FabSwingers.com forum: Tony Blair

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I have just been reading about the evidence he gave at the lesson enquiry. When you look at him now, it is more evident than ever what a lying, slimy pricked he is.

I would have so much more respect for him if he admitted he as fucked this country for generations to come... at the same time apologizing to the forces families that have lost loved ones in Iraq and Afghan.

The way he sidled up to the Murdochs is 10 times worse than the present government.

All in all, a vile human being.... how the hell did he get voted in so many times?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *etillanteWoman
over a year ago

"I have just been reading about the evidence he gave at the lesson enquiry. When you look at him now, it is more evident than ever what a lying, slimy pricked he is.

The way he sidled up to the Murdochs is 10 times worse than the present government.

All in all, a vile human being.... how the hell did he get voted in so many times?

I could comment, but I don't want a ban

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *umourCouple
over a year ago

Rushden

"how the hell did he get voted in so many times?

By offering the shirking and working classes more money at every election! Even after the protests against the war, the largest ever seen, he got in by telling people that they would increase working and other benefits!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Quite simply, the Tories didn't have a credible alternative to offer and it was only Labour shooting themselves in the foot by allowing Brown to take over as PM that let the Tories in in 2010.

When it comes to General Elections I believe the majority of people still vote for the guy at the helm of each of the main parties and tend to gloss over policy statements. Clegg's performance in the televised debates raised the LibDems in the exit polls and gave them a foothold in No.10 - a big mistake in my opinion, and students are paying for believing him when he declared no Uni fees. He has lost en entire generation of voters over that.

As for Blair, you only have to look at how secretive his finances are structured to see how he's busily lining his nest on the back of his role as Middle East Peace Envoy, but his foolist policy to open the floodgates to Britain to whoever wanted to come here will have disastrous repercussions for generations of Britons to come.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

edit ** foolish

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ndebs47Couple
over a year ago

Bury

He got in because the country voted for him...simple ....and being the snakeoil salesman he is ,he fooled enough people,an absolute crook,did a runner left his "mate" with all the crap...can't bear him,but untouchable unfortunately,him and his missus are very very clever........

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

he is just your average second hand car salesman , unfortunatly , people blindly vote for chompers like him , here in scotland you could stick a red rosette on a cows arse , tell people its labour and they would vote for it in there thousands . thats how he kept getting in

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

had the misfortune to meet the snake oil salesman once , and the spitting image puppet john major , both numptys i wouldnt have given a sweetie wrapper to , never mind my vote.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"he is just your average second hand car salesman , unfortunatly , people blindly vote for chompers like him , here in scotland you could stick a red rosette on a cows arse , tell people its labour and they would vote for it in there thousands . thats how he kept getting in

Seeing as that one eyed twunt Brown is still an MP up there, I can believe that. Clever how Labour split voting boundaries whilst they were in to make sure there was more ' safe' labour areas that had more seats.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *john121Man
over a year ago

staffs

Using someones disability as a means of insulting them is out of order!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'd sooner trust Arfur Daley than Blair and his merry men

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uckscouple2007Couple
over a year ago

Bucks

All in all, a vile human being.... how the hell did he get voted in so many times? "

labour voters voted for him, just goes to show they cant be trusted with their vote

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *etillanteWoman
over a year ago

Many years ago I was invited to 10 Downing Street as a representative of a company I was a director for. Refused to go as I couldn't tust myself not to smack him one. And don't get me started on his bloody wife.

They don't spoil a pair

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I have just been reading about the evidence he gave at the lesson enquiry. When you look at him now, it is more evident than ever what a lying, slimy pricked he is.

The way he sidled up to the Murdochs is 10 times worse than the present government.

All in all, a vile human being.... how the hell did he get voted in so many times?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

The News International publications went with Labour in 1997 because they realised the country needed a change of direction....could anyone really argue that it didn't?

In 2010 the NI group decided the country needed a change again.....and sided with the Tories......see a pattern emerging here?

They (NI) hold great sway over the population because they can vastly steer public opinion....no different than any other major International newspaper group.

I suggest the Op divulges all he knows about the relationship he guesses existed between Murdoch and Blair....because even the sharpest newspaper hack couldn't construct an argument over these last few days that Blair did anything untoward....

And they are pretty good at unearthing 'exclusives'......

And....the Tories would have acted no differently over Iraq or Afghanistan if they had been in power....it is all led by the MOD and British Intelligence Services....the PM just signs the cheques.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Many years ago I was invited to 10 Downing Street as a representative of a company I was a director for. Refused to go as I couldn't tust myself not to smack him one. And don't get me started on his bloody wife.

They don't spoil a pair"

They certainly deserve each other. Hope Satan fans the flames when they are ready to meet him

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They don't spoil a pair"

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

i knew one of the first posts would be that its all the tories fault lol, although i expected thatchers name to be mentioned by now lol

ah lookit, people thought they were onto a good thing.

they werent, well, the bottom feeders of society were, butt he rest of us arent, and now we have what we have, and no doubt the short memoried electorate will vote them back in because typical tories are just cutting everything.....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

[Removed by poster at 30/05/12 17:44:35]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

I've read every post of the thread and can't see a single instance of ANYONE stating that it was all the Tories fault....are we reading the same thread?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

"i knew one of the first posts would be that its all the tories fault lol, although i expected thatchers name to be mentioned by now lol

ah lookit, people thought they were onto a good thing.

I also thought the devils daughter would have been mentioned before thisand I cant wait till the evil witch is dead and down where she belongs at the right hand of Satan.

Maybe some day I will come across her grave as I would dearly love to piss on it.

Many a person are in early graves because of that evil bastard.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They don't spoil a pair

They certainly deserve each other. Hope Satan fans the flames when they are ready to meet him

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

"I've read every post of the thread and can't see a single instance of ANYONE stating that it was all the Tories fault....are we reading the same thread?

obviously not.

wishys post stated the reason labour got in was because the tories were so shit, at the time, so yes, its the tories fault lol

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

"i knew one of the first posts would be that its all the tories fault lol, although i expected thatchers name to be mentioned by now lol

ah lookit, people thought they were onto a good thing.

I also thought the devils daughter would have been mentioned before thisand I cant wait till the evil witch is dead and down where she belongs at the right hand of Satan.

Maybe some day I will come across her grave as I would dearly love to piss on it.

Many a person are in early graves because of that evil bastard."

enhance your calm.

hate is an awful emotion.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"i knew one of the first posts would be that its all the tories fault lol, although i expected thatchers name to be mentioned by now lol

ah lookit, people thought they were onto a good thing.

I also thought the devils daughter would have been mentioned before thisand I cant wait till the evil witch is dead and down where she belongs at the right hand of Satan.

Maybe some day I will come across her grave as I would dearly love to piss on it.

Many a person are in early graves because of that evil bastard."

So much hatred for a woman I should imagine you don't even know....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

"i knew one of the first posts would be that its all the tories fault lol, although i expected thatchers name to be mentioned by now lol

ah lookit, people thought they were onto a good thing.

I also thought the devils daughter would have been mentioned before thisand I cant wait till the evil witch is dead and down where she belongs at the right hand of Satan.

Maybe some day I will come across her grave as I would dearly love to piss on it.

Many a person are in early graves because of that evil bastard.

So much hatred for a woman I should imagine you don't even know...."

I dont need to know her and I dont hate but will make an exception in her case.

The woman is devoid of any normal human emotions she cared for none but her own whp had more than enough but was prepared to take of the needy to give them more and I am not talking about the shirkers as I have no time for them either.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

How can a Human Rights lawyer (a QC at that) be devoid of 'normal human emotion'?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

"How can a Human Rights lawyer (a QC at that) be devoid of 'normal human emotion'?

Nice cover even the devil himself would have been proud of that one.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"How can a Human Rights lawyer (a QC at that) be devoid of 'normal human emotion'?

Nice cover even the devil himself would have been proud of that one."

Shouldn't this be on the conspiracy theory thread?

It's her career, one she has followed for many years....and by all accounts she is pretty damn good at it.

Don't let your hatred get in the way of the facts.....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkypervertMan
over a year ago

Durham

All in all, a vile human being.... how the hell did he get voted in so many times?

labour voters voted for him, just goes to show they cant be trusted with their vote

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

"How can a Human Rights lawyer (a QC at that) be devoid of 'normal human emotion'?

Nice cover even the devil himself would have been proud of that one.

Shouldn't this be on the conspiracy theory thread?

It's her career, one she has followed for many years....and by all accounts she is pretty damn good at it.

Don't let your hatred get in the way of the facts....."

The facts are she gave to the already rich to the detriment of the realy needy I am not sure if you think that is the actions of a good human being but if you do then?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Cherie Blair is a patron of several charities and heads her own Womens Foundation that sets the very poorest women up in their own small businesses....I think that counts as raising funds from the richest and giving to the poorest.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Cherie Blair is a patron of several charities and heads her own Womens Foundation that sets the very poorest women up in their own small businesses....I think that counts as raising funds from the richest and giving to the poorest."

plus the saucy little rebel jumps turnstiles at train stations!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

the other poster is referring to thatcher, not the wicked witch

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm rather enjoying watching Labour supporters turn on one of their own.

(awaits the outraged comments of "He's NOT one of us!!")

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

I wouldnt say that as most folk give to one charity or another including me and I am far from rich.

Help for Heroes being my favourite as yes charity does begin at home.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

the other poster is referring to thatcher, not the wicked witch"

I've lost track amongst all the hatred....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

the other poster is referring to thatcher, not the wicked witch

I've lost track amongst all the hatred...."

yes, does seem to come in all colours doesnt it.

probably why we are the most tolerant nation in the world.

because we can live with so many different people we dont like lol

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

I dont give a damn for Blair (Cherrie or Tony) or Brown either

Or even Cameron or Salmond for that matter which leaves me with a dilemma who the F88k do I vote for

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I've read every post of the thread and can't see a single instance of ANYONE stating that it was all the Tories fault....are we reading the same thread?

obviously not.

wishys post stated the reason labour got in was because the tories were so shit, at the time, so yes, its the tories fault lol"

It's not that the Tories were shit, they were just unelectable with Blair in such a deeply entrenched position.

Hague, IDS, and then Michael Howard simply didn't make any inroads into Blair's popularity in much the same way as Miliband hasn't with Cameron (head to head, Cameron is more popular than Miliband, although the Tories are unpopular in general because of the austerity measures they've put in place)

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

Oh and forgot about Milliband. Oh well he is easy to forget.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ucky_LadsCouple (MM)
over a year ago

Kidderminster+ surrounding areas.

isn't that so generous of her?,makes millions for the bliar family account out of us taxpayers through tonys lies then goes to help a few ladies set up own business~!,a proper little mother theresa she is!.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This country is lucky to have had two leaders as good as Thatcher and Blair. Both both achieved a huge amount for the UK, both also made mistakes, in my opinion.

No leader can make everyone happy, and no leader should try to. They must decide on a course of action then pursue it with skill and conviction. Both leaders did and both left the country in a better position than they inherited.

Blair did a much better job than many give him credit for.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"I dont give a damn for Blair (Cherrie or Tony) or Brown either

Or even Cameron or Salmond for that matter which leaves me with a dilemma who the F88k do I vote for

Mel Gibson?

Love his blue face paint....he'd get my vote if I was born on your side of the border.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"
agree.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

She was a prominent lawyer long before Tony Blair became PM....and in all probability far smarter than the vast majority of us....even you.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Maybe some day I will come across her grave as I would dearly love to piss on it.

Many a person are in early graves because of that evil bastard."

I hope you experience someone saying that of one of your family members one day.

Thatcher left this country in a far better condition than when she came to power, and Labour have systematically put us back decades with their reckless and foolish policies.

She closed the pits because they were uneconomical to keep open and she broke the unions because they were holding the country to ransom everytime they needed some new bog roll. Sure, she made mistakes too, as do they all, the poll tax being one of them, but her successes far outweigh any minuses of her time in government.

Piss on her grave? She isn't dead yet, but if the time ever comes when you are standing in front of her tombstone, you should kneel in respect of it for without Mrs T we would be in a far worse state than we are today.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

"I dont give a damn for Blair (Cherrie or Tony) or Brown either

Or even Cameron or Salmond for that matter which leaves me with a dilemma who the F88k do I vote for

Mel Gibson?

Love his blue face paint....he'd get my vote if I was born on your side of the border.

He will get my vote which party does is he standing for though?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I dont give a damn for Blair (Cherrie or Tony) or Brown either

Or even Cameron or Salmond for that matter which leaves me with a dilemma who the F88k do I vote for

Mel Gibson?

Love his blue face paint....he'd get my vote if I was born on your side of the border.

He will get my vote which party does is he standing for though?

The Stupid Aussie Who Can't Remember Who He Is Party.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

"I dont give a damn for Blair (Cherrie or Tony) or Brown either

Or even Cameron or Salmond for that matter which leaves me with a dilemma who the F88k do I vote for

Mel Gibson?

Love his blue face paint....he'd get my vote if I was born on your side of the border.

He will get my vote which party does is he standing for though?

judging by some of his recent public appearences, i would say the nazi party

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ucky_LadsCouple (MM)
over a year ago

Kidderminster+ surrounding areas.

She was a prominent lawyer long before Tony Blair became PM....and in all probability far smarter than the vast majority of us....even you."

she(and him too!)still making millions out of taxpayers~!,me!,and you?.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

Maybe some day I will come across her grave as I would dearly love to piss on it.

Many a person are in early graves because of that evil bastard.

I hope you experience someone saying that of one of your family members one day.

Thatcher left this country in a far better condition than when she came to power, and Labour have systematically put us back decades with their reckless and foolish policies.

None of my family have ever done or would do what she as they are all decent caring human beings and have a thought for others.

Do some research and find out why she was desparate to shut the UKs manufacturing industries also read Trafalgar house and Howard Doris in Scott Lithgow and that is only one example.

I also worked in a car factory for 2 yrs and any strikes we had there were manufactured by management they harrased and bullied and sacked for nothing when the cars were stockpiled, we knew they would throw us out until the sales cleared the parks but we were still blamed and it happened throughout industry but it was never reported that way.

I would never respect that woman, do you not give any thought to the families of the desparate folk who committed suicide because of her actions? and there were a lot

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

Finished here as my blood is starting to boil.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Quite simply, the Tories didn't have a credible alternative to offer and it was only Labour shooting themselves in the foot by allowing Brown to take over as PM that let the Tories in in 2010.

Agree with most of this except the last paragraph.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

She was a prominent lawyer long before Tony Blair became PM....and in all probability far smarter than the vast majority of us....even you.

she(and him too!)still making millions out of taxpayers~!,me!,and you?.

Couldn't care less if she does earn well for her work.....you reach the top in your career path you get the financial rewards that come with your position.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

....... Labour have systematically put us back decades with their reckless and foolish policies."

That really is nonsense Wishy, try backing that up with fact instead of propaganda and fiction.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

....... Labour have systematically put us back decades with their reckless and foolish policies.

That really is nonsense Wishy, try backing that up with fact instead of propaganda and fiction. "

Sure they have. They want women to stop working and stay at home bringing up children, and are aiming to get the sick and disabled into workhouses and sweatshops.

Oh wait, sorry. Thats the Tories. My bad.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

tony blair took us to war on a lie , war criminal

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *leasureDomeMan
over a year ago

all over the place

"This country is lucky to have had two leaders as good as Thatcher and Blair. Both both achieved a huge amount for the UK, both also made mistakes, in my opinion.

Blair did a much better job than many give him credit for. "

intelligent comment......nice one

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"tony blair took us to war on a lie , war criminal"

In which case.....how is it he hasn't been tried at the Hague?

Lets face it, there has been ample opportunity to compile the evidence to bring him to trial.....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran

"tony blair took us to war on a lie , war criminal"

Have any facts to back that up - thought not - the tories and even the libdems would have done the same thing

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *leasureDomeMan
over a year ago

all over the place

"tony blair took us to war on a lie , war criminal

Have any facts to back that up - thought not - the tories and even the libdems would have done the same thing

totally agree and they all totally supported the actions....

Thatcher was more of a war criminal by ignoring the recommendations of most of her staff not to cut Hms Endeavor patrolling the Falklands, as predicted by her military advisers, it sent the wrong signal to Argentina and a war kicked off where we lost loads of really good people...for the price of one ship on patrol.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"How can a Human Rights lawyer (a QC at that) be devoid of 'normal human emotion'?

Nice cover even the devil himself would have been proud of that one."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *bfoxxxMan
over a year ago

Crete or LANCASTER

Not to mention sinking the Belgrano when outside the exclusion zone, - they could have waited, the result would have been the same.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"tony blair took us to war on a lie , war criminal

In which case.....how is it he hasn't been tried at the Hague?...."

The Hague is toothless and just worries about tinpot banana republic despots. They could never try Blair, if they did they would have to try Bush.... and they will never try the 'leader of the free world'

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"tony blair took us to war on a lie , war criminal

In which case.....how is it he hasn't been tried at the Hague?....

So in other words all conjecture......

Evidence that can reasonably secure a conviction is what is needed in a War Crimes case....not half baked guesswork based solely on the dislike of the political leanings of an individual.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

"tony blair took us to war on a lie , war criminal

In which case.....how is it he hasn't been tried at the Hague?....

So in other words all conjecture......

Evidence that can reasonably secure a conviction is what is needed in a War Crimes case....not half baked guesswork based solely on the dislike of the political leanings of an individual."

but then, as has been stated, would a western war crimes court, try current, or recent, politicians for things that have been done in the VERY recent past?

look at it in reality, it even took the best part of 60 years to try those behind the atrocities from WW2, and 30 years for the serbia troubles.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *john121Man
over a year ago

staffs

"The News International publications went with Labour in 1997 because they realised the country needed a change of direction....could anyone really argue that it didn't?

In 2010 the NI group decided the country needed a change again.....and sided with the Tories......see a pattern emerging here?

They (NI) hold great sway over the population because they can vastly steer public opinion....no different than any other major International newspaper group.

And they are pretty good at unearthing 'exclusives'......

And....the Tories would have acted no differently over Iraq or Afghanistan if they had been in power....it is all led by the MOD and British Intelligence Services....the PM just signs the cheques."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Not to mention sinking the Belgrano when outside the exclusion zone, - they could have waited, the result would have been the same.

an exclusion zone is put in place to protect civil shipping not Navy shipping and as the Belgrano had the british seacat missle system fitted it had to be sank at all costs

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *john121Man
over a year ago

staffs

"This country is lucky to have had two leaders as good as Thatcher and Blair. Both both achieved a huge amount for the UK, both also made mistakes, in my opinion.

Blair did a much better job than many give him credit for.

intelligent comment......nice one

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"tony blair took us to war on a lie , war criminal

In which case.....how is it he hasn't been tried at the Hague?....

So in other words all conjecture......

Evidence that can reasonably secure a conviction is what is needed in a War Crimes case....not half baked guesswork based solely on the dislike of the political leanings of an individual.

but then, as has been stated, would a western war crimes court, try current, or recent, politicians for things that have been done in the VERY recent past?

look at it in reality, it even took the best part of 60 years to try those behind the atrocities from WW2, and 30 years for the serbia troubles."

I won't hold my breath then.....

Come back to me when Blair walks into that court and sits behind that screen as the accused....until then it's all conjecture.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

....... Labour have systematically put us back decades with their reckless and foolish policies.

That really is nonsense Wishy, try backing that up with fact instead of propaganda and fiction. "

Even when inflation is taken into account Britain's tax burden has soared by over 50% in the last ten years under the Labour government, says the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA), a lobbyist for fairer taxes. A combination of up-front and stealth levies has led to a total tax bill of £517billion a year.

In other words, a single British household has seen their annual tax bill rise, helped by fiscal drag, to an extraordinary £20,700.

But it is the NHS and local authorities which have proved the biggest money-grabbers, the report says.

Its authors said school dinners charges have risen 50% in ten years, parking charges and fines have risen to over £1 billion and hospital car parks raise over £100m in England alone.

Mike Denham, a former economist at the Treasury who authored the report, reflected that "the government has used every trick in the book to drive up the tax burden."

On immigration, more than one THIRD of people living in London today were not born here!

Up until 2008 the Labour government was criticised for effectively operating an “open door” policy which saw a massive rise in the number of visas, work permits and extended residency being granted.

Almost a quarter of a million people were granted settlement – the highest since records began – and a third of those were due to a failure by the last Government to deal with historic asylum claims.

There was also a 41 per cent rise in foreign students while net migration – the difference between those arriving and those leaving – hit a three year high in what proved to be Labour’s last year in office.

Separate figures confirmed that 3.2 million foreign migrants were added to the UK population during the party’s 13 years in power.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: “These figures are Labour’s legacy to Britain – 3.2 million immigrants including a quarter of a million in their last year.

Source: Daily Telegraph.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

On Immigration.....similar increases in immigration figures for Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Holland over the last Twenty years....

The world is shrinking....people are migrating more and more to improve their lot and to secure their safety and that of their families.

Can we really blame them?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *john121Man
over a year ago

staffs

"Not to mention sinking the Belgrano when outside the exclusion zone, - they could have waited, the result would have been the same.

an exclusion zone is put in place to protect civil shipping not Navy shipping and as the Belgrano had the british seacat missle system fitted it had to be sank at all costs"

Military exclusion zone

A military exclusion zone (MEZ) is an area in the immediate vicinity of a military action established by a country to prevent the unauthorized entry of civilian personnel/equipment for their own safety or to protect natural assets already in place in the zone. It is also established to prevent an enemy from acquiring any material which could help them. The comparable term used by the air forces is that of No-fly zone.

See also

Maritime Exclusion Zone or Total Exclusion Zone an area declared by the United Kingdom 30 April 1982 covering a circle of 200 nautical miles around the Falklands Islands during the Falklands War.

References

Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)

It's amazing what FACTS are available

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rumalexMan
over a year ago

Birmingham

agree with that it really is world wide, when i was in the west indies, the islanders were complaining about too many immigrants, its not just the uk

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle

Do you routinely mock the disabled for their disabilities? What a fine person you must be...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I think the problem lies with socialism, nice ideology, but does not work.

To paraphrase an old quote, if you ain't a socialist by the time you are 16 you have no heart. If you are still one at 36 you have no head.....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkypervertMan
over a year ago

Durham

Maybe some day I will come across her grave as I would dearly love to piss on it.

Many a person are in early graves because of that evil bastard.

I hope you experience someone saying that of one of your family members one day.

Thatcher left this country in a far better condition than when she came to power, and Labour have systematically put us back decades with their reckless and foolish policies.

Very well said!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle

She was a prominent lawyer long before Tony Blair became PM....and in all probability far smarter than the vast majority of us....even you."

Oddly, she could have been the firts female Labour PM - she had a deal with Tony that whichever of them got selected for a safe seat first would be supported by the other - as a result of doing a good job at Beaconsfield in 1982 TB got the shot at Sedgefield four years before either of them expected to have a shot at Parliament....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle

"I think the problem lies with socialism, nice ideology, but does not work.

To paraphrase an old quote, if you ain't a socialist by the time you are 16 you have no heart. If you are still one at 36 you have no head....."
I've just checked. I still have a head.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkypervertMan
over a year ago

Durham

"I think the problem lies with socialism, nice ideology, but does not work.

To paraphrase an old quote, if you ain't a socialist by the time you are 16 you have no heart. If you are still one at 36 you have no head.....I've just checked. I still have a head. "

but what brain in it?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

"I think the problem lies with socialism, nice ideology, but does not work.

To paraphrase an old quote, if you ain't a socialist by the time you are 16 you have no heart. If you are still one at 36 you have no head....."

New Labour was never socialist. Old Labour was, which is why they didn't get voted in and Major did, but New Labour got rid of any socialist leanings, and started concentrating on big business when the Tories faltered in the 90s. As was said earlier, they had no credible opposition once Thatcher was deposed.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

"I think the problem lies with socialism, nice ideology, but does not work.

To paraphrase an old quote, if you ain't a socialist by the time you are 16 you have no heart. If you are still one at 36 you have no head.....I've just checked. I still have a head. "

Only one?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle

"I think the problem lies with socialism, nice ideology, but does not work.

To paraphrase an old quote, if you ain't a socialist by the time you are 16 you have no heart. If you are still one at 36 you have no head.....I've just checked. I still have a head.

but what brain in it?

I've seen the MRI scan....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

Do you routinely mock the disabled for their disabilities? What a fine person you must be..."

not much of a disability though really. didnt stop him ruining the country, i mean leading the country.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

I think the UK population played a bloody big part in ruining the country...they wanted everything today....but never had the money till next year....or the year after, or the one after that.

Grab all society, with more big shopping ideas than actual cash....big cars on HP, Holiday homes abroad they couldn't afford to pay for, Big house extensions, Re-mortgages, Burberry, NEXT, John Lewis, Visa, Mastercard...blah blah blah.

Who remembers when people would actually save up for something they really wanted to buy?....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

"I think the UK population played a bloody big part in ruining the country...they wanted everything today....but never had the money till next year....or the year after, or the one after that.

Who remembers when people would actually save up for something they really wanted to buy?....

absolutely.

learned the lessons the hard way myself, but now im a better person for it, imo.

but yeah, you wanna get yourself over to ireland.

you will NEVER see so many ordinary people with new cars.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Do you routinely mock the disabled for their disabilities? What a fine person you must be...

not much of a disability though really. didnt stop him ruining the country, i mean leading the country."

WHAT? So a disability (whatever it is) has to be seen and be severe enough to mean that you can't hold a position of office to be treated with respect and without discrimination.

Thankfully we will never meet because I don't know how you would deal with a black woman with a disability that has successfully run several organisations. And I'm fat too. Heaven help me.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

Do you routinely mock the disabled for their disabilities? What a fine person you must be...

not much of a disability though really. didnt stop him ruining the country, i mean leading the country.

WHAT? So a disability (whatever it is) has to be seen and be severe enough to mean that you can't hold a position of office to be treated with respect and without discrimination.

Thankfully we will never meet because I don't know how you would deal with a black woman with a disability that has successfully run several organisations. And I'm fat too. Heaven help me."

random, but thank you.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think the problem lies with socialism, nice ideology, but does not work.

To paraphrase an old quote, if you ain't a socialist by the time you are 16 you have no heart. If you are still one at 36 you have no head....."

I don't believe any ideology works, stand alone. Like most people, I don't find any party represents me, and they aren't that far apart from each other really. If they truly represented the people, they would allow referendums on europe, death penalty, immigration, etc. But they won't, as they wouldn't like the result. New Labour left much of socialism behind to become electable. Lib-dems sold their future for a sniff of government today, and will never receive significant support again. As a youth, I would have called myself a socialist, I didn't agree with all of it, but it most closely represented my views. I believe in a welfare 'safety net' for those who need it, but not in 50 year-old 'school-leavers'. I believe in real punishment for criminals, not rehabilitation. I don't care if they never had an x-box when they were 10, I want then to piss their pants & break-down in the dock if they are found guilty, and when they are released, all they can say is "never again....never again.....never again...".

Think I might be a liberal now!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

Do you routinely mock the disabled for their disabilities? What a fine person you must be...

not much of a disability though really. didnt stop him ruining the country, i mean leading the country.

WHAT? So a disability (whatever it is) has to be seen and be severe enough to mean that you can't hold a position of office to be treated with respect and without discrimination.

Thankfully we will never meet because I don't know how you would deal with a black woman with a disability that has successfully run several organisations. And I'm fat too. Heaven help me."

rightly or wrongly to me a disability is something that stops you being all you can be.

anything else is an excuse.

why should having, for instance, 1 leg, be a disability if you live your dreams and all your wants?

and i dont know when being either fat or black has been classed as a disibility

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think the UK population played a bloody big part in ruining the country...they wanted everything today....but never had the money till next year....or the year after, or the one after that.

Who remembers when people would actually save up for something they really wanted to buy?....

"
But even that was manageable, until the banks chased even bigger rewards by lending to people they shouldn't have. That caused the house of cards to fall down.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Do you routinely mock the disabled for their disabilities? What a fine person you must be...

not much of a disability though really. didnt stop him ruining the country, i mean leading the country.

WHAT? So a disability (whatever it is) has to be seen and be severe enough to mean that you can't hold a position of office to be treated with respect and without discrimination.

Thankfully we will never meet because I don't know how you would deal with a black woman with a disability that has successfully run several organisations. And I'm fat too. Heaven help me.

rightly or wrongly to me a disability is something that stops you being all you can be.

anything else is an excuse.

why should having, for instance, 1 leg, be a disability if you live your dreams and all your wants?

and i dont know when being either fat or black has been classed as a disibility"

Fat and black aren't disabilities but both are discriminated against. This isn't the thread to explain the medical and social models of disability. By your logic poverty of aspiration and general ennui would be disabilities as they often prevent people from being all that they be. My point was about the general casual discrimination shown to a disability.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

.......

In other words, a single British household has seen their annual tax bill rise, helped by fiscal drag, to an extraordinary £20,700.

But it is the NHS and local authorities which have proved the biggest money-grabbers, the report says.

Its authors said school dinners charges have risen 50% in ten years, parking charges and fines have risen to over £1 billion and hospital car parks raise over £100m in England alone.

Mike Denham, a former economist at the Treasury who authored the report, reflected that "the government has used every trick in the book to drive up the tax burden."

On immigration, more than one THIRD of people living in London today were not born here!

Separate figures confirmed that 3.2 million foreign migrants were added to the UK population during the party’s 13 years in power.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: “These figures are Labour’s legacy to Britain – 3.2 million immigrants including a quarter of a million in their last year.

Source: Daily Telegraph. "

Wishy, is this really your attempt to justify your ridiculous statement? Quoting the right wing press and some dubious report! I am more than capable of challenging the spin put on the reporting of this questionable report, but I'm not debating with the press, I'm challenging you to make your own argument based on fact to justify your, in my view, ridiculous statement.

....... Labour have systematically put us back decades with their reckless and foolish policies.

This is what you said, it's clear and specific, I challenge you to justify it in your own words or retract it.

Be clear on one thing, I don't have any political allegiances, but I do think that when people make, in my opinion, misleading comments like yours they should be challenged.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This isn't the thread to explain the medical and social models of disability. By your logic poverty of aspiration and general ennui would be disabilities as they often prevent people from being all that they be. My point was about the general casual discrimination shown to a disability.

If this isn't the thread to 'explain' (condescending, as 'discuss' would have been a better choice of words) medical and social models of disability - - why introduce it into the thread in the first place?

Being black isn't a disability unless the person being black makes it so (bearing in mind that there are plenty of successful black people in the world today).

Being overweight isn't a disability unless the overweight person continues to put on weight taking his/her condition from one that is manageable (and normal) to one that is unmanageable and abnormal.

There is a choice.

Gordon Brown had a choice, disability or not, and he chose to follow flawed policies rather than admit he got it wrong and adjust his government accordingly. His eyesight - or lack of it in one eye - had synonyms with his foresight - or lack of it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This is what you said, it's clear and specific, I challenge you to justify it in your own words or retract it.

Be clear on one thing, I don't have any political allegiances, but I do think that when people make, in my opinion, misleading comments like yours they should be challenged.

The Thatcher years left this country in a very good position economically (it's well documented so I'll not post a lengthy cutting on here just for your benefit) - the Tories left office in 1997.

Since then, Labour have followed policies that have taken the country from one that was prosperous to one that is having to implement austerity measures to try and balance the books. (That also is well documented elsewhere)

Now, it's 2012 yes?

1997 was um.. basic maths here.. 15 years ago.

Mrs T was in power for 11 years 1979-1990, and Major for 7 years after her 1990-1997.

Soooo, from 1979 to 2010 (when Brown was kicked out on his arse) I make it THREE decades (plus 1 year but we won't haggle over it ok)

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Being black isn't a disability unless the person being black makes it so (bearing in mind that there are plenty of successful black people in the world today).

Being overweight isn't a disability unless the overweight person continues to put on weight taking his/her condition from one that is manageable (and normal) to one that is unmanageable and abnormal.

There is a choice.

I have not said being black or fat are disabilities. Race is a characteristic that is often discriminated against. Being fat is a choice, to some extent (for some there are medical conditions that affect their health that may also be a disability or their weight may be a result of their disability).

I can see the link between Brown's perceived lack of foresight and his sight condition. I repeat I was challenging casual discrimination. As have others.

I could write a hell of a lot on the models of disability but chose not to as I felt I had hi-jacked the thread on Blair enough. But, as you ask, in short the medical model says that you are experiencing a medical condition that cannot be cured and may not have real treatment options but medical intervention might help. The social model puts forward that society creates restrictions that ensure people with a difference are not enabled to fully participate and may be prevented from reaching their potential.

Back to Blair, Thatcher, socialism, voting patterns and the economy now.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The Thatcher years left this country in a very good position economically (it's well documented so I'll not post a lengthy cutting on here just for your benefit) - the Tories left office in 1997.

Now, it's 2012 yes?

1997 was um.. basic maths here.. 15 years ago.

Mrs T was in power for 11 years 1979-1990, and Major for 7 years after her 1990-1997.

Soooo, from 1979 to 2010 (when Brown was kicked out on his arse) I make it THREE decades (plus 1 year but we won't haggle over it ok)"

I always thought The Thatcher 'boom' years were built on the asset stripping of UK Ltd. Selling such as BT, council houses, etc for a fraction of their true worth. Sell the orchard, and no fruit in the future. Maybe the money just finally ran out.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

Boom and bust has been a feature of most western economies for years. One of the main things that caused our current woes was the misselling of sub-prime mortgages in the United States, which has nothing to do with any UK Government (surprisingly). When the economy goes global then things like that, and the Japanese earhquake, really screw things up for a while.

Having said that, I'd be more sympathetic to the current governments plight if they weren't so brazen about helping their mates out to the detriment of the less well off.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I always thought The Thatcher 'boom' years were built on the asset stripping of UK Ltd. Selling such as BT, council houses, etc for a fraction of their true worth. Sell the orchard, and no fruit in the future. Maybe the money just finally ran out."

I worked for BT and it was certainly not an asset as it stood back then. It was poorly run and it's employees did as little as possible whilst collecting a weekly wage and a fat pension, and the unions protected them (it was a closed shop when I worked for BT).

Thatcher knew where global businesses were heading and she knew that our nationalised industries would never be able to compete with the American privately owned giant corporations. They had to be privatised.

The housing stock argument has been raised on here time and again and one of Thatcher core beliefs is that people SHOULD own the houses in which they live which is why she allowed them to buy their council houses with a discount for the number of years they'd been paying for them - a sort of rolled-back mortgage if you like). There seems little point in adopting a policy to allow people to own their own homes if you are simply going to build new ones to replace those sold and put tennants in them.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Thatcher years left this country in a very good position economically (it's well documented so I'll not post a lengthy cutting on here just for your benefit) - the Tories left office in 1997.

Now, it's 2012 yes?

1997 was um.. basic maths here.. 15 years ago.

Mrs T was in power for 11 years 1979-1990, and Major for 7 years after her 1990-1997.

Soooo, from 1979 to 2010 (when Brown was kicked out on his arse) I make it THREE decades (plus 1 year but we won't haggle over it ok)"

Basic maths! Ok here's some basic maths for you.

On the 16th of September 1992, known by many as 'black Wednesday' the then Tory Govt under Major with Lamont as Chancellor took us into the ERM, they lost billions overnight, had to withdraw under a cloud humiliated. We had interest rates of circa 15% and the economy was pitched into a horrible recession. There was a housing crash which resulted in record repossessions and a that horrible term 'negative equity' became embossed on the national psyche.

Basic maths, that has it's 20th anniversary this year, it took years to recover.

Are you really trying to suggest that all was 'prosperous' under the last Tory Govt?

Your suggestion that Labours policies are responsible for the austerity measures now in place does not explain why Greece, Italy, Spain, France etc also have austerity measures in place. Your flawed argument seems to suggest that Labours policies were responsible for the World financial crisis.

If that's the case Wishy, here's a simple question for you, which policies do you mean?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Indeed, economies have always been cyclic in the past, but this current dip (over the last 4 years or so ), still has a long way to run. Many of the measures still haven't 'bitten' yet. Businesses are not spending/buying/recruiting, every company I speak to is 'quiet' workwise. With the European situation still to worsen, with Greece's euro pullout, possibly in June, I think 'boom's' are a thing of the past. We'll be lucky if we even get a 'pop'for quite a while!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

The right to buy was actually a Labour idea, councils were selling houses to tenants from 1975. Maggie gave it a brand name and ran with it. There are a lot of council estates where i grew up that were run down. people buying them gave them some pride in the place and those same houses are selling for 500k now, and the estates sought after. This is something the local councils would never have been able to achieve.

I apologize for my glib remark about Brown being a one eyed twunt. It was his inabilities not his disabilities that dragged this country down. As a chancellor he was unable to run basic book keeping and balancing the books. Had no idea how to look at the UK economy as a business and place us to trade with the world. As a Prime Minister he will be remembered as one of the worst ever. In both roles he was inept. If he was anything but a politician voted in through safe seat he would have been sacked years ago.

Blair is a born politician. I do think its a shame that someone who came to power on such a populist vote could have got it so tragically wrong. He had left no positive legacy and I think that will haunt him and his ego.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Are you really trying to suggest that all was 'prosperous' under the last Tory Govt?

Brown could have limited the damage to our economy that the recession has wreaked - he admitted it himself during the televised debates in 2010 - but he caved in to the City and left the banks self-regulated. He also urged us to vote Labour in 2010 because he believed that continued spending (ie. borrowing) was the only way out of a recession - how much more would we be in hock had the electorate listened to him!

Yes, we had Black Wednesday under Major's watch, but getting out of the ERM was far better for us than staying in it - yet under Labour, Brown continued with his policies rather than admit they were wrong and change tack.

As for the housing crash, I remember it clearly as I was buying my first house at that time and luckily the sale fell through before I completed on it - the crash happened 3 months later. Here's the thing about the housing market in 87 though from someone who was trying to buy at the time - house prices were surging relentlessly and where one would save for a deposit to buy a house one found that the deposit saved was no longer enough by the time you'd saved it. House prices had to collapse as they were becoming unaffordable for the average person.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think that BT sold for £4 billion, and its last years profit was £1 billion, it was a highly profitable business. Yes, BT staff were well paid. The company could afford to pay, they pretty much had a monopoly, and many staff were uniquely skilled. Things may well have changed in the future, Thatcher didn't know this, she wasn't a time-lord! The housing stock was discounted too highly, resulting in much profiteering, and was not adequately replaced. In the current climate, with many people unable to obtain mortgages & fewer subsidised housing stock, many millions of people are now stuck paying exhorbitant private rental rates, and will NEVER own their own home. This is another massive bill the government will have to foot when the private renters become of pensionable age.

I was 21 when I bought my first house. I was single lad, put a couple of grand down, no problem. Worked my bollacks off & it was mine by 25. I'm 46 now, and earn a much higher salary (even allowing for inflation), yet I would not be loaned enough to buy that same house today. Rentals are £500 a month, throw in all your utilities etc., you need a grand to exist, never mind live. No wonder kids are still at home in their 30's. Their only chance of ever owning their own home is in their parents will!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the problem is blair as slimy as he is was a very good orater and very clever at using his intellect and persona to produce a very polished performer ,that with the contacts his barrister wife has,he knew just how to manipulate and more to the point who to use , more fool us for being taken in,he is more like the teflon don,and porbally our most corrupt politician ,time will tell

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think the problem lies with socialism, nice ideology, but does not work.

To paraphrase an old quote, if you ain't a socialist by the time you are 16 you have no heart. If you are still one at 36 you have no head.....I've just checked. I still have a head. "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The housing stock was discounted too highly, resulting in much profiteering, and was not adequately replaced. "

Who profiteered? The people buying their own homes had in effect been paying for them for decades in rent. It would have been a tad cheeky for the govt to turn around and say, "you can now buy it if you want but at the current market rate, and we'll ignore how much you've already paid into it over the years."

In the current climate, with many people unable to obtain mortgages & fewer subsidised housing stock, many millions of people are now stuck paying exhorbitant private rental rates, and will NEVER own their own home. This is another massive bill the government will have to foot when the private renters become of pensionable age."

Many millions didn't take up the option of buying their council house either. It has to be accepted that not all people will own their own houses.

I wonder if Thatcher calculated that with parents owning their own homes that they would be left to the kids eventually (and with divorce rates on the up there could well be two parents with a house each). I wonder if that crossed her mind at the time.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *john121Man
over a year ago

staffs

"Are you really trying to suggest that all was 'prosperous' under the last Tory Govt?

Ha! Ha!

Some one who was there!

Try having a £70,000 mortgage at 9% that went upto 16%!

I'm sick and tired of hearing blame it on labour. Nothing left in the coffers. We've had to do these cuts!

Double dip recession if you hadn't noticed! This governments policies have taken us there!

Cuts yes, this severe?

Reduction in VAT will maybe give consumers confidence to purchase and in doing so increase production.

JAG record sales! Where India and China!

This government raked in millions from the panic they started over the supposed fuel strike/crisis, great idea what will be next? Pasties? Oh no they've had to U turn on that!

The boys at the top looking after the other boys at the top with the Tax cuts for the filthy rich...I understand mr osbournes not short of a bob or two....

And remember those crying Blair and war crimes remember that during WW2 we did some pretty nasty things such as the bombings over Dresden...Where some where between 35000 -135000 men women and children and possible double that with the refugees were killed in 2 nights of bombing...

In wars people die and leaders have to make ugly decisions.....

Hiroshima etc...

Mass genocide? You decide....

We're all prepared to get in bed with countries who have questionable human rights and have the power to stop the UN process to stop others from committing atrocities all because of money...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So you can't even come up with one Labour policy that supports your statement!!

For the record the banks were 'deregulated' by Thatcher in the early '80s, the Tories were determined to open up competition amongst lenders, prior to that you could only get a mortgage from a limited number of building societies. The freeing up of finance which led to the credit fuelled booms of the '80s and '90s was not only desired but openly encouraged by the then Tory Govt. The Tories are on record as constantly wanting to reduce regulation and 'red tape' for all business and the banking sector was no different. The FSA came in in 1997 and the Tories have, right upto the banking crisis, opposed increases in regulation.

Labour certainly benefitted from what the Tories had put in place with regard to the banking sector and revenue from the city during the noughties leading upto the banking crisis, but to suggest the Tories would have done anything significantly different with regards the banks is simply dishonest, their policies in opposition are on record.

You seem to want to gloss over the ERM mess without accepting who took us in, and gloss over the misery of the housing crash without accepting the policies that caused it.

As I said earlier I have no specific allegiances to any political party, I believe the Tories did their fair share of good. I just think that too many people make ridiculous claims based on partisan propaganda and I think your guilty of that on this occassion.

You haven't justified your earlier claim, do you withdraw it?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You seem to want to gloss over the ERM mess without accepting who took us in, and gloss over the misery of the housing crash without accepting the policies that caused it."

We were taken in - literally - by the con of a single currency in Europe that the British people didn't want and never voted for, so on that basis yes it was a mistake to enter the ERM, although I'm sure the banks will argue that it led to greater stability for trading euro currencies, a fact that George Soros exploited ruthlessly and our subsequent exit from the ERM can be attributed to speculation by that one individual who is reported to have made £1bn from speculating against Sterling - equal to £12 for every man, woman and child in Britain at the time.

Yet our exit from the ERM proved to be our saviour as we had a very strong economic performance after 1992 and enjoyed a period of sustained growth and reduced unemployment once we were free of the shackles of the ERM that lasted right up until Blair swept to power in 97. Could Lamont have done things differently and achieved the same outcome? We'll never know as that's not how it happened but there can be no mistake that Blair inherited a thriving economy in 97 yet 13 years later we find ourselves having to live under severe cuts to pay for 13 years of Labour overspending. And that can't be denounced or denied.

As for Labour's failed policies - the following is part of an article written by Barry Gardiner MP, Labour, in September 2010 and addresses the policy areas where Labour failed to deliver on their promises.

Political parties are about creating alliances: between people who are unjustly treated and those who recognise injustice and are willing to remedy it even at the price of some inconvenience to themselves. They are about presenting an attractive vision, not only about what you will get if you vote for a particular party, but about what sort of person you must want to be to live in a society governed in that way. If we failed to communicate our vision to the people who voted for other parties then we failed them.

But we failed them in a different way to the mother who lives with her daughter in bunk beds in her “auntie’s” back room. Her overcrowding was our failure. So too was the young woman whose CSA payments never arrived or the steelworker in County Durham who couldn’t understand why the banks had been bailed out but his steelworks was being mothballed. In a sense we failed everyone who said to us on the doorstep: “Why should I vote Labour when….?” and didn’t feel they got a satisfactory answer.

So what did people say on the doorstep? The list will be as long as the number of canvassers who purposefully trudged the pavements of our country those last months before the election and found an electorate no longer believing that Labour was the answer to their problems.

“Why should I vote Labour when I have been on the housing list the entire time you have been in Government?”

“Why should I vote Labour when you let all these immigrants in?”

“Why should I vote Labour when we’ve got the worst recession in 80 years?”

“Why should I vote Labour when the gap between the rich and poor has actually got wider?”

“Why should I vote Labour when you have done nothing to stop climate change?”

It's clear to see from the observations of ordinary people that Labour failed to deliver in so many key areas during their 13 years in power. And yes, it has set us back decades because it's going to take a decade at least to get us to where we should be now when a party has had 13 years to get things right.

13 lost & wasted years, and ten more to come for someone to get things back on track (maybe the Tories, possibly someone else) - these are the lost decades of which I spoke earlier.

...and let's not forget the illegal war in Iraq that Blair dragged us into, and which cost us BILLIONS in revenue and 179 lives.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *U1966Man
over a year ago

Devon

Tony Blair best prime minister since winston churchill i would happily see him back at number 10 and i have never voted labour

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle

"The housing stock was discounted too highly, resulting in much profiteering, and was not adequately replaced.

Many millions didn't take up the option of buying their council house either. It has to be accepted that not all people will own their own houses.

Your first para, about people paying in all their lives for their council house and deserving a discount, is really interesting. Does the same apply to private tenants too? My mate has rented his farm for forty years. Should his Tory landowner be forced to sell him his farm at a massive discount because he's paid in for forty years?

Before you use that point again you maybe want to get hold of some stats from any HRA to see how much of the rent goes on R&M and debt costs, how much on negative subsidy and so on. Then you'd realise it's not quite as simple as you make out...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

In wars people die and leaders have to make ugly decisions.....

Hiroshima etc...

Mass genocide? You decide....

As someone with family who perished in Nazi death camps, I find that a sick argument about Dresdon and Hiroshima were an awful result of a terrible war. The Germans and Japanese invaded a sovereign state and we went to war over it. Blair and Bush had no UN mandate to invaded a sovereign state and was therefore an illegal war

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

how do you come to the conclusion illegal war???

i served in gulf 1 Bosnia gulf 2 Iraq. every one of them wars had the same reason for staring. regardless of who had oil or not. they all got rid of some evil person who caused suffering on others. i think you're all suffering the American body bag syndrome. wars happen and people lose their lives. i took the queens shilling and i took the queens shit. everyone of those casualties did what they where trained and paid to do. i sympathise with their families and loved ones but that's how it goes.

you can't have a war and expect no losses.

and another thing Blair did was get two people in northern Ireland sitting at the same table and some peace in n i for the first time in centuries. its kicking off again over the water but now the people have had peace they are fighting to stop it happening again.

i don't know and don't care as to politics and the state of UK. it will cone full circle eventually.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Tony Blair best prime minister since winston churchill i would happily see him back at number 10 and i have never voted labour "

I take it you admire war mongers?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"how do you come to the conclusion illegal war???

you can't have a war and expect no losses.

i don't know and don't care as to politics and the state of UK. it will cone full circle eventually."

John Major laid the foundations in Northern Ireland and Mo Mowlem got them talking. When Blair sent in Mandleson he nearly fucked the whole process.

Of course there are casualties of war, but we went on the pretence of WMD, which were red herrings to get the oil.

Body bag syndrome is something I and others may suffer from, I admire or service personel and seeing them coming back dead is an awful price to pay for Americas thirst for the black stuff

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

no i just believe that the government make them decisions based on what they are presented with by mi5 mi6 and other security agencies. they know all the risks and the calculated casualty rates they're going to suffer. they don't make those decisions lightly and know they will suffer peoples wrath. part and parcel of being pm. no prime minister will satisfy all people he serves. and lets not forget the reason your all on here slagging off these politicians without fear of reprisals is because of those who gave their lives and did what the how did you put it? Warmongers asked them too

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Your first para, about people paying in all their lives for their council house and deserving a discount, is really interesting. Does the same apply to private tenants too? My mate has rented his farm for forty years. Should his Tory landowner be forced to sell him his farm at a massive discount because he's paid in for forty years?

How does a private tennant to a Tory landowner have any correlation to a public tennant under a British govt (any British govt) and that tennant's right to buy the home he lives in?

The govt implemented a policy to sell council houses to the people who lived in them and gave them an incentive to buy them. If a completely separate entity, ie. your Tory landowner, decides to offer his farm to his tennant under a similar policy then that's his business and his tennant's good fortune. If not, tough.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

here here

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 31/05/12 08:35:21]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"no i just believe that the government make them decisions based on what they are presented with by mi5 mi6 and other security agencies. they know all the risks and the calculated casualty rates they're going to suffer. they don't make those decisions lightly and know they will suffer peoples wrath. part and parcel of being pm. no prime minister will satisfy all people he serves. and lets not forget the reason your all on here slagging off these politicians without fear of reprisals is because of those who gave their lives and did what the how did you put it? Warmongers asked them too "

Our 'special' relationship with America (it's special only when the USA needs it to be) demanded that we back the Yanks up and Blair was so keen to be seen cosying up to Bush in the White House that he'd have invaded Tie Rack if Bush asked him to.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 31/05/12 09:53:16]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

13 lost & wasted years, and ten more to come for someone to get things back on track (maybe the Tories, possibly someone else) - these are the lost decades of which I spoke earlier.

...and let's not forget the illegal war in Iraq that Blair dragged us into, and which cost us BILLIONS in revenue and 179 lives.

You are trying to do it again. You seem unable to debate with facts and using your own argument to defend your clearly indefensible statement!

You still seem unable to mention one specific Labour Policy to back up your ludicrous claim. I ask you again Wishy in your own words NAME ONE that as you say has set us back DECADES.

Let me help you with some more facts that help to prove your statement as being ridiculous.

In 1993 we were in recession with £3Million unemployed.

Blair was Prime Minister for 10 years, during that time he had an incredible 40 successive quarters of economic growth, the countries debt to GDP ratio was lower than during the Thatcher years, UNPRECEDENTED. Like it or not Labours record on the economy under Blair and right up to the World Financial crisis was the best on modern record. BASED ON FACT.

........... we find ourselves having to live under severe cuts to pay for 13 years of Labour overspending. And that can't be denounced or denied.

Another helpful fact for you the Tories through the Blair years SUPPORTED the almost ALL of Labours spending plans, it's on record!

Look at the facts, the debt to GDP ratio under Blair was lower than under Thatcher, FACT.

Lets be clear, if you can, are you saying the severe cuts we are facing are NOT as a result of the World Financial Crisis?

Are you also suggesting the Tories would not have gone to War in Iraq and Afghanistan even though their unambiguous support for both Wars is on record?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *john121Man
over a year ago

staffs

In wars people die and leaders have to make ugly decisions.....

Hiroshima etc...

Mass genocide? You decide....

Just goes to show you shouldn't think you're the only one affected by the nazi's

As it happens my grandparents escaped Poland in 39, but not all of the family did!

so don't think you have exclusivity.

Remember we sided with Stalin and in some quarters he's considered a mass murderer...

And again if it's an illegal war show me the court case?

Seems to me you're happy to justify Dresden and Hiroshima because it's satisfies your sense of justice....

Nazi's that were captured were tried and convicted through a legal system, not every German was a nazi or a war criminal or do you believe that Dresden was an eye for an eye?

This is just showing you that war is a dirty business and in order for you to have the options open to you today we need to make and perpetrate what at any other time would be considered inconceivable solutions.

Sometimes the bigger stick and being prepared to use it does matter.

If attacking and causing acts of violence and in another's country constitutes an act against a sovereign state what is terrorism?

Do you believe that it's ok to let a state with what may be percieved by some to have questionable ethics etc to build nuclear reactors with all the possible implications?

Should we apply sanctions which harm the poorest people or should you employ a more clinical option?

Was the French pres right to say military options in Syria shouldnt be ruled out or should we stand by?

Is the UN toothless?

The bigger picture is something that you'll have no idea about and you don't get to know all the information that's available to the decission makers... And you probably wouldn't want too.

I would imagine that if you were placed in a position of him or me or my family you may well be prepared to do what ever to survive and protect.

What would your response have been to 9/11

How many different people's were affected by that atrocity?

No nation can turn around and say we don't have skeletons in our closets.

We elect people to look after our interest both domestic and foriegn and sometimes difficult decisions have to be made and you may not like those decisions but at least you're able to talk and speak peacably without being thrown in prison, put under house arrest or even disappeared.

And then you can vote them out.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *john121Man
over a year ago

staffs

13 lost & wasted years, and ten more to come for someone to get things back on track (maybe the Tories, possibly someone else) - these are the lost decades of which I spoke earlier.

...and let's not forget the illegal war in Iraq that Blair dragged us into, and which cost us BILLIONS in revenue and 179 lives.

You are trying to do it again. You seem unable to debate with facts and using your own argument to defend your clearly indefensible statement!

You still seem unable to mention one specific Labour Policy to back up your ludicrous claim. I ask you again Wishy in your own words NAME ONE that as you say has set us back DECADES.

Let me help you with some more facts that help to prove your statement as being ridiculous.

In 1993 we were in recession with £3Million unemployed.

........... we find ourselves having to live under severe cuts to pay for 13 years of Labour overspending. And that can't be denounced or denied.

Another helpful fact for you the Tories through the Blair years SUPPORTED the almost ALL of Labours spending plans, it's on record!

Look at the facts, the debt to GDP ratio under Blair was lower than under Thatcher, FACT.

Lets be clear, if you can, are you saying the severe cuts we are facing are NOT as a result of the World Financial Crisis?

Are you also suggesting the Tories would not have gone to War in Iraq and Afghanistan even though their unambiguous support for both Wars is on record? "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Leave Blair alone

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran

Think wishy'sgone out to get his daily mail for some more "facts" sorry wishy couldn't resist it

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

13 lost & wasted years, and ten more to come for someone to get things back on track (maybe the Tories, possibly someone else) - these are the lost decades of which I spoke earlier.

...and let's not forget the illegal war in Iraq that Blair dragged us into, and which cost us BILLIONS in revenue and 179 lives.

You are trying to do it again. You seem unable to debate with facts and using your own argument to defend your clearly indefensible statement!

You still seem unable to mention one specific Labour Policy to back up your ludicrous claim. I ask you again Wishy in your own words NAME ONE that as you say has set us back DECADES.

Let me help you with some more facts that help to prove your statement as being ridiculous.

In 1993 we were in recession with £3Million unemployed.

........... we find ourselves having to live under severe cuts to pay for 13 years of Labour overspending. And that can't be denounced or denied.

Another helpful fact for you the Tories through the Blair years SUPPORTED the almost ALL of Labours spending plans, it's on record!

Look at the facts, the debt to GDP ratio under Blair was lower than under Thatcher, FACT.

Lets be clear, if you can, are you saying the severe cuts we are facing are NOT as a result of the World Financial Crisis?

Are you also suggesting the Tories would not have gone to War in Iraq and Afghanistan even though their unambiguous support for both Wars is on record?

+1"

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *irtydanMan
over a year ago

Blackpool

hes a snake only bothered about one person himself

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *un_JuiceCouple
over a year ago

Nr Chester

"I have just been reading about the evidence he gave at the lesson enquiry. When you look at him now, it is more evident than ever what a lying, slimy pricked he is.

The way he sidled up to the Murdochs is 10 times worse than the present government.

All in all, a vile human being.... how the hell did he get voted in so many times?

Perhaps his itinery when he took over ?

Would that make us conspiracy theorists

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You still seem unable to mention one specific Labour Policy to back up your ludicrous claim. I ask you again Wishy in your own words NAME ONE that as you say has set us back DECADES.

If it takes 10 years to get to where we should be now, and it took ten years to wreck what was already a successful and thriving economy then that makes twenty years - two decades. You can add up yes?

If Labour had run this country properly we would be a richer country than we are today, yet Brown sold off our Gold reserves when gold was at an historical all time low. Who would do such a crazy thing apart from a madman?

You need to take your rose-coloured spectacles off as it's blatantly obvious that we're up shit street today not because of two years of Tory govt, but because of 13 years of bad Labour policies. Had Labour regulated the banks the toxic debt of the US would have limited damage. It doesn't matter who unregulated them earlier, Labour were in power at the time and could - and should have - reversed previous policies to unfetter the banks. They didn't. We're skint.

Lets be clear, if you can, are you saying the severe cuts we are facing are NOT as a result of the World Financial Crisis?

I believe the cuts we're experiencing now are a direct result of Labour overspending at a time when the world financial markets were collapsing and our over-exposure to those markets precipitated a freefall in the value of our currency and our economy. The moneymen at the Treasury should have seen what was happening and reigned in public spending and regulated the banks to soften the impact of the hurricane that was about to hit. Alistair Darling saw it coming but did NOTHING to ward off the blows. How could he, when Brown was ordering a firesale of Govt assets and spending what little money he had on projects we couldn't afford. A fact borne out by the amount of new schools that have had to be cancelled (my daughter's school being one of them, in case there is any dispute over that), and of defence projects that were signed and have cost us hundreds of millions in compensation to get out of.

During Labour's final year in power they knew they suspected they were going to lose in 2010 and deliberately did everything they could to ensure the Conservatives inherited a public purse that would soon be empty if they didn't instigate severe cuts.

"Are you also suggesting the Tories would not have gone to War in Iraq and Afghanistan even though their unambiguous support for both Wars is on record? "

Any attempt to say what the Tories would or would not have done would be nothing more than conjecture as they weren't in power at the time, Blair was, and he took us into an illegal war in Iraq. FACT.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Think wishy'sgone out to get his daily mail for some more "facts" sorry wishy couldn't resist it

Tsk! How very dare you! Daily Mail indeed! I've stated on here more than once that I'm a Murdoch man and The Sun is my bible.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We have to suffer the slimy Alex Salmond in Scotland,he has done a deal with Murdoch to reduce his corpoation tax in return for supporting independence.

Blair,Cameron,Salmond they will cosy up to the press when they want something then acted appalled when they get caught out,they are all the same.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

all good arguments for and against. but how can you say the Tories wouldn't of done things exactly the same? again all decisions are made based on the facts at the time. all parties have to agree in principle isn't that why we have a shadow government?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

........... Brown sold off our Gold reserves when gold was at an historical all time low. Who would do such a crazy thing apart from a madman?"

At last, a FACT from you, and your absolutely right, Brown messed up with that decision which (depending on who you believe) ended up costing the country circa £4billion. Hardly put us back decades though did it?

I believe the cuts we're experiencing now are a direct result of Labour overspending at a time when the world financial markets were collapsing....."

I respect your opinion but that is not based on fact, you have not contested that the dept to GDP ratio throughout Blairs time was less than during Thatchers time. Or are you now suggesting she was also overspending?

It's not conjecture, they are on record! The Tories were clear and unambiguous in their view that we did not need any further UN resolutions to go to war.

As for me having 'rose tinted glasses', that's just a sign that your ability to debate based on fact is flawed.

The only rose tint in my glasses is for United. I've told you, I do not consider myself to be a Labour supporter.

If I felt you had in anyway justified your original statement of Labours Policies putting us back decades then I would concede the point, but you have not. Instead you've shown an inability to back up your 'beliefs' and opinions with evidence. No point pushing you further because you seem less and less likely to rely on factual evidence.

The World Financial Crisis and it's fallout was not Labours fault. Just like the impending Euro disaster and it's fallout if the worst happens, will not be Camerons fault. No amount of party political propaganda is going to change that.

Sometimes you have to accept that leaders are making the best decisions they can for the 'greater good', history determines whether they got those decisions right. I'm of the view that on balance both Thatcher and Blair did a good job. I don't have to like either of them to say that.

I also believe both made mistakes.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

........... Brown sold off our Gold reserves when gold was at an historical all time low. Who would do such a crazy thing apart from a madman?

The irony is that brown was the one who stopped us joining the Euro, so even a bad politician can make good decisions sometimes. It's saved us a fortune!

As for 'setting us back decades', this sort of thing goes on all the time, and we just have to bite it til it sorts itself out. The last major recession was in the early 90s (Major), the one before was in the 70s (Callaghan), and I'm too young to remember any before then. But it seems to me that none of it depends on the reigning political party and does depend on the state of global economy at the time.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *hechairman18Man
over a year ago

Salford Quays , Manchester

Forgive if I am mistaken, but, was Tony Blair, appointed Peace Keeper for the Middle East.

Another job well done (NOT)

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"Forgive if I am mistaken, but, was Tony Blair, appointed Peace Keeper for the Middle East.

Another job well done (NOT)

No he wasn't appointed 'Peace Keeper' of the Middle East....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *john121Man
over a year ago

staffs

........... Brown sold off our Gold reserves when gold was at an historical all time low. Who would do such a crazy thing apart from a madman?

I believe the cuts we're experiencing now are a direct result of Labour overspending at a time when the world financial markets were collapsing.....

It's not conjecture, they are on record! The Tories were clear and unambiguous in their view that we did not need any further UN resolutions to go to war.

As for me having 'rose tinted glasses', that's just a sign that your ability to debate based on fact is flawed.

The only rose tint in my glasses is for United. I've told you, I do not consider myself to be a Labour supporter.

I also believe both made mistakes. "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *punkloverCouple
over a year ago

hatfield

Love or hate the bloke, he didnt break stride once and i thought some of the people asking the questions looked a bit star struck to be honest. He just looked like the master of ceremonies ansd he looked like he enjoyed it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Blackspice: Do you take everything so literally? Have you never heard of 'figuratively speaking'?

At no point have I stated that Labour caused the world financial meltdown - you introduced that into the discussion (but it's not really a world crisis is it as China's exposure to it has been limited due to China placing numerous

restrictions on capital flows, particularly outflows, in part so that it can maintain its managed float

currency policy. These restrictions limit the ability of Chinese citizens and many firms to invest

their savings overseas, compelling them to invest those savings domestically. Let's remember that China has 1/6 of the world's population - speaking factually).

My argument is not that Labour caused the crisis, but that Brown could have - and should have - lessened the impact of it by following China's example. The US sub-prime mortgage problem would not have been felt over here had Brown adopted China's model. Brown and/or Blair could have reversed previous Tory policies if they really disagreed with them but they didn't reverse them did they, and the economy that Blair inherited from Major was a thriving one and had been so for the five years from 92-97 after the ERM debacle.

Now if the country was in good shape financially in 97, and that it isn't now some 15 years later, how long will it take us to get back to at least where we were in 2003? (I'll give Blair 5 years to his credit as it took Labour a lot longer to fuck things up as badly as they did).

Who was it that left a note to the incoming Chancellor in 2010 saying simply, "The kitty's empty!"? (figuratively speaking, of course).

Lastly, we all know how 'facts' can be distorted to show whatever someone wants them to show and on that basis one can only see what is in front of them now - and that is a country struggling to make ends meet on the back of 13 years of government by a party that didn't know how to make ends meet, after inheriting an economy from a party that did a pretty good job of making ends meet.

We're decades behind from where we were and you don't need facts to see it as it's out there on the High St if you look past the end of your nose.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Love or hate the bloke, he didnt break stride once and i thought some of the people asking the questions looked a bit star struck to be honest. He just looked like the master of ceremonies ansd he looked like he enjoyed it."

That's precisely how he won 3 elections. Slick bastard.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ucky_LadsCouple (MM)
over a year ago

Kidderminster+ surrounding areas.

"Forgive if I am mistaken, but, was Tony Blair, appointed Peace Keeper for the Middle East.

Another job well done (NOT)

on june 27th 2007 tony blair was appointed special envoy to the middle east just hours after standing down as prime minister and shortly before announcing he was leaving parliament.

his stated aim at the time was to bring peace & stability to the middle east,does that not him peace maker to the middle east?.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran

That's precisely how he won 3 elections. Slick bastard.

Wishy the country wasnt in good shape in 97 whih is why the tories were voted out

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle

How does a private tennant to a Tory landowner have any correlation to a public tennant under a British govt (any British govt) and that tennant's right to buy the home he lives in?

That's a really odd response. You made a moral case, that council tenants deserved the right to buy their homes because they had paid in for so many years. You've now clarified that you think that moral case only applies to council tenants. You haven't explained why. The nature of the tenancy relationship, I would argue, is the same irrespective of who the landlord is, You, it seems, think different. I won't hold my breath waiting for an explanation.

You didn't answer the point about how much of rent goes to capital as opposed to current costs either.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran

"Forgive if I am mistaken, but, was Tony Blair, appointed Peace Keeper for the Middle East.

Another job well done (NOT)

on june 27th 2007 tony blair was appointed special envoy to the middle east just hours after standing down as prime minister and shortly before announcing he was leaving parliament.

his stated aim at the time was to bring peace & stability to the middle east,does that not him peace maker to the middle east?.

How long did it take to bring peace to N Ireland just part of the uk and how long have various people been trying to bring peace to the middle east ie several countries. some people may think he believe he's God but he can't work miracles

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That's precisely how he won 3 elections. Slick bastard.

Wishy the country wasnt in good shape in 97 whih is why the tories were voted out

Political commentators hold the view that the ERM fiasco did for John Major and he never recovered from it. He was viewed as a 'grey man' and he lost the respect of the electorate. The country thought it was time for a change and Blair talked like a man who meant what he was saying. Even I voted for him.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How does a private tennant to a Tory landowner have any correlation to a public tennant under a British govt (any British govt) and that tennant's right to buy the home he lives in?

You didn't answer the point about how much of rent goes to capital as opposed to current costs either."

You've made a jump across a chasm without a bridge. Government cannot dictate to private landlords that their tennants have the right to buy the homes they live after a qualifying criteria has been met, but Government can dictate what it plans to do with it's own properties.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran

That's precisely how he won 3 elections. Slick bastard.

you're not all bad then lol

Wishy the country wasnt in good shape in 97 whih is why the tories were voted out

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

That's precisely how he won 3 elections. Slick bastard.

Wishy the country wasnt in good shape in 97 whih is why the tories were voted out

so did I.... hindsight eh!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

That's precisely how he won 3 elections. Slick bastard.

I know I said I was finished here but just looking at these posts and on other topics according to you all the bad that ever happened in this country was the fault of Labour and all good was down to the Tories, I have never saw anyone with a more blinkered outlook on these forums as the tories never have and never will do any wrong in your eyes.

Both parties have made momumental f***ups and both have their share off sleazy crooks who dont give a damn about anything but what they can get for themselves and their cronies I can see it and so can most on here sit back and look and see if you can see it too and not just believe what your other god Rupert tells you is right and true

As for governing parties what a mess those 2 are in. I always wonder how things would have been if John Smith had not died so soon.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

Def done now

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"Forgive if I am mistaken, but, was Tony Blair, appointed Peace Keeper for the Middle East.

Another job well done (NOT)

on june 27th 2007 tony blair was appointed special envoy to the middle east just hours after standing down as prime minister and shortly before announcing he was leaving parliament.

his stated aim at the time was to bring peace & stability to the middle east,does that not him peace maker to the middle east?.

Exactly....he is a Special Envoy to the Quartet....not the 'Peacekeeper' of the Middle East.

The Special Envoy is in place to mediate between parties that are at odds in the region....which he has been doing since he was put in the position.

If all parties concerned were not satisfied with his ability to hold the position he would be replaced surely?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

That's precisely how he won 3 elections. Slick bastard.

As for governing parties what a mess those 2 are in. I always wonder how things would have been if John Smith had not died so soon."

+1 he seemed like a good man

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I know I said I was finished here but just looking at these posts and on other topics according to you all the bad that ever happened in this country was the fault of Labour and all good was down to the Tories, I have never saw anyone with a more blinkered outlook on these forums as the tories never have and never will do any wrong in your eyes.

Sure the Tories have made mistakes, the poll tax was one, ERM was another, Osbourne's continual u-turns at the moment are infuriatingly frustrating and makes one want to grab him by the lapels and scream, "think before you speak, you idiot!".

The Conservatives are not infallable but I am a fundamental believer in their core principal of a free market driven by entrepreneurs and Captains of industry. I most certainly do NOT subscribe to the notion that those who work the hardest should be stripped of what they've earned and see it redistributed to the lazy, the inept and the weak, but then i'm not very empathetic either so I don't concern myself with the life of someone who doesn't even know I exist and if I knocked on their door begging for a pound for the bus home they'd probably tell me to fuck off. Socialism is a convenient get-out clause, not a lifestyle.

I always wonder how things would have been if John Smith had not died so soon."

I've often wondered the same thing myself and I too thought he'd make a great PM. Sadly, we'll never know.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arrasCouple
over a year ago

North West

If all parties concerned were not satisfied with his ability to hold the position he would be replaced surely?"

I didn't know all the parties concerned had a say in his appointment! Who decides who the 'parties concerned' are, and how much weight their opinion carries in this decision making process?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

[Removed by poster at 31/05/12 20:33:59]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

'The parties concerned' are the Four members of the Quartet on the Middle East....

The EU

The United Nations

The United States

Russia

The Russians at first objected to him being chosen as they are a staunch ally of Syria....but they relented after discussions.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arrasCouple
over a year ago

North West

"I most certainly do NOT subscribe to the notion that those who work the hardest should be stripped of what they've earned and see it redistributed to the lazy, the inept and the weak."

So that would mean those hard working factory workers and Labourers should keep the wealth produced by their work. Rather than see the Lion's share of it go to the hands of someone else?

Sorry but I can't agree with that. I think that if a person owns the land, resources and means of production they should get all the profits and decide for themselves how to redistribute the wealth.

My god you can't honestly want wealth in the hands of hard working people.! They'd stop working for buttons then. We'd have to move all our factories to the third world. Oh wait we already did that hurrah for Neoliberalism!!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle

How does a private tennant to a Tory landowner have any correlation to a public tennant under a British govt (any British govt) and that tennant's right to buy the home he lives in?

You didn't answer the point about how much of rent goes to capital as opposed to current costs either.

You're determined to ignore the weaknesses of your own moral argument aren't you? You made the moral argument, and now you're running away from it; quite funny that. Are you saying that council tenants have more moral right to own their homes than private tenants?

For the record, the government doesn't own council houses; the councils do, and councils are statutory corporations capable of owning property in their own right. You seem to believe, as happened in the 1980s, that councils should be forced to sell their properties at a loss, transferring the burden of making good those losses onto all the residents of the area, for the benefit of the minority.

Whatever else people say of you Wishy, no-one could ever accuse you of moral consistency.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You're determined to ignore the weaknesses of your own moral argument aren't you? You made the moral argument, and now you're running away from it; quite funny that. Are you saying that council tenants have more moral right to own their homes than private tenants?"

I'm saying that private landlords wouldn't buy houses and rent them out if there was a chance that a sitting tennant could exercise a right to buy it after a period time. Many landlords have their properties pensioned and are investments for the future so why would they entertain a right to buy scheme that belies their long term plans?

A private tennant has a choice if he/she wants to buy a house - get on the council list or buy another house elsewhere.

For the record, the government doesn't own council houses; the councils do, and councils are statutory corporations capable of owning property in their own right."

You're talking semantics here. Local councils are subject to national policies if the sitting government wills it. If, as you say, local authorities are statutory corporations capable of owning houses in their own right, then why didn't they replace their housing stock if they had that much control over their own areas of governance? Thatcher gets the kick in the head for that one all the time, but councils could have replaced their housing stock under your claims here.

" You seem to believe, as happened in the 1980s, that councils should be forced to sell their properties at a loss, transferring the burden of making good those losses onto all the residents of the area, for the benefit of the minority.

Whatever else people say of you Wishy, no-one could ever accuse you of moral consistency."

I don't have a view either way on whether councils should or shouldn't sell their properties at a loss, profit, or otherwise. What is under discussion here is about what a government did 30 years ago. It was their policies, not mine, or yours, or anyone else's. The govt of the time decided that council tennants should have a right to buy option for the homes in which they had lived and the govt discounted the price for those who exercised that option. The govt (local or otherwise) couldn't offer that same incentive to private tennants as it didn't own the houses that would be affected by such a decree, and would make it illegal to force a private landlord to sell his property to his tennants if he didn't want to.

Or maybe you think it's perfectly acceptable to asset strip someone purely because you want what he has.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arrasCouple
over a year ago

North West

"'The parties concerned' are the Four members of the Quartet on the Middle East....

The EU

The United Nations

The United States

Russia

The Russians at first objected to him being chosen as they are a staunch ally of Syria....but they relented after discussions.

I was pointing out the distinction between the people who are involved in his appointment and those who are concerned with it. The two are not necessarily mutually inclusive.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arrasCouple
over a year ago

North West

[Removed by poster at 31/05/12 21:21:49]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *waymanMan
over a year ago

newcastle

A private tennant has a choice if he/she wants to buy a house - get on the council list or buy another house elsewhere."

So the moral rights of the tenant are mediated by the nature of their landlord. Sorry, but that's akin to a really shabby kind of moral relativism that I suspect you don't even recognize.

So, to sum up, you don't understand what a statutory corporation is, and you'll make a cheap point badly in order to continue this argument. Well done. Statutory corporations can do what they're allowed to by statute. In 1981 the government placed limits on what they could do with capital receipts from property sales. However, the right to own and hold property is a fundamental right of statutory corporations, whilst the right to acquire property is limited.

Or maybe you think it's perfectly acceptable to asset strip someone purely because you want what he has."

You said previously

" The people buying their own homes had in effect been paying for them for decades in rent. It would have been a tad cheeky for the govt to turn around and say, "you can now buy it if you want but at the current market rate, and we'll ignore how much you've already paid into it over the years.""

You'll have to forgive me for mistaking that for an endorsement of the policy. Like I say, consistency is not your strong point...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

A private tennant has a choice if he/she wants to buy a house - get on the council list or buy another house elsewhere.

So the moral rights of the tenant are mediated by the nature of their landlord. Sorry, but that's akin to a really shabby kind of moral relativism that I suspect you don't even recognize.

Tenants have rights under law for their homes to be private whilst they live there. A landlord cannot enter that property just because he owns it. Tenancy laws are no big secret and you know it. What private tenants don't have the right to do is buy a property just because they live in it. You really ought to stop being childish and see the world for how it really is.

You glean so much about me from such a short sentence? Why don't you stand for government if you have such insight to how people think and what people know.

I know full well that central government prevented the proceeds of house sales being used to replenish housing stock, and I suspect you know that I know, being the insightful chappy that you are.

The people buying their own homes had in effect been paying for them for decades in rent. It would have been a tad cheeky for the govt to turn around and say, "you can now buy it if you want but at the current market rate, and we'll ignore how much you've already paid into it over the years."

You'll have to forgive me for mistaking that for an endorsement of the policy.

I do endorse it yes. People living in council houses were offered the right to buy the homes they had been paying for and they were given discounts based upon the length of time they had been a council tenant. You know it and I know it. I believe everyone has the right to own their own home, but if someone chooses or has no option but to rent privately then they cannot buy that house if the landlord doesn't wish to sell it. They can, of course, exercise their right to buy another property elsewhere.

Like I say, consistency is not your strong point..."

Belligerence is one of yours though. As for consistency, do I look like someone who cares about the opinion of someone I don't know, have never met, and wouldn't recognise if you tapped me on the shoulder?

I take care of my family and that's pretty much all I do care about.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think the problem lies with socialism, nice ideology, but does not work.

To paraphrase an old quote, if you ain't a socialist by the time you are 16 you have no heart. If you are still one at 36 you have no head....."

why doesn't it work?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think the problem lies with socialism, nice ideology, but does not work.

To paraphrase an old quote, if you ain't a socialist by the time you are 16 you have no heart. If you are still one at 36 you have no head.....

why doesn't it work?"

Because people aren't equal, they never have been and never will be. Any attempt to make people equal is doomed to failure. That's more of a communist construct but socialism has it's roots in communism and if you try and take from those that have and give it to those that haven't they'll resist you all the way.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

seems to work in Scandinavia

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"seems to work in Scandinavia"

Until one of them goes nuts with an AK47.

The trouble with socialism/communism is you always need someone above everyone else telling you how to be a good socialist/communist.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

people do that more in the US, and that's a capitalist society.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Blackspice: Do you take everything so literally? Have you never heard of 'figuratively speaking'?

My understanding of figurative speech is clear, the issue here is that you are confusing figurative speech with FICTITIOUS speech, you simply make things up to defend some of your statements. When challanged you 'flip flop' (oh dear, I'm speaking figuratively) and if necessary are willing to say things that are clearly untrue.

If you actually believe that Brown could never mind should have introduced the Chinese economic model in the UK at that time then you simply haven't thought it through. We certainly don't have enough posts left on this thread to debate that suggestion from you.

Wishy, I respect you as another forumite and there are times when I agree with your posts, but you do at times make outlandish statements with little or no substance and when challenged you fail to back them up. I think this is one of those occassions.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"people do that more in the US, and that's a capitalist society. "

I'd say it's more indicative of a human society and all the frailties that go with it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

wishy you wouldnt know socialism if it slapped you round the face.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Blackspice: Do you take everything so literally? Have you never heard of 'figuratively speaking'?

You're trying to get me to name one specific policy of the last Labour govt that would set this country back decades when you know full well that one policy alone wouldn't do it.

The things that mattered to the people on the doorstep, as mentioned in my earlier post that you've conveniently ignored, collectively failed to improve the living standards of people in these Isles over 13 years of Labour govt, and on that basis standing still is indeed going backwards because as a society we're supposed to learn from past mistakes and move forward positively.

Would you say that the standard of life in the UK today is better than it was 13 years ago? I certainly don't think so, and it would take a lot more than two years of Tory govt to make something like that come to pass.

Uncontrolled immigration during the Blair/Brown years has allowed people into the UK unrestricted and once here the human rights act prevents us from getting rid of some of those who have come here with bad intentions. That has certainly set us back decades as decades ago we controlled our own borders but now Brussels says who we must let in. It doesn't matter who signed us up to the HRA but what does matter is Labour didn't make sure it acted in the interests of the British people first, so keen were they to leave the floodgates open and let 3m new labour voters in - for all the good it did them in the end.

We're poorer than we were two decades ago, and we're taxed much more heavily than we were two decades ago.

Our military strength has weakened over the last 20 years and if Argentina has designs on the Falklands now would be a pretty good time to retake and keep them. We can't afford our nice new Carriers and we couldn't keep our old ones in a fit fighting state. Labour should have replaced them years ago but didn't.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"wishy you wouldnt know socialism if it slapped you round the face."

Enlighten me oh wise one?

Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralised organisation. Socialism says that the distribution should take place according to the amount of an individual's production efforts, whilst communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs.

Close?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You're trying to get me to name one specific policy of the last Labour govt that would set this country back decades when you know full well that one policy alone wouldn't do it.

The things that mattered to the people on the doorstep, as mentioned in my earlier post that you've conveniently ignored....."

That just about sums you up mate. The article you pasted in that post criticised the Labour Govt for in effect 'not being Labour' enough, most of the points raised within it required either more distribution of wealth or decisions requiring increase public expenditure......yes more borrowing.

You are willing to try and use this to justify your view that Labour failed.

Only you on this thread could on the one hand argue against Labours spending as their failure then produce an article like that that which basically suggests they didn't spend enough on the people at the more needy end of society! (when you look at what it's basic thrust was).

As for your views on immigration, that's probably best left for another day.

This is probably the moment to metaphorically shake hands and agree to disagree.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately