :)) as his USP or he really is an eco warrior, and I dont want an eco warrior running our country!

Fuel is becoming more scarce and we cant allow ourselves to be hostages to fortune. Do all the green stuff by all means but first and foremost look after our economy and fuel to power it is essential.

[sparkyminer]

The sooner we build more nuclear plants to stop our reliance on Russian gas the better.

Let's dig more coal and the money we save in building and subsequently de-commissioning, can be spent on clean coal and carbon dioxide capture.

[Win2Win]

All this offsetting crap by planting a tree......IT TAKES ABOUT 25 YEARS FOR THE TREE TO GROW BEFORE IT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE YOU DIM WITS!!!!

[tophatter]

ah offsetting what a fantastic idea I dont think!

When Cameron flew to Swindon or Oxford or wherever it was from London and got caught out he got some spokesman to say he had offset it so it was ok.

What that means in reality is he probably gave some dogy new eco business set up on the internet and operated from someones spare room, a couple of quid to get him out of a political charge of hypocrisy. He knows it is utterly pointless but it allows him to clear his conciense and that is all that matters, not the planet! I personally could not give two hoots if he flys to the newsagent in a space shuttle but he has nailed his mask to this bag of nails so he will have to deal with the conflict it will cause him when he operates in the real world.

If I were he I would quietlly try to move away from all this guff he is coming out with because it will not win him an election as if i cared passionaltley about green issues i would certainly not vote for a tory, I would vote for the green party! Win the election Dave and then you can have the opportunity to go to summits with other world leaders and if you truly belive all the green stuff you can fight to make real change there. That means showing the country you can run the economy and the state (and at least you have admitted you do believe in that now) First thing to prove that would be to dump Gideon Osbourne as Shadow Chancellor. I know he is an ex Eton schoolmate, ran your leadership campaign and helped you throw food at other idiots at some silly boys club you used to attend but I would not put him in charge of my piggy bank let alone the countries finances. Put someone in with a bit of authority and gravitas and show the party you are serious about the thing they really care about - MONEY!

My message to Cameron would be this. Pretending you are powering the whole of oxfordshire by recycling your human waste or nailing a windfarm on top of your bicycle just makes you look like an idiot. Get your tie on, start looking like a prime minister rather than looking like the Eton branch of friends of the earth and lead your party. If you get hammered in the next election you can forget about all your green stuff because your political career will be over before you are 40 and all the good work you have done in bringing your party to just been 20 years out of touch, rather than the usual 50, will be wasted.

[Win2Win]

Well Brown start dealing with another majpr crisis well......haven't even seen Cameron on TV yet :doh

[tophatter]

He is out in his garden, milking the goat.

The thing with Brown is you can bet he was probably hoping for a call back to work when he was on Holiday in Dorset. Cant imagine him in his trunks in the paddling pool!

[Onlyforfun]

Anyone else notice that it only stopped raining whgen Brown went to the USA, pictures on the news of him arriving in Washington, and guess what, it was raining. Then he comes back here and it rains in Dorset.

Now he's back in London the rain will no doubt make it's way here shortly...

[Win2Win]

Anyone else notice that it only stopped raining whgen Brown went to the USA, pictures on the news of him arriving in Washington, and guess what, it was raining. Then he comes back here and it rains in Dorset.

Now he's back in London the rain will no doubt make it's way here shortly...


not content with making it rain and flooding large swathes of England


Have you noticed that since the evil one became PM it has done nothing but rain, forget Global Warming, the antichrist is in charge.

All in this thread.....starting to sound as repetitive as Cameron :D

[tophatter]

Be fair Keith, at least OFF is putting out a consistient message. He is doing a better job than the Tory frontbench.

I defy anyone to be able to name 5 of the shadow cabinet and their posts and what ideas they have put forward. This at a time when there is a new Prime minister and maybe an election roud the corner. They are a shambles, they should be on the TV day and night hammering away, but I suppose if you have no policies and no idea of what direction your party is going you just keep your mouth shut and hope people just vote for you for a laugh. When did you last hear from the Tory health shadow? When did you last hear from their envirmoment shadow? How about their education shadow? (apart from when he is scrambling around trying to patch up Camerons mess on grammar schools) These are meant to be the new conservative issues they are going to be figthing the government on.

This lot could be in power next May and they cant even organise themselves in opposition. I would not be suprised if they nicked OFFS policy on rain, its better than what they have got! :)

[Win2Win]

:doh

Boris Yeltsin - Ministry of Clowns!!!
Davis Davis - Minister for Wales!!

[tophatter]

I would think the last thing Cameron needs now is Boris Johnson running for Mayor of London. He has to convince people quickly that the Conservative Party are a serious party and Johnson will just give the impresssion it is anything but. You also know that he is going to mess up somewhere along the line due to his love of portraying himself as the lovable fool (though he is anything but a fool) and Cameron will be the one that suffers. Boris will be alright though he will keep his profile high and get on more TV shows and the like and its his party that will suffer while Johnson the celebrity prospers.

David Davies is another cup of tea. He has been impressive since losing the leadership election and I cant believe that inside him he dont resent the fact that one dodgy speech by him and one good speech from Cameron means he has ended up having to listen to all the idiots and lightweights cameron has surrounded himself with.

Fair do's to the man, he has bit his lip and got on with his job effectivley. Im guessing he has calculated that Cameron will be a goner sometime in the next couple of years and he can be the beneficiary of a more electable conservative party and also have shown he can do a big job properly. Much better to portray yourself as a loyalist and let others do the dirty work in demolishing the current leader and it will play well with the right wing of the party that his speciality over the previous years was law and order as shodow Home secretary. Maybe, he can be the next Tory PM in 2013 as he is young enough and will have held a very important job in opposition and done it well, certainly better than any other shadow in the big jobs thats for sure.

[Win2Win]

Much better to portray yourself as a loyalist and let others do the dirty work in demolishing the current leader

Sounds like Brown :)

[tophatter]

:)

He had to wait much longer than Davies will have to so unfortunatley he did get his hands dirty a bit but because Cameron sucked up to Blair so much that lack of discipline has ended up working in his favour.

But you are right, i think Davies is much more likely to be Prime Minister than Cameron, becuase I just dont rate Cameron as a politician and you can only be the prime minister by been a prime politician. Davies to me is looking the prime politician in his party.

[Onlyforfun]

I am getting these disturbing visions of a dim room with a huge poster of G Brown on the wall....





...and TH performing a sex act too disgusting to be described in a family newspaper on himself. :laugh:laugh:laugh

Davies and Hague or mor emy idea of proper Tories, but let Cameron soften up teh electorate first.

[tophatter]

:laugh

What a horrible thought!

Ive always been a big Brown fan though so making the most of it while the sun is shining on him. Have seriously gone off Cameron at same time though. At the beginning of the year I thought he may be the real deal but now realise that he only had the one strategy and i think it would be best all round for politics in general if Brown just smashes him to pieces.

I think Hague would enjoy making fun of Brown but he is tainted by a most feeble general election campaign in 2001 so if I was a Tory I would go for davies. Now that would be serious politics again with two tribal politicians who you dont have to like but you could respect.

[Onlyforfun]

I could write a dissertation most Mondays after perusing the Sunday Papers, but I will pass up the easy targets of the foot and mouth research centre causing an outbreak in favour of some celebrity nonsense.

19- Mia Farrow, George Clooney and Steven Spielberg. What do they have in common? They work not just in the film industry, but in Hollywood. Now, I'm not given to stereotyping and generalisation as you know :rolleyes:, but people don't often go into acting because they are intelligent. They also seem to spend a little less time than the rest of us "living in the real world" shall we say.

So it fills me with despair that these three are having a competition about who cares more about Sudan, including competing charitable foundations and bitchy letters to the press about each others perceived lack of commitment.

The ultimate stupidity was Farrow berating Spielberg for not doing enough to put pressure on the Chinese to step in. 1 film director against 1.25 billion communists? Really....

[sparkyminer]

Ive always been a big Brown fan

Is that a Fruedian slip TH?:D

[tophatter]

I suppose the celebrity gets an over inflated sense of their importance due to the unreal world they live in. I prefer the celebrities to do the entertaining and the politicians to do the politics. SOmetimes there seems to be some kind of role reversal going on and neither do the job properly!

[tophatter]

Is that a Fruedian slip TH?:D

:laugh

[Merlin]

Have you seen your rep power...?:yikes:....is that another freudian slip:laugh

[tophatter]

Blimey you lot are sex Mad. :yikes:

How did you spot that Merl. You must have it on the brain 24 hours a day........


Lucky so and so! :laugh

[Merlin]

I see you have come up for air now..:laugh...

[Onlyforfun]

I suppose the celebrity gets an over inflated sense of their importance due to the unreal world they live in. I prefer the celebrities to do the entertaining and the politicians to do the politics. SOmetimes there seems to be some kind of role reversal going on and neither do the job properly!

Can't argue with that!

20 - Let's have a go at an easy target today, cyclists. A year or so ago I was annoyed to find 6 "Community Support Officers" and Policemen hiding in one of the underpasses under Park Lane catching people who were cycling through them and fining them. I figured it was a waste of resources against a non-existent crime.

How times have changed! Same thing happened yesterday, but no Police and all the CSO's were middle aged ladies (to be generous to them). Now I have to say I smirked and sniggered to see the cyclists getting stopped this time and do you know why? Let me tell you. Cyclists are a menace to civilised society. Sure you are saving the planet or something but:

- Get your hand off my bonnet when you stop at the lights
- Don't ring your stupid wee bell to get me out of the way in an underpass or on the pavement where you shouldn't be cycling
- Learn the highway code. Cars don't have magic invisible properties and their drivers aren't telepathic, so try to signal your intentions rather than expecting the vehicles around you to miraculously avoid you as you swerve in front of them.
- Stop cycling side by side on narrow roads, especially slowly!
- The amount of monet spent on cycle lanes would be better spent on making the roads fit for the cars that they are designed for

But the monuments to stupidity in the theory are twofold
1- The clothes. Lycra looks good on nobody, especially flabby fifty year olds, and you look stupid already, so don't bring attention to yourself with bright clothing. Fit girls in their twenties with miniskirts on (causing accidents by the dozen in their wake), are exempt from my scorn.
2- The people who stopped to get fined yesterday. You are on a bike, the fuzz are all old ladies - ESCAPE for goodness sake!

[Jonny2621]

add to that the so and sos who ride through red lights, zebra and pedestrian crossings ;fire

Time for cycles to be taxed and insured like cars I think....

[tophatter]

Cyclists certainly need to be policed more as they can be a danger both to themselves and others. There are a lot of cycle lans built in Luton now but they still tend to ride on the pavements and that is annoying because for years they moaned that councils did not invest in cyclists.

[buddhabee]

...let others do the dirty work in demolishing the current leader


I think he's doing a pretty good job of that himself.

[Onlyforfun]

Brown continues to bring down the wrath of God upon Britain. We've had fire in the form of terrorists at Glasgow Airport, we've had flooding (admittedly it did £8million worth of improvemnts to Hull), we've had pestilence in the form of foot and mouth, now we are having turmoil in the financial markets and food prices are rocketing due to failure of the crops. First person to see a locust wins a prize!

21- But for today, let' stake something that the UK is actually behaving well in - the "credit crunch". Now, you don't cure obesity with cream cakes and you don't cure alcoholism with a bottle of whisky, so why are the central banks of Europe and the USA trying to solve a problem caused by excess credit by creating yet more credit? It was bad enough to pump mor ecash into the market to keep banks from losing money (not going bust) after they had played fast and loose with credit and risk, but now the Fed is taking CDO's as collateral for loans - so the US taxpayer now shoulders the risk that should be shouldered by the bank who bought them or took them as collateral! And now the ECB wants to do a "Euro-dollar swap" with the Fed to ease dollar liquidity, so weakeniong the Euro and having even more worthless paper dollars in their reserves!

If banks have made bad decisions and some of them have made vast, stupid and greedy decisions they must be allowed to suffer even if they are eventually "rescued" in the interests of the ecoomy as a whole. If they are bailed out at the start, where is the incentive not to do the same again. i can imagine the hedge fund boys at BNP "Hey Pierre, you know we lost €2 billion on CDO's on our Leveraged Silly Money Can't Go Wrong Fund? Well the US Government has taken them as collateral. Lets default and open a new Leveraged Stupid Money Can't Go Wrong If We Leverage More Fund."

[Win2Win]

.....and food prices are rocketing....

Yeah, I remember paying only 3p for a packet of crisps in the 70's :ermmm

[Merlin]

Attemting to enforce a policy of keeping threads on topic...:laugh

[scoobydoo]

Yeah, I remember paying only 3p for a packet of crisps in the 70's :ermmm

Do you remember Harry H. Corbett doing the Snaps adverts Keith? They were only 3p then I think! :ermmm

[Win2Win]

I went to Liverpool Theatre in the 70's to watch the Sooty & Sweep show.....still remember it......sad git eh? :laugh

[Onlyforfun]

Where to start, the line between satire and reality blurs ever more.

22- Yet another Chief Constable who completely misses the point, step forward Peter Fahey of Cheshire. He reckons the problems with youth disorder are caused by parents not disciplining their children and them having access to alcohol and wants the drinking age raised to 21.

Let me tell you why parents struggle to discipline their kids you ******. If you give your kid a slap when they misbehave, and most responsible parents only do it as a last resort when the kid is doing something dangerous, your officers will be round in short order to take said parent down the nick for some questioning, then inform social services who will make life hell as a law-abiding parent is an easy target compared to the scum they often have to deal with. Try to restrain your child from going out, same thing, whack them when they are older, assault charge.

It's even worse for teachers, so much as look at a child and if they make a complaint you are suspended with the cloud of abuse over you.

And drinking? An 18 age limit never stopped me from getting my hands on booze when I was younger. Nor did a 16 limit on cigarettes. This is a typical piece of modern woolly thinking. The Police don't enforce an existing law so it is widely ignored, so how do our masters try to solve the "problem"? Lets make a new law, that'll so the trick...

[Onlyforfun]

23- Before I forget, had to laugh at the Chinese toys being recalled. I've been banging on for ages about how the USA and to a lesser extent, the UK, has been metaphorically shipping out containers full of borrowed dollars and pounds to China in return for a bunch of plastic tat that we don't really want and don't really need.

Now it turns out that not only is the plastic tat fundamentally useless, it is poisonous aswell, and who says the Chinese are wet behind the ears when it comes to this capitalism lark...

[presto]

just to add to the kids out of control - (source http://www.lep.co.uk/news?articleid=3111407 ).


Anger at eight-year-old arsonists

A Preston business owner has spoken out after learning eight-year-olds who started a fire at his premises will face no action

A businessman today spoke of his astonishment that the eight-year-old boys who started a serious fire at his premises will face no action.
Martin Ogdin, 56, who runs PDS Plastics site in Springfield Street, Plungington, says the blaze last Friday has cost him thousands of pounds after it ripped through two container units. Stock was destroyed and a company car was written off.

Two eight-year-old boys were quizzed in connection with the blaze, but were later released – as no-one under the age of 10 can be charged with a criminal offence.

A spokesman for Lancashire police today confirmed no one else is being sought in connection with the blaze.

Mr Ogdin is furious that no one will be brought to account for the damage and says the youngsters are being treated like "gods".

He said: "I'm absolutely astonished.It is a cliche but you have to think the parents are to blame and I think if the kids can't be held to account, their parents should be.

"Someone should be made to pay so these kids can't just carry on doing this. There is no discipline any more. The schools don't discipline them, the police and the law can't, so what is to stop them running around doing what the hell they want? They are almost like gods. No-one can touch them and they know it."

The company, which employs one other person, is still trading despite the fire and Mr Ogdin has pledged they will not be defeated by the incident. He added: "We are still here, we are still open and we always will be."

[Win2Win]

A kid (thug/hoody/vandal/etc)....should have to sit an interview, and if they show they understand the difference in the meaning of the word RIGHT & WRONG (which they all will), then they have proved they have the intelligence to understand things which are good, and things which are bad, and then should be treated as any criminal in the justice system (let out!!!!! :doh)

[Onlyforfun]

24- http://www.win2win.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=52942

Wrong in so many ways.

First of all, traffic wardens and penalty fines and clamping are supposed to prevent parking that causes disruption to traffic flows. Clamping does the exact opposite, it either keeps a vehicle in a disruptive position or ties up a parking space until release.

So clamping makes no sense at all.

As for everyday parking fines. Parking is a civil rather than criminal matter, if you look back in this thread you will see my scorn for the councils that think they are better at enforcement because they issue more tickets which pretty much negates all those punishments.

Sure, a council has the right, and some may argue, an obligation, to charge for parking as it uses a resource (space) that belongs to the local public. However, the enforcement of parking restrictions is a national disgrace. The tricks used by traffic wardens to issue tickets to meet their quotas are abominable, often sneaky and regularly downright illegal. And this is the rule rather than the exception. Examples I have personally seen are:

Driver parked outside my office returning to his van finds a warden putting a ticket on his windscreeen with 2 minutes still left on the meter.

Wardens hiding round corners before walking up to vehicle and putting ticket on as they walk quickly past. They are legally obliged to stand next to the vehicle for the 5 minutes (not 15) grace period before issuing the ticket. Their machines won't issue the ticket for 5 minutes after they start the process so they key in the reg number and go and hide until tehy can issue the ticket.

Needlessly confusing parking regulations where you might have line of bays of pay and display or residents with a residents only bay in the middle with a sign conveniently covered by a tree.

Traffic Warden checks the ticket on my windscreen and walks off, ticket falls off because the glue is shoddy so he comes back and tickets it.

Tickets given to blatantly broken down vehicles.

The Congestion Charge CCTV van parks in a "no parking" area all f'ing day.

I could go on and on and on. As with many things these days the problem is authorities contempt for the average law abiding citizen. If somebody is legally parked, has paid for his minimum 1 hour parking (doesn't matter if you only need 15 minutes, most machines these days are minimum 1 hour), and the queue in the shop takes longer than expected should he get an £80-£100 fine? Completely disproportionate, but he is an easy touch.

Only a complete fool, or someone with a foreign reg would not put money in the meter or a pay and display these days because ofthe number of gung-ho wardens about, so they come up with more and more ways to catch people out. I'll say it again, they try to catch people out - DELIBERATELY. That is just not British.

The solution as ever is obvious to me :). Cancel targets for issuing tickets. A councils main traffic enforcement priority should be to facilitate the free flow of traffic. Parking on a red route should result in car being towed and a large fine dished out as that is what causes major disruption and in that case "I was only parked for 2 minutes" doesn't wash as it can cause a jam that takes hours to clear.

Where parking is not causing an obstruction and an attempt has been made to pay there should be a properly enforced "grace" period. Sometimes events beyond our control make us a few minutes late (unless we happen to be the type of person who irons their underpants and hangs them in the wardrobe). Fines should be proportionate and should surely be no more than a tenner for less than an hour. Any more than that and you are taking the piss and deserve what you get.

When all is said and done, good laws are where they are enforceable and have the support of the majority of the public. The current parking regime is part and parcel of the fleecing of the motorist agenda which is causing huge anger and is symptomatic of the contempt of the paying public displayed by our so called leaders. Is it any wonder we hold politicians in equal contempt?

[mathare]

Sometimes events beyond our control make us a few minutes late (unless we happen to be the type of person who irons their underpants and hangs them in the wardrobe). So were we all to iron our underwear and hang it in a wardrobe events beyond our control would never make us late again? OFF saves the world once more :D

[sparkyminer]

Far and away too sensible OFF. It'll never catch on.

[vegyjones]

I love watching drivers in the West End through the pub window at lunchtimes.

A few weeks ago we had a surreal experience of watching a (lady) driver trying to park her car in a space that wasn't big enough. Back 2 inches, forward 2 inches etc. She was stil trying half an hour later, and we were taking bets on if she would hit one of the cars in front or behind :laugh She inevitably did, but then decided to just drive off anyway :splapme

Still, it was amusing all the same.

[Win2Win]

I don't know OFF.......Oldham started a NEW THREAD on that subject.....you'll have Mat all in a tizzy now :D

[Onlyforfun]

25- I was listening to some old Ultravox albums today and realised that there were only ever 5 good things to come out of East Kilbride:

The Hunter Brothers - pioneers of surgery
Midge Ure - founder of Ultravox and co-founder of Live Aid
Ally McCoist - top class footballer and top bloke
Me
The A725 that gets you the hell out of there to the M74 for escape North or South.

So why would someone who won £35 million on the lottery "never want to leave"? She should give the money back!

:headbange:headbange:headbange

[mathare]

The weird thing about East Kilbride is I reckon I know more people from there than from any other single town or city

[Win2Win]

Midge Ure - founder of Ultravox and co-founder of Live Aid

I have his live in London gig, great stuff.

[bigcumba]

Midge Ure - founder of Ultravox

I think John Foxx might have something to say about that !

[tophatter]

You wait until im Prime Minister OFF. Im going to give Scotland full independence and then deport you to East Kilbride! :)

[Win2Win]

Can you take the VAT off Chinese takeaways please? :)

[bigshug]

I've just fitted a kitchen in EK this weekend & if I'd just won 35 million I'd be bailing out sharpish. Non descript "new town" With 1 millionaire ? She'll be missus no pals if she doesn't make new friends. Human nature can be very harsh

[Onlyforfun]

26- How many times is Pete Doherty going to get let off? Does he have to kill someone when he's driving up to his eyeballs on drugs before he gets banged up? And we wonder why there is no fear of the law anymore...

27- What's the fuss about whether Learco Chindarmo (murderer of Philip Lawrence) is deported or not. If he is deported to Italy and as an EU citizen he has the "right" to freedom of movement accross Europe anyway. The real scandal is his 12 year minimum sentence.

[sparkyminer]

If he is deported to Italy and as an EU citizen he has the "right" to freedom of movement accross Europe anyway.

If he's deported he can't come back here though.

[Win2Win]

26....The plonker should be DEPORTED.....Smackhead.....

Appendix 1:
Cameron arguing in the media that two hospitals should not be closed......when they are not closing at all. :laugh ...can't even run a shadow government....never mind a real one, he's made mistakes like this before!! :icon_tong

[Onlyforfun]

And who's going to stop him coming back? The same Human Rights Act that is creating the problem would almost certainly be interpreted to allow him to return.

[tophatter]

Cameron arguing in the media that two hospitals should not be closed......when they are not closing at all. :laugh ...can't even run a shadow government....never mind a real one, he's made mistakes like this before!! :icon_tong

He has even to managed to mess this one up and its the political equivilient of an open goal. What once appeared to be freshness and charm now oozes insincerity and shallowness and a kind of political naiveness which must be worrying his supporters.

To hear him on the today show promising Gordon Brown a "bare knuckle fight" on hospitals made me laugh as I recall this is the bloke who said he wanted an end to "punch and Judy politics"

Yet again he has hardly made a murmer and this was meant to be him fighting back and putting himself back on the front foot. He is struggling, and showing real signs of weakness and distress during his first political test, do people really want someone so flimsy to lead the country?

[Onlyforfun]

28-
Cameron arguing in the media that two hospitals should not be closed......when they are not closing at all.

Aren't you a little old to believe in fairy tales. Since when was an official denial anything but proof that the accusation is true??? These will be the same Trusts who didn't have any deficit problems then will they?

[Win2Win]

What's an accounting deficit got to do with Cameron saying publicly something is closing when it is not? :doh

...and he hasn't apologised yet, one of his little MP's apologised himself to his local trust, as the Boss couldn't give a monkey.....busy planting a tree and waiting 25 years for it to recycle his Co2!!!!

[tophatter]

The real point is that when you are leader of the opposition you have to make your opponents life difficult - that is all you have to do. He is failing in a major way at the moment. Mistakes like he has been making over the past few weeks would be fatal in a general election campaign where every little mistake is siezed upon.

I dont belive for one minute Gordon Brown will go to the country in the Autumn but by putting out the line that he is thinking about it sends the message to the country that he believes Cameron is weak. That drip drip message gets into the publics mind and that is when you have to make sure you are top of the game. He failed miserably.

Lets be honest here. He dont care about those hospitals and that is why he has been so sloppy in the research and the presentation of it. It smacks of amateurism. He will get caught out time and time again because the things he is tackling the government on are things he and his party dont really care about or understand fully. YOu only have to look at how long these campaigns last. Usually it is an interview on the Today Show, then some kind of speech in front of a logo of a tree and then a mopping up exercise when it is rumbled that it is all spin and sloppy spin at that. It is all forgotten in a day or two because there is no beef to anything he does, its all flimsy and wishy washy. Next week it will be something else the focus group has told him to talk about. Looking at the papers at the moment it will probably be human rights or underage drinking. It will be equally ill thought out, vacuous and forgettable though because he is flitting from subject to subject and listening to advisors and not his shadow cabinet as they are all on holiday and talentless anyway.

I dont care, I want Labour to win the next election andI still think what he is trying to do with modernising the Tory party is the right thing too. I just dont think he is very good at it when it comes to the crunch, he is lacking in political gravity and it is showing now the phoney war is over and he is facing a more disciplined Labour party.

[buddhabee]

Is the war over? :doh

They kept that quiet.

[Merlin]

The real point is that when you are leader of the opposition you have to make your opponents life difficult - that is all you have to do. He is failing in a major way at the moment. Mistakes like he has been making over the past few weeks would be fatal in a general election campaign where every little mistake is siezed upon.

I dont belive for one minute Gordon Brown will go to the country in the Autumn but by putting out the line that he is thinking about it sends the message to the country that he believes Cameron is weak. That drip drip message gets into the publics mind and that is when you have to make sure you are top of the game. He failed miserably.

Lets be honest here. He dont care about those hospitals and that is why he has been so sloppy in the research and the presentation of it. It smacks of amateurism. He will get caught out time and time again because the things he is tackling the government on are things he and his party dont really care about or understand fully. YOu only have to look at how long these campaigns last. Usually it is an interview on the Today Show, then some kind of speech in front of a logo of a tree and then a mopping up exercise when it is rumbled that it is all spin and sloppy spin at that. It is all forgotten in a day or two because there is no beef to anything he does, its all flimsy and wishy washy. Next week it will be something else the focus group has told him to talk about. Looking at the papers at the moment it will probably be human rights or underage drinking. It will be equally ill thought out, vacuous and forgettable though because he is flitting from subject to subject and listening to advisors and not his shadow cabinet as they are all on holiday and talentless anyway.

I dont care, I want Labour to win the next election andI still think what he is trying to do with modernising the Tory party is the right thing too. I just dont think he is very good at it when it comes to the crunch, he is lacking in political gravity and it is showing now the phoney war is over and he is facing a more disciplined Labour party.


Nice speech , TH......

[tophatter]

Cheers Merl,

Was trying to do my best to be objective not partisan. Truth is I think everyone other than one-eyed blues know that Cameron will not be Prime Minister as he is not up to scratch. Whether that is due to him getting the job unexpetedly at too young an age (mainly due to a dreadful conference speech by David Davies) or a long term political weakness we will never know.

Opposition leaders dont win elections, Prime Minister lose them and Gordon Brown will not be doing that in a hurry. His only decision now is to make sure Cameron is still leader when he calls the election and as I cant see even the Tory Party stabbing him in the back in the next 18 month, that means Brown can pretty much call it when he likes. Surely its got to be Spring 2008 and I would guess that a comfortable 80 + majority will be secured. It wont mean Cameron is a total failure because he had to modernise and has at least given that impression, but its going to need a man of substance and stature to carry it through to the stage where the party is ready to govern and that man aint Dave.

[Merlin]

He is all sounbite, TH....

Nothing more , nothing less……..His job is easier than Kinnocks was…but Kinnock was a real man…..Cameron is a dead duck…

[Win2Win]

He is all sounbite, TH....

Nothing more , nothing less……..His job is easier than Kinnocks was…but Kinnock was a real man…..Cameron is a dead duck…

Dead ducks are useful, you can eat them.....no way would I sink my teeth into Camermong :ooo

[tovarich]

26....The plonker should be DEPORTED.....Smackhead.....
Appendix 1:
Cameron arguing in the media that two hospitals should not be closed......when they are not closing at all. :laugh ...can't even run a shadow government....never mind a real one, he's made mistakes like this before!! :icon_tong


Just trying to catch up with some posts I've missed.

You're quite right Keith and TH, how stupid can Cameron get accusing the Government of closing down 29 hospitals when in fact they are ONLY closing 27 our much needed hospitals. The stupid man will never learn.:laugh
PS. Got my smilies back:wiggle:

[tovarich]

Furthermore, can't be all that long since Dr Reid (ex communist/ex alcoholic)was warning us that if the Conservatives were in power they would close our hospitals and ruin the NHS. :laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh

Yes, you have to laugh, sad thing is some people actually believe the lies (spin ) they tell.:ermmm

[Onlyforfun]

You're quite right Keith and TH, how stupid can Cameron get accusing the Government of closing down 29 hospitals when in fact they are ONLY closing 27 our much needed hospitals. The stupid man will never learn.:laugh

:thumbs

29- "ContactPoint". Never heard of it? Not surprised. It is the new all singing all dancing government database that from 2008 will keep records in a big-brother style of every under-18 in the country, including medical and school records, social work records etc etc etc.

Ignore for a second the sheer invasiveness of this system and whether it is anything more than a solution waiting for a problem and instead consider that I wrote "every child under 18" above. It is, in fact, a lie. Those of us who happen to be "celebrities" or politicians will most likely be exempt "for security reasons". :mad:

To digress slightly, since the 1970's El Al, the Israeli airline has THE best security record, and given the extra threat they face that is fine going. And the reason for this can be found in 1 simple premise. Despite having double baggage screening, profiling of all passengers, interview of many passengers and armed sky marshalls on every flight, occasionally they give a random ticket to one of the security officials. Effectively "you say the plane is safe, get on it".

So my message to you. If any Govt wants a far-reaching database of all your details (ID cards?) the first question to ask is "Will the PM and his family be included?". If the security is not sufficient for them, it is not sufficient for me.

[tophatter]

Furthermore, can't be all that long since Dr Reid (ex communist/ex alcoholic)was warning us that if the Conservatives were in power they would close our hospitals and ruin the NHS. :laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh

Yes, you have to laugh, sad thing is some people actually believe the lies (spin ) they tell.:ermmm

so 27 hosipitals are shutting then? are you certain you aint spinning that tov? if I read the facts wrong and those 27 hospitals will no longer exist then I must say cameron disappoints me even more.

how ineffectual can a leader of the opposition be if he has to drop a campaign on the health service after one bungled day? I prefer to believe that the hospitals are not closing and you are doing exactly what you so bitterly accuse the politicians of doing - you naughty spin doctor you.

[Merlin]

:laugh:laugh:laugh.....Nice one , TH...:laugh

[Onlyforfun]

30- http://www.win2win.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=434845#post434845

A Tony Blair supporter excoriating DC politician for "spin"?

A Gordon Brown supporter excoriating DC for announcing the same ideas twice? (at least it is only ideas and not so-called investment, i.e., spending. If Brown really did "release" as much cash as he announced our national deficit would be on a par with the US)

I'll be kind and say this is a result of misguided loyalty rather than hypocrisy!

Remember that the Opposition cannot make policy, they can only present ideas. Therefore, opposition is all about image and ideas by definition, whereas the business of government should be result driven rather than "spin".

[tophatter]

Im offended you should view my contempt for DC spin as stupidity OFF. :)

I am fed up with DC totally, he is actually starting to sicken me rather than just annoy me.

I have no problem with spin, if you have something to spin. Spin is just another word for politics.

As a "Gordon Brown supporter" I should be pleased Cameron is performing so attrociously as it makes Browns job easier but its not very good for the countries politics if we dont have an effective opposition.

This past week has hit new lows in my opinion of DC. I used to think he was a skilful spin doctor but he is actually now trying to spin things when he has nothing to spin.

Hypocrisy is too strong a word to describe my viewpoint - I think puzzlement would be more apt. I would like to think that having listened to the Conservative party for years whinge about spin (when what they really meant is they were been out manouvered) they are now trying to do the same thing - but very badly bodgeing it - that im actually puzzled at THEIR hypocricy!

Spin is fine, but this aint even spin, its fluff and candyfloss for dreamers. Not good at all.

[tophatter]

By the way, im far from a Tony Blair supporter although I admired his political skills (not as much as Cameron and Osbourne do, but i did admire those skills)

Blair was the product of a dillution of Labour which us lefties accepted to keep the middle classes happy. The conservatives now have their own version. Unfortunatley he is not as skilful as Blair so you get the worst of both worlds - perpetual opposition AND a dilution of your beliefs!

Feel free to defend his spin on the thread I started OFF rather than just call me a hypo. I know you love me really and I suspect, knowing that you are not a vacuaos fluffhead, that you cant really argue with what i said on there as you know its true.

[buddhabee]

If 27 hospitals are closing then surely it must be Labour's ineffectiveness in proving funding from taxation.

If they were to raise income tax for the highest earners to 50% then perhaps these hospitals need not close. High earners use NHS hospitals too.

Instead Labour just seem paralyzed to do that other than by 'stealth' that hits everyone. If they were to raise income tax (as they know they should) they'd get a slating in the press and their popularity would go down. But as it may save a few hospitals so what?

[Win2Win]

Blackpool hospital closed while the Tories where in power....wonder how many more went.....

[tophatter]

I dont know how many hospitals are closing and nor does Dave Cameron. Difference is I dont go on the radio shout my mouth off without checking. Also it might just be they are closing for re-organisation purposes or they are talking about shutting certain wings. Whatever the case you can be sure his lot are the last people you want to protect public services.

[Win2Win]

Blackpool hospital closed while the Tories where in power....wonder how many more went.....

...My Nan points out that the Liverpool hopsital closed while the Tories were in power, and the local hospital on Stanley Road......that's 3 in a pretty small'ish area of the country......

[Onlyforfun]

If 27 hospitals are closing then surely it must be Labour's ineffectiveness in proving funding from taxation.

If they were to raise income tax for the highest earners to 50% then perhaps these hospitals need not close. High earners use NHS hospitals too.

Instead Labour just seem paralyzed to do that other than by 'stealth' that hits everyone. If they were to raise income tax (as they know they should) they'd get a slating in the press and their popularity would go down. But as it may save a few hospitals so what?


They have nearly doubled spending on the NHS yet it still lurches from crisis to crisis. The main folly obviously being increasing salaries, particularly consultants and GP's without imposing any changes in working practices. Most of the extra cash has been sucked up in pay rises with no corresponding improvement in productivity. It is not how much money that is spent that determines teh quality of care, it is how it is spent.

To say raise taxes on the "rich" to 50% would lose them the election. Fact is, lots more people are now in the top rate tax band as it has been raised by your friend Brown in far smaller increments than inflation (and don't get me started on that subject, 2% my :butthead:), and few of them are "rich" unless they have plundered the equity in their houses.

In London you now need a salary of something like £30k just to pay the mortgage on an average house, council tax, TV license, gas, elec, & water and insurance. Then add food and travel and you are looking closer to £40k without any treats / holidays / running a car. And that my foolish friend is over the threshold!

[tophatter]

I think a tax band on salaries over 100K might be worth looking at but essentially OFF is correct - the government have kept their promise and invested in the public services so I dont think it is necessary to raise any more tax, a bit more redistribution would be nice though but not without redefing who the rich are.

I dont think the NHS lurch from crisis to crisis either. It is a huge organisation and it will always be a balancing act. I think its performing well but has to be kept under control which means hard decisions are painted as crisis by people who would never had made the commitment to it this government has if they had been in their shoes.

[Onlyforfun]

31- And this one really made my ;fire blood boil ;fire.

The target for basic literacy and numeracy in primary schools is 85% of pupils to reach the required level. 85 :censored: percent?!?!

Reminds me of the old saying that "I'm not disappointed that everyone has a price, what disappoints me is that most people's price is so low."

The TARGET should be 100%. To make it 85% sends the message that it is OK if nearly 1 in 6 kids leaves primary school without being able to write and count. So will the teachers and DoE celebrate if they make 86%??? What a bunch of ;fire:censored:;fire ing ;fire:censored:;fire s. If primary schools can't teach that in 5 years or however long it is in this god-forsaken country, we might as well shut them down.

[MattR]

That is staggering. How can it be acceptable to have anything less than 100%? There is no reason in this day and age for anyone to go through school and still be illiterate and not be able to do basic arithmetic (barring some kind of mental disablity)

[mathare]

Our education system should aspire to be more like that of our best buddy America's. Where 1 in 5 Americans couldn't find their country on a map. :yikes:

[vegyjones]

There was a report the other dau about children using text speak in their written examinations.

Even I no U can't do that! R they B ing serious? That's outr8gus!!!!

[mathare]

There was a report the other dau about children using text speak in their written examinations.What's a dau? :wink

[vegyjones]

That's a computer error, not a typo. It has cut off the bottom of the letter!

[MattR]

Our education system should aspire to be more like that of our best buddy America's. Where 1 in 5 Americans couldn't find their country on a map. :yikes:

And 4 in 5 didn't know there was a world outside America :D

[mathare]

That's a computer error, not a typo. It has cut off the bottom of the letter!I think it's what's known as PEBCAK. :wink



(Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard)

[vegyjones]

My sandwich is the problem? :doh

[Onlyforfun]

And it is perfectly possible to get an A* in GCSE English with bad spelling, punctuation and grammar which entirely defeats the purpose of the exam.

[tophatter]

32

spend years banging on about Gordon Brown robbing the country and taxes been too high and then pledge to match his spending for the next two years based on the economy growing faster than government even though you have also spent that time forecasting the economy is about to go pop.

[Onlyforfun]

32- I toyed with the ultimate in jobsworth behaviour where A&E satff wouldn't attend a bloke in a car parked outside and made his mate phone an ambulance. Of course, if he hadn't been likely to be consumed in a blizzard of tickets he may have pulled into the ambulance bay.

But no! I will resist such obvious shenanigans and instead talk about wi-fi.

Some Community Support Officers collared a bloke sitting on a wall using his laptop and he is now up before the beak, accused of theft for piggybacking somebody's unsecured wi-fi network.

My problems with this are 2-fold.

1- What has he actually stolen? Assuming said network is connected to broadband the "owner" won't pay for it. The broadband operator has already contracted to provide a certain "bandwith" (see, it is even difficult to define exactly what has been stolen). Open and quickly closed case in my book.

2- If my next door neighbour has a wi-fi set-up and wishes to keep it to himself he is more than welcome as far as I am concerned. However, this is on the basis that it doesn't intrude onto my property. If we are going to allow wi-fi, being able to occassionaly piggyback is a small price to pay for the intrusion into others homes and property and the public space of this once green and pleasant land.

The same laws should be applied to wi-fi that apply to game, once it is on your land it is yours. In fact, I would go so far as to legislate that unless you can restrain it within the boundaries of your property it should be illegal to block it.

After all, if you clear the public footpath outside your house of snow and ice you can hardly stop other people from walking on it or using the light spilling from your house to look at their watches or if their cherry tree grows over the fence they can hardly ask for the cherries back (thanks neighbour btw! :D)

Maybe it has more to do with the "State" not being able to track and log your browsing history?

[Onlyforfun]

32

spend years banging on about Gordon Brown robbing the country and taxes been too high and then pledge to match his spending for the next two years based on the economy growing faster than government even though you have also spent that time forecasting the economy is about to go pop.

Nope, can't have that as no. 32, lacks originality, satire and / or humour. :D

[tophatter]

It has humour alright and satire, made me laugh when i heard him presenting it like a school boy handing in his homework this morning.

I agree its not original though as it looks like it has been nicked from Tony Blairs all things to all men handbook.

I dont care, I agree with it. :)

[vegyjones]

32- I toyed with the ultimate in jobsworth behaviour where A&E satff wouldn't attend a bloke in a car parked outside and made his mate phone an ambulance. Of course, if he hadn't been likely to be consumed in a blizzard of tickets he may have pulled into the ambulance bay.

Trouble is... once you set a precedent!

[vegyjones]

After all, if you clear the public footpath outside your house of snow and ice you can hardly stop other people from walking on it or using the light spilling from your house to look at their watches or if their cherry tree grows over the fence they can hardly ask for the cherries back (thanks neighbour btw! :D
But your car doesn't have to be on your own property to be considered theft if someone steals it! :)

[Onlyforfun]

But if I steal a car, "the victim" suffers a real and accountable cost.

Even then, if you park it on my property without permission I can clamp it, remove it or even build a 10 foot high concrete wall around it and there is nothing you can do to stop me.

And in the manner of the Rocky Horror Show (apt I assure you) "Let's do the timewarp again"

Back in 1997


spend years banging on about Ken Clarke robbing the poor and taxes being too low and then pledge to match his spending restraint for the next four years based on the economy growing faster than government forecast even though you have also spent that time forecasting the economy is about to go pop.

[vegyjones]

But if I steal a car, "the victim" suffers a real and accountable cost.

If someone takes your car, drives around for an hour, fills the car back up with petrol and parks it back where they took it from... that is still against the law :)

[sparkyminer]

If someone takes your car, drives around for an hour, fills the car back up with petrol and parks it back where they took it from... that is still against the law :)

It's TWOC though, not theft.

[Onlyforfun]

It's TWOC though, not theft.

Exactly, and you still suffer a loss in terms of wear and tear, and also a potential significant loss if the driver crashes it as there would be an excess on your insurance and it would have a direct impact on the cost of insurance.

[vegyjones]

Exactly, and you still suffer a loss in terms of wear and tear, and also a potential significant loss if the driver crashes it as there would be an excess on your insurance and it would have a direct impact on the cost of insurance.

But TWOC is exactly what we're talking about here, so same rules apply. Unfortunately I know too little to comment on what costs might be occured by someone "piggybacking" another's wi-fi, but surely the owner of the wi-fi may now realise his is close to his bandwidth limit when he may not have been beforehand!

[tophatter]

And in the manner of the Rocky Horror Show (apt I assure you) "Let's do the timewarp again"

Back in 1997


There you go then, so what you are basically saying is that Dave Camerons Conservatives are basically New Labour.

That is all I have ever argued with the more conventional Conservatives such as yourslef.

The idealogiccal battle has been won. Ken Clarke (who most of the conservative right wing cant stand) started more sensible economic policies after the slash and burn, boom and bust policies of the 80's. Gordon Brown built on that newfound stability and then increased spending on the public services and now Osbourne has pledged to continue spending.

The state is no longer attacked by the conservative party. They now accept they were wrong to attack the state and they now propose to continue to fund it. We are all social democrats now. Today was just confirmation that the 80's are never coming back - ever. If we all agree on economic policy now I would prefer the prime mininster of the country to be the longest serving chancellor who presided over 40 succesive periods of economic growth than an old etonian who has never held office, wrote the 2005 losing manifesto and in his heart dont really believe in the state anyway.

[mathare]

What is important here is whether the wi-fi owner is on a limited tariff. If he is then something tangible is being stolen, as downloads made by the piggy-backer contribute to the owner's monthly total. If the owner's deal is unlimited broadband then nothing tangible has been stolen.

One could also argue that anyone who can't secure their wi-fi deserves to have it stolen. But would you keep a kid's ball if it came over the fence into your garden simply because he wasn't able to keep it in his own garden?

[tophatter]

isnt it the supplier of the broadband who is been stolen from? I would not imagine BT would be very happy if they were only receiving one payment from a customer but supplying their services to others free.

Its daft taking it to court in any case. It is the technologies fault. People will always get something for nothing if they can.

[Win2Win]

But would you keep a kid's ball if it came over the fence into your garden simply because he wasn't able to keep it in his own garden?

I do :D ....and daddy daren't come around, they respect there own knee caps around here :)

[Onlyforfun]

33- What is the point of having a so-called Socialist govt and a communist Mayor, if we are still going to have the RMT bringing the Tube to a halt for a week?

And as for the :censored: who are striking. You want job security? Not the best way to go about it you morons. The Tube is hardly going to disappear, so you have more job security than all the hundreds of thousands of people you have inconvenienced.

If I was in charge -

1- 1 weeks pay docked for every day on strike
2- Sack them all and re-advertise their jobs at 60% of current salary.
3- Follow the Chinese way, take Bob Crow and shoot him in the back of his head and send the bill for the bullet to the RMT.

[Win2Win]

take Bob Crow and shoot him in the back of his head and send the bill for the bullet to the RMT.

:yikes: He's turned into Thatcher.....

[sparkyminer]

:yikes: He's turned into Thatcher.....

It was never going to be a long journey though was it?:D

[Onlyforfun]

:yikes: He's turned into Thatcher.....

Au contraire! Confusingly, it now seems I have turned into Gordon Brown... :helper

[Merlin]

What is important here is whether the wi-fi owner is on a limited tariff. If he is then something tangible is being stolen, as downloads made by the piggy-backer contribute to the owner's monthly total. If the owner's deal is unlimited broadband then nothing tangible has been stolen.



Thats the least important aspect , Matt....objectively.......your turning an objective issue into a subjective one...Its either stealing or its not...stealing....

[Merlin]

isnt it the supplier of the broadband who is been stolen from? I would not imagine BT would be very happy if they were only receiving one payment from a customer but supplying their services to others free.

Its daft taking it to court in any case. It is the technologies fault. People will always get something for nothing if they can.

In Brazil – primarily in favelas.....most, if not all of the electricity being used is taken for free……the community plugs-in to the main system – it is illegal, and dangerous too….people get killed everyday doing it…….the electricity company mostly turn a blind eye to it…as do the local govt…….

[mathare]

Thats the least important aspect , Matt....objectively.......your turning an objective issue into a subjective one...Its either stealing or its not...stealing....I don't think I am turning it into a subjective issue. I think it's stealing but I was trying to define something tangible that could be stolen as OFF seemed to be struggling to even define what was being nicked. The item/object that is being stolen can hardly be described as the least important aspect in a theft case can it?

Sure, if they owner is on an unlimited tariff it is harder to define what exactly has been nicked but it is still theft. Someone is paying for a service and you're using it without their permission.

[sparkyminer]

I think it's classed as 'Obtaining goods or services without payment.'

[Merlin]

I don't think I am turning it into a subjective issue. I think it's stealing but I was trying to define something tangible that could be stolen as OFF seemed to be struggling to even define what was being nicked. The item/object that is being stolen can hardly be described as the least important aspect in a theft case can it?

Sure, if they owner is on an unlimited tariff it is harder to define what exactly has been nicked but it is still theft. Someone is paying for a service and you're using it without their permission.

If its stealing , Matt....it defines itself as being objective….whether the person is on limited tariff…or whether the company itself is on limited tariff is irrelevant….(coz as you know , suppliers have limits too)…..

Its either stealing or its not stealing – simple….

If I was to read a book using the light from your living room window……am I stealing your light?

[sparkyminer]

If I was to read a book using the light from your living room window……am I stealing your light?

No, but you'd probably nicked his book.:D

[mathare]

Its either stealing or its not stealing – simple….I agree, and as I said I regard it as theft whether or not a data limit was in place.


If I was to read a book using the light from your living room window……am I stealing your light?Assuming you're not on my property you are likely to be in a public place or on an adjoining property. And if you're in public I think you need to worry more about the type of book you're likely to be reading and the indecent acts it is likely to make you want to perform :wink

[Onlyforfun]

But anyway, moving ever onwards in my search for the absurd and truly idiotic:

34 - Food additives. Heard some simpering female fool this morning on the BBC saying "It's so hard not to feed your kids food with additives." Before I could snort with derision my normally mild-mannered wife was swearing at the TV shouting "It's not :censored: difficult, just get off your fat :butthead: and cook!"

Here, here! I'm no macro-biotic, vegetarian, organic, tree-hugger (as you have probably guessed by now), but it is just as cheap, just as quick, and a lot better for you to cook using fresh vegetables and meat. Anyway, I'm happy to spend an hour of an evening cooking for the next day rather than watch the crap that passes for TV these days (except for Trawlermen, Mock the Week, Worlds Deadliest Catch and repeats of That Mitchell and Webb Look).

The only fizzy drinks that make it into our house are the industrial quantities of tonic for my Gin!

35- "Citizens Juries". Firstly, we are not citizens, we are subjects. Secondly, we pay a bog-standard MP £60,277 pa. and look at what the rest earn:

Prime Minister - 187,611
Cabinet Minister - 136,677
Minister of State - 99,908
Parliamentary Under Secretary - 90,358
Government Chief Whip - 136,677
Government Deputy Chief Whip - 99,908

Government Whip - 85,782
Assistant Government Whip - 85,782
Leader of the Opposition - 130,312
Opposition Chief Whip - 99,908
Deputy Chief Opposition Whip - 85,782
Assistant Opposition Whip - 85,782
Speaker - 136,677 (gorbals Mick gets HOW MUCH!)
Chairmen of Ways and Means - 99,908
First Deputy Chairman - 95,108
Second Deputy Chairman - 95,108
Solicitor General - 126,846
Advocate General for Scotland - 126,846
And the gravy train continues into the Lords and doesn't include "expenses" like getting the interest paid on second homes in London even if you rent them out.

Gordon, you get £180k a year to run the country, get off your :butthead: and do it. It's all well and good having "convictions" but if you have no ideas on what needs done and how to do it I suggest you give your salary back to the taxpayer.

[Win2Win]

Leader of the Opposition - 130,312

Worth every penny.....a better comedy than even the Beeb can manage :rolleyes:

[Onlyforfun]

36- "5th Richest Country - 17th Best Standard of Living". This is the UK according to The Economist. No big deal, after all, what do Economists know?

What really amazed me was the news as reported on the BBC that part of this was that we had "done well in alcohol consumption". State the bleedin' obvious I thought until they told us our ranking.

Top? Nope, thats Oz.
Top 3? Nope
Top 5 surely? Nope
Top 10, has to be? Nope
Top 20? Just, 18th.

17 other countries consume more alcohol per capita than we do, I hardly call that something to be proud of. :D

[Onlyforfun]

37- Received Wisdom, in particular "no 2 snowflakes have ever been the same".

HOW DO YOU KNOW?!?! Trillions and trillions of the things must have fallen over the last billion years, who has checked this so called fact? ;fire;fire

(I have a problem with snowflakes having had just 10 minutes to remind myself how to make paper ones before my little 'un went to nursery with one).

[tophatter]

37- Received Wisdom, in particular "no 2 snowflakes have ever been the same

i agree there snow way of knowing

[vegyjones]

Tophatter, that's not ice!

[Win2Win]

HOW DO YOU KNOW?!?! Trillions and trillions of the things must have fallen over the last billion years, who has checked this so called fact?

Each one is made of different quantum particles, so none can be the same, as the energy would have moved on and been replaced by the time that particle ever makes another snowflake.

[Onlyforfun]

Prove it! :Blacklistnonono:

OK, I accept that it is likely that no 2 have ever had exactly the same molecuylar structure, but surely 2 in the whole of history must have had the same large scale pattern... prove they haven't, go on...

[bigcumba]

prove they haven't, go on...

Easy.... it's because God made them that way and God moves in mysterious ways. :wink

[wb]

Prove it! :Blacklistnonono:

OK, I accept that it is likely that no 2 have ever had exactly the same molecuylar structure, but surely 2 in the whole of history must have had the same large scale pattern... prove they haven't, go on...

Is it not the same with fingerprints? People say that they can't be the same, but what they really mean is that the chances are billions to one (or more?)

[Onlyforfun]

Exactly, DNA with all 20 marker sequences intact gives you a 1 in a billion chance of it belonging to someone else, but the vagaries of statistics mean it is just as likely to match the guy next door or some bloke in China.

[Win2Win]

You will generally find that around 10% of base pairs will not match anyone else on the planet, due to transfers between parents, even twins do not carry exactly matching sequences, as the 10% equates to around 3 million, so mix them up and you get the base odds, then throw in the other 90% which consists of race, length of colon, colour, hair, protein structures, how many arms, etc, which is 27 Million, and you can then work out the odds of getting a match with someone else......chances are their isn't one born yet, and unlikely to be, although statistically possible, probable, no.

[Onlyforfun]

38- £100k bank deposit gurantee??? There is no such thing as a risk free investment and the last thing we should be doing is nationalising banking risk. Yet another example of namby-pamby government.

Surely a better solution would be for banks / building societies to offer optional deposit protection in the form of lower interest. In effect we will now have a compulsory insurance as if it is funded by a levy on banks, they will cut interest rates on all eposits to compensate. And then you have the issue of how the levy will be invested, in an insurance company? They are far less secure than banks. No doubt the cash will find it's way into teh Treasury and be used for "investment" in increased public sector salaries.

Maybe, and call me a cynic if you will, that teh Govt and BoE know that if they big up this story the lumpen masses won't notice their salaries and savings being eaten up by inflation.

Anyone with a decent sum who doesn't take professional advice or educate themselves on how to protect it deserve what they get.

[Onlyforfun]

Silly me, if you want a bond fully guaranteed against UK tax receipts, National Savings already offered 5.2-5.5% vs Northern Rocks 6.2%.

Criminal madness ;fire

[Win2Win]

I get a lot more than that at the 'Betfair & Bookie Bank'....tax free...thanks Gordon...:)

[Onlyforfun]

39- Inflation again. 1.8%?!?!? Why? Because of front-loading by furniture companies before the "sales" start. Now how often do you buy a sofa, or a wardrobe, or a washing machine? Not very.

So let us look at the basics that have been important to man from the beginning of time; food, fire and shelter.

The cost of food is going up very rapidly, eggs up 30% in the last 2 months, milk up 16% and the average loaf of bread is over £1.

What about fire (or petrol as we know it these days). Crude oil is at all time highs and depite petrol approaching £1 / litre again, and it WILL break that with the 2p / litre rise in duty in a weeks time with the knock on costs to everything else we buy such as food, up nearly 30% from this time last year.

What are my other essentials? Transport? My monthly rail only ticket now costs almost as much as a zone 1-4 travelcard cost a 2 years ago, supposedly 6.3% per year, but in reality more as they have met moer punctuality targets (not that you'd notice) so the discount on that line has decreased.

And shelter? Mortgage rates rise as anyone coming off a fixed rate will tell you, up by 21% since last year (and mortgage rates probably even more).

My own "essentials" indicator therefore puts inflation at around 11.5% using 14% increases in food, 11% on petrol and 20% on mortgage. Add in council tax, increase in NI and I need a hefty pay rise just to keep still.

[Onlyforfun]

40- What is it with the current crop of politicians? Why can't they just get the :censored: out of my life unless I endanger others or cause a nuisance.

The latest wheeze by Alan Johnston, the Health Secretary (where do they find enough morons to run this portfolio?) is to give every pregnant woman £120 IN THE HOPE that they will spend it on fresh fruit and veg. Applying the "Onlyforfun Reasonableness Test" I find a problem! Those that would buy fruit and veg anyway, will get £120 to put towards their increasing road tax and those who wouldn't are mor elikely to spend it on booze, fags or even heroine than on decent food.

This from the hypocritical morons that slated DC for wanting to give married couples having children tax breaks! Now tax breaks could help keep families together as money is a particular lever of stress in married couples, especially with dwindling real wealth (see 39 - Inflation Again). And more children is good for the economy and the country, so a bribe to have more is justifiable and works well in other countries.

[Fadetoblack]

Fruit and Veg vouchers were the first thing that popped into my head when I saw this on the only channel I had in my holiday apartment last week, sky news. (Or the Find Madeleine Channel)

[Onlyforfun]

41- Turns out that the reason the Bank of England couldn't lend "covertly" to Northern Rock or force a merger with Lloyds, was because the Treasury under a certain Gordon Brown took the EU directive on Market Abuse and made it even tougher. Under the original code the crisis could have been avoided (well, imo, put off until another day - but you know what I mean).

So Brown indirectly takes credit for solving a problem of his own making. What a shower of b:censored:ds.

[tophatter]

whoo calm down OFF. Just because some people disagree with the fact some children would be discriminated against because they only had one parent dont make them a hypocritical moron.

There will be an election within the next two years, and if you are right about your theories over the past two years that the country will reject Brown because he happens to be a scottish Member of Parliament and people find him boring, then you will have the last laugh and can push Dave Cameron for your 11% pay rise and extra tenner a week for been married with kids. :)

[Onlyforfun]

I'm from single parent family, and a tax break wouldn't have kept my parents together, my Dad was well paid, but he pissed off abroad and left us with nothing apart from a roof over our heads.

But, there is no escaping the FACT that children of 2 - parent families do much better on average and get into less trouble than those from single parent families, so anything that helps and/or encourages families to stay together is a GOOD THING, even if it doesn't help others in other situations. I don;t think single-parents should be punished but neither is there a moral argument for treating them equally or preferentially.

And I don't need DC for an 11% raise.:thumbs (I had the interests of those who don't understand these things at heart)

[tophatter]

Maybe, maybe not, its open to debate

I dont think there is any argument that kids in a stable family stand a better chance of doing better.

The argument is does offering, what is in reality a pretty flimsy tax break to the many who have that advantage of a stable two parent family already make sense? Or would it be better to spend any spare money on giving support to the people who need the help more, i.e. children at that disadvantage through no fault of their own.

I dont think it makes any difference at all to whether people stay together or not and the money could be spent better and be better targetted to the people who really need it.

[Onlyforfun]

Maybe, maybe not, its open to debate

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, I just wish they'd keep them to themselves. :D


I dont think there is any argument that kids in a stable family stand a better chance of doing better.

That is contrary to every study ever done on the issue.


The argument is does offering, what is in reality a pretty flimsy tax break to the many who have that advantage of a stable two parent family already make sense? Or would it be better to spend any spare money on giving support to the people who need the help more, i.e. children at that disadvantage through no fault of their own.

Ah, so you think it is better to strive for equality through lowering standards to the mean rather than creating incentives for "better" behaviour?


and the money could be spent better and be better targetted to the people who really need it.

Should the State be entirely about giving people what "they need". I could say I "need" more money, but what I might really "need" is to simplify my life and cut expenditure? As the saying goes, "People rarely get what they want or what they think they need, instead, they usually get what they deserve."

[tophatter]

I dont understand your second point there OFF - I was actually agreeing that there was no argument about that kids in a stable family stand a better chance of doing better.


On your third point, I did not actually advocate giving a tax break to anyone. However if you are going to discriminate then better to discriminate in giving money to people who might be more in need of it. The way you are describing it is almost like saying it is a reward. I much prefer it to be concentrated on those in needs - dont like this nanny state stuff saying you can encourage people to get married - much prefer to let people make up their own minds.

Your fourth point is not about what you need as an individual but what the society needs as a whole to make it a better place for all. I agree though about letting people make their own mind up, such as whether they think getting married is a good idea or not.

People will make their minds up on this issue at the general election. You have two parties that respect and believe in public services and varying degrees of distribution of wealth and a party who are less enthusiastic. If 4 out of 10 people who vote go for the party who believes less in "the state" (note im giving Dave the benefit of the doubt and accepting he was speakinig sincerely when he apologised for his partys attitude towards the public services in the past, and im saying he just believes a little less in the state) than the other two parties then you will get a Conservative Prime Minister.

4 out of 10 people who vote is all they need to persuade and then we can see the power of this magical tenner keeping famalies together and creating queues outside churches and registery offices.

I just hope for the people who have put their faith in Cameron that this is not his big idea. Maybe they can spend the extra tenner putting windmills on their roofs and offsetting their carbon footprints.

You cant believe in this stuff OFF, I refuse to believe it. You are not stupid, vote for the serious guy, then you can play a part in getting rid of the clown leading the party and replace him with someone who should be representing the kind stuff you believe in becuase this stuff is not even credible.:thumbs

[tophatter]

In all seriousness and leaving the knockabout stuff aside, I am beginning to think that some Tories might have now resigned themselves to losing the next election and might just think that if they are going to lose it might be better to lose big. I bet David Davies is! Much better to become the leader of the opposition with a blank canvas, than a shadow home secretary watching the years go by. He made a bad speech at conference two years ago and paid the price, maybe he will make a better one this time round?

Its a bit like when you have a manager at a football club you dont like. You get to a point where you secretley hope you lose heavily in order for him to be sacked.

Cameron already needed to climb a mountain to win a majority and become PM. He was young enough when elected though to be able to take an election defeat as long as he got the majority down to a size similar to John Majors wafer thin majority which rendered him even more impotent than he naturally was.

Who knows? I reckon all this talk about "Brown Tories" may be Gordon Brown thinking he might even be able to get the silent (or quietly whispered) support of the likes of the Daily Mail and telegraph because they hate Cameron as much as he does!

Cameron might have one or two good ideas but Brown can just take them off him now anyway seeing as he helped Mandleson write the handbook Cameron is working from before they fell out.

Every trick is nearly used up now. Cameron had to modernise his party and so nailed his colours to that mast. I honestly dont see what he has left. He has been stitched up politically by Gordon Brown. We can disagree on who has the best policies, and lets be honest they dont differ that much, but there is no doubt in my mind who is the better politician.

[tophatter]

42 - that bloke caught speeding at 172 mph.

cost him his liberty for a few weeks and his job, lucky it did not cost him his life because surely you need special training to be able to drive at speeds like that? . Did he really think he could drive like that and get away with it?

[Merlin]

42 - that bloke caught speeding at 172 mph.

cost him his liberty for a few weeks and his job, lucky it did not cost him his life because surely you need special training to be able to drive at speeds like that? . Did he really think he could drive like that and get away with it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7012989.stm

[scoobydoo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7012989.stm

Theres todays Britain for you....he was supposed to serve at least half of a measly 15 month sentence....out in about 3 months.....space must be a premium! :splapme

[tophatter]

Im more concerned that he only got a two year driving ban.

You cant keep someone in prison indefinatley but you can keep them from getting behind the wheel for life.

I would like to see the law changed so anyone causing injury by dangerous driving such as that case is banned for life.

In fact on a seperate matter I would like to see a law where people convicted of serious crime have to serve an additional sentance on the outside in addition to their custodial sentance where they are not allowed to have a driving licence or a passport for a period of 12 months.

As these things are documentation and on databases it would be easy to enforce and if they were caught in breach I would fine them heavily and than ban them for life from driving.

[Onlyforfun]

43- I am a Conservative, I believe in a small state, low taxes and simple solutions, even if they are hard to implement. Some people seem to think my dislike of Gordon Brown and Labour equates to a high approval of David Cameron and his policies, but all it means is I would rather be governed by a bad Conservative than a good Socialist.

It amuses me to see certain Labour supporters tying themselves in knots championing Brown, who in turn is doing his damndest to trump Tony Blair and David Cameron as the heir to Thatcher. So much for deeply held convictions. He has taken the Labour party further to the right than most Conservative governments in terms of low public sector pay rises (unless you work in the NHS) and smashing what was left of the Unions, not very socialist. Hells bells, the tax take is even lower than during Maggies years.

[Win2Win]

43a. I am a Scouser, I believe in everthing being in a state, low taxis so we can get in when pssst, and simple solutions like crack.

[bigcumba]

43b - I am an antichrist, I am an anarchist, Don't know what I want, But I know how to get it.... :wink

[tophatter]

I dont think you champion Dave Cameron at all OFF as I suspect most conservatives dont believe in him either.

I have no problem with Gordon Brown been dubbed the heir to Thatcher either. If it helps the daily mail and telegraph readers hold their nose and vote for him then as far as Im concerned he can be the heir to anyone they like.

The bottomline is I dont think Cameron has got the skills to be Prime Minister and would be a disaster.

I dearly love Michael Foot but if I had been able to vote in that general election and thought it was a close call I would have seriously considered voting for Thatcher because I think Foot would have been a lousy PM. As it was he was so far behind her that he did not stand a hope in hell of beating her so I would have been safe to vote Labour but if it had been a tight election - would I have said I voted Foot but secretly voted Thatcher instead? I think i might have.

I believe many people will vote on who they think will be the best Prime Minister rather than prefer to be governed by a bad conservative rather than a good socialist. Like it or not Brown is Prime Minister now and I think most people will be prepared to give him a proper shot at it now he is already in the hot seat.

Personally, for me - I just want Cameron destroyed as I think he is not the real deal I thought he might be. Out of him and Thatcher, much as I disagreed with her policies, I would always take her as PM over him. I put up with Blair because he was a brilliant politician who destroyed the last remnants of the old style right wing by forcing the Conservatives to modernise. Thatcher did the same to the old Left wing of the Labour party.

It means in the future I might be in a position to vote Conservative if Labour ever find themselves saddled with such a weak leader. I would always prefer Labour as I believe in their aspirations and direction more than a centre right party, but having voted for Blair I do know if it ever comes to it, and providing the conservatives have a decent leader, I can just about stomach voting for a centre right Party. The key word though is centre, I will never be able to vote for the likes of Keith Joseph/John Redwood but maybe Ken Clarke/ Michael Heseltine. Cameron though? No way!

[Onlyforfun]

Very well said TH, but it doesn't give me much chance for argument! :)

44- Gordon Brown (Failed Trader). At least Nick Leeson only lost £800 million.

Back in 1999-2001 Brown sold the UK reserve from 715 tons to 320 tons or 17% to 8% and bought mainly Euros and some Yen and Dollars.

What a bad trade, with gold now at $735 / oz that is a loss of over £3 billion or £2 billion compared against investing the proceeds entirely in Euros (not an entirely unexpected result of letting academics loose in the real world where the sharp toothed predators await). Not so bad you might say, Government receipts in 2006-07 are estimated at around £517 billion and expenditure at $550 billion, so you might be tempted to say that this was a drop in the ocean.

But first, think about the word reserve. This implies something kept until it is required. In the case of national currency and gold reserves this is exactly what they should be, a reserve for times of difficulty. And guess what, at times of difficulty it is more than likely that the gold price will rise.

Take the Northern Rock fiasco where the Government has guaranteed some £22 billion of deposits. Even 715 tons of gold would now be worth something like £9.2 billion, but 320 tons is only worth £4.1 billion, not really enough to cover this guarantee. And guess how much money is currently available to the deposit protection scheme, go on, have a guess...

£4.4 million That's right, a shortfall of merely, err, £22 billion. And with the Bank of England prostituting what's left of our reserves starting today, lending £10 billion a time against mortgage collateral you might want to consider just how strong a government gurantee can be.

[Win2Win]

And during the Tory years we sold off the following, well undervalued by £Billions;
Cable & Wireless,Amersham International,Britoil,Associated British Ports,Enterprise Oil,Jaguar,British Telecom,British Gas,British Airways,Rolls-Royce,BAA,British Steel,Regional water companies,Electricity distribution companies.....plus big parts of BP, etc, What are they worth now?

How many of these are now British?

[Onlyforfun]

What were they worth then? Most lost money and were subsidised by the taxpayer. Now that same taxpayer has shares in the profitable private entities in his pension fund...

And anyway, what has that to do with improper use of reserves?

[vegyjones]

And anyway, what has that to do with improper use of reserves?
Absolutely...

Playing in the south-east counties is no good :mad: The avon combination is where it's at! :D

[tovarich]

Is there to be yet another U-turn by Prudence Brown? It was announced on Monday by our new Prime Minister that he is ready to reverse Labour's controversial decision to allow 24-hr drinking and has "ordered a review" to see if it has encouraged excessive consumption and criminal behaviour. What a waste of time and money.

I think this will be U-turn number seven, and he's only been there 10 weeks. It would appear that instead of running my country for me (for which, by the way, I pay him a lot of money) he is working full time correcting the cock-ups he and The Yob have made over the last ten years. He also intends to scrap the move to allow Britain's first Super Casino. Well done Pru, good thinking.

Next on the list is the downgrading of cannabis to a class C drug. Jack Straw (our new Justice Secretary) told Channel 4 news "I was always against reducing cannabis from B to C. I thought it was wrong"

I wonder if he had the guts to say so to the Yob at the time? :)

[Win2Win]

If a new company director comes in via promotion it is reorganising, if a PM does it when in a new job, it is a u-turn :doh

[bigcumba]

typical Tory bleating... criticise them for making a mistake, and then again for trying to correct it... but then the only way they'll get much attention these days is by petty stuff like that

[tovarich]

If a new company director comes in via promotion it is reorganising, if a PM does it when in a new job, it is a u-turn :doh

No, Keith, Brown is NOT a new director. He has been there from the start and has had a hand in almost every decision that has been made in the last ten years and if he didn't agree with the Yob there was nothing to stop him threatening to resign his position as Chancellor of the Exchequer and put some restraint on some of the Yob's stupidities but he preferred to duck down below the parapet and shut up . So our Prime Minister of Conviction (his own opinion and one that we are supposed to believe) didn't have the courage of HIS convictions and stand and be counted. Now he is trying to put right the wrongs of the last ten years.

I wonder what he would say if asked, in public, "DID YOU VOTE TO INVADE IRAQ." As he doesn't let you forget he is a man of the church with noble principles. Did he stand up to the Yob and say "YOU INVADE IRAQ AND I'M OUT" or did he subdue his convictions for the sake of his job and vote yes? :laugh

I'll ask him the next time we meet.

[bigcumba]

It'll be interesting to see how DC and co go in the polls at their conference... as they'll really only be preaching to the faithful. I think the electorate are realising we now have a PM who is a real politician of substance, unlike Cameron who will probably rely on the usual pathetic jibes at Labour instead of actually coming up with something solid enough to get back those lost voters.

[tovarich]

typical Tory bleating... criticise them for making a mistake, and then again for trying to correct it... but then the only way they'll get much attention these days is by petty stuff like that

Not so much "Typical Tory Bleating" Big C. I complained at the time that they had it wrong and if I so wished I would be within my rights to say, "I told you so at the time." but what good would that do? I reckon that the last ten years have been wasted and it will take some twenty years to get back to some sort of normality.

And now for my "piece de resistance." I have never set out to deliberately fool you Big C, or Keith, or Piggy, and not even TH, but the truth is - I AM NOT A CONSERVATIVE - I just kept my personal politics out of it and gave my honest opinion on the days events as I saw them.

The last time I voted Tory was sometime back in the seventies, when Thatcher won her last election. When they stabbed her in the back that was it for me.

And if your thinking "Ah! He's a Thatcher lover" then I'm in good company since my new Prime Minister thinks likewise, having invited her to Downing St.

I'll bet he didn't ask for advice on re-decorating! :D

[bigcumba]

I kind of figured you were really a Green Party man Tov... must be the tank top, wispy beard and biodegradeable sandals that gave it away... :laugh

It's funny how you see the last 10 years as wasted and the next 20 to put it right when I saw the previous 18 years as wasted and likely to take just as long to put right...

[tophatter]

The last time I voted Tory was sometime back in the seventies, when Thatcher won her last election.:D

:doh

[tovarich]

In an earlier post OFF was saying how our prudent Chancellor sold off our Gold Reserves for a pittance. That was going to be one of my arguments of their stupidity of not saving for a rainy day, by selling off your nest egg. But it wasn't long before I realised that I was wrong. As it turned out later they didn't need reserves, THEY'VE GOT ME. If they need (or more likely want) more money all they have to do is ask me for some more TAX.
As from next Monday- I think - Prudence will be asking me for an EXTRA 2.35p per litre for fuel and I will pay up, I don't see that I have any choice, after all it's just another tax increase to add to the other 700 or so, but it won't induce me to vote for him at the next election. I might not feel so bad if I thought, or could see proof, that it would go towards better roads,etc but we know it won't don't we!

So, as I say, who needs reserves?

P.S. - Any chance of our Prime Minister giving OAP's a decent State Pension?:)

[tovarich]

I kind of figured you were really a Green Party man Tov... must be the tank top, wispy beard and biodegradeable sandals that gave it away... :laugh

It's funny how you see the last 10 years as wasted and the next 20 to put it right when I saw the previous 18 years as wasted and likely to take just as long to put right...

Can't wear sandals Big C, whatever colour they are.:D

[tophatter]

Ive never thought of you, from what Ive read of your postings on here, as a conservative Tov.

A Norman tebbut style unreconstructed Thatcherite maybe but never a conservative. I suspect im closer to the current conservatives, and the pre 1985 conservatives than you are. If i had to guess at your political persuassion (not that im interested) I would hazard a guess at UKIP or some other fringe party.

Thats not a critisism of your opinion, just me explaining what my perception of what your views are seeing as you brought it up.

As for the vote on Iraq in the house, then you could ask the current leader of the conservative party how he voted or an of his shadow cabinet? Parliament is not where decisions to go to war are taken, to believe otherwise is naiviety in the extreme. It was basically a vote of confidence in him before he took the country to war, the opposition quite rightly voted in favour, if you are looking for principled opposition to the war then you found it on the labour back benches and amongst the Lib Dems. You are barking up the wrong tree, if you think thats going to be the issue in 2008, that was done to death in 2005 and we still ended up with a Labour Prime Minister.

[tovarich]

Ive never thought of you, from what Ive read of your postings on here, as a conservative Tov.

A Norman tebbut style unreconstructed Thatcherite maybe but never a conservative. I suspect im closer to the current conservatives, and the pre 1985 conservatives than you are. If i had to guess at your political persuassion (not that im interested) I would hazard a guess at UKIP or some other fringe party.

Thats not a critisism of your opinion, just me explaining what my perception of what your views are seeing as you brought it up.

As for the vote on Iraq in the house, then you could ask the current leader of the conservative party how he voted or an of his shadow cabinet? Parliament is not where decisions to go to war are taken, to believe otherwise is naiviety in the extreme. It was basically a vote of confidence in him before he took the country to war, the opposition quite rightly voted in favour, if you are looking for principled opposition to the war then you found it on the labour back benches and amongst the Lib Dems. You are barking up the wrong tree, if you think thats going to be the issue in 2008, that was done to death in 2005 and we still ended up with a Labour Prime Minister.

I'm not too sure I understand your post, TH, or maybe it is that you don't understand my point. I was pointing out, in my own way and leaving you to read between the lines, that thisPrime Minister of Conviction, this Highly Principled son of the Church (even if it is the Wee Free), was not what he pretends to be. He is just another bag of wind and hot air waffle like the last one (you know, the one who has so quickly been airbrushed out of the Labour Party picture - remember him HIS NAME IS TONY BLAIR :laugh)

Where did the current leader of the Conservative Party come into it.

If you think the Iraq War won't be remembered in 2008 just because you drew a line under it in 2005 you are very much mistaken. Twenty, thirty, even forty years from now the children of those lads who have died or been brutally maimed fighting Blair's illegal war will still be cursing him and probably thinking how could any right minded person vote for him.


Now look what you've done, my cocoa's got a skin on it. :mad:

[tophatter]

I was explaining that if you were going to question Mr.Brown why he voted in favour then you could also question the leader of the opposition why he voted in favour. Maybe it was becasue they thought it was the right thing to do at the time and perhaps they still do. Ive not heard the Prime Minister say say he wanted to vote the other way so thats another thing he can be judged on. He and the leader of the opposition both voted identically and to my knowledge both have stood by that decision of theirs.

I did not say the Iraq war would be forgotten in 2008, but it will not be an election issue. That is why the Lib Dems are in such a poor state as compared to 2005. Its not going to be an election issue. You are obviously very opposed to the Iraq war and I got to say im not exactly enamoured with it either. But as I have explained many times before to you I think the then Prime Minister did what he thought was in the countries best interests much to the damage of his own popularity. I wish he had not put so much store in the Anglo-Us alliance and had moved much closer to our European partners but he chose as has many Premiers to stand side by side with America and has to be respected for sacrificing his own popularity to maintain that relationship. I very much doubt, Mrs.T, Michael Howard, John Major or David Cameron would have done anything different at all and if Gordon Brown is the man I think he is I dont think he would have either.

In 20 years time maybe it will be a different story and we will have new allies, but make no mistake if you want to be an influence in todays world you need to be an ally of one of the superpowers and this country is still conservative in the respect that the only realistic ally given the choice between the US and the Franco-German led Europe was the Americans and Blair just had the misfortune to be Premier while George W Bush was on watch.

[Win2Win]

No, Keith, Brown is NOT a new director.

So let's say you are Finance Director at BT, second in command, and the boss drops dead....you get the No.1 job, so you pend your full term carrying on exactly what the previous guy done? :splapme You have no of your own ideas over the years when you are 2nd in command? :doh Of course you do, and once you are No.1, a lot of things change as you then have full power.

Same thing happens in war when the general is killed, a new of is promoted, and he tries different ideas/strategies even though it appeared he was doing exactly the same as the previous guy before he was promoted.

[sparkyminer]

The last time I voted Tory was sometime back in the seventies, when Thatcher won her last election.


:doh
I agree TH. Thatcher's last election victory was in 1987.:wink
Her first was 1979.:)

[Win2Win]

I bet if she said she was coming back, she'd do better in the polls than Cameron :)

[Onlyforfun]

I agree TH. Thatcher's last election victory was in 1987.:wink
Her first was 1979.:)

I think he meant instead of Kinnock & Co. losing them! :laugh

[Onlyforfun]

44- Gordon Brown (Failed Trader). At least Nick Leeson only lost £800 million......
......

.....£4.4 million That's right, a shortfall of merely, err, £22 billion. And with the Bank of England prostituting what's left of our reserves starting today, lending £10 billion a time against mortgage collateral you might want to consider just how strong a government gurantee can be.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Failed to predict that not 1 penny of the £10billion auction would be taken up. Why? Because any bank in trouble can borrow anonymously from the ECB at a much lower rate. :headbange:headbange:headbange

[sparkyminer]

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Failed to predict that not 1 penny of the £10billion auction would be taken up. Why? Because any bank in trouble can borrow anonymously from the ECB at a much lower rate. :headbange:headbange:headbange

I call that clever, clever, clever. Offering the money, letting the public know you support the banks, knowing full well it was a safe bet.:)