Cameron and Clegg worse than Thatcher.

Originally Posted by Hugh

***trivia alert****

apparently according to a holywood legend RKO pictures said Fred Astaire couldn't act ,couldn't sing ,can dance a little

Originally Posted by martyh

***trivia alert****

apparently according to a holywood legend RKO pictures said Fred Astaire couldn't act ,couldn't sing ,can dance a little

Astaire insisted that the comment was "Can't act. Slightly bald. Also dances".

[dazzer89]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Given that she's renowned as one of the best ever it's a shame that those two don't have her testicles.

All about the point of view. For example how do you rate the previous PM?

EDIT: Hey Arthur - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...rime_Ministers

Thought you'd get a kick out of that. You may hate Thatcher but much of what she did was essential and many of her improvements have been completely undone with the creation of the client state by Labour.

Oh do give over.

---------- Post added at 07:25 ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 ----------

I see Cameron has become the first Western leader to visit Egypt after Mubarak's overthrow - publicly it is flagged up as a stateman visit to express support for the nation state. What isn't being publicised widely is that he has taken 6 arms companies with him to talk to the army - because of course more weapons is what the starving of Egypt need.

[Ignitionnet]

Sorry if my providing notes of a number of surveys showing the high regard Thatcher is held in by some didn't go down to well.

She certainly polarised opinion like no-one else for sure.

Politicians pimping arms is disgusting though. That needs to be publicised as widely as possible and it politely suggested that Cameron deal with rather more pressing things at home than whoring himself to arms companies.

---------- Post added at 07:57 ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 ----------

Arthur - it seems the US Treasury Secretary disagrees with you.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

This thread is started to get heated, I am entitled to my views, I have been on this earth for 59 years, I have gone through a life of hell via different governments, wether its Labour or Tories, Whatever decision is made is supposed to be for the benefit of the voters.

We are NOT getting it, I went through the miners stike, where we had power cuts, every damn thing, going up the motorway and watching miners getting attacked by the own people for trying to put food on the table with no money.

Then l went through the poll tax riots and had fueds with residents across the road, as they had a cheaper band than us, I got taken to court for standing up for my rights.

Now we have a situation where we have the Tories ripping this country to pieces, where they are having budget cuts, and NOW today we hear that they are sacking members of our armed forces, We also having further budget cuts to police services in some forces ON top of pervious cuts.

This is being done by TORIES, NOT A LABOUR government, and yet we hear where TORY councillors are spending thousands on finding way of CUTTING services.

I might wing BUT this is FACT, the Tories and LIBS Dems, have broken there promises in the elections. There will be trouble ahead for this country.

Complete and utter unsubstantiated rubbish from you as usual.

Still failing to comprehend and see the bigger picture. Thirteen years of Labour rule is why you are se....

...Actually, you know something I ain't wasting my time explaining things and discussing things (It's not even a discussion, as you gob off a little and then disappear) with you any more Arthur, you take no notice of what anyone actually says to you any way.

[Angua]

Couldn't stand Thatcher and like ignitionnet despaired at the sell off of council houses. However during that lengthy conservative era our basic standard of living was much higher.

In 1996 a large detached 7 bedroomed house in a sought after area was valued at £165,000. In 2002 the same house was valued between £365,000 and £450,00 eventually selling for £400,000 for redevelopment in 2004. So the majority of the boom in house prices took place during a Labour Government.

To all the NIMBYS who complain about new housing going up in an area. The fact is new housing pushes prices in existing areas up, as large developments mean improvements in services.

Just because there isn't a job available does not mean people should just do nothing. Perhaps they should see what is needed in an area and start a business instead, especially if they see their age is against them. As to be fair on employers they have little incentive to take on someone who will retire in a couple of years, yet those self same people have a wealth of knowledge and experience they can hand on.

I do appreciate not everyone has the get up and go to do this, but without such enterprise there will NEVER be enough work for those who want it. As creating public sector non jobs does nothing for exports and has got us in the current mess.

[PeteLockwood]

labour got us in this mess, fact.

and in regards to special needs children etc, not too sound harsh or offensive but whose child is it Arthur ? yours or the rest of the countries, if you rely on state benefits perhaps you should not have had children? it is unfair to expect everybody in this country to support YOUR child isn't it ?

Erm, being part of society means, imho, helping those less able, and less able to help themselves.

btw, Arthur is working.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Angua

Couldn't stand Thatcher and like ignitionnet despaired at the sell off of council houses. However during that lengthy conservative era our basic standard of living was much higher.

In 1996 a large detached 7 bedroomed house in a sought after area was valued at £165,000. In 2002 the same house was valued between £365,000 and £450,00 eventually selling for £400,000 for redevelopment in 2004. So the majority of the boom in house prices took place during a Labour Government.

To all the NIMBYS who complain about new housing going up in an area. The fact is new housing pushes prices in existing areas up, as large developments mean improvements in services.

Just because there isn't a job available does not mean people should just do nothing. Perhaps they should see what is needed in an area and start a business instead, especially if they see their age is against them. As to be fair on employers they have little incentive to take on someone who will retire in a couple of years, yet those self same people have a wealth of knowledge and experience they can hand on.

I do appreciate not everyone has the get up and go to do this, but without such enterprise there will NEVER be enough work for those who want it. As creating public sector non jobs does nothing for exports and has got us in the current mess.

Awesome post and all the more poignant because it's not from someone like me who prattles on endlessly about such things.

[PeteLockwood]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Erm, being part of society means, imho, helping those less able, and less able to help themselves.

btw, Arthur is working.

i agree hugh, but there is helping and there is being reliant...

[Chrysalis]

handing and been reliant go hand in hand, for millions of people the state is a lifeline.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

handing and been reliant go hand in hand, for millions of people the state is a lifeline.

Because it was enlarged and crowded out other resources, where previously family, friends, neighbours, communities and indeed the people themselves did things the state stepped in and took over.

What we consider as essential services now probably bears little resemblance to what was considered essential not that long ago.

As Angua noted also, for all this extra money being poured into the state from tax payers and debt, quality of life is perceived as lower now, and the inequality gap is untouched.

Seems to me that perhaps advocates of a smaller state may have a point. Those genuinely in need who are best served by the state and have no other recourse, fine, taking everyone's money to try and make what politicians think is the best use of that money is simply wrong.

A social safety net and essential municipal services which are best provided by government, it should be nothing more, ever, and certainly not the pervasive, intrusive monster it is right now.

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:11 ----------

Originally Posted by PeteLockwood

i agree hugh, but there is helping and there is being reliant...

You're perhaps being unfair there Pete, but you're also not entirely unfair. It does beg the question of if Arthur isn't happy with his lot in the life, the wages being offered for his labour, etc, he didn't attempt to better that lot rather than apparently expecting government to do so. Less skilled work inevitably will pay less and have more competition for it than more skilled positions.

Reliant is the wrong word, perhaps feeling entitled is more appropriate. However that is probably just what the man was told by certain more left-wing governments of past times. Pay your taxes and you will be looked after. Obviously it's a model that fell apart for demographic and other reasons.

Someone from the Baby Boomer generation or the one before is best suited to answer that one though - I'm from the later part of Generation X so was brought up with no expectations of such things

[Chrysalis]

indeed but that doesnt mean things were better long ago. In years gone more people died on the streets due to lack of state help. Or had a severely reduced quality of life if they managed to survive.

Telling people that society should look after itself is basically a survival of the fittest attitude and its looking like thatcher all over again mark II.

[Angua]

The biggest irony is the company I work for did more to encourage home ownership amongst those normally disenfranchised (a true Thatcher ideology). Yet the latest Tory babies have taken away the support these people need to stay in their own homes by reducing mortgage interest relief and assuming a shared ownership mortgage is a 100% mortgage regardless of the amount of share. Oh & I live in an ex council house bought by the previous tenants.

Yes we should look after those who need our help and support and ensure they have the best quality of life possible. However we cannot as a country afford blanket care for all. Genuine need should be the overweening factor. Not simply lack of work or churning out child after child.

The problems have become worse because those who have no other issue except lack of work are taking from the benefit pot to the detriment of those who really cannot work. Sadly this government like others before them try to clamp down and use too crude a system to weed out the fakers.

[Chrysalis]

Its more then that, libraries been closed, charities losing funding, legal aid cuts. social services.

home owners have had their fair share of help of the state also, artifically low interest rates for their benefit as well as the state making deals with banks to stop repossessions.