|
Post by Gone on Jun 9, 2019 19:38:03 GMT
I am now postal so.....this means I can pontificate and decide with vino accompaniment who deserves my vote....Happy Days.... Sadly, none of them deserve your vote, it's just pick who is least worse......................... But your are right a good dose of vino will dull the feelings of pain and guilt when you finally pick one.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jun 9, 2019 19:48:04 GMT
You're right chewy, you know that at some point you will think "did I really vote for that pillock"
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jun 9, 2019 19:56:33 GMT
Its an easy one for me Nigel every time at the moment [Lee Rowley my MP is very good though and an ardent brexiteer]. My Dad was a miner and didnt hate Maggie, his pit was played out and pointless, Scargil was fighting to keep pits like his open when bonus couldnt be made and they were deep underground in crap conditions why? At the end his pit was closed Dad got early retirement and lived a much longer life because of it. Scargil is now a hated man who fought an unwinnable war for his own reasons, so you might think they were war crimes but my Dad just thought stupid people did stupid things
I'm happy for you and your dad. Scargil was not the best leader (I have a gift for understatement). But did the police need to charge the picket lines on horseback? Was it necessary to break bones with truncheons? All the miners were doing was to exercise their legal right to protest. In retrospect, its obvious coal was a thing of the past. But was it really necessary to destroy entire communities? If Thatcher didn't want the coal industry, why didn't she just give the pits to the people who did? Because it wasn't just about coal, it was about how Thatcher hated the working class, and it sure wasn't about people's lives. Plenty of pits were still profitable. Did you hear there's some talk of re-starting some of them? Still, its a bit like the war, most people who were there are dead now. All this happened at my local pits I lived in Swallownest and Brookhouse was just down the road with a coke oven close by. The scene of the charges [Orgreave] is now a big housing estate, built to service the Rotherham/Sheffield advanced engineering park, so we have moved on. I dont know if it was all Thatchers fault Scargil declared war on her and her government and she retaliated, I am not saying thats right but shit happens! My Dad played futty with the coppers as did many others, but as always there are extremists and they had them on both sides, so it was never going to end well was it? If the pits produced clean quality coal whats the problem? yes its dirty but until the coal fired power stations have gone, its better than importing it I think
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 20:11:28 GMT
Swallownest I know fairly well, my late mother lived in Owlthorpe. Its a small world! I know Orgreave too, the very place in the famous camera-shots. My elder brother was a paid-up Maggie-lover until he married his second wife whose family are more Sheffield-bred, and now he's a miner's sympathiser. I find this amusing.
You say Scargill declared war, but it was our Mags who stockpiled foreign coal in advance. She knew damn well what was going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jun 9, 2019 20:45:58 GMT
I would call her clever and forward thinking PM, from my point of view she did good for me, I was in the army and our wages were crap and our kit falling apart, Maggie got in, £6 a week pay rise and kit sorted out! I used to go out with keith Brookes ex wife, keith was Scargils left hand man in the union, a lot of the stuff from that time was stored in her attic so I got to peruse the union papers at will, interesting reading to say the least
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 21:48:15 GMT
You could make a tidy few shillings from that lot now, I expect.
Anyhow I don't expect clause 28 bothered anybody in the army much. And if you were a property owner then the poll tax was a blummin good idea.
Maggie sure was a friend to the armed forces. Where did they send you in your army days?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 22:07:42 GMT
I think its quite clever to burn other peoples coal while the going is good then if foreign relations get awkward and a bit chilly in future you still have your own reserves to exploit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 22:13:57 GMT
Yup, you could learn a lot from the Americans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 8:14:13 GMT
From the description it sounded like him but other hopefuls are similar You're personal views toward Brexit are seeing you become blinkered and gullible. First and foremost, the world and for that matter, the UK, are bigger than Brexit. Your desperation will just promote another idiot to the fore, resulting in yet another failure to leave. The conservatives have nobody that is truly fit to be a prime minister. They are nothing but gluttonous disgusting self serving trash, though plenty of plebs still seem to follow them. There should be an election, and I am in no doubt whatsoever that if it were not for Corbyn, we'd have had one by now, resulting in the stench of toryism being thrown to the winds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 8:48:40 GMT
The trouble is that the whole argument of ‘how far you do you push power away from the people?’ has nothing to do with mainstream party politics. The Brexit party are the only party who specifically don’t want it pushed up into a European state (and then who knows, a world state).
It’s not about whether a Tory politician is better than a Labour politician, it’s about whether the politician cares more about the people in his/her country than their own career and bank balance.
Is there such a candidate PM? I can’t see one.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jun 10, 2019 10:26:02 GMT
You could make a tidy few shillings from that lot now, I expect. Anyhow I don't expect clause 28 bothered anybody in the army much. And if you were a property owner then the poll tax was a blummin good idea. Maggie sure was a friend to the armed forces. Where did they send you in your army days? I actually thought the poll tax was a good thing, whilst in the Army it seemed that both Germany and Holland had it they sort of called it a city/service tax, which they all paid. I suppose in Germany where you could have 3 generations living under the same roof it meant bills were better distributed. As for where I served shall we say I had a wide and varied career serving in many places in the world, often where we might not have been wanted!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 16:36:49 GMT
Thing is, unlike most of Europe, this society is largely predicated on property ownership. If you don't have any, you are at the very-much dis-empowered end of the stick, and what poll tax (council tax) does is to make those with the least subsidise those with the most. The inequalities of the system are now shown in stark relief as the housing crisis gathers pace. Don't forget that the unprecedented rise in the value of property fuelled by the buy-to-let bonanza is a by-product of the cancer spread through the naked capitalism of the city...ok I know I'm wasting my breath.
Bringing things back to a place somewhat closer to my original point...the next election will be a hot one, and your choice is a giant douche or a turd sandwich. Have fun choosing.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jun 10, 2019 20:01:19 GMT
snip< what poll tax (council tax) does is to make those with the least subsidise those with the most. > snip On this I think you are wrong ...... forget the system as introduced and go back to the basics. If the requirement is for a form of taxation to provide for local services such as waste disposal, social services, policing, street lighting et al then a proper poll tax system would base the payments on the number of earners. A household composed of a basic unit of one wage earner and their dependants paying one rate and a household with multiple wage earners paying that rate multiplied by the number of wage earners. Surely this is the basis of a fair system ? The amount paid would reflect not only the likely usage of those services but also the ability of those households to pay. It could be adjusted to cover standards of accomodation relative wealth etc but the basic principle of "those who use the most pay the most" is surely fair. Or do you hold the view that it should all be paid by central government, funded by other forms of taxation ? This would mean a totally inflexible system totally detached from the local conditions and priorities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 2:59:08 GMT
snip< what poll tax (council tax) does is to make those with the least subsidise those with the most. > snip On this I think you are wrong ...... forget the system as introduced and go back to the basics. If the requirement is for a form of taxation to provide for local services such as waste disposal, social services, policing, street lighting et al then a proper poll tax system would base the payments on the number of earners. A household composed of a basic unit of one wage earner and their dependants paying one rate and a household with multiple wage earners paying that rate multiplied by the number of wage earners. Surely this is the basis of a fair system ? The amount paid would reflect not only the likely usage of those services but also the ability of those households to pay. It could be adjusted to cover standards of accomodation relative wealth etc but the basic principle of "those who use the most pay the most" is surely fair. Or do you hold the view that it should all be paid by central government, funded by other forms of taxation ? This would mean a totally inflexible system totally detached from the local conditions and priorities. To go back to real basics, the monetary system as a whole allows a situation where those with the least can end up subsidising the lifestyles of some people who offfer little back to society. How many homes in London (for example) are being used purely for financial investment? Many of these ‘homes’ are owned by foreign investers. How much do they give back to our society?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Jun 11, 2019 6:47:26 GMT
Esther for p.m.! She's rather shagable. Her for p.m. for this reason, and this reason only.
|
|