krugerandsmith Posted April 22, 2015 Report Share Posted April 22, 2015 Oh for 2 dozen or so Polish, Latvian, Serbian, Croatian, Bricklayers, Carpenters, & Labourers now. English Nationals need not apply too bloody greedy and lazy. I agree ..... come on lets have more cheap labour ..... We don't want any of those six month training course idiots that Maggie set up. after running down apprenticeships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted April 22, 2015 Report Share Posted April 22, 2015 Well with respect you and your fellow UKIP cronies started this as the basis of this topic. Did you not?. ......and you are wrong its "Look after number one", and "dog eat dog" in this country ( or man eat dog if your a Korean immigrant )....people will vote with their wallet always have and always will. That's simply not true Michael, you know it and I know it. If that was the case Cameron would have been swept into power in 2010 in a landslide of unprecedented proportions. He wasn't...he had to get into bed with Clogg and the Limp Dumps to gain any form of power. If that was the case Cameron would be ahead by a country mile at this stage of the election. He isn't...in fact it seems quite possible that Milimong will be our next PM, propped up by a myriad of 'progressive' looney tunes. It seems not everyone votes with their wallet, which is probably a good job in the circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted April 22, 2015 Report Share Posted April 22, 2015 lots of raw nerves being hit it seems, when the cons say something, they consider it a justified opinion, when others post a different tac on matters they resort to retorting with insult and pure garbage, its par for the course sadly, especially for those who have promised not to have further input but cant help themselves in their drive to sway opinion (which they wont). KW Im afraid I must admit I cant trump you on that one KW...your the King. Just watching your Idol getting demolished by a second rate journo on BBC WEST......Looks like a dead man walking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo90 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 100% correct KW Kw I think we would get on...... Oh and being of french descent I love the avatar you use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) .people will vote with their wallet always have and always will. not strictly true or id be voting tory, im voting labour mainly because i know quite a few people the torys are screwing right over and im fed up with ids and his mob screwing over sick people and general tory smugness id also like to see the nhs stay the nhs Edited April 23, 2015 by overandunder2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
955i Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) I have been giving this stuff some thought recently, and it seems to me that we should be doing more than voting for a party. Why don't we just have 'The Government'. Each major player would then have to make a case for his/her position in 'The Government' and be voted in on merit, kind of like a job interview. So say we choose Farage to be PM. Balls, Son of Darkness and whoever the other parties potential Chancellors are would then all have to state their case for their suitability for the job and be voted in as an individual (along with anyone else who fancied their chances from the other parties, main players or back benchers alike). That way, we could rid ourselves of the three headed single party by having a mix of who we think is best from each forming 'The Government'. Would stop people not really equipped getting in by default cos the party leader liked/bummed them at Eaton, although it would be a slightly more long winded voting system. Edited April 23, 2015 by 955i Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo90 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I have been giving this stuff some thought recently, and it seems to me that we should be doing more than voting for a party. Why don't we just have 'The Government'. Each major player would then have to make a case for his/her position in 'The Government' and be voted in on merit, kind of like a job interview. So say we choose Farage to be PM. Balls, Son of Darkness and whoever the other parties potential Chancellors are would then all have to state their case for their suitability for the job and be voted in as an individual (along with anyone else who fancied their chances from the other parties, main players or back benchers alike). That way, we could rid ourselves of the three headed single party by having a mix of who we think is best from each forming 'The Government'. Would stop people not really equipped getting in by default cos the party leader liked/bummed them at Eaton, although it would be a slightly more long winded voting system. Is that proportionate representation........ It would be a way forward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
955i Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Is that proportionate representation........ It would be a way forward No, it means that everyone in the cabinet has to apply to the post from the public, no matter which party they are from. So we could have (essentially, although under this system parties wouldn't really exist) a Conservative PM, a Labour Chancellor, a Green Party Head of Starting Wars for Profit minister, etc, etc. It would meld all parties and you would still have all the other Parliament members who could dispute whether what they propose is right. It would stop us having to accept all the flotsam and jetsam that comes along with voting for whichever leader you like as it is now. You may like Cons stance on defence, but Labours stance on education. This way you can have both by electing the Cons defence minister and Labours education minister to 'The Government' It would also give lesser ministers, many of who we know do good, the chance to apply for the posts that they otherwise would not have a hope of getting in to!! Edited April 23, 2015 by 955i Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Kw I think we would get on...... Oh and being of french descent I love the avatar you use. Get a room you two! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) I have been giving this stuff some thought recently, and it seems to me that we should be doing more than voting for a party. Why don't we just have 'The Government'. Each major player would then have to make a case for his/her position in 'The Government' and be voted in on merit, kind of like a job interview. So say we choose Farage to be PM. Balls, Son of Darkness and whoever the other parties potential Chancellors are would then all have to state their case for their suitability for the job and be voted in as an individual (along with anyone else who fancied their chances from the other parties, main players or back benchers alike). That way, we could rid ourselves of the three headed single party by having a mix of who we think is best from each forming 'The Government'. Would stop people not really equipped getting in by default cos the party leader liked/bummed them at Eaton, although it would be a slightly more long winded voting system. This is madness your asking people to get the job on merit or worth, whatever next, your suggesting people with an educational background should be in charge of education, or medical knowledge to make decisions on health, or economists to advise on economy, perhaps you think they should get payed for results or time on the job. lunacy Edited April 23, 2015 by islandgun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 This is madness your asking people to get the job on merit or worth, whatever next, your suggesting people with an educational background should be in charge of education, or medical knowledge to make decisions on health, or economists to advise on economy, perhaps you think they should get payed for results or time on the job. lunacy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Kw I think we would get on...... Oh and being of french descent I love the avatar you use. Tread carefully there, especially if you're a bit hirsute as they don't have a great track record on that front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Croc Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I have been giving this stuff some thought recently, and it seems to me that we should be doing more than voting for a party. Why don't we just have 'The Government'. Each major player would then have to make a case for his/her position in 'The Government' and be voted in on merit, kind of like a job interview. So say we choose Farage to be PM. Balls, Son of Darkness and whoever the other parties potential Chancellors are would then all have to state their case for their suitability for the job and be voted in as an individual (along with anyone else who fancied their chances from the other parties, main players or back benchers alike). That way, we could rid ourselves of the three headed single party by having a mix of who we think is best from each forming 'The Government'. Would stop people not really equipped getting in by default cos the party leader liked/bummed them at Eaton, although it would be a slightly more long winded voting system. I like, can we vote on it this election Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Tread carefully there, especially if you're a bit hirsute as they don't have a great track record on that front. Just choked on that! I have been giving this stuff some thought recently, and it seems to me that we should be doing more than voting for a party. Why don't we just have 'The Government'. Each major player would then have to make a case for his/her position in 'The Government' and be voted in on merit, kind of like a job interview. So say we choose Farage to be PM. Balls, Son of Darkness and whoever the other parties potential Chancellors are would then all have to state their case for their suitability for the job and be voted in as an individual (along with anyone else who fancied their chances from the other parties, main players or back benchers alike). That way, we could rid ourselves of the three headed single party by having a mix of who we think is best from each forming 'The Government'. Would stop people not really equipped getting in by default cos the party leader liked/bummed them at Eaton, although it would be a slightly more long winded voting system. Isn't that what the Civil Service effectively is? Ironing out the bumps as it were. Alternatively, benevolent dictator is a good one, they just don't stay benevolent for long! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Kw I think we would get on...... Oh and being of french descent I love the avatar you use. Sorry...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Just choked on that! quick read it again. oh by the way just thought I would point out a couple of facts re your beloved iron ladies reign (aka old crow) record housing repossession , record interest rates, record poverty levels, in fact she just about doubled poverty in her years in office , yes I forgot how good she was :lol: KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 quick read it again. oh by the way just thought I would point out a couple of facts re your beloved iron ladies reign (aka old crow) record housing repossession , record interest rates, record poverty levels, in fact she just about doubled poverty in her years in office , yes I forgot how good she was :lol: KW Roy Castle - RECORDBREAKERS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) quick read it again. oh by the way just thought I would point out a couple of facts re your beloved iron ladies reign (aka old crow) record housing repossession , record interest rates, record poverty levels, in fact she just about doubled poverty in her years in office , yes I forgot how good she was :lol: KW Isn't poverty relative to average earnings? So as average earnings increase the number in 'poverty' increases even though their income has stayed static and not reduced. Edited April 23, 2015 by AVB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Isn't poverty relative to average earnings? So as average earnings increase the number in 'poverty' increases even though their income has stayed static and not reduced. Poverty went up under Thatcher, according to figures from the institute for fiscal studies. In 1979, 13.4% of the population lived below 60% of median incomes before housing costs. By 1990, it had gone up to 22.2%, or 12.2m people, with huge rises in the mid-1980s. With it came a huge rise in inequality. This shows the gini coefficient, which is the most common method of measuring inequality. Under gini, a score of one would be a completely unequal society; zero would be completely equal. Britain's gini score went up from 0.253 to 0.339 by the time Thatcher resigned. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Poverty went up under Thatcher, according to figures from the institute for fiscal studies. In 1979, 13.4% of the population lived below 60% of median incomes before housing costs. By 1990, it had gone up to 22.2%, or 12.2m people, with huge rises in the mid-1980s. With it came a huge rise in inequality. This shows the gini coefficient, which is the most common method of measuring inequality. Under gini, a score of one would be a completely unequal society; zero would be completely equal. Britain's gini score went up from 0.253 to 0.339 by the time Thatcher resigned. KW perhaps the poverty was connected to all those ex council house tenants who were no longer tenants but council house owners faced with a mortgage they couldnt pay and equity that was decreasing just saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Poverty went up under Thatcher, according to figures from the institute for fiscal studies. In 1979, 13.4% of the population lived below 60% of median incomes before housing costs. By 1990, it had gone up to 22.2%, or 12.2m people, with huge rises in the mid-1980s. With it came a huge rise in inequality. This shows the gini coefficient, which is the most common method of measuring inequality. Under gini, a score of one would be a completely unequal society; zero would be completely equal. Britain's gini score went up from 0.253 to 0.339 by the time Thatcher resigned. KW Wheeeee... That was AVBs comment going over your head and being ignored. And it looks like you have been copying and pasting from The Guardian. The article is below in full. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts Of course, the Guardian are never biased.... I do wish they would quote correctly, the " There is no such thing as society" is always misquoted. Edited April 23, 2015 by keg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 perhaps the poverty was connected to all those ex council house tenants who were no longer tenants but council house owners faced with a mortgage they couldnt pay and equity that was decreasing just saying Overall, house prices will increase, land is finite demand will always be there. The cycle will plateau every so often but as has been said over the last few years. Don't buy something you can't afford. Was anyone forced into the right to buy scheme? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Was anyone forced into the right to buy scheme? Actually yes they were they felt they could not lose as it was cheaper to buy initially than rent, plus you could get improvements such as double glazing with the mortgage, problem was when the rates went through the roof some could not meet the commitment.and added to that was the endowment mortgage scandal a lot were bought on. KW Edited April 23, 2015 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 id also like to see the nhs stay the nhs Are they going to change its name then? Or did you have something else in mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 quick read it again. oh by the way just thought I would point out a couple of facts re your beloved iron ladies reign (aka old crow) record housing repossession , record interest rates, record poverty levels, in fact she just about doubled poverty in her years in office , yes I forgot how good she was :lol: KW She was brilliant, despite leaving school in 1983, i was only out of work for 3 months and have always done well under the Tories. Glad you agree at last KW. Yes that last bit was irony but thought i had better explain it as you seemed to struggle with hypocrisy last night Actually yes they were they felt they could not lose as it was cheaper to buy initially than rent, plus you could get improvements such as double glazing with the mortgage, problem was when the rates went through the roof some could not meet the commitment.and added to that was the endowment mortgage scandal a lot were bought on. KW Always someone else's fault like those poor people that spanked every loan etc hoping that the house would keep up and pay for it.... I agree about the endowment scandal, just about everyone was pulled in with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.