BoxRec

Slapsie Maxie wrote:[quote=
So I guess the scars run deep.

DP

They certainly do. I was involved only peripherally in Rotherham, in that, I came from a well off family so, the impact directly on our family was minimal.

My father was a Dr who treated both miners and police for their injuries, so I heard some of the horror stories.

I also had a huge number of friends whose families were either in the mines or the steelworks (you were more or less one or the other in Rotherham until the 80's ) and I saw the impact on them and their lives of the destruction of the industries and the strikes.

There are lots of arguments about the need to move away from a declining manufacturing base, but what cannot be doubted is that Thatcher did not care what the human cost was of achieving this. I saw familes go from a comfortable lifestyle to being on the breadline in two years. I saw hugely bright people being denied education because they had to get any job they could to support their parents and extended families. I had one friend whose family lost their home. These are the real human stories and no amount of Keynsian rationalising will make me feel anythingless than blind hatred for that woman and her henchmen.

It says a lot that, in S Yorks even to this day, Mansfield ( where the strike was broken ) is still called "scabtown" and that is over 20 years on

Slapsie[/quote]

That's the thrust of my argument. No matter what 'needs' the country had, the job of government is to serve it's people, not to run the country along some arbitrary principle to meet the demands of market led economics.

Thatcher wanted to push her reforms through with great haste and with ill-regard for the effects it would have on the miners, who like all trade unionists were seen as the enemy, as they were the backbone of the labour movement.

I always got the impression that she viewed it as a personal war, and that she was determined to leave as big a legacy as possible. Ultimately though, it backfired, and she is remembered by many as what she was, an evil egotist who allowed a huge proportion of the nation to suffer, and sacrificed millions on the altar of her ambition.

There is an irony though. Her ego also ultimately ruined the tory party. Every single potentially electable person they had, she used her influence to destroy after major. Major was her protege, and she also gave her support to IDS and the embryo William Hague.

Kenneth Clarke, who could well have got elected, Portillo, who at least had Charisma, and Heseltine, who would surely have gotten elected, were all ruined by thatcher.

The tories aren't going to win a general election for some time to come, and if they don't get in next time, after they lose this election, I can see the Liberal democrats becoming an equal party to the tories.

Well done Maggie....you eat your own party you poisonous bitch.

I wasn't saying what you posted was dribble, it's your opinion, backed up by knowledge of the situation, and I wouldn't belittle what you said by dismissing it like that. I was implying that you seemed to be frothing at the mouth whilst typing, and that you came across as "I am right, you are wrong" just as much as you acused Dave of being. Ironic, no?

Anyway, I'm not trying to have a barney here. You and Dave are doing a cracking job of that already!

Aha, I see that you understood what I was saying all along, and that I am an idiot that can't read...

mickeybeard wrote:I wasn't saying what you posted was dribble, it's your opinion, backed up by knowledge of the situation, and I wouldn't belittle what you said by dismissing it like that. I was implying that you seemed to be frothing at the mouth whilst typing, and that you came across as "I am right, you are wrong" just as much as you acused Dave of being. Ironic, no?

Anyway, I'm not trying to have a barney here. You and Dave are doing a cracking job of that already!

i know mate, and there arent rights and wrongs in these situations, as ive said its experience and shades of grey. Thats half my point sticking yourself stoically to one politcal party for me is a stupid thing to do.

as for the frothing, yeah i know sometimes i come accorss like that, its actually not intended. like i say ranting is one of my sometimes negative and sometimes posItive attriibutes!!! (Apparetnyl i do a great impresion of ben elton after a few beers unknowingly!!!)

whateve our potlical differences ive met Dave and chatted a few times on the fone email etc and trust me i have nothing but respect and positive vibes for the bloke.

(mcdonnell's a wanker though haha just joshin jim)

like i say no offence meant to anyone, ill try tone it down.

a bit. itsy bitsy teeny weeny bit.

Yes, you so sound like Ben Elton, but sadly don't share his marvellous left wing anti-thatchedness.

toally wrong cant stand thatcher.

im just not totally sold with the left neither!!!

J wrote:toally wrong cant stand thatcher.

im just not totally sold with the left neither!!!

Sounds like you could join me in being a wishy-washy LibDem voter. It's great; you can peer down your nose at the 'extremists' from the left or right, safe in the knowledge that your party are never going to embarassingly cock things up, because they have no chance of even forming the opposition.

At least until the electoral system is changed to something that resembles democracy...

BUT THAT'S AN ARGUMENT FOR ANOTHER TIME, PEOPLE!!

Actually, I reckon the LibDems might be the most left-leaning of the major parties at the moment, considering Labour's shift to the right.

mickeybeard wrote:

J wrote:toally wrong cant stand thatcher.

im just not totally sold with the left neither!!!

Sounds like you could join me in being a wishy-washy LibDem voter. It's great; you can peer down your nose at the 'extremists' from the left or right, safe in the knowledge that your party are never going to embarassingly cock things up, because they have no chance of even forming the opposition.

At least until the electoral system is changed to something that resembles democracy...

BUT THAT'S AN ARGUMENT FOR ANOTHER TIME, PEOPLE!!


Actually, I reckon the LibDems might be the most left-leaning of the major parties at the moment, considering Labour's shift to the right.

make you quite right there mate.

i dunno ill probably end up voting labour, but i hate the smug grin on blairs chops knowing that he lied to us about iraq amongst other things.

but to vote for howard would be tantamount to flushing this country's well being and economy down the bog. (i dont care what any toryies say Borwn is the best chancellor we have had in long time). Not only this but he comes accross as a most reprehensible man.

i do quite like kennedy, he is after all a raging pisshead. but its a wasted vote.

i like people with faults, ive got many.

sod it i think ill stay in bed.

Its been fun.

You guys....

DavidPayne wrote:Its been fun.

You guys....

Group hug

[quote="DavidPayne"][quote="J"].I maintain Blair is a genuine, decent bloke who made a decision with good intentions regarding the War.

quote]




STILL SURE HE ISNT A LYING fornicate?

Positive.

4 enquiries and a further document clearly stating the war was legal base don previous UN mandates.

And ultimatley the right decision.

And good old Howard would have gone in HAD HE KNOWN there were no weapons of mass destruction, oops.

ECONOMY
EDUCATION
HEALTH
TAX

The issues that count, the election will not be won or lost on immigration or iraq. Labour will lose some seats based on the two but they'll preserve another handsome majority.

What is also obvious is the good old loyal boys at Tory HQ know Howard is going to get cained, why. Because I've yet to see Letwin or any of the other cronnies out on display once.

They're all saving themselves for the 75th leadership election in five minutes.....

The Tories couldn't organise a prayer in a mosque let alone run this country.

yes that no problem, going to war cos Saddam hussain is a threat to the (oil rich) surroundin countries is NOT the issue.

The issue is bare faced lying to the nation about the reasons of going to war, seems Blair in it up to his neck with this latest report.

Secondly Howard would have waited for a UN decree to legalise and formalise the action, which Bliar didnt.

So the lying bastard ignored international protocol to be George Bush's lapdog and fornicating lied to the people he is going to govern.

Sorry the smug fornicator has no credibility get brown in now.



which Im afriad still presented with the facts, you deny blaIr told porkies which blatently he did COME ONE DAVE GET REAL!


I cant vote for a liar.

DavidPayne wrote:Positive.

4 enquiries and a further document clearly stating the war was legal base don previous UN mandates.

And ultimatley the right decision.

And good old Howard would have gone in HAD HE KNOWN there were no weapons of mass destruction, oops.

ECONOMY
EDUCATION
HEALTH
TAX

The issues that count, the election will not be won or lost on immigration or iraq. Labour will lose some seats based on the two but they'll preserve another handsome majority.

What is also obvious is the good old loyal boys at Tory HQ know Howard is going to get cained, why. Because I've yet to see Letwin or any of the other cronnies out on display once.

They're all saving themselves for the 75th leadership election in five minutes.....

The Tories couldn't organise a prayer in a mosque let alone run this country.

Yes it's quite obvious the tories know that they have fornicate all chance of getting in. Howard is just juggling until the next leader comes along.

Fact is, whoever was in power would have gone to war. I don't agree with it, but that's a fact, we have always ever since Maggies days with Reagan been America's best buddies, and that is why we went in there plain and simple.

Me, I'm voting Liberal democrat.

dude you are alive?

But he didn't J, thats just the point. The latest reports serves only to further exonerate him.

He had the top legal man in the country giving him the green light, he had a preferred operational window to attack Iraq because of the approaching summer in the middle east.

So how did he lie about his reasoning?

He thought there was a threat from WMD, a threat to the security of the area.

And all this talk of lap-dogging to the US, what political gain has he accrued from this decision? He's taken a decision he felt right for the country on the evidence and opinion in front of him, with the circumstances of the region as a factor and taken a tough decision.

And stuck to it. Regardless of the political capital the opposition have garnered from it.

The Tories were never against the war, would have made the same decision and would have gone to war even IF THEY'D KNOWN there were no weapons of mass destruction in place. Yet have happily tried to capitalise on the issue.

The Tory plans on immigration were not scrutinised enough last night either. They procolain they'll limit migration to this country despite offering more places for genuine refuges and believe they can control our borders from illegal immigrants. How? It borders on the impossible.

Oh, I remember, we're going to build off-shore reception centres. Marvellous tactic.

im sorry i mentioned this,should have kept my mouth shut, your red tainted glasses are obviously blinding you to the facts.

i cant be arsed discussing it any further to be honest mate, its like banging my head against the wall. OI know what thtoires said, at least howard is being honest.

if you choose to belive that that report has exonerated him, DESPITE every political programme reporting that Blair is losing face, and this report is vvery damajkging, then you are far to bigoted to discuss such issues.

each to their own though, i just dont agree with you at all.

J wrote:dude you are alive?

Just about.....slept pretty much the whole day yesterday...work didn't get a look in.

hahah lightwieght though you were drinking at george best pace.
15% special reserve will do that to you mate.

good larf tho cracking to see ya

Yes, that wine did slip down rather easily. I was not a pretty sight at 3 in the morning, my neck is still killing me after concertina'ing myself onto that sofa.

YOU F*cKING SHAMBLES THE SPARE ROOM WITH A NICE COMFY CLEAN BED WAS 10 YARDS AWAY.


too drunk to give a frigg.

J wrote:im sorry i mentioned this,should have kept my mouth shut, your red tainted glasses are obviously blinding you to the facts.

i cant be arsed discussing it any further to be honest mate, its like banging my head against the wall. OI know what thtoires said, at least howard is being honest.

if you choose to belive that that report has exonerated him, DESPITE every political programme reporting that Blair is losing face, and this report is vvery damajkging, then you are far to bigoted to discuss such issues.

each to their own though, i just dont agree with you at all.

Hey Jules,

I think the consensus was the report DOESN'T damage him, what is inexplicable is that he elected to keep the report secret when it provide so much support for his stance.

I know Blair is losing face over the issue, and it saddens me because the information and dialogue could have been handled better and its very inlike the current regime to not be more successful in diseminating info.

However, do you honestly think the agenda of any political programme or anaylst is to seek to exonerate the prime minister or do you think they get ratings and interest by trying to massacre the prime minister?

The nature of the media is always the negative story, and the greater story has always been to whip up controversy.

Which is why Tory press like Sun, Telegraph, Mail etc focus on issues like immigration which are reported on in massive disproportion to the other issue which effect voters in this country. Because they tap in to white van man fears and xenophobia and into the green welly brigade inate superiority and racism.

But they're not reflective of the true size of the problem, which isn't as big as publicised but they're able to create scary headlines.

You cant do that out of

'Record investment in schools'

or

'Overall crime figure down'

or

'Highest pass rates ever in GCSE'

or

'Minimum wage a glowing success'

or

'Unemployment beaten'

Nah much better to go with

'Overun by foriegners'

or

'Mrs Jones waits two years for her toe-nail removed'

etc.....

And just because my opinion differs from yours J, doesn't make me a bigot. Thats an ugly word mate.

ok fair enough sorry perhaps not the best use of words I apologise and retract that comment.

was actually referring to question time and newsnight which i watch religously in such times.

if you think he came out of that undamaged, well fair enough, but i dont and most the people ive spoken to dont either..

anyway its clear you red through and through and would stick to lavbour even if it wasnt in the countries or your personal interests, which i would say is foolish but you w oudl say is principalled I guess, fair enough as I say no oeffence in any of this but to be honest there's not much more to discuss mate.

side issue you goin to hatton Zoo? if so lets sort out a proper beer pre the doors opening mate

It wasn't his best performance granted but I was also disappointed that Dimbleby didn't vary the subject matter more. Sure, lets hammer away at Iraq and Immigration but there just wasn't the time afforded to other more positive topics.

I'll concede Blair looks a tired figurehead and by 2007, Brown will be PM.

But I just hope the positives he's done for this country are recognised, because it was a fkking derelict, neglected shambles when he came to power.

As for Hatton, not sure - I'm inclined to go for the press pass but fairly assume my chances are slim given the demand for tickets in that area. James Lawton will be dusting off is tired metaphors to attend and every hack int he game will be pursuing a freebie.

As for paying 200-400 for a ticket.

Politely. No way.

ok wel let me know closer too if you manage to sort anything out.

Hatton - Tszyu - I'm off with a mate - anyone know any crap hotels in the neighbourhood?

The statement 'I can't vote for a liar' rings true for me.