Thank God for Boris!
Discussion
JonnyFive said:
This thread started well, then got boring with all of the arguing etc.
Boris is excellent.. Says it exactly how it is, and doesn't care if he looks an idiot whilst doing it. We need more of him!
Yes a rare breed most are isipid career politcians and cameron seems to have done a sidlining job on all the outspoken lot that would question him, so BorisBoris is excellent.. Says it exactly how it is, and doesn't care if he looks an idiot whilst doing it. We need more of him!
had beter watch his back..
Sior said:
Look at which parties are in control of which parts of the country. There is a trend (more affluent tend to be Tory which always suggested to me the more educated majority vote Tory. Odd way to look at it I know)
People with money voting Tory and people without money not voting Tory is hardly groundbreaking insight. You're trying to spin it to suggest anybody who doesn't vote Tory must therefore be uneducated but I think you've admitted that blunder. One look at the general election map does seem to suggest conformity to generalisation. Those with the most money in richer parts of the country with rural areas and higher home ownership vote Tory, those with lower incomes in poorer parts of the country with a more dense, communal population vote Labour.Generally I feel anybody (TallbutBuxomly) who feels everything Thatcher did was magnificent is looking through rose tinted specs and is just as bad as those who always vote Labour but don't know why. I don't feel he's in a position to preach to Northerners about not viewing things objectively with remarks like that. For me they've both done great and bad things throughout their time in office and no party should get be allowed in for too long. It takes little more than a flick through modern political history to note most of the Conservatives achievements are in economics and most of Labour's stem from social policy.
davepoth said:
Shay HTFC said:
Firstly, how often have you voted Tory in the past 30 years? You sound like an automatic right winger in the same way other people are automatic left wingers.
Secondly, you seem like a massive bell.
You've not quite got the point. There's no problem with voting for the same party for 30 years, assuming you have made an informed decision. The problem occurs when people vote for a party "because that's what I/my parents/some bloke at the pub always do".Secondly, you seem like a massive bell.
martin84 said:
People with money voting Tory and people without money not voting Tory is hardly groundbreaking insight. You're trying to spin it to suggest anybody who doesn't vote Tory must therefore be uneducated but I think you've admitted that blunder. One look at the general election map does seem to suggest conformity to generalisation. Those with the most money in richer parts of the country with rural areas and higher home ownership vote Tory, those with lower incomes in poorer parts of the country with a more dense, communal population vote Labour.
Generally I feel anybody (TallbutBuxomly) who feels everything Thatcher did was magnificent is looking through rose tinted specs and is just as bad as those who always vote Labour but don't know why. I don't feel he's in a position to preach to Northerners about not viewing things objectively with remarks like that. For me they've both done great and bad things throughout their time in office and no party should get be allowed in for too long. It takes little more than a flick through modern political history to note most of the Conservatives achievements are in economics and most of Labour's stem from social policy.
I dont believe that everything Thatcher did was good per se. I think the thinking behind most of her actions was sound but the application in plenty was not quite what it should have been.Generally I feel anybody (TallbutBuxomly) who feels everything Thatcher did was magnificent is looking through rose tinted specs and is just as bad as those who always vote Labour but don't know why. I don't feel he's in a position to preach to Northerners about not viewing things objectively with remarks like that. For me they've both done great and bad things throughout their time in office and no party should get be allowed in for too long. It takes little more than a flick through modern political history to note most of the Conservatives achievements are in economics and most of Labour's stem from social policy.
However the primary about Thatcher which is why I feel she was one of the best we have ever had is she did what she believed in and what she believed was truly in the best interests of the country much like Boris does.
I believe Boris has his heart in the right place and tries to do what the people want him to do providing it is in their best interests for him to do so.
martin84 said:
Sior said:
Look at which parties are in control of which parts of the country. There is a trend (more affluent tend to be Tory which always suggested to me the more educated majority vote Tory. Odd way to look at it I know)
People with money voting Tory and people without money not voting Tory is hardly groundbreaking insight. You're trying to spin it to suggest anybody who doesn't vote Tory must therefore be uneducated but I think you've admitted that blunder. One look at the general election map does seem to suggest conformity to generalisation. Those with the most money in richer parts of the country with rural areas and higher home ownership vote Tory, those with lower incomes in poorer parts of the country with a more dense, communal population vote Labour.Generally I feel anybody (TallbutBuxomly) who feels everything Thatcher did was magnificent is looking through rose tinted specs and is just as bad as those who always vote Labour but don't know why. I don't feel he's in a position to preach to Northerners about not viewing things objectively with remarks like that. For me they've both done great and bad things throughout their time in office and no party should get be allowed in for too long. It takes little more than a flick through modern political history to note most of the Conservatives achievements are in economics and most of Labour's stem from social policy.
2) Wasn't trying to spin anything
3) not a blunder, an opinion
4) thanks for contradicting points 1-3 by clarifying my initial point
5) stop being argumentative
6) explain to your buddy that if lots of people call you a bell end then it may be logical to realise you may just well be a bell end
TallbutBuxomly said:
I dont believe that everything Thatcher did was good per se. I think the thinking behind most of her actions was sound but the application in plenty was not quite what it should have been.
I am not a devoted Conservative voter but I do have a great admiration for what Thatcher achieved. All I'm saying is its possible for fanboys to put on the red-tinted specs in regards to her time in office. She didn't mend the economy in five minutes, her policies may have engineered a higher tax take but it took a decade to reduce public expendature from the ratio she inherited, proving even she couldn't just slash spending and fix everything instantly. Given that, maybe we're too harsh on Cameron's lot which have made a dent in the deficit inside two years. For me, what she achieved was making Britain a viable, competative, economic country fit for the 20th century. There were still major problems in the country by the time she left but I have to give her that, which confirms what I said about Tories achievements mainly being in economics.Labour have had their achievements as well, mostly in social/welfare policy; The NHS was created under Labour, reforms such as anti-discrimination laws, the equal pay act, decriminalisation of homosexuality, abolishment of the death penalty, creation of the national minimum wage, legalisation of abortion, scrapping of section 28, introduction of redundancy payments and the widest expansions of the welfare state - specifically in the case of the elderly and infirm - have all been achieved under Labour Government. Things which would've probably never got done under Conservative rule. A Labour Government was the first to spend more money on education than on defence - although high defence spending was required obviously early in the 20th century. They began to regulate against media censorship and despite now being associated with Thatcher, it was Labour councils which first let tenants buy their council houses.
There's plenty of things in there which Conservative's opposed at the time - minimum wage for instance - but they now support. Because the public supports it, so they have to support it really.
There's misconceptions through ignorance on both sides. People view the Tories as a party which panders to the Oxbridge brigade, when in fact Thatcher's Government slashed funding for higher education which even led to a petty snub from Oxford University in regards to awarding her an honourary degree. People think Thatcher attacked Unions out of spite, when what she actually did was stop the militants controlling workers who wanted to work (getting rid of the closed shop was a huge step.) It's been suggested Labour has never done anything to reduce tax on the lowest paid, when it was a Labour Government in the 60s which took a million people out of income tax altogether. We also believe Labour never invest in roads, but Labour recorded the highest capital expendature on road building in post war history.
Ultimately Labour have always let themselves down when it comes to money and the Conservative's have let themselves down when it comes to image, keeping up with the times and some social policy.
martin84 said:
I am not a devoted Conservative voter but I do have a great admiration for what Thatcher achieved. All I'm saying is its possible for fanboys to put on the red-tinted specs in regards to her time in office. She didn't mend the economy in five minutes, her policies may have engineered a higher tax take but it took a decade to reduce public expendature from the ratio she inherited, proving even she couldn't just slash spending and fix everything instantly. Given that, maybe we're too harsh on Cameron's lot which have made a dent in the deficit inside two years. For me, what she achieved was making Britain a viable, competative, economic country fit for the 20th century. There were still major problems in the country by the time she left but I have to give her that, which confirms what I said about Tories achievements mainly being in economics.
Labour have had their achievements as well, mostly in social/welfare policy; The NHS was created under Labour, reforms such as anti-discrimination laws, the equal pay act, decriminalisation of homosexuality, abolishment of the death penalty, creation of the national minimum wage, legalisation of abortion, scrapping of section 28, introduction of redundancy payments and the widest expansions of the welfare state - specifically in the case of the elderly and infirm - have all been achieved under Labour Government. Things which would've probably never got done under Conservative rule. A Labour Government was the first to spend more money on education than on defence - although high defence spending was required obviously early in the 20th century. They began to regulate against media censorship and despite now being associated with Thatcher, it was Labour councils which first let tenants buy their council houses.
There's plenty of things in there which Conservative's opposed at the time - minimum wage for instance - but they now support. Because the public supports it, so they have to support it really.
There's misconceptions through ignorance on both sides. People view the Tories as a party which panders to the Oxbridge brigade, when in fact Thatcher's Government slashed funding for higher education which even led to a petty snub from Oxford University in regards to awarding her an honourary degree. People think Thatcher attacked Unions out of spite, when what she actually did was stop the militants controlling workers who wanted to work (getting rid of the closed shop was a huge step.) It's been suggested Labour has never done anything to reduce tax on the lowest paid, when it was a Labour Government in the 60s which took a million people out of income tax altogether. We also believe Labour never invest in roads, but Labour recorded the highest capital expendature on road building in post war history.
Ultimately Labour have always let themselves down when it comes to money and the Conservative's have let themselves down when it comes to image, keeping up with the times and some social policy.
A very fair assessment. I would from a personal viewpoint disagree with many of the things labour did as being good things. A lot of the social welfare garbage was a mistake pandering to the stupid/vote buying imho. Really there were very few things i would claim as being good. The nhs, better welfare for the aged, decriminalisation of homosexuality, creation of the national minimum wage, legalisation of abortion, scrapping of section 28, introduction of redundancy payments.Labour have had their achievements as well, mostly in social/welfare policy; The NHS was created under Labour, reforms such as anti-discrimination laws, the equal pay act, decriminalisation of homosexuality, abolishment of the death penalty, creation of the national minimum wage, legalisation of abortion, scrapping of section 28, introduction of redundancy payments and the widest expansions of the welfare state - specifically in the case of the elderly and infirm - have all been achieved under Labour Government. Things which would've probably never got done under Conservative rule. A Labour Government was the first to spend more money on education than on defence - although high defence spending was required obviously early in the 20th century. They began to regulate against media censorship and despite now being associated with Thatcher, it was Labour councils which first let tenants buy their council houses.
There's plenty of things in there which Conservative's opposed at the time - minimum wage for instance - but they now support. Because the public supports it, so they have to support it really.
There's misconceptions through ignorance on both sides. People view the Tories as a party which panders to the Oxbridge brigade, when in fact Thatcher's Government slashed funding for higher education which even led to a petty snub from Oxford University in regards to awarding her an honourary degree. People think Thatcher attacked Unions out of spite, when what she actually did was stop the militants controlling workers who wanted to work (getting rid of the closed shop was a huge step.) It's been suggested Labour has never done anything to reduce tax on the lowest paid, when it was a Labour Government in the 60s which took a million people out of income tax altogether. We also believe Labour never invest in roads, but Labour recorded the highest capital expendature on road building in post war history.
Ultimately Labour have always let themselves down when it comes to money and the Conservative's have let themselves down when it comes to image, keeping up with the times and some social policy.
All good things but out of your list the only good ones.
TallbutBuxomly said:
A very fair assessment. I would from a personal viewpoint disagree with many of the things labour did as being good things. A lot of the social welfare garbage was a mistake pandering to the stupid/vote buying imho. Really there were very few things i would claim as being good. The nhs, better welfare for the aged, decriminalisation of homosexuality, creation of the national minimum wage, legalisation of abortion, scrapping of section 28, introduction of redundancy payments.
All good things but out of your list the only good ones.
So you don't think the state should look after disabled people then? Do you also not believe women should get paid the same as men for the same job?All good things but out of your list the only good ones.
I'm not talking about the Welfare expansions of the New Labour era but more about the changes made in the times of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan. I'm talking about the fact social services hardly existed before then and there was little to aid or protect the most vulnerable in society. In those Labour years, more people got meals on wheels, more schoolchildren got free school dinners and pensions rose plentifully. Before 1966, anybody who lost their job was denied state help in their first month of unemployment - sort of defeating the object of the whole system really - but that changed under Labour. They also passed legislation actually recognising disabled people and outlining provisions for them to be able to access as much as the rest of us - no other country in the World had passed such a measure at that time.
Another common theme is how Prime Ministers of both parties have made major strategic errors which cost them or their party dearly and led to an avoidable reputation. Ted Heath's kneejerk election call in early 1974 led to him leaving office, he didn't realise the anti-Union election wouldn't happen for another five years. Margaret Thatcher could've been remembered differently had the poll tax plans been binned or if she'd just left office after ten years. James Callaghan could've won an election in 1978, but thought another year of pay restraint could scrape him through to '79 and a longer premiership - that backfired so badly it led to Labour in opposition for 18 years.
Less costly examples include John Major's belief that a long election campaign would lead to New Labour unravelling - irrelevant in the greater scheme of things because Labour were always going to win in 97. Had the Conservative's elected anybody other than Michael 'dracula' Howard, they may have won in 2005.
TallbutBuxomly said:
davepoth said:
Shay HTFC said:
Firstly, how often have you voted Tory in the past 30 years? You sound like an automatic right winger in the same way other people are automatic left wingers.
Secondly, you seem like a massive bell.
You've not quite got the point. There's no problem with voting for the same party for 30 years, assuming you have made an informed decision. The problem occurs when people vote for a party "because that's what I/my parents/some bloke at the pub always do".Secondly, you seem like a massive bell.
For every my-family-has-always-voted-labour voter, there is a I-will-never-vote-Labour voter. Its pathetic. You're pathetic.
edit: Sorry, back to Boris. He's a legend and a real breath of fresh air for British politics.
martin84 said:
So you don't think the state should look after disabled people then? Do you also not believe women should get paid the same as men for the same job?
.
Of course I believe the state should provide support to the disabled or those who fall on hard times. I dont however tend to the idea that the state should give freebies to people which has become the main role of the welfare state..
As to woman getting paid the same amount for doing the same job as men? No I dont think they should necessarily get paid the same in the same way I dont feel men should be paid the same as woman in certain roles.
A simple fact is men and woman are different physically and mentally. Some roles are better suited to men some are better suited to woman. Its not sexism its simple science. Its not to say all woman would not be able to do certain male dominated roles there will be a small core of woman who are emotionally/mentally/physically able to carry it out but its exception rather than rule.
The flip side is equally true of men.
Hence it is wrong to blanket rules same pay for same job. Some roles are better suited to and performed by men and therefore even if a woman is performing said role she may be adequate but unable to perform to the same level as the man and therefore they should not be paid equally.
Flip side equally true of men.
TallbutBuxomly said:
As to woman getting paid the same amount for doing the same job as men? No I dont think they should necessarily get paid the same in the same way I dont feel men should be paid the same as woman in certain roles.
b
ks. We still live in a country where a woman doing an office job can be paid less than a man doing an office job. We're talking about sitting at desks and typing stuff, I don't see how physical differences mean anything in that scenario.If you have a job going which a man would be better at then you'll employ a man won't you? So the scenario you describe wouldn't come up. In 1950's America it was common for a male English teacher to get paid double what a female English teacher was paid, I'd rather we didn't live in that world. That wouldn't have changed without the intervention of Government, that's a problem the market cannot solve by itself because at the time the market dictated that women got paid less. Any employer to buck the trend was therefore doing themselves out of money.
Give me an example of a job which a woman (due to mental and physical differences) is incapable of doing as well as a man. Go on.
The main flaw of the equal pay act is its 2012 and it's still not being enforced.
Typical fking PH. I really have enjoyed reading the posts on this thread, but it's the wrong place for it guys!
Hey-ho, it was always going to turn out this way.
I think Boris is hilarious, quirky - and most importantly - more trustworthy than any other MP in any sort or limelight.
"The Geiger counter has gone 'ZOINK'"
king PH. I really have enjoyed reading the posts on this thread, but it's the wrong place for it guys! Hey-ho, it was always going to turn out this way.
I think Boris is hilarious, quirky - and most importantly - more trustworthy than any other MP in any sort or limelight.
"The Geiger counter has gone 'ZOINK'"
Stedman said:
I think Boris is hilarious, quirky - and most importantly - more trustworthy than any other MP in any sort or limelight.
Trustworthy? Better ask his wife about that. 
In all seriousness, I think the British public are past caring about the private lives of our politicians - so long as he doesn't get found with his hand in the till he'll get along fine. I've said this elsewhere, but CMD must have felt a bit sick watching Boris at that pop concert.
martin84 said:
bks. We still live in a country where a woman doing an office job can be paid less than a man doing an office job. We're talking about sitting at desks and typing stuff, I don't see how physical differences mean anything in that scenario.
If you have a job going which a man would be better at then you'll employ a man won't you? So the scenario you describe wouldn't come up. In 1950's America it was common for a male English teacher to get paid double what a female English teacher was paid, I'd rather we didn't live in that world. That wouldn't have changed without the intervention of Government, that's a problem the market cannot solve by itself because at the time the market dictated that women got paid less. Any employer to buck the trend was therefore doing themselves out of money.
Give me an example of a job which a woman (due to mental and physical differences) is incapable of doing as well as a man. Go on.
The main flaw of the equal pay act is its 2012 and it's still not being enforced.
Did you even read what i wrote? ks. We still live in a country where a woman doing an office job can be paid less than a man doing an office job. We're talking about sitting at desks and typing stuff, I don't see how physical differences mean anything in that scenario.If you have a job going which a man would be better at then you'll employ a man won't you? So the scenario you describe wouldn't come up. In 1950's America it was common for a male English teacher to get paid double what a female English teacher was paid, I'd rather we didn't live in that world. That wouldn't have changed without the intervention of Government, that's a problem the market cannot solve by itself because at the time the market dictated that women got paid less. Any employer to buck the trend was therefore doing themselves out of money.
Give me an example of a job which a woman (due to mental and physical differences) is incapable of doing as well as a man. Go on.
The main flaw of the equal pay act is its 2012 and it's still not being enforced.
But to answer your question.
I would say that certain roles within the military would not be suited to them.
Females are not as strong/physically capable as men and would not be able to carry out tasks to the same efficiency as men in the field.
They would be more prone to injury than men from trying to keep up with male counterparts which in combat is a very bad thing.
There are also psychological aspects where woman may not be as well suited to male roles.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff