Doug's_Missing_Wallet

Doug, I really don't think they have changed intellectually

better PR for certain but Camero is a paid fan of Thatch but as we have yet to see policies how can we judge ??

they key for me is how they have policies for the NHS, it is not in a bad state at all and i some areas real positive. It does ot need any real major reforms form what I see it works.

Now remeber the old Tory polciy of allowing private patients to 'opt out' is that still o the table ? god knows ..

the silence thi week is typical ... They can hardly say they would have doe much different ...

ad the key to the closeness is the percieved wisdom that a left of centre party can not win i this coutry any more, is that true and if so why ? Because the left like the right have an equal ly valid view, is it over time we have as a coutry become ore middle class and therefore more conservative with a small 'c' ?

It's conjecture at best to say they wouldn't have done things differently. Unless the same situation occurs if/when they're next in government then we can judge their response to it. At the moment we can only summise.

You make it sound as if it's a bad thing to be a 'fan' of Thatcher. It's not really suprising that he might be, she won 3 elections on the bounce for the party with large majorities. Doesn't necessarily mean that he agrees with everything she did though. Did you agree with every single one of Blair's decisions and/or the way he went about them.

As for the NHS, it depends on what side you are looking at it. To say that it doesn't need any major reforms is way off the mark IMO. I have a friend of mine who is a nurse at Good Hope. Ask her if there should be any reforms to how it is run. Or ask my sister who is a student doctor in South London if there are any reforms that could be made. Haemorriging cash that, frankly, it doesn't have. There are still too many high paid jobs in NHS for desk jobs/admin etc. At my sisters hospital, they recently spent tens of thousands of pounds on a new marble sculpture to go by the main doors, at the same time as reducing the amount of nurses on the wards and increasing the hours that junior doctors have to work.

Doug are the Tories of the 80/90's any different from the party today ?

I think so. There's quite a difference between some of the new Tories and old ones like Thatcher, Tebbit etc. Only since Cameron took over though. Howard was still 'old Tory'. Remains to be seen, I guess. If, like you, believe in the opposite of what the old Tory party stood for then I can understand if you don't believe they might have changed.

Labour was different from the parties of the 70's no question of that whatsoever

Agreed, and if you'd asked most people in the 70's/80's if the Labour Party could have become what it is now then most would've said no. Which kind of ties in to my above comment.

In those days there was at least a clear-cut choice.

Again, agreed. And that's one of the main problems at the moment. People are finding they don't identify with a party. And you have the Labour party making right-wing decisions, the Tories trying to appeal more to left wing people and the Libs trying to find a way of being different, whilst all the time still being pretty similar.

But I'm sad that it's come to this. People have short memories, and will get the government that they deserve.

Indeed. The 1970's seem to have been forgotten, and low and behold we have got the government that the people who voted for them deserve.

It's interesting how people can people can say "never forget what the Tories did" and yet seem very keen on forgetting what Labour did previously to them, whilst glossing over what is going on now like it's a minor inconvinence that can't be helped.

well foodcosts if you go to the right places ad avoid certain food are still cheap

as for energy totally different subject and oe we have covered loads of time but uffice to ay the only way to stop them is to legislate againt them and cap the rises

Don't do my food shopping (yet), so can't really comment. Agree about energy prices too, but something that Gordon should've done and didn't? :winkold:

like all things economics is cyclical in 3 years times everyone will be complaining at how high house prices are again !!

On that point I definitely agree with you. I must admit the house prices and oil prices don't bother me so much as, like you said, they fluctuate a lot over a cycle period. Plus I'm looking to get a house at the moment and, as a 1st time buyer, there is some absolute bargains out there. What is more concerning is the energy prices and food costs. energy costs especially, as they have to factor in greed of Eon etc.

I'd imagine if it went down to $50 PB there would be more demand. Airlines for example. People being able to afford to fill their cars up, which in turn leads to people going out for the day and spending money etc.

And anyway, earlier in the thread, you stated that one of the main two reasons for the ecconomy being so fooked is the price of oil. So if it keeps coming down then surely at some point it will get to this magical price which will stabilise the eccomomy - being a fine balance of demand and cost.

Also, if Brown can take no blame for us being in this mess then presumably he can take no credit if it all gets better. After all it's a global problem and one that will sort itslelf out globally isn't it?

which willmean a world wide recession

You can't have it both ways. If the oil is too expensive it causes a global ecconomic problem, no fault of any government and certainly not of 'the formidable chancellor'/wretched prime minister. And yet if oil prices drop to $50 PB then that too causes worldwide recession. :?

Which is it?

Or does Gordon Brown have to take some responsibility for his awful decision making (when he actually does make a decision, of course).

Same as here really, if it is all down to the 'free market' then surely the fearsome Chancellor, the most successful one we've ever had (Copyright: every single Labour MP to bleat out on demand when faced with a difficult question) would've had some foresight to protect us from it. He's had 11 years

Or else that comment that comes from every single Labour MP is totally and utterly wrong and they have been lying?

A MP lying? Surely not!?!?

It is wrong, plainly, although I'm not sure it actually is lying. They repeat it so often and without any hesitation that it's almost like a mantra. It's a conditioned response to any difficult question. Repeat sentance a few dozen times, ignore question being asked, bury head in sand, hope it all goes away, repeat ad infinitum.

Nice sidestep of most of Richard's point Ian.

It's interesting to see that you seem to lay absolutely no blame whatsoever with Brown and his government for the current state of affairs. I presume you would have been equally charitable had it been a Tory government in power... After all, it's a worldwide problem and governments have no influence in it do they?

correct

the Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, republicans, Democrats

not a single answer on how to stop this

federal reserve, tried and failed

BofE, tried and failed

on the margins they could something but thats it ...

you allow a free market free reign and this is what you get

I'm afraid I just don't agree. Are you seriously saying that America's ecconomy being in dire straits has got absolutely nothing to do with any of the shaven chimpanzees policies?

Same as here really, if it is all down to the 'free market' then surely the fearsome Chancellor, the most successful one we've ever had (Copyright: every single Labour MP to bleat out on demand when faced with a difficult question) would've had some foresight to protect us from it. He's had 11 years!

But it's not that bad I guess, we've always got our gold reserves and pensions to help us out. Oh...

Nice sidestep of most of Richard's point Ian.

It's interesting to see that you seem to lay absolutely no blame whatsoever with Brown and his government for the current state of affairs. I presume you would have been equally charitable had it been a Tory government in power... After all, it's a worldwide problem and governments have no influence in it do they?

Why, oh why do they have to put 'KRO SOTV' at the end of EVERY post?!? Do you think they sign on/sign their bail forms/reposession orders/ASBO's/benefit claim forms with the signature A. Knuckledragger KRO SOTV?

Keep Right On here, Keep Right On there and yet nobody knows where they're keeping right on too. Jail?

Give Montoya a competitive car, then I'll start watching F1 again.

So you could watch Montoya have his arse kicked by Schumacher again?

Montoya had a chance of winning the title in 2003 and blew it by driving like an idiot and coliding with his team mate. He is the most over-rated F1 driver for a long time. All mouth and little ability to produce consistantly.

The F1 drivers who could give Michael a hard time are Raikkonen, Alonso and Button

Nah I rate you for that... getting up in the middle of the night to watch a procession of near identical cigarette-packets-with-wheels-on pointlessly chasing after an arrogant German... that takes dedication above and beyond the call of duty. I salute you! :wink:

I thank you! 8)

Actually I watch it in the vain hope that they catch said arogant German and smash him to bits

Seriously though, I cheer on Jenson, who seems to be upholding the British tradition of being bloody good, withought being good enough to win (think Henman, Villa under BFR etc etc)

I feel I'll be on my own on this, but I still enjoy and avidly watch every F1 race if I can. And that includes being awake at silly o'clock for the ones in Japan etc, so I can watch it live rather than a re-run at a more sociable time. Sad I know

Ok, I'll (attempt to) explain myself a bit better.

Rooney IS a selfish player, like any decent striker should be. There have been times when he really should've passed rather than go for goal. But, all fowards are 'guilty' of this, so it's not a criticism of Rooney specifically. He is also very young so he's even more likely to go for goal. And he's the best striker we have by a long way.

The point I was trying to make is that the Rooney/Defoe partnership wouldn't work as Defoe is even more selfish and annoyingly so sometimes. I don't think two players like this would work well together. Owen, Smith and Vas are all much more willing to pass than Defoe and will, IMO, work better with Rooney.

I think Owen just about. Even when he's playing shite, I still fancy him to pop up with a vital goal, dunno why.

Also I'm not totally sure how well Rooney and Defoe would work. I know strikers are supposed to be selfish, to a degree, but if you paired those two together you would have the most selfish front line imaginable. Neither of them would pass, even if a clear goal scoring chance would be created, with both of them trying to do everything and score a wonder goal.

Both Lowe and Sturrock have publicly said that BT is not for sale. They (understandably) don't want to sell their best player.

We said the same sort of stuff about Yorke though didn't we?

my top 6 are

1. Chelsea

2. Arsenal

3. Chelsea

4. Villa

5. Newcaslte

6. Charlton

No Man Utd in the top 6? :shock:

Unsure on this one. Yes they are consistantly in the Champs League and have been arguably the no. 1 team in Holland but the Dutch league is far far inferior to the Premiership. Its hard to say really.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way trying to compare the two players but I felt completely underwhelmed when we signed Ian Taylor :oops:

And to add my opinion, I just feel a bit underwhelmed with this. We're now loaning other clubs rejects. But if he does the business and develops into OUR player then I won't be complaining. If he doesn't, however, he can f**k off back to Chelsea

Since when has the fact that a player is wearing a Villa shirt guaranteed him total support amongst the fans, and in fact should it?

Just ask Mr Alpay.

Or Messrs Crouch & de la Cruz.

Or Steve Hodge

I voted 'other', because I reckon it is Marco Van Basten. Probably the most complete foward. Shame his later career was ruined by injury