# Am I the only conservative here?



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Or are there any others?

Feel free to abuse me, shout tory e.t.c

Just wondered if I am alone in carrying the torch (oh it's a tree now ) that's going to be heavy lol, anyway I have my soap box ready if anybody requires conversion 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Or you may just want to introduce yuorself as a fellow conservative.


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Feb 24, 2011)

ypauly said:


> Or are there any others?
> 
> Feel free to abuse me, shout tory e.t.c
> 
> ...



I would have to say that I am probably a conservative when it boils down to it............Ill be your friend.....


----------



## Northerner (Feb 24, 2011)

Must...not...ban...must...not...ban...


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Thank novarapidboi.

Tut Tut Alan You don't want to press that button really




Do you?


----------



## Northerner (Feb 24, 2011)

ypauly said:


> Thank novarapidboi.
> 
> Tut Tut Alan You don't want to press that button really
> 
> ...



Don't tempt me!


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Northerner said:


> Don't tempt me!



Moi?


/hides behind my fullsize poster of Mrs T


----------



## Flutterby (Feb 24, 2011)

If you're really sure you don't mind us abusing you and shouting names...............!! lol


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Flutterby said:


> If you're really sure you don't mind us abusing you and shouting names...............!! lol


To be honest I thought I would be completely alone and as such I was prepared for stocks and tomatoes (probably still in the tin) lol


----------



## Northerner (Feb 24, 2011)

ypauly said:


> To be honest I thought I would be completely alone and as such I was prepared for stocks and tomatoes (probably still in the tin) lol



So, did you go to Eton, or Harrow?


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Northerner said:


> So, did you go to Eton, or Harrow?


Perry common comp lol. Still a fully paid up member of the party though.


----------



## am64 (Feb 24, 2011)

what makes you a conservative ypauly ? 
do you realy think its fair that those who caused the recessions (note past aswell) seem to still be coming out on top ?
 how can we be told on the onehand that we all have to tighten our belts cos of the 'dredful' economy when most large international companys and banks are still making massive profits ?? note carefully end of year figures that are being anounced ...
where i live they advertise newly built flats as an 'investment 'oppertunity for using your 'bonuses'....the lastest start from ?900,000 ... who is really winning in this economic climate ...
ps i live fortunately in a social housing as when they decided to get rid of all the the sheltered housing scheme  for the old folks 24 hr warden cover, and replace them with basically a remote intercom system ...we were able to keep our tied accomodation


----------



## Alan S (Feb 24, 2011)

I think I know where Northerner's coming from. I like free conversation on forums, especially when it comes to things like government health and medical support, but I've seen politics destroy some forums, especially over the pond from you. 

My political position on forums is best expressed by this late great diabetic. This applies to diabetes groups as well as folk groups in my opinion:

*The One On The Right Is On The Left* 

There once was a musical troupe 
A pickin' singin' folk group
They sang the mountain ballads 
And the folk songs of our land

They were long on musical ability 
Folks thought they would go far
But political incompatibility led to their downfall

Well, the one on the right was on the left
And the one in the middle was on the right
And the one on the left was in the middle
And the guy in the rear was a Methodist

This musical aggregation toured the entire nation
Singing the traditional ballads 
And the folk songs of our land
They performed with great virtuosity 
And soon they were the rage
But political animosity prevailed upon the stage

Well, the one on the right was on the left
And the one in the middle was on the right
And the one on the left was in the middle
And the guy in the rear burned his driver's license

Well the curtain had ascended 
A hush fell on the crowd
As thousands there were gathered to hear The folk songs of our land
But they took their politics seriously 
And that night at the concert hall
As the audience watched deliriously 
They had a free-for-all

Well, the one on the right was on the bottom
And the one in the middle was on the top
And the one on the left got a broken arm
And the guy in the rear, said, "Oh dear"

Now this should be a lesson if you plan to start a folk group
Don't go mixin' politics with the folk songs of our land
Just work on harmony and diction 
Play your banjo well
*And if you have political convictions keep them to yourself*

Now, the one on the left works in a bank
And the one in the middle drives a truck
The one on the right's an all-night deejay
And the guy in the rear got drafted


----------



## Dizzydi (Feb 24, 2011)

I'll be brave and admit to being conservative....... tut tut 

Stone me now too !


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

am64 said:


> what makes you a conservative ypauly ?
> do you realy think its fair that those who caused the recessions (note past aswell) seem to still be coming out on top ?
> how can we be told on the onehand that we all have to tighten our belts cos of the 'dredful' economy when most large international companys and banks are still making massive profits ?? note carefully end of year figures that are being anounced ...
> where i live they advertise newly built flats as an 'investment 'oppertunity for using your 'bonuses'....the lastest start from ?900,000 ... who is really winning in this economic climate ps i live fortunately in a social housing as when they decided to get rid of all the the sheltered housing scheme  for the old folks 24 hr warden cover, and replace them with basically a remote intercom system ...we were able to keep our tied accomodation



Sorry for this long post am64


Who do you believe is actually to blame for the recession? I blame new labour they borrowed in the good times when they should have been saving, this despite DOUBLING the tax take, this despite robbing the pensions, this despite selling off the gold. They wasted it all, not only that even BEFORE the banking crisis (which they caused with de-regualation) they were massively in debt. 42% of GDP in fact if they had saved the all the extra money they had, there wouldn't have been a banking "crisis" it would have been called a small banking problem.
Debt before the crisis was ?494 Billion
Money paid to save a few banks to date ?112 Billion
Labours deficit in their last financial year a whopping ?170 Billion
Total debt now due to Labour failure to deal with the debt problem till after an election (over two years) in excess of ?1 Trillion
On those bonuses they get  (banker) they pay tax a 50% money that we need so changing that at this time wouldn't be a good idea.

As for the housing thing, that was what turned me away from labour. Gordon brown promised massive building projects and 250,000 new homes for social housing. 
How many did he build?
I am in a similar predicament I sold my home before the banking crisis and decided to rent in lichfield outside of birmingham as we were considering a permanent move there. It was just to try it out. Then the banks stopped lending and I have been renting ever since because despite having a deposit I can't get the necessary insurances to cover the loan because of my health.

If gordon had kept his word things could have been different. 

Also isn't the accodation you talk of the responsibility of local goverment?



And breath lol


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 24, 2011)

Dangerous thing to admit in public. 

My politics are probably fairly transparent from other threads. 

But if you want to start on religion I'm up for a scrap ! (only joking ) 

As the eggheads say... on this occasion, I'm out.

Rob


----------



## Adrienne (Feb 24, 2011)

Northerner said:


> Must...not...ban...must...not...ban...



Hehehehehe no go on press that button........  dare you


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Alan S said:


> I think I know where Northerner's coming from. I like free conversation on forums, especially when it comes to things like government health and medical support, but I've seen politics destroy some forums, especially over the pond from you.



I think debate is good, providing everybody accepts it as just that. This forum is very well moderated and I'm sure Northy would be very quick if anybody even goes near the mark let alone oversteps it.

Over here (not the other side of the pond) we can like each other and get on despite our political persuasions it adds to the fun and quality of life.

Strangely though, when we have meet ups (of which I have attended a couple) and talk face to face we talk about what we have in common and not what seperates us.
Maybe that's what makes us more civilized.


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Adrienne said:


> Hehehehehe no go on press that button........  dare you



I'm ready
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









lol


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> But if you want to start on religion I'm up for a scrap ! (



Just out of interest, what side of the religious debate are you on? 

Not that even I would dare to start one lol I'm not that brave


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 24, 2011)

ypauly said:


> If gordon had kept his word things could have been different.
> 
> Also isn't the accodation you talk of the responsibility of local goverment?
> 
> And breath lol



Who allowed everyone to buy their council house without creating new stock ? 

Oh yes. Adolf ... ermm ... Maggie. 

Rob


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 24, 2011)

ypauly said:


> Just out of interest, what side of the religious debate are you on?
> 
> Not that even I would dare to start one lol I'm not that brave



My lips are sealed 

Rob


----------



## kitten (Feb 24, 2011)

just for the record and because i feel im being sneaky if i dont admit it, im a conserve too. 
so i'll join you all hiding in the corner hehehe! 
but on a serious note, i am not trying to be offensive in saying that, neither do i feel it is an offensive thing to admit. my personal morals and stances on life are very radical tbh. i think debate is good. it can be an opportunity to give opinions and thrash out new ideas, but they can easily go sour. i think the key thing is it needs to be a chance to offer your genuine opinion but for others to be able to take it with a pinch of salt so to speak. i don't mean that it is okay to dismiss it at all but i mean that other people need to feel that they can read it and disagree if they wish and leave it at that. not be offended/upset by it.


----------



## margie (Feb 24, 2011)

conservative with a small c yes with a big C no.

There are politicians in all parties who make a difference and politicians in all parties who are there only for themselves.

I find David Cameron disingenuous - he said he wanted to bring an end to Punch and Judy politics but seems to revel in it. I also find his comments comparing the current Liverpool city council to that in the early 1980s completely insulting and completely unfounded.  He seems to misquote people so often as well that I find I have no faith in him whatsoever.


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

kitten said:


> just for the record and because i feel im being sneaky if i dont admit it, im a conserve too.
> so i'll join you all hiding in the corner hehehe!
> but on a serious note, i am not trying to be offensive in saying that, neither do i feel it is an offensive thing to admit. my personal morals and stances on life are very radical tbh. i think debate is good. it can be an opportunity to give opinions and thrash out new ideas, but they can easily go sour. i think the key thing is it needs to be a chance to offer your genuine opinion but for others to be able to take it with a pinch of salt so to speak. i don't mean that it is okay to dismiss it at all but i mean that other people need to feel that they can read it and disagree if they wish and leave it at that. not be offended/upset by it.



An excellent post


----------



## Adrienne (Feb 24, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> Dangerous thing to admit in public.
> 
> My politics are probably fairly transparent from other threads.
> 
> ...



Rob this post of yours actually really did make me chortle out loud.   Yep I'll have a scrap about religion as well.   

I am very thick when it comes to politics, I think they are all, without fail, a bunch of charletons, they are all as bad as each other.     

Now who do I think should be in power. ummmmmm me, no maybe not as am rubbish with money but what about that Richard Branson, he's good with money or even, don't laugh but what about the Chris Evans, he's good at making money as well.   Got to be better than the twerps that are there now or the ones before indeed.

My problem is that it is the same old story really.  The cons love the rich people and labour loves the poor.   There is no middle ground.  So my dad is con as he has no choice but I have to be labour, I have no choice.  Never thought I would say that and I couldn't bear the doughnut that was Gordon.  However they gave me tax credits and I cannot live without that.  I worked all my life until I had a child with a severe medical condition and so I cannot work even though I try my hardest to sort it all out.  I'm not lazy, its just not possible.   I don't know any job that will let me walk out at the drop of a hat to get to school or the hundreds of hospital appointments.

Problem now of course is that the cons are in and the credits and DLA are all changing.   I do seriously face losing mine and Jessica's home which I have worked damned hard for, for years and years working full time and paying my tax and NI etc.   It was not my fault Jessica was born with this (actually technically it is as I have a dodgy gene ) but due to some ejits who love rich people I am facing that creek with no paddle.

It doesn't matter who they are called, the cons could be called the pink party with blue spots but I am facing huge problems unless Clegg grows a pair and stands up for what he said he would do.   Pillocks, all of them, in all parties.


See told you, not very good at politics.   

Ok so religion, who's gonna start ........... only joking........


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> My lips are sealed
> 
> Rob



Chicken lol



So are mine


----------



## Northerner (Feb 24, 2011)

After voting in elections for nigh on 35 years I have come to the conclusion that they are all as bad as each other - Heath, Wilson and Callaghan failed in the 70s, Thatcher failed in the 80s and Major and Blair failed in the 90s and beyond. I always wonder how things might have been if John Smith had lived longer to fulfill his promise.

Labour weren't responsible for the recession, but they were complicit in it by reducing oversight of financial institutions, a trend started by the Tories in the greedy, selfish 1980s. New Labour weren't much different from Old Tory.

Personally, I would have voted for Caroline Lucas if she had stood in my constituency because she has a lovely short hairstyle. In the event, I voted for John Denham who I have much respect for, irrespective of party.


----------



## Adrienne (Feb 24, 2011)

ypauly said:


> I'm ready
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hahahahahahaha loving this thread, just for the jokes, not taking the rest very seriously at all.   Let you in on a secret (I didn't even read the very long post, sorry, just skimmed right over it when I got to numbers and percentages eek)


----------



## margie (Feb 24, 2011)

Slightly off topic but what do you think of the situation today when both Nick Clegg and David Cameron appeared to say they were in charge of the country.

I hope the civil servants know who are


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> Who allowed everyone to buy their council house without creating new stock ?
> 
> Oh yes. Adolf ... ermm ... Maggie.
> 
> Rob



I agree. I also read that the money from the sales were supposed be be used for that but local councils spent it elsewhere.

A good policy poorly implemented. There are other things about the conservatives that were done wrong or poorly thought out, I can't say any differently to how I see it. However on the grand scale of things I still believe they are much much better than new labour.


----------



## Adrienne (Feb 24, 2011)

kitten said:


> just for the record and because i feel im being sneaky if i dont admit it, im a conserve too.
> so i'll join you all hiding in the corner hehehe!
> but on a serious note, i am not trying to be offensive in saying that, neither do i feel it is an offensive thing to admit. my personal morals and stances on life are very radical tbh. i think debate is good. it can be an opportunity to give opinions and thrash out new ideas, but they can easily go sour. i think the key thing is it needs to be a chance to offer your genuine opinion but for others to be able to take it with a pinch of salt so to speak. i don't mean that it is okay to dismiss it at all but i mean that other people need to feel that they can read it and disagree if they wish and leave it at that. not be offended/upset by it.



Absolutely excellent, totally agree and so long as it is not personal to individuals on here (the government by all means........)


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

margie said:


> Slightly off topic but what do you think of the situation today when both Nick Clegg and David Cameron appeared to say they were in charge of the country.
> 
> I hope the civil servants know who are



I haven't seen that, but would have thought that as a coalition they are both supposed to be running the place.


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Who was it that said "It doesn't matter who you vote for the goverment will always win" ?

Anybody interested in numbers and deficits may want to watch this.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story


----------



## Andy HB (Feb 24, 2011)

ypauly said:


> I haven't seen that, but would have thought that as a coalition they are both supposed to be running the place.



Everyone knows that it's the civil servants who actually run the country. The politicians are just a front. 

(or should that be 'an affront'?)


----------



## Steff (Feb 24, 2011)

Wow this thread gets the award for the fasting moving EVER


----------



## runner (Feb 24, 2011)

Absolutely and categorically not - i'm with Am!  I'm as red as a certain monkey's backside on a cold winter's day!

Current situation needs radical overhaul - redistribution of income. Jobs according to ability, not background or privelege. It is shamefull that we have one of the highest rates of children living in poverty in europe, and the rich-poor divide is getting bigger, with the top group getting increasingly richer.  Those who do not have a voice - the young and vulnerable are being penalised yet again.  We recently learn that top jobs and most of the government are there due to privileged background.  I too often hear - we have to pay big bonuses and ridiculous wages to those in power otherwise they will leave the country - good riddance!  give the jobs to those equally qualified and committed, who have earned the right, not just been to the right school, university etc.

I do like a debate tho'


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 24, 2011)

As you say Adrienne and Northerner. Real politics is about individuals who are in power and the real people who are affected by what they decide. It's no great surprise that Cameron (or most others) can't empathise with most of the populace when you look at his upbringing. He can't know how it feels to be in fear of losing everything. It's an artificial bubble that most of them inhabit where they score points and fulfill grand dreams.

Some are genuine but they get downtrodden quickly whichever party they belong to. I hope the recession ends very soon so they can start reuilding some of the safety nets they are removing. I don't agree with every benefit decision but it's wrong to pull the rug when there are vulnerable and deserving people who will suffer.

Sadly, they really believe they've covered every angle but they only know what they're told by minions. And the minions don't know what it's like to be poor either.

I should have stuck to the religion debate on reflection. 

Rob


----------



## Adrienne (Feb 24, 2011)

Oooo runner, like that post.   Yep that must be me then.  So I'm red am I?   Don't like red, don't like blue,  purple is good.   

I don't like Cameron's suits or his face.   I liked Cleggs face but it seems to have got stuck somewhere not great !!!


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Northerner said:


> After voting in elections for nigh on 35 years I have come to the conclusion that they are all as bad as each other - Heath, Wilson and Callaghan failed in the 70s, Thatcher failed in the 80s and Major and Blair failed in the 90s and beyond. I always wonder how things might have been if John Smith had lived longer to fulfill his promise.
> 
> Labour weren't responsible for the recession, but they were complicit in it by reducing oversight of financial institutions, a trend started by the Tories in the greedy, selfish 1980s. New Labour weren't much different from Old Tory.
> 
> Personally, I would have voted for Caroline Lucas if she had stood in my constituency because she has a lovely short hairstyle. In the event, I voted for John Denham who I have much respect for, irrespective of party.



I don't think Thatcher can be described as a failure, she was the ONLY post war prime minister to reduce britains debt i.e the amount owed was less when she left than when she started. She did make a few mistakes such as poll tax though.

I would have voted for John Smith too, not because I agreed with his political leanings but because I thought he was the most honest politician I had seen. And though I did like John major at the time, he didn't inspire me.


----------



## Adrienne (Feb 24, 2011)

ypauly said:


> I don't think Thatcher can be described as a failure, she was the ONLY post war prime minister to reduce britains debt i.e the amount owed was less when she left than when she started. She did make a few mistakes such as poll tax though.
> 
> I would have voted for John Smith too, not because I agreed with his political leanings but because I thought he was the most honest politician I had seen. And though I did like John major at the time, he didn't inspire me.



I think the only thing John Major inspired was the fabulous Spitting Image grey puppet, brilliant.  

I think they all pretty much failed.   I think Mrs T was brilliant as she was a woman who broke the barriers but wasn't unemployment huge then but then that could have been a knock on effect from the gov before and then them before that so yep all a load of rubbish affecting us poor oiks !


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 24, 2011)

ypauly said:


> I don't think Thatcher can be described as a failure, she was the ONLY post war prime minister to reduce britains debt i.e the amount owed was less when she left than when she started. She did make a few mistakes such as poll tax though.
> 
> I would have voted for John Smith too, not because I agreed with his political leanings but because I thought he was the most honest politician I had seen. And though I did like John major at the time, he didn't inspire me.



Thatcher shut down the manufacturing industries (due to union strength) and replaced them with her dream of service industries.
Sadly, those service industries are now located in India, China, etc where they are far cheaper than we were. India is now facing the same problem I should think.

I was in the East Midlands mining areas during Major's 2nd round of closures and sell-off. Not pretty when entire towns stand still.

Rob


----------



## runner (Feb 24, 2011)

Northerner said:


> After voting in elections for nigh on 35 years I have come to the conclusion that they are all as bad as each other - Heath, Wilson and Callaghan failed in the 70s, Thatcher failed in the 80s and Major and Blair failed in the 90s and beyond. I always wonder how things might have been if John Smith had lived longer to fulfill his promise.
> 
> Labour weren't responsible for the recession, but they were complicit in it by reducing oversight of financial institutions, a trend started by the Tories in the greedy, selfish 1980s. New Labour weren't much different from Old Tory.
> 
> Personally, I would have voted for Caroline Lucas if she had stood in my constituency because she has a lovely short hairstyle. In the event, I voted for John Denham who I have much respect for, irrespective of party.



LOL  don't give up Northe!  respect to all those who vote, whatever it is, but even bigger respect to those who didn't vote for this lot!  Ifeel so sorry for those who voted lib-dem (including members of my family) and feel very betrayed.  think they have shot themselves in the foot.


----------



## margie (Feb 24, 2011)

I know Wiki is not always right but what it says about the right to buy council house scheme is what I can remember. ie that the money raised could not be automatically used to replenish the stock of housing. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_buy_scheme


----------



## Adrienne (Feb 24, 2011)

Ouch my foot hurts !


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 24, 2011)

Wow. This has been a fun thread indeed. Trying to think of 5 fun things to post on Gail's thread now. Onward and upward 

Rob


----------



## margie (Feb 24, 2011)

It should be remembered that is is not just the Conservative Party that has lots of millionaires - many of the shadow cabinet fall into that category too. Many of the lib-dems as well.


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

margie said:


> I know Wiki is not always right but what it says about the right to buy council house scheme is what I can remember. ie that the money raised could not be automatically used to replenish the stock of housing.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_buy_scheme


That was an interesting read. I am still of the thought that it was a good idea but not using the money to replenish stock was THE BIG mistake.


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

margie said:


> It should be remembered that is is not just the Conservative Party that has lots of millionaires - many of the shadow cabinet fall into that category too. Many of the lib-dems as well.



It is also the minions that are getting rich


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ehall-bonuses-rise-during-recession-year.html

New labours fixation with targets meant they had to give incentives.


----------



## smile4loubie (Feb 24, 2011)

I'm only 21 and don't understand ENOUGH about previous governments mistakes to comment but I am enjoying reading this thread lol. And no I didn't vote... decided until I understood/knew enough it wasn't right just to pick a name out of a hat lol.


----------



## runner (Feb 24, 2011)

Lol Adrienne - i didn't mean those who voted, i meant the lib -dem party have shot themselves in the foot


----------



## bev (Feb 24, 2011)

Hi Ypauly,

I *used* to be a Conservative voter - which was odd as I came from a Northern working class background.I liked Maggie Thatcher and felt that she was at least *in charge* and had a real presence. Unfortunately things didnt stay like that and I lost interest in politics after a while. Then I was a Labour voter - for a few years. Now, I do not have a clue who is in charge (well I do - but it doesnt feel as if anyone is in charge of things at the moment) and there is no-one who I feel has any clout or presence and there is certainly no-one who is genuine at the moment - they are all just looking after themselves and their reputations - none of them have any idea what is going on in the *real world* so I dont feel I could make a choice as there simply is no choice for me at the moment.

Clegg and the rest sound like jibbering idiots when they talk and so I cant take them seriously - I much prefer someone who has presence and a good believable and honest personality.Bev


----------



## runner (Feb 24, 2011)

Are you all being inspired by 'Question time' on this thread at the mo?


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

bev said:


> but it doesnt feel as if anyone is in charge of things at the moments


That's the bad side of coalition. Also why we need more conservative voters lol


----------



## Northerner (Feb 24, 2011)

ypauly said:


> I don't think Thatcher can be described as a failure, she was the ONLY post war prime minister to reduce britains debt i.e the amount owed was less when she left than when she started. She did make a few mistakes such as poll tax though.



She squandered the wealth from state sell-offs and North Sea oil 'the family silver' 



Adrienne said:


> I think the only thing John Major inspired was the fabulous Spitting Image grey puppet, brilliant.
> 
> I think they all pretty much failed.   I think Mrs T was brilliant as she was a woman who broke the barriers but wasn't unemployment huge then but then that could have been a knock on effect from the gov before and then them before that so yep all a load of rubbish affecting us poor oiks !



When I left Uni the tories were in power - they'd had a slogan 'Labour isn't working', with around 1m unemployed. When I left Uni in 81 there were over 2m, and like 90% of Arts graduates I couldn't get a job for years. Today I read in the paper that they are predicting 20% unemployment amongst 18-24 age group for years to come - plus ca change, oui?

The cuts to jobs are very real - the jobs to replace them are imaginary, so taxes will decline and benefits increase (which is why the govt is trying to minimise the impact of this by cutting wherever possible). The 80s were very much about the haves and have nots, and I fear the divide will be even greater this time around


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

runner said:


> Are you all being inspired by 'Question time' on this thread at the mo?



Blimey I forgot that was on.





/runs around like a headless chicken looking for the remote lol


----------



## margie (Feb 24, 2011)

ypauly said:


> Blimey I forgot that was on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You must be enjoying yourself too much.

Sometimes I watch Question Time and sometimes I don't - I had forgotten it was on too....


----------



## margie (Feb 24, 2011)

I live in a place that always seems out of step with the rest of the country. Whilst Labour was in power we had a Lib Dem council. Now we have a coalition government we have a labour council.


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Feb 24, 2011)

Northerner said:


> She squandered the wealth from state sell-offs and North Sea oil 'the family silver'



Squandered it ? How do you know that ? No account was ever given of the billions raised by Privatisation. Not even our only Watchdog, The Public Accounts Committee, asked , "Where's all the money gone ?" 
You can bet a lot of it was trousered by her friends in the City.

And now we are told our water companies are largely owned by The French Civil Service Pension Fund. The French ! - when I was a kid French water was a joke, they had to drink out of bottles !

The destruction of the staid old Building Societies was one of the worst features of the Thatcher era and their recreation as rapacious Banks run by ( incompetent ) pirates.


----------



## runner (Feb 24, 2011)

margie said:


> I live in a place that always seems out of step with the rest of the country. Whilst Labour was in power we had a Lib Dem council. Now we have a coalition government we have a labour council.



Lucky you!


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Feb 24, 2011)

runner said:


> Lucky you!



You're kidding - she'll get torn to shreds by the cuts targetted at lab councils


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Northerner said:


> She squandered the wealth from state sell-offs and North Sea oil 'the family silver'
> 
> 
> 
> (


It was under Labour that Oil was discovered; late 60's/early 70's. 
Nothing at all to do with Mrs T.

Oil was discovered in the Norwegian sector in late 1969, with Amoco making it's Montrose discovery shortly afterwards. Then BP found the Forties in 1970 with production starting in 1975 and peaking by 1979. The BBC made a fascinating documentary called Crude Britannia last year.

Arguably gas was more important oil to Mrs T - with the Dash for Gas by the privatised electricity companies, the country's reliance on coal and hence militant coal miners were to be dismantled once and for all.

Can you remember Britain pre-Thatcher? We were the poor man of Europe, Industries controlled by the Unions, with run down City centres, it was an 'Old fashioned' country. Mrs T pulled Britain up by her Shoe laces, modernised the country and started it on the road to being a successful country with a thriving Economy. 
She did start us off on the Privatisation road(I think this was more the family silver than oil), but check the records, if it was so bad why didn't Labour turn it back? The fact is that they actually carried it on and extended it even further than Mrs T would have even dreamt about.
Labour comes to power, spends money, mucks everything up and get's the country into debt. The conservative party then get voted in, make some tough unpopular decisions to put things right, the economy begins to improve, debts are paid off and then just when the country starts to reap the benefits, Labour get back in on the Promise of Extra Government spending - and who can resist that - then they get back in, spend money, muck things up.................and so it goes on.


I didn't like Maggie towards the end, she became a parody of herself, but she was a leader with guts and a presence who was dragging the UK into the modern world.


Oh and I was 10 in 81 lol


----------



## smile4loubie (Feb 24, 2011)

* Woooooooooosh *


----------



## Adrienne (Feb 24, 2011)

ypauly said:


> Also why we need more conservative voters lol



Now you are pushing it........


----------



## Northerner (Feb 24, 2011)

smile4loubie said:


> * Woooooooooosh *



Hehe!


----------



## Hazel (Feb 24, 2011)

Ypauly - thanks for starting, an interesting, thread

I must say politics bore me rigid, I have not voted for over 20 years.

I suppose I would say though - I am more tory than anything else.

The one person in politics I hate (with a passion) is Tony Blair - he is a peace envoy in the middle east?   Ixs that not where all the unrest is right now?
He is a sleezy bxxxxxd

Doesn't matter who is in power I still need to pay taxes.............


----------



## Adrienne (Feb 24, 2011)

Hazel said:


> Ypauly - thanks for starting, an interesting, thread
> 
> I must say politics bore me rigid, I have not voted for over 20 years.
> 
> ...



Ah now see (this is where I need to run for cover) I like Tony Blair.   Don't like what he did necessarily but I liked him when he was being interviewed on Parky.  To me he came across as a nice dad !   I'm not saying what he did or didn't do was right but it was under his government that I survived with the tax credits.    If Mrs T were in or Mr grey Major I would not have survived and would not be in my own home now.    So whilst the last lot of wallys were in power I had my own house.  God knows what will happen now this jumble of people are in power !  (oops nearly started that religious debate )

Am running and hiding, not easy let me tell you !


----------



## runner (Feb 24, 2011)

mcdonagh47 said:


> You're kidding - she'll get torn to shreds by the cuts targetted at lab councils



True


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Hazel said:


> Ypauly - thanks for starting, an interesting, thread
> 
> I must say politics bore me rigid, I have not voted for over 20 years.
> 
> ...


The middle east worries me greatly, very very worrying indeed.

As more and more people get to vote, more and more poeple will get to vote for what they want. Aside from the obvious food, housing and jobs most people in that region infact more than most, I would say nearly all want the destruction of Israel.
The newly elected leaders will at some point be expected to deliver their promises and the most obvious way is to join forces.

the west has up until now, only had to deal with individuals so it was easy to play one off against the other. But Arab nation joined together on the wishes of the electorate is a truely frighening thought.


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 24, 2011)

Bunfights 

I'm voting for Disraeli next time. Or did he cheat on his expenses ? 

It's all tit for tat generally. I was 16 in 81 so I outrank you ypauly ! 

Thatcher fuelled the 80s greed that Northerner mentioned. Since then it's been every man (or woman) for him(or her)self (slight python reference there) and material gain is what matters. Socialism is all but dead in any party. It was an unworkable economic model but it made for a nice community. As did jobs.

Well done to all for keeping it civilised and entertaining. 

Rob


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 24, 2011)

ypauly said:


> The middle east worries me greatly, very very worrying indeed.
> 
> As more and more people get to vote, more and more poeple will get to vote for what they want. Aside from the obvious food, housing and jobs most people in that region infact more than most, I would say nearly all want the destruction of Israel.
> The newly elected leaders will at some point be expected to deliver their promises and the most obvious way is to join forces.
> ...



I hope I'm right in saying that they are smarter than maybe we give them credit for. Wars are expensive and they don't need to spend money on sabre rattling in an internationally competitive market.

I hope.

Rob


----------



## Adrienne (Feb 24, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> Bunfights
> 
> I'm voting for Disraeli next time. Or did he cheat on his expenses ?
> 
> ...



Not so sure religion would fare so well though 

Yep all bunfights, agreed.

For me, Spandau Ballet and Michael Jackson and Madonna ruled the 80's, not Mrs T, I loved the 80's scene.  I was 12 in 81, perfect age to enter the 80's and the new romantics era and also Spitting Image, loved it and Points of View and the Young Ones.


----------



## ypauly (Feb 24, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> I hope I'm right in saying that they are smarter than maybe we give them credit for. Wars are expensive and they don't need to spend money on sabre rattling in an internationally competitive market.
> 
> I hope.
> 
> Rob



I hope so too, but palestine is a conflict that has a universal support around the Arab nations, Israel has the universal hatred.

I hope I'm wrong, but I dn't think it will take alot to start the fire.


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 24, 2011)

Fingers crossed on all counts. 

I really should go to bed now. Can you stop posting just long enough for me to think this thread has finished and then you can start again once you hear me snoring ?

Ta 

Rob

Nite


----------



## ypauly (Feb 25, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> Fingers crossed on all counts.
> 
> I really should go to bed now. Can you stop posting just long enough for me to think this thread has finished and then you can start again once you hear me snoring ?
> 
> ...



Night.


opps wasn't supposed to post lol


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 25, 2011)

Have you stopped now ? 


I'm going now.


night


rob


----------



## ypauly (Feb 25, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> Have you stopped now ?



Yes


no


yes


ohhhhhhhhhhh


Stop asking questions lol


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 25, 2011)

BOO !! 

Bet you thought I'd gone ! 

Rob


----------



## smile4loubie (Feb 25, 2011)

lol you guys make me giggle!! I have no idea what exactly is being said in this thread but loving reading it anyway lol xx


----------



## Adrienne (Feb 25, 2011)

smile4loubie said:


> lol you guys make me giggle!! I have no idea what exactly is being said in this thread but loving reading it anyway lol xx



Oh dear Lou what are you like, you are funny.   I skipped the bits I didn't understand hehehehe x


----------



## smile4loubie (Feb 25, 2011)

Adrienne said:


> Oh dear Lou what are you like, you are funny.   I skipped the bits I didn't understand hehehehe x



lol I cant help it hehe I really am bamboozled by over half of what is said but I cant help reading anyway lol xx


----------



## Alan S (Feb 25, 2011)

runner said:


> Are you all being inspired by 'Question time' on this thread at the mo?


My political inspiration comes from a series I feel has never been equalled anywhere else in the world for its wonderful understanding of the workings of politics and who actually runs a country - any country: Yes Minister/Prime Minister.


----------



## bigpurpleduck (Feb 25, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> Who allowed everyone to buy their council house without creating new stock ?
> 
> Oh yes. Adolf ... ermm ... Maggie.
> 
> Rob



This sums up my opinion on the Tories, and Thatcher in particular, spectacularly. Rob, this made me smile about something which normally makes my blood boil - many thanks!

Around a year ago I would have declared myself a staunch Labour supporter. But events around the last election made me lose all respect for senior figures in the Labour party. I was also astonished at the Lib Dems - they have definitely shot themselves in the foot. They will certainly never get a Scottish seat again.

I am very grateful that I live in Scotland. Our devolved government gives us some protection from the ConDem cuts. And I have an alternative to the Westminster dimwits: SNP 

Please note that, although I am quite clearly anti-Tory, I fully respect all political views. We each have a vote - and we can each use this vote as we wish.

However, I would implore that those who don't vote to please do so, even if it means picking a name out of a hat (I don't blame anyone for political apathy in the face of the choices we have!). There are people in the world giving their lives in the fight for democracy.

Mods - if this is inappropriate, feel free to remove. I just feel very passionate about the vote!


----------



## runner (Feb 25, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> Bunfights
> Socialism is all but dead in any party. It was an unworkable economic model but it made for a nice community. As did jobs.
> 
> Well done to all for keeping it civilised and entertaining.
> ...



Compared to what we're going through now??


----------



## FM001 (Feb 25, 2011)

ypauly said:


> Or are there any others?
> 
> Feel free to abuse me, shout tory e.t.c
> 
> ...



No I won't abuse anyone for their political believe and your a brave person for standing up and admitting to be a Tory under the present system of savage public service cuts, persecution of the sick and disabled and the back door policies that will see the demise of our NHS.  Cameron, Osborne and the rest of this multi-millionaire public educated Cabinet are finishing off what Thatcher started in the 80's, whole industries and communities were destroyed and torn apart back then with record repossessions and mass unemployment the norm, are we heading back there again.....you bet!


----------



## Andy HB (Feb 25, 2011)

bigpurpleduck said:


> However, I would implore that those who don't vote to please do so, even if it means picking a name out of a hat (I don't blame anyone for political apathy in the face of the choices we have!). There are people in the world giving their lives in the fight for democracy.



I'd suggest the right not to vote is just as important as the right to vote.

If there is no-one to vote for (which given the state of party politics in this country is more likely, in my opinion) then why put a cross against a name that you don't support?

I was thinking about this on my walk yesterday and would prefer a parliament entirely populated with independents. Parties would be illegal, but temporary loose groupings of like-minded individuals on certain policies would be permitted.

There would be no whips and MPs would be completely free to vote based on their conscience and constituency wishes.

One problem is that I'm not sure how you'd develop a government plan of action. It may be that we have a policy developing arm of the government whose sole purpose is to come up with new ideas. The parliament can then decide whether to implement those ideas with particular amendments if required.

Oh, I'd do away with the monarchy's involvement in government (once the Queen has retired) and have an elected president (probably from one of the MPs) on a four yearly basis.

And finally, no-one can be an MP who hasn't done a proper job for atleast 10 years. No more career politicians wet out of university please. They're too idealistic and ignorant about real life.

OK! Whose going to vote for good ole 'Uncle Andy'?


----------



## Northerner (Feb 25, 2011)

Just wanted to say how impressed I am that such a normally divisive and emotive topic has been debated with good humour and respect. Thanks guys


----------



## bigpurpleduck (Feb 25, 2011)

Andy HB said:


> I'd suggest the right not to vote is just as important as the right to vote.
> 
> If there is no-one to vote for (which given the state of party politics in this country is more likely, in my opinion) then why put a cross against a name that you don't support?



I personally feel that any vote is a vote for democracy, no matter who you're voting for. I always vote, because I'd rather democratically elect the lesser of a number of evils than leave them to battle it out themselves and end up with dictatorship. If we all chose not to vote, there would be no democracy.



Andy HB said:


> I was thinking about this on my walk yesterday and would prefer a parliament entirely populated with independents. Parties would be illegal, but temporary loose groupings of like-minded individuals on certain policies would be permitted.



I like this  The current system means that the electorate vote Labour when they don't like the Conservatives, and vice versa. I don't think it's a true representation of the electorate's wishes.


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 25, 2011)

@Emma - Well said. I would urge anyone who doesn't vote to at least study the policies of the parties and see if there's one that stands out. I did vote green D) I know, I know a few years ago for that reason, rather than not vote.

@Runner - I think the pure socialist model would bankrupt the state in months and we'd be a whole lot worse. Better to have a compromise that protects the vulnerable and needy while allowing some degree of growth without giving the greedy a completely free hand.

@Andy - If ever PR gets the go-ahead (which I'm sure it won't) then we'll have some degree of forced co-operation and mini-alliances. But it may allow some extremists to get through. Independants are often very passionate about single, local policies which may not sit well in parliament. I like to see minorities buffered from the fear of extremism that the party system brings. Wishy-washy grey rather than bright blue or red.

Rob


----------



## Northerner (Feb 25, 2011)

It's been suggested in the past that if you don't approve of any of the candidates then you should spoil your ballot paper by voting for all of them. This way the number of spoilt ballots gets recorded and indicates the level of dissatisfaction with ALL candidates.


----------



## Mark T (Feb 25, 2011)

I agree it is important to vote, but it is very difficult to motivate yourself to do so when there is no chance of your vote affecting the outcome.  We are in a very safe seat and I'm very unlikely to ever vote for the holding party.

Full PR (not this wishy washy STV stuff) would actually give my vote a point and there would be half a chance of having someone representing me who I actually agree with.

I actually dislike all-politicians and political partys equally.  I sort of agree with Andy HB except for the fact that would exclude young people (who's ideallism and fresh ideas can actually be good) from standing.

I suspect the Liberals have condemmed themselves to an eternity as minor party.  I'll be switching my vote back to the Loonies (except we don't have any candidates in my area) - at least they are honest.


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Feb 25, 2011)

Well impressed with this thread, just wasted a good chunk of the morning, smirking at the back of the office........

I wouldn't call myself knowledgeable about politics but I do agree currently that money needs to be saved, even if just for a short while..........

Let the debate continue.........


----------



## Mark T (Feb 25, 2011)

Northerner said:


> It's been suggested in the past that if you don't approve of any of the candidates then you should spoil your ballot paper by voting for all of them. This way the number of spoilt ballots gets recorded and indicates the level of dissatisfaction with ALL candidates.


At University the guild voting forms always included "Ron".  This was for "Re-Open Nominations".

If Ron got the most votes, there had to be another round of nominations and voting and in the worst case, the position would go unfilled.


----------



## Northerner (Feb 25, 2011)

Mark T said:


> At University the guild voting forms always included "Ron".  This was for "Re-Open Nominations".
> 
> If Ron got the most votes, there had to be another round of nominations and voting and in the worst case, the position would go unfilled.



Haha! Yes - we had 'Eric the Brick' - a housebrick who used to draw large crowds at the hustings and rallies! Needless to say, he won with a landslide...stoodents, eh?


----------



## smile4loubie (Feb 25, 2011)

I plan to vote in the future which is probably why I have enjoyed reading this thread so much. I am starting to form my own opinion on politics but at the time of the election didnt feel it was right to vote as I didn't have an opinion or known enough.


----------



## Northerner (Feb 25, 2011)

smile4loubie said:


> I plan to vote in the future which is probably why I have enjoyed reading this thread so much. I am starting to form my own opinion on politics but at the time of the election didnt feel it was right to vote as I didn't have an opinion or known enough.



That's a good attitude to take Loubie. Better to wait until you understand more than to vote for someone who turns out to be someone you really wish you hadn't!  I imagine that, byt the next general election (or maybe local elections) you'll have a pretty good idea of where your sympathies lie.


----------



## Andy HB (Feb 25, 2011)

bigpurpleduck said:


> I personally feel that any vote is a vote for democracy, no matter who you're voting for. I always vote, because I'd rather democratically elect the lesser of a number of evils than leave them to battle it out themselves and end up with dictatorship. If we all chose not to vote, there would be no democracy.



I actually always vote too. 



Northerner said:


> It's been suggested in the past that if you don't approve of any of the candidates then you should spoil your ballot paper by voting for all of them. This way the number of spoilt ballots gets recorded and indicates the level of dissatisfaction with ALL candidates.



A box for "none of the above" would be good. That then covers my point about not voting for anyone because you don't like any of them!


----------



## Andy HB (Feb 25, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> @Andy - If ever PR gets the go-ahead (which I'm sure it won't) then we'll have some degree of forced co-operation and mini-alliances. But it may allow some extremists to get through. Independants are often very passionate about single, local policies which may not sit well in parliament. I like to see minorities buffered from the fear of extremism that the party system brings. Wishy-washy grey rather than bright blue or red.



It is possible for extremists to get into parliament now. But they would still only have just the one vote each. With a parliament of independents the majority would still be non-extremist. Unless, of course the whole country turned extremist, in which case parliament would then reflect their wishes! 

With party politics we end up with MPs who are forced to tow the party line on all things even when they may fundamentally disagree with some of them. I don't think that this is a healthy or an honest way to proceed.

Roll on the revolution!


----------



## Monica (Feb 25, 2011)

As a Swiss I'm not allowed to vote, and therfore I stay "neutral" at all times.


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Feb 25, 2011)

Monica said:


> As a Swiss I'm not allowed to vote, and therfore I stay "neutral" at all times.



huh.........you live here though, so do you not have citizenship then....??


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 25, 2011)

@andyHB - fair points.    I have a fear of extremism and intolerance. 

As you say, come the glorious day ! 

Rob


----------



## ypauly (Feb 25, 2011)

Andy HB said:


> And finally, no-one can be an MP who hasn't done a proper job for atleast 10 years. No more career politicians wet out of university please. They're too idealistic and ignorant about real life.
> 
> OK! Whose going to vote for good ole 'Uncle Andy'?



I love this idea and you nearly got my vote! but this spoiled for me.




Andy HB said:


> Oh, I'd do away with the monarchy's involvement in government (once the Queen has retired) and have an elected president (probably from one of the MPs) on a four yearly basis.



The monarchy is important to me, I would have prefered the house of lords to have remained untouched too. The reason is under the old system the lords could ALWAYS do what they fealt was right without worrying about party politics and votes.
Now only her majesty qualifies, we need a leader/figurehead that isn't elected for that same reason, she can always do what is right without worrying about votes.


----------



## ypauly (Feb 25, 2011)

bigpurpleduck said:


> I am very grateful that I live in Scotland. Our devolved government gives us some protection from the ConDem cuts. And I have an alternative to the Westminster dimwits: SNP



As our resident scotish passionate about politics person can I ask you a question.


Was it right that labour candidates in scotland were allowed to vote against tuition fees in the Scotish parliament, then vote in westminster in favour of them just because that's what Tony blair wanted?

It could be said that tuition fees wouldn't have had to be raised so high if we all paid the same amount instead of some of us getting it free.

I feel the whole west lothian question is a situation that our leaders should never have allowed.


----------



## ypauly (Feb 25, 2011)

I too have never missed a vote, but I have never got the candidate I have voted for either lol


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 25, 2011)

I should also add that the Welsh referendum is fast approaching which aims to give greater law making powers to the Welsh Assembly. I know how I'm voting but only instinctively. I'm not up to speed on the whole assembly issues yet. 

I must say, I don't understand how we get free prescriptions when England doesn't, etc. Seems to be a lot that's different without any apparent loss of services. 

Rob


----------



## hotchop (Feb 25, 2011)

The welsh referendum will be a difficult pill to swallow no matter what the result because people dont really understand what they are voting for. There hasnt been any major canvassing due to the no funding stance.

I will vote yes.. this is partly based on the fact that it *should* take longer for any government cuts to affect wales because the welsh assembley acts as a gateway and any decision made, will take twice as long to take affect... delaying the inevitable!

On the flip side, im not sure that Wales could fully survive as a stand alone country.

On a debating programme on s4c last night, it was interesting to see some key politicians explain their reasons for devouloution and their arguments were pretty heated at times.


----------



## Andy HB (Feb 25, 2011)

ypauly said:


> I love this idea and you nearly got my vote! but this spoiled for me.
> 
> The monarchy is important to me, I would have prefered the house of lords to have remained untouched too. The reason is under the old system the lords could ALWAYS do what they fealt was right without worrying about party politics and votes.
> 
> Now only her majesty qualifies, we need a leader/figurehead that isn't elected for that same reason, she can always do what is right without worrying about votes.



Oh, it's all up for negotiation! 

I think the monarchy is fine so long as we have someone as excellent as the Queen. It rather falls into a little heap of mess when you get someone like, say, Charles 1st. I'd far rather have someone I can kick into touch rather than some trumped up twit who I can do nothing about (and I emphasise that the Queen most certainly does not fall into that category - I think we are uniquely fortunate to have her, but I fear that she is an exception).

Regarding the house of lords? I'd like to see that replaced with something similar (but not quite). The equivalent of heriditory (sp) peerages should be completely abolished (if they haven't already) and the people who take their places in it should be either elected or selected on some basis of their talent. It should be a means of tempering any decisions coming out of the main parliament in a similar manner as currently though.

Oooh! I'm coming over all 'constitutional'!


----------



## ypauly (Feb 25, 2011)

Andy HB said:


> Oh, it's all up for negotiation!
> 
> I think the monarchy is fine so long as we have someone as excellent as the Queen. It rather falls into a little heap of mess when you get someone like, say, Charles 1st. I'd far rather have someone I can kick into touch rather than some trumped up twit who I can do nothing about (and I emphasise that the Queen most certainly does not fall into that category - I think we are uniquely fortunate to have her, but I fear that she is an exception).
> 
> ...



A agree and think Liz is great, I also think wills will be great.

On the lords the problem with elected peers is it's impossible to keep party politics out of it, which was why it was so good for so long.


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 25, 2011)

hotchop said:


> The welsh referendum will be a difficult pill to swallow no matter what the result because people dont really understand what they are voting for. There hasnt been any major canvassing due to the no funding stance.
> 
> I will vote yes.. this is partly based on the fact that it *should* take longer for any government cuts to affect wales because the welsh assembley acts as a gateway and any decision made, will take twice as long to take affect... delaying the inevitable!
> 
> ...



Thanks Hotchop. I'll need to be here for a while longer to get the full idea of how it all works. 

I think I need to do some reading.

Rob


----------



## Andy HB (Feb 25, 2011)

ypauly said:


> A agree and think Liz is great, I also think wills will be great.
> 
> On the lords the problem with elected peers is it's impossible to keep party politics out of it, which was why it was so good for so long.



Yes, I think he'd be pretty good too (especially since it looks like he's somewhat reluctant - maybe).

Ah, but in the new republic there would not be any party politics (I know, I know - an unrealistic dream - but one could hope!).


----------



## ypauly (Feb 25, 2011)

I really do like the idea that politicians have to have a real job for 10 yeras before they enter politics though Andy.

How can we make that happen?


----------



## Andy HB (Feb 25, 2011)

ypauly said:


> I really do like the idea that politicians have to have a real job for 10 yeras before they enter politics though Andy.
> 
> How can we make that happen?



Having some jobs would be a start, I suppose! 

Andy


----------



## ypauly (Feb 25, 2011)

Andy HB said:


> Having some jobs would be a start, I suppose!
> 
> Andy



Which is why we need to 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





VOTE CONSERVATIVE


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Feb 25, 2011)

There is actually lots of job out there, so I believe.........

Al ot of people hold out for jobs they like and pay well, which I think is nonsense..............

Bills need paying = shovel sh*te if you have to.....


----------



## ypauly (Feb 25, 2011)

novorapidboi26 said:


> There is actually lots of job out there, so I believe.........
> 
> Al ot of people hold out for jobs they like and pay well, which I think is nonsense..............
> 
> Bills need paying = shovel sh*te if you have to.....


I'm not worthy
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	











VOTE NOVARAPIDBOI


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Feb 25, 2011)

ypauly said:


> I'm not worthy
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lets not jump the gun.........


----------



## bigpurpleduck (Feb 25, 2011)

ypauly said:


> As our resident scotish passionate about politics person can I ask you a question.
> 
> Was it right that labour candidates in scotland were allowed to vote against tuition fees in the Scotish parliament, then vote in westminster in favour of them just because that's what Tony blair wanted?
> 
> ...



Just to be clear, those who voted against tuition fees in the Scottish Parliament are MSPs, and are completely separate from the MPs who voted for tuition fees in Westminster. The MSPs are members of the Scottish Labour Party, and the MPs members of the Labour Party - essentially two different parties, although apparently with the same values. The politics in the Scottish Parliament are very different to the politics in Westminster.

If Scottish MPs are not allowed to vote on tuition fees in Westminster, where do you draw the line? Health? Defence? Schools? How do you decide what Scottish MPs _can_ vote on, and what they cannot? There is no easy solution to this problem. To disallow Scottish MPs votes on certain issues would be undemocratic - it would suggest that the Scottish voter isn't worth as much as the English voter. But I understand that it doesn't seem fair - the tuition fees issue didn't apply to us.

My suggestion would be that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have devolved governments - why don't England have one, too? I feel the English are missing out. We have two Parliaments in which to have our say, whereas the English voter has only one. A devolved government doesn't necessarily mean that the people want independence. I think being a *United* Kingdom is good for us and, for the record, I am not pro-independence. But I am pro-devolution.


----------



## bigpurpleduck (Feb 25, 2011)

Andy HB said:


> Having some jobs would be a start, I suppose!
> 
> Andy





ypauly said:


> Which is why we need to
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Precisely why we need to *NOT* vote Conservative!


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 25, 2011)

novorapidboi26 said:


> There is actually lots of job out there, so I believe.........
> 
> Al ot of people hold out for jobs they like and pay well, which I think is nonsense..............
> 
> Bills need paying = shovel sh*te if you have to.....



Which is fine if you can find a s***e shovelling job that pays enough to cover the bills. Most jobs seem to be part time or needing specific qualifications/experience (care workers, engineers, lorry drivers, etc) so are unavailable to most people. 
Rent goes up. Food prices go up. Transport costs go up. Wages stay fairly static. After a couple of years out of work, the costs have made a lot of jobs out of the question. If you take a job for ?100/week and you need ?150/week for basics (exclude fags,booze,TV,etc), you're pretty much done for.

I can see why many stay on benefits. If the min wage is scrapped it won't help. There's lots of economic migrants who can and will work hard for ?1 or ?2/hour and still go home better off. 

Rob


----------



## ypauly (Feb 25, 2011)

bigpurpleduck said:


> Precisely why we need to *NOT* vote Conservative!



I would beg to differ, for the simple reason that borrowing money to employ people as new labour did isn't sustainable.

I would prefer the scottish people to decide if they want into the union or out of it. The current way of picking the bits they want and rejectiing the bits they dont isn't fair.

I used the example of tuition fees, I help pay through my taxes for scottish students to have a free education, while at the same time I am having to save for my own child who in three years time will have the same education.

This would not have been possible without scottish MP's voting in westminster in favour of tuition fees.


Anyway I'm off to join the novarapidboi party lol


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Feb 25, 2011)

Area dependent of course.................

I agree that a lot of people are better off on benefits, a few of my friends and family members are in this situation, when I was unemployed due to recession there were  full time position out there and that situation has improved now, there are a *majority* that think they deserve more, no one deserves anything more than they can provide.....


Is there talk of scrapping the min wage.........?


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Feb 25, 2011)

When I was at uni, tuition fees were only a grand or something for the year, 4 years and 4 grand down, that's manageable in terms of paying back..........

For me however, the loans that came with it and the endowment fee (2000) is what I need to pay back now.............


----------



## ypauly (Feb 25, 2011)

novorapidboi26 said:


> Is there talk of scrapping the min wage.........?



If there is, it will be the new labour spin machine that started it lol


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 25, 2011)

novorapidboi26 said:


> Area dependent of course.................
> 
> I agree that a lot of people are better off on benefits, a few of my friends and family members are in this situation, when I was unemployed due to recession there were  full time position out there and that situation has improved now, there are a *majority* that think they deserve more, no one deserves anything more than they can provide.....
> 
> ...



THere's always talk of scrapping it !!  (possibly no more than that though)

Rob


----------



## bigpurpleduck (Feb 25, 2011)

I have said far more on this thread than I'd planned to! I don't normally like talking about politics because I get very passionate and heated. So I'm going to bow out now, but will leave with my favourite quote (I'm sorry, I don't have a note of who said it):

"As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. On the other hand, Hitler was democratically elected."


----------



## Monica (Feb 25, 2011)

novorapidboi26 said:


> huh.........you live here though, so do you not have citizenship then....??



No, I don't. You have to apply for that and since I've already changed nationality once, I decided to stay swiss(my dad is from Denmark and he decided that we'd all become Swiss in 1978). My girls are dual nationals though.

But about 18 months ago, we decided to put me on the electoral roll list to see what would happen . We put Switzerland on it, but when the revised letter came back, it said Swaziland. We sent the letter back, saying it was SWITZERLAND, but to no avail. So last time we had the letter, we took me off it again.


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Feb 25, 2011)

Monica said:


> No, I don't. You have to apply for that and since I've already changed nationality once, I decided to stay swiss(my dad is from Denmark and he decided that we'd all become Swiss in 1978). My girls are dual nationals though.
> 
> But about 18 months ago, we decided to put me on the electoral roll list to see what would happen . We put Switzerland on it, but when the revised letter came back, it said Swaziland. We sent the letter back, saying it was SWITZERLAND, but to no avail. So last time we had the letter, we took me off it again.



Thats a shame, as your obviously a contributing member of the UK.....


----------



## Monica (Feb 25, 2011)

novorapidboi26 said:


> Thats a shame, as your obviously a contributing member of the UK.....



Well, I'm not contributing anything moneywise, as I'm a housewife and mother with a casual job, where I don't earn enough to pay taxes and NI. But my other half does!!!


----------



## Catwoman76 (Feb 25, 2011)

ypauly said:


> Or are there any others?
> 
> Feel free to abuse me, shout tory e.t.c
> 
> ...



Hi I can't read all the messages now, I've got lots of birthday eating to do  Will try and pop back later Sheena x


----------



## ypauly (Feb 25, 2011)

Catwoman76 said:


> Hi I can't read all the messages now, I've got lots of birthday eating to do  Will try and pop back later Sheena x


Take your time, the election isn't for another four years lol


----------



## Nicky1970 (Feb 25, 2011)

> Who allowed everyone to buy their council house without creating new stock ?
> 
> Oh yes. Adolf ... ermm ... Maggie.



And created a society where you're considered a failure or a sponger if you can't afford to buy your own home. 
No wonder the banks went beserk and lent to everyone, irrespective of earnings ...


----------



## Nicky1970 (Feb 25, 2011)

BTW, I am not a Tory ... I'd rather die than vote Conservative. The people that annoy me are those individuals who do not vote and then moan about local/national government policy.


----------



## kitten (Feb 25, 2011)

this might sound silly and is a lot off topic but just to say thanks to people who liked my previous post about debates. and also just to say that i hope i didnt offend anyone by referring to myself as a conserve, its just the way i say it and my silly sense of fun but i am fretting now that i seemed childish and stupid so sorry people!
p.s. i have really liked feeling a part of this discussion even though i have hardly contributed. just wondered if anyone would fancy a similar thread on another topic. religion or dietary choices or universities or anything. i just think that it's been a nice thread really in the way that i get the sense that everyone has contributed and either opposed or agreed or sat on the fence and no-one has been offended at the end. just goes to show what a wonderful bunch of people you all are. i really hope that everyone has enjoyed feeling a part of the conversation. 
p.p.s. if i have missed a huge offensive skirmish in the middle of these posts then i apologise and take back my p.s. hehehe


----------



## Robster65 (Feb 25, 2011)

As agreed earlier, religion is really a no go zone for a forum like this because it's a personal choice for everyone and can be a very passionate one.

I would guess pretty much all other areas are open provided the same ground rules apply to be tolerant and not make anyone feel got at.

Rob


----------



## katie (Feb 25, 2011)

Urgh, Tory!


----------



## ypauly (Feb 25, 2011)

katie said:


> Urgh, Tory!


I would love a comeback for that, some sort of response, retort a sharp bit of wit. But NOTHING well done you have rendered me speechless lol


----------



## Northerner (Feb 25, 2011)

novorapidboi26 said:


> When I was at uni, tuition fees were only a grand or something for the year, 4 years and 4 grand down, that's manageable in terms of paying back..........
> 
> For me however, the loans that came with it and the endowment fee (2000) is what I need to pay back now.............



I was at Uni for 4 years and was ?460 overdrawn when I left. At that time we got grants although there was still a lot of inequality and it depended on who you were or knew. My dad worked shifts in a factory and did overtime so they decided he'd earned too much for me to have a full grant. However, a friend of mine had a full grant even though his father owned a wholesale fruit and veg business and seven shops - he also had an accountant who showed him how to 'hide' his real wealth...

If I was of student age now I would be terrified by the prospect of up to ?36k of debt (4 years x ?9k). My parents taught me that debt was not good so I've never liked owing money. I think that young people today have been conned. They are encouraged to go to Uni but are only coming out to the kind of jobs that O level students got in my youth - not degree-level jobs. Then they have huge debts hanging round their necks in a country where house prices are so high even reasonably well-off middle-aged professionals struggle to buy.


----------



## katie (Feb 26, 2011)

ypauly said:


> I would love a comeback for that, some sort of response, retort a sharp bit of wit. But NOTHING well done you have rendered me speechless lol



I know, such a useful bit of debating, hey?! Haha. I just read your first post where you said we could shout 'Tory!' at you and couldn't help myself


----------



## FM001 (Feb 26, 2011)

Nicky1970 said:


> BTW, I am not a Tory ... I'd rather die than vote Conservative. The people that annoy me are those individuals who do not vote and then moan about local/national government policy.





Maybe taking things a bit far saying you'd rather die than vote Conservative but I can see where your coming from.


----------

