Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Clegg Attacks Start...

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Well, I guess that *some* Tories are a little concerned about the rise of Clegg. So the smearing starts.

Obviously the Dail Mail have their own special treatment where they question whether he's British enough. Yes, seriously.

An their rentamob obviously follow up with wonderful comments like:
"No mention that the family speak Spanish at home. Makes you wonder why he even wants to be Prime Minister of a country he's got no attachment to. A Russian-Dutch guy, married to a Spaniard speaking spanish at home with his children Miguel and Gonzales or whatever. Only in Britain." - Steve, London

Although to be fair, that comment has been rated badly.

It's also nice to see the Tory Blogger Iain Dale condemning the articles
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No matter how much I'd love the Lib Dems to come into power... it isn't happening this year. And, if it did, I think Clegg would shit himself. The torries will say anything to big themselves up, and unfortunatly the majority of the public are falling for their lies! Let us not forget what happens when the conservatives come into power...
    *coughs* Maggie Thatcher Milk Snatcher *coughs*
    Also, does anyone else think it seems like Brown has just given up now?
    Xx
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it does seem labour is starting to give up recently with their votes going down drasticly.

    no matter which party comes in now there is gonna be some sort of problem one way or another.its more of who can get ecenomey back on track quickest
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It has to be said the better the Lib Dems do the more that other parties and the media will start to question their policies. They've had a free ride for years - sometimes saying their tougher than Thatcher, sometimes painting themselves to the left of Marx.

    It also seems that he may have been telling more than few porky pies himself in the debate

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7601348/General-Election-2010-inconvenient-truths-for-leaders-who-got-debate-facts-wrong.html

    (Funnily enough on the mine clearance thing it just leapt out as being inaccurate at the time. I can remember them being discussed years ago in Bos and the feeling that they might be useful for very specialist jobs, but the loss in speed, manouverability and difficulty in crossing some ground would probably cost more casualties than they saved. I'm assuming the US are only using them in very limited circumstances).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    On another amusing note as we're talking about politicos with foreign links

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/bnp/7602188/BNP-mans-home-paid-for-by-German-embassy.html
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My problem with Clegg is not that he's one quarter English (hell, I'm only one quarter English). My problem with him is that he makes out that he's a Sheffield lad and has connections there, when in fact his upbringing was more privileged than Cameron's.

    Nothing wrong with it, but trying to pander to the majority by trying to dumb down your own background is just sad.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *coughs* Maggie Thatcher Milk Snatcher *coughs*

    Personally, I find it worse that Gordon Brown raided the pension schemes of people entitled to a comfortable retirement. Giving milk to a child is nice - but ensuring our old people live in a comfortable retirement is more important.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Personally, I find it worse that Gordon Brown raided the pension schemes of people entitled to a comfortable retirement. Giving milk to a child is nice - but ensuring our old people live in a comfortable retirement is more important.

    Don't get me started on Thatcher ;) We'd be here all day.

    I'd rather we had Gordon Brown, although I do hate him, kept in power than David Cameron! Although, let's face it, if the Tories don't win this year then Brown will have to go soon. Surely he knows that practically no one likes him?
    Xx
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It has to be said the better the Lib Dems do the more that other parties and the media will start to question their policies. They've had a free ride for years - sometimes saying their tougher than Thatcher, sometimes painting themselves to the left of Marx.

    This is something I don't have a problem with, that kind of analysis is what the election should be about.

    Slam the policies, slam him for lying in the debates. Don't slam his background (or Cameron's) and don't slam him for marrying a woman who puts her job ahead of campaigning for him (which is what they should all do IMHO)...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't get me started on Thatcher ;) We'd be here all day.

    Christ, I thought it was only the Tories who still focussed on Thatcher. Time to get over it, she's not been relevant (herself) since she quit nearly 20 years ago.

    The problem is, if related to her, that Cameron still thinks her policies will work today - even though they didn't back then.

    Don't like managers in the NHS - that was Thatcher's baby. It was her attempt to bring business into public sector working. Cameron's "Big Society" approach. Don't like the way hospitals are cleaned - that was Thatcher's baby too, the "private does it better and cheaper" mentality based on the same premise. For example.

    The Thatcher's old policies issue is also a little of a misnomer. They are Friedman policies really. So much of the world's problems can be linked to his theories. This includes tha banking crisis - his whole theory is based on complete deregulation of business.

    Cameron's approach is based on Friedman economics. It's why he got it so wrong on the economy recently.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Christ, I thought it was only the Tories who still focussed on Thatcher. Time to get over it, she's not been relevant (herself) since she quit nearly 20 years ago.

    The problem is, if related to her, that Cameron still thinks her policies will work today - even though they didn't back then.

    Don't like managers in the NHS - that was Thatcher's baby. It was her attempt to bring business into public sector working. Cameron's "Big Society" approach. Don't like the way hospitals are cleaned - that was Thatcher's baby too, the "private does it better and cheaper" mentality based on the same premise. For example.

    The Thatcher's old policies issue is also a little of a misnomer. They are Friedman policies really. So much of the world's problems can be linked to his theories. This includes tha banking crisis - his whole theory is based on complete deregulation of business.

    Cameron's approach is based on Friedman economics. It's why he got it so wrong on the economy recently.

    I actually think managers in the NHS are a good idea myself (I suspect you may too ;) ). if I want someone to cut me open and take out my appendix I'd like a surgeon, if I want someone to do the accounts I'd prefer an accountant, not taking a surgeon away from something he's good at to do something he has no training at. I think the problem is too many targets and too much beureacracy, which creates extra work.

    On banking, and I know its an unpopular view, but I think you're dead wrong. The banking reforms were a solution to a much bigger and more long term crisis - which was how do you pay for the public sector when the private sector doesn't generate enough wealth. Thatcher put in place that the sensible solution is to get in place a private sector that generates more wealth, plus some minor cuts to the public sector (most public services including the NHS went up in real terms from 1979 to 1990). I admit the inheritance has been dreadfully squandered since 1997 though.

    On the banks, financial services in 2008/09 they contributed 12.1% of the UK's total tax take (9.4% in Corporation Tax, 17.7% of its total). http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/media_centre/files2009/UK_fin_contrib.htm and bear in mind this was in a bad year

    They are a mjor player and without them the public services rise post 1997 would not have been possible. If you want decent public services you need to pay for them and the banks are our best (only?) hope.

    That of course doesn't take into account how they helped other succesful parts of the UK economy. Vincent Cable was probably right when he pointed out that giving cheap loans to companies wasn't sustainable without some sort of crash, but it should be noted that his solution to the crisis is for banks to give cheap loans to comapnies. The reason? Well it helps companies expand and keep going, allowing them to pay employees and contribute to the total tax take of the UK.

    It should also be noted that whilst the UK has put money into the banks, in return we've secured some very valuable assets. The UK Government paid 49.9p per RBS share, currently they are priced at 45.95, this as we're just pulling out of recession and without RBS making a profit - they will almost certainly go up way beyond the 49.9p in the next year. It will take incompetence of Brownesque proportions to throw this away (basically whoever forms the next Govt will win the one after as they'll be so much cash to give away).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I actually think managers in the NHS are a good idea myself (I suspect you may too ;) ).

    Me? Why would you think that? ;)
    if I want someone to cut me open and take out my appendix I'd like a surgeon, if I want someone to do the accounts I'd prefer an accountant, not taking a surgeon away from something he's good at to do something he has no training at. I think the problem is too many targets and too much beureacracy, which creates extra work.

    I agree with the concept of an expert to do a job that needs an expert but I don't agree that targets are the problem. Business uses them too and, when applied correctly, they work well. Indeed they are partly why the NHS now is much, much better than it was in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

    The problem in the NHS is that they are seen as the only thing that's important rather than the result of doing the whole job properly. So we tamper and we fudge solutions rather than hitting the route cause.

    However, the part of Thatcherism which is the problem in the NHS is the whole issue of "the market" and "choice". What we all want, really, is for our local hospital to be the best it can be. Not for an alternative choice in case it isn't. Not to be told that the one down the road is better so we could go there instead.

    At least, that's the feedback I get.
    On banking, and I know its an unpopular view, but I think you're dead wrong. The banking reforms were a solution to a much bigger and more long term crisis - which was how do you pay for the public sector when the private sector doesn't generate enough wealth.

    The banking reforms were part of a Friedmanist approach of deregulate private sector and it will take care of the economy for you. Privatise the public sector and business will have all the answers (a slightly simplistic summary of his policies I accept)... his view is that business has an interest in the public being looked after.

    Sadly he misses the whole "greed" aspect in the same way that Communism does too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    I agree with the concept of an expert to do a job that needs an expert but I don't agree that targets are the problem. Business uses them too and, when applied correctly, they work well. Indeed they are partly why the NHS now is much, much better than it was in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

    The problem in the NHS is that they are seen as the only thing that's important rather than the result of doing the whole job properly. So we tamper and we fudge solutions rather than hitting the route cause.

    However, the part of Thatcherism which is the problem in the NHS is the whole issue of "the market" and "choice". What we all want, really, is for our local hospital to be the best it can be. Not for an alternative choice in case it isn't. Not to be told that the one down the road is better so we could go there instead.

    At least, that's the feedback I get..

    I probably did a bit too much shorthand there where referring to targets. I wouldn't disagree some targets are important in themselves, for measuring performance and seeing where there are issues. But talking to some senior DH mandarin a few years ago (I lead an exciting life) he was saying that some of the targets aren't well thought out and lead to perverse outcomes (to be fair that's not only true of health targets).

    Also there are too many and it becomes prescriptive to the nth degree. My view is fewer, but better targets (and I admit that may be easier said than done)


    The banking reforms were part of a Friedmanist approach of deregulate private sector and it will take care of the economy for you. Privatise the public sector and business will have all the answers (a slightly simplistic summary of his policies I accept)... his view is that business has an interest in the public being looked after.

    Sadly he misses the whole "greed" aspect in the same way that Communism does too

    I'd agree. I expect so would Friedman. There seems to be a misreading of right wing economists that they want business to do well for the sake of business doing well. In fact they want business to do well because that's in the public interest and a thriving private sector has people in employment (much better than paying them benefits, to say nothing of the mental and physical health benefits) as well as producing money for social care. His view was that some things are better run by the private sector, such as manufacturing, banking and retail and others by the public sector. He thought that in many countries the balance had been tipped too much over on the side of public spending

    Interestingly he was one of the early advocates of negative income tax, which is Lib Dem policy
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the unlikely event of LibDems winning the next election outright, the majority of the electorate will - within a matter of weeks - come to view Nick Clegg as a shameless, opportunistic, lying cunt.

    In the more likely event of the LibDems being potential kingmakers in the event of a hung parliament, the majority of the electorate will - withink a matter of weeks - come to view Nick Clegg as... well, a shameless, opportunistic, lying cunt.

    Evidence of Nicholas William Peter Clegg's shamelessness and opportunism? Back during the election debate, when he was fending off Gordon Brown's attempts to wank him off, he said "We did our best to prevent the Digital Economy Bill being rushed through at the last moment.". This coming from the man who didn't even bother to turn up for the vote, and neither did half of his MPs.

    Evidence of Nicholas William Peter Clegg's lies? Back during the election debate again, he talked about how he came from Sheffield. This is not true. He was born in Buckinghamshire in 1967. His father was a banker and his mother a teacher of special needs students. He was educated in an elite Church of England school and then the elite Westminster School in London. He has recently criticised the lobbying system - this coming from the man who worked for a lobbying firm for a year. The man simply cannot be trusted.

    Oh well, this Clegg worshipping will die down as soon as it began.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Christ, I thought it was only the Tories who still focussed on Thatcher. Time to get over it, she's not been relevant (herself) since she quit nearly 20 years ago.

    The problem is, if related to her, that Cameron still thinks her policies will work today - even though they didn't back then.

    Don't like managers in the NHS - that was Thatcher's baby. It was her attempt to bring business into public sector working. Cameron's "Big Society" approach. Don't like the way hospitals are cleaned - that was Thatcher's baby too, the "private does it better and cheaper" mentality based on the same premise. For example.

    The Thatcher's old policies issue is also a little of a misnomer. They are Friedman policies really. So much of the world's problems can be linked to his theories. This includes tha banking crisis - his whole theory is based on complete deregulation of business.

    Cameron's approach is based on Friedman economics. It's why he got it so wrong on the economy recently.

    99% of the problems we have today in this country are a direct result of Thatchers policies, we are still living with Thatchers legacy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Louisek wrote: »
    99% of the problems we have today in this country are a direct result of Thatchers policies, we are still living with Thatchers legacy.

    You must have got that figure from somewhere. Can you expand on this with proof please?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    You must have got that figure from somewhere. Can you expand on this with proof please?


    I have to leave for college but i will certainly explain later.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Well, I guess that *some* Tories are a little concerned about the rise of Clegg. So the smearing starts.

    Obviously the Dail Mail have their own special treatment where they question whether he's British enough. Yes, seriously.

    An their rentamob obviously follow up with wonderful comments like:
    "No mention that the family speak Spanish at home. Makes you wonder why he even wants to be Prime Minister of a country he's got no attachment to. A Russian-Dutch guy, married to a Spaniard speaking spanish at home with his children Miguel and Gonzales or whatever. Only in Britain." - Steve, London

    Although to be fair, that comment has been rated badly.

    It's also nice to see the Tory Blogger Iain Dale condemning the articles

    You get what you vote for. The Lib Dems come across to me as a very pro-Europe, cosmopolitan, internationalist party, so it makes sense that their leader has Dutch and Russian blood in him and speaks a whole bunch of foreign languages. This sounds like a person who would do well representing Britain to the international community. Unlike the great clunking fist of Brown, or the muppet Cameron.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nick Clegg's Wikipedia entry is very interesting. In fact, he seems posher than Cameron!

    And I laughed to see read : "As a 16-year-old exchange student in Munich, Germany, he performed community service for a minor case of arson: he and a friend burned Germany's leading collection of cacti belonging to a professor"

    He's had a very eventful life, it seems. He's a good lad. :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_clegg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    And I laughed to see read : "As a 16-year-old exchange student in Munich, Germany, he performed community service for a minor case of arson: he and a friend burned Germany's leading collection of cacti belonging to a professor"
    Turns out that even that claim may have been nonsense, if the Mail's investigation last week is to be believed.

    We've had the warnings before. Tony Blair repeatedly told us stories about his background which were later found to be complete fiction. Cameron and Cleggover seem to be following the same tactic. Blair must be proud to see his politics living on.

    If he can't be trusted to tell the truth about his background, (oh yes, anyone else notice he's just as hesitant as Cameron to reveal whether he took drugs during his youth?) why should we trust him about anything else?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    You must have got that figure from somewhere. Can you expand on this with proof please?

    Ok well here is my thinking on the problems in our country today and why they are in the main Thatcher’s fault.

    Lack of cheap quality housing –
    Thatcher sold all the council house’s off and so now any family that can’t afford to buy is forced to rent from a private landlord paying rents of around (in my area anyway) £800 a month for a modest three bedroom house so the benefit system now has an enormous burden helping to pay these rents when before that family could have had a well maintained council house for around £80 a week so even if they needed help paying that it was a fraction of today’s claims.
    The council housing now left is in general, stock that is in the poorer areas and the result is that ghettos of the poorest most dysfunctional families are slowly are being created.
    Next she decided to close all the mines and buy cheaper coal from abroad what she should have done is keep the mines going by subsidising them this would have kept the men working instead she has created massive areas of high unemployment which has lead to generations of men growing up with no hope of a job that would give them the ability to provide for their families and pass on a strong work ethic to their sons.
    The only reason for this was to crush the unions but instead she crushed the country.
    Next went the heavy industries like the steel works etc, just where are working class boys meant to work now?
    Now we have generations of boys leaving school with no hope of a good future no work ethic and no discipline just a knowledge of how to live off of the system.
    Crap trains, sky high gas and electric bills all the result of Thatcher selling off the national owned companies for a quick profit.
    I could go on as the list is very very long.
    Let’s not make the same mistake again.
    Vote Labour and the recovery will continue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Louisek wrote: »
    Ok well here is my thinking on the problems in our country today and why they are in the main Thatcher’s fault...
    Oh, this is going to be fun.
    Lack of cheap quality housing – Thatcher sold all the council house’s off and so now any family that can’t afford to buy is forced to rent from a private landlord paying rents of around (in my area anyway) £800 a month for a modest three bedroom house so the benefit system now has an enormous burden helping to pay these rents when before that family could have had a well maintained council house for around £80 a week so even if they needed help paying that it was a fraction of today’s claims. The council housing now left is in general, stock that is in the poorer areas and the result is that ghettos of the poorest most dysfunctional families are slowly are being created.
    That's quite a fail on your part there, I'm afraid. You completely fail to consider more recent influences in your answer. What about the failure of developers to actually build houses that people want to live in? They've spent most of their time making flats and apartments that nobody now wants to live in.

    And what about the trend amongst the middle-classes - led by their gods Kirsty Allsopp and that bald twat on their - of desperately trying to keep up with the Joneses, regardless of how much it'll cost? Oh, and what about the fact banks used to lend money to practically anyone who asked for it? They'd have tried to sell a mortgage to a cat if there was commission in it...

    Next!
    Next she decided to close all the mines and buy cheaper coal from abroad what she should have done is keep the mines going by subsidising them this would have kept the men working instead she has created massive areas of high unemployment which has lead to generations of men growing up with no hope of a job that would give them the ability to provide for their families and pass on a strong work ethic to their sons. The only reason for this was to crush the unions but instead she crushed the country.
    This isn't going well. Why exactly should I, as a taxpayer, subsidise a failing industry? Government shouldn't be in the business of bailing out whole sections of the economy simply to appease union fascists.
    Next went the heavy industries like the steel works etc, just where are working class boys meant to work now?
    High time this victim mentality of "oh, but it's all that woman Thatcher's fault" was dropped. But then again, there's money to be made from victim status, isn't there?
    Now we have generations of boys leaving school with no hope of a good future no work ethic and no discipline just a knowledge of how to live off of the system.
    Then change the system. People won't live off benefits if the money isn't there. I believe that in the next 50 years or so, we're going to see a massive reduction in the size of the welfare state. Large sections of it is essentially a ponzi scheme, and when you also consider the amount of debt saddling this country, the current system isn't sustainable anymore. We spend more money now on the welfare system than the Government gets in income tax. As Old Holborn put it at the time "the parasites are now killing their host".
    Crap trains, sky high gas and electric bills all the result of Thatcher selling off the national owned companies for a quick profit.
    The trains under British Rail weren't exactly great in the first place and the railways are improving gradually. There is an issue with gas companies being foreign-owned, but attempting to nationalise them would be wrong, not to mention potentially illegal under EU law. Chances are the bills would be about the same price no matter who owned them - if anything, I suspect they'd be higher.
    Vote Labour and the recovery will continue.
    gordon385x185_706790a.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Oh, this is going to be fun. That's quite a fail on your part there, I'm afraid. You completely fail to consider more recent influences in your answer. What about the failure of developers to actually build houses that people want to live in? They've spent most of their time making flats and apartments that nobody now wants to live in.


    And what about the trend amongst the middle-classes - led by their gods Kirsty Allsopp and that bald twat on their - of desperately trying to keep up with the Joneses, regardless of how much it'll cost? Oh, and what about the fact banks used to lend money to practically anyone who asked for it? They'd have tried to sell a mortgage to a cat if there was commission in it...

    Next! This isn't going well. Why exactly should I, as a taxpayer, subsidise a failing industry? Government shouldn't be in the business of bailing out whole sections of the economy simply to appease union fascists. High time this victim mentality of "oh, but it's all that woman Thatcher's fault" was dropped. But then again, there's money to be made from victim status, isn't there? Then change the system. People won't live off benefits if the money isn't there. I believe that in the next 50 years or so, we're going to see a massive reduction in the size of the welfare state. Large sections of it is essentially a ponzi scheme, and when you also consider the amount of debt saddling this country, the current system isn't sustainable anymore. We spend more money now on the welfare system than the Government gets in income tax. As Old Holborn put it at the time "the parasites are now killing their host". The trains under British Rail weren't exactly great in the first place and the railways are improving gradually. There is an issue with gas companies being foreign-owned, but attempting to nationalise them would be wrong, not to mention potentially illegal under EU law. Chances are the bills would be about the same price no matter who owned them - if anything, I suspect they'd be higher.
    gordon385x185_706790a.jpg

    What the developers have done over the last few years in not relevant to the issue of council/social housing, council housing should be a viable option for those who are unable to buy so the private developments do not enter the equation there is a shortage of affordable quality homes because the Tories lead by Thatcher sold them all off, thats a fact im afraid that can not be ignored.
    You say that as a taxpayer you do not feel you should be asked to pay a small portion of a miners wages in order to keep him working and supporting his own family, well as that did'nt happen you are now paying an enourmous amount towards keeping him and his family and the sad thing is that its now his sons and their families you are keeping as well, so well done to Thatcher for that piece of inspired leadership.
    If the trains were still under the control of the state they would certainly be better because it would be voters riding those trains every day and if votes were at stake you would be sure of getting a seat at a decent price, but as it all about profit for a few private owners you get shoved into overcrowded carriages and have to stand all the way with some old man pressed up behind you and another one gawping down your top.
    The same with the gas and electric prices if it was a an issue for voters then again the price would be lowered.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Guess Which Paper

    LMAO, so scared... Almost worth voting LibDem now just to piss the Mail off
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Louisek wrote: »
    we are still living with Thatchers legacy.

    To an extent yes, in spite of what SG might think.

    However, she's been out of power for 20 years now. She isn't standing in this election and the Tory policies of today are Cameron's and not hers. One thing for certain, he doesnt appear as convinced by his own policies as she was. Anyone heard more about "The Big Society" since the maifesto launch?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Louisek wrote: »
    We are still living with Thatchers legacy.

    How long will we live with Brown's? Same shit, different coloured tie.

    Might just be me, but I would like to vote for a party who, in response to the rising popularity of another party, UP THEIR GAME and give me a good, solid reason to vote, rather than playing the 'yeah, we might be shit, but at least we're less shit/more English/less hairy than the Liberals' card.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kaff wrote: »
    How long will we live with Brown's? Same shit, different coloured tie.
    No necessarily the same shit. At least with Brown, most people agree with has fucked up.

    Thatcher actually succeeded in producing a generation of people who actually believe behaving like a selfish cunt is not only acceptable but something to aspire to, and act according to such beliefs. The damage is far worse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    At least with Brown, most people agree with has fucked up.

    I'm not sure. I live in an area of die-hard Labour voters (old mining town) and the general opinion round here is that, though he may have a face like a melting wig, he's actually done a shit hot job of 'sorting out the country'. I'm not sure where they've been for the last 5 years :chin:
    Thatcher actually succeeded in producing a generation of people who actually believe behaving like a selfish cunt is not only acceptable but something to aspire to, and act according to such beliefs.

    Well, I will give you that, but in addition New Labour seem to have produced a new generation of people who believe behaving like a lazy, selfish cunt with no regard for authority is not only acceptable but something to aspire to.

    I find both parties contemptible. Maybe just politics in general?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kaff wrote: »
    Well, I will give you that, but in addition New Labour seem to have produced a new generation of people who believe behaving like a lazy, selfish cunt with no regard for authority is not only acceptable but something to aspire to.
    Further to this point, I would like to point out that New Labour consist of a generation of people who believe that behaving like a selfish, sleazy power-hungry cunt with no regard for authority is not only acceptable but something to aspire to.

    Much like the Tories do. I kinda see a theme running through here...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Further to this point, I would like to point out that New Labour consist of a generation of people who believe that behaving like a selfish, sleazy power-hungry cunt with no regard for authority is not only acceptable but something to aspire to.

    I think the point being made is that they will have cut their political teeth, and people of my generation grew up, during that Thatcher years.

    The metality of Thatcherism with be with us. Always. [/poor Star Wars reference]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    I think the point being made is that they will have cut their political teeth, and people of my generation grew up, during that Thatcher years.

    The metality of Thatcherism with be with us. Always. [/poor Star Wars reference]

    Except its bollocks. People haven't changed - they certainly haven't changed due to eleven years of one PM. Before Thatcher people were greedy, selfish, altrulistic and self-sacrifing, during Thatcher's time people were greedy, selfish, altrulistic and self-sacrifing and after Thatcher people were greedy, selfish, altrulistic and self-sacrificing.
Sign In or Register to comment.