ianrobo1 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 It's quite amazing how the good lady is described. 'Incompetent' she certainly wasn't, her competence could indeed be questioned If you look at the years between her election and the war, the country wanted her out and her party was planning to topple her, so things obviously weren't going very well. On that basis Cameron will need a war around 2012/13. History has proven that you cannot undo socialist mismanagement and negligence in two or three years. I must have missed the bit where we got a socialist government. And indeed the bit where Cameron did anything to prove that his lot would be any different or better than the current encumbents. not from any of the stuff I can see from the Tories, there is no evidence to suggest they have policies ad as TT saying council empowered peopel, yes they did to those who had them, a select number who made whacking profits from a deleberate under valuation but for the future the shortage of council housing has proved the folly to be that. Because fo the shortage peopel are now placed in far more expensive accomdation like private rented and we pay for that as we have seen is encouraging home onwership really that wonderful ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 as we have seen is encouraging home onwership really that wonderful ? Private landlords are scum.. A confusing picture then.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 why ? sticking those in need in shitty private rented places when there should be council housing is madness of the dogmatic right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Owning a house (as you do) = bad. Private rental (as I do) = bad. So should we all live in council houses? Or would a kibbutz or collective farm be better? Dogmatic right my arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Owning a house (as you do) = bad. Private rental (as I do) = bad. So should we all live in council houses? Or would a kibbutz or collective farm be better? Dogmatic right my arse. no you should have a fair mixture of the two and have the ability if you want to rent from councils rather than rip off private rented who bugger off as soon as the going gets tough the amout of private landlords throwing peopel out is causing a tremondous strain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Owning a house (as you do) = bad. Private rental (as I do) = bad. So should we all live in council houses? Or would a kibbutz or collective farm be better? Dogmatic right my arse. no you should have a fair mixture of the two and have the ability if you want to rent from councils rather than rip off private rented who bugger off as soon as the going gets tough the amout of private landlords throwing peopel out is causing a tremondous strain But by implication we'd therefore need a considerable stock of council housing standing empty and being maintained ready for occupation. How on earth do we pay for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 no, I think you have more council housing then the private landlords that stick around are the better ones. the scum landlords I mention are those that rent to the those peopel who would normally be housed in council housing, it is those who owuld slink off if the amout of council housing was increased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Thatcher is wrong derided in my view. The country was in turmoil when she came to power in 79 and was heading for total breakdown. The unions were partially to blame for this wth restrictive and crazy working practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 no, I think you have more council housing then the private landlords that stick around are the better ones. the scum landlords I mention are those that rent to the those peopel who would normally be housed in council housing, it is those who owuld slink off if the amout of council housing was increasedIan - you are just making stuff up. None of that has any basis in reality other than the one sided view you get from your wife. [table][row][col][col]Owner occupation[col]Private rental[col]Social rental[col]Numberofsocialunits [row][col]England [col]70[col]11[col]18[col]3,983,000 [/table] The number of repossessed properties of all kinds last year was 40,000, a rise of 54pc. Buy-to-let repossessions represented 10pc of the total in 2008, and 12.5pc in the final quarter, a rise from 7.7pc the previous year. So private landlords make up 12% of the market and 10% of the repos - so more strain is being put on the council stock by private owners than scum landlords. The CML said: "In absolute terms, the number of buy-to-let mortgages in arrears or in possession is not large. And in most cases the tenants of buy-to-let landlords who fall into arrears are able to continue to live in the property with sufficient notice to find alternative accommodation even if a lender does decide to sell. Buy-to-let lenders respect bona-fide tenancy agreements." Torygraph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 I missed this thread. I know little about coal, but I'm proud to say, I did my bit to assist in the defeat of the NUM.... a story for another day. Quite apart from the democratic issues involved with union power and their use of force to prevent others going to work, for me there was a much more important issue: In modern society it is absolutely intolerable that any large organisation should operate outside the law. Companies cannot do so and neither should unions. Or, and let's not go down this road; there should be a total free for all, which as a free marketeer I would accept. The 1984 conflict could have been avoided had the NUM followed the balloting rules and eschewed secondary picketing... which was illegal. Scargiill didn't have a ballot for fear he would lose the vote and embarked upon secondary picketing because he thought he would lose the strike. Scargill incidentally, apart from getting all chummy with the Gaddafi and the Soviets, also offered to sell out Gibraltar in exchange for a small peseta mountain. ( What a pity we no longer use the treason laws.) As a lover of freedom, I wanted no part of Scargill's version of 1984 totalitarianism. **** Scargill, **** the miners, **** their communities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 ^ Get off the fence AJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 I remember we all used to sing to the music from Snow White: Hi ho, Hi ho It's back to work you go With your shovel and pick You'll be down that pit Hi ho Hi ho Hi ho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 **** the miners, **** their communities. How very pleasant. :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 **** the miners, **** their communities. How very pleasant. :cry: Getting **** is better than those bastards deserved. I witnessed their intimidatory and violent behaviour with my own eyes. I'm delighted they lost and we'll never know how much better off we are for it. Not very good at urls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 we'll never know how much better off we are for it Don't include me in your 'we'. Not very good at urls Not only... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 8, 2009 Moderator Share Posted March 8, 2009 In modern society it is absolutely intolerable that any large organisation should operate outside the law. So show me where it was legal to use the army in Police Uniforms (with No Collar numbers) as policemen at places like Orgreave? It wasn't legal then as it isn't legal now but it happened and the large organisation that did this was Thatcher's govt Just because you are in a position to change the law does't mean you are permanently outside the law.You still have to adhere to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 In modern society it is absolutely intolerable that any large organisation should operate outside the law. So show me where it was legal to use the army in Police Uniforms (with No Collar numbers) as policemen at places like Orgreave? It wasn't legal then as it isn't legal now but it happened and the large organisation that did this was Thatcher's govt Just because you are in a position to change the law does't mean you are permanently outside the law.You still have to adhere to it Regarding your first statement, I couldn't say whether or not this was the truth. I really don't know. I thought the lack of identification numbers started when some of the police and their families were targeted at their homes. If however your facts are right, I'm unaware of what laws were being broken. I'd have thought there were emergency powers that would authorise the police to draft in 'special constables' or somesuch in time of need. I would also imagine that in the case of widespread civil disobedience, when the police are under a sustained and mass attack, there are laws which alllow the government to call upon the army for asistance. I remember that during such events as the ambulance driver's and firemen's strikes the use of the army was considered acceptable... at least by those who wanted to get to hospital or whose house was being burned down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 With reference to the above poll, we would do well to remember the voters decided differently and Thatcher swept home in the 1987 election. Before going to Smith Square that night, I almost got arrested on the Walworth Road for taking the mick out of the Labourites as they skulked out. 'We can see you We can see you We can see you Sneaking out We can see you Sneaking out" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa_Rosa Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I would also imagine that in the case of widespread civil disobedience, when the police are under a sustained and mass attack, there are laws which alllow the government to call upon the army for asistance. Would you also 'imagine' these laws allow them to dress in police uniforms with no ID numbers? With all these 'hilarious' chants ('shovel and pick' rhymed with 'pit'??), it sounds like you had a right laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts